Eugene M. Ingram

Eugene M. Ingram

Eugene M. Ingram

Mark Rathbun: The Battle of Portland (May 28, 2013)

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
THE BATTLE OF PORTLAND

Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality. All men have eyes, but few have the gift of penetration. — Niccolo Machiavelli

Everything hung in the balance at the spring, 1985 trial of Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne vs Church of Scientology. This was the very case that my brother’s friend had tried to tell me about in 1977 in Portland, when he was making an effort to get me out of Scientology. Christofferson was a young woman who had taken a simple Communication Course. It was the very Communication Course that I had taken, at the same Portland mission I’d attended.

Christofferson had, however — according to her — an experience completely opposite to my own in taking the course. She and her Flynn-allied attorney Garry McMurry claimed that she was defrauded into taking the course in the first place, by false representations about L. Ron Hubbard’s credentials and Scientology’s scientific guarantees to bring her health, joy and happiness. According to the lawsuit, the course hypnotized Christofferson and the mission subsequently used that hypnotic state to turn her against her family. The case had originally gone to trial in 1977, and a Multnomah County jury had returned a verdict in her favor for more than two million dollars.

In 1982, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for new trial. The appeals court decision was one of our first major religious recognitions. While Miscavige took full credit for the victory with L. Ron Hubbard, in fact he had served as little more than a nuisance to its accomplishment. The case had already been argued and was pending decision when Miscavige’s Special Project came on the All Clear scene in 1981. His then-deputy Starkey had attempted to intervene in the matter, and wound up blowing off the attorney who would ultimately win the great precedent, Charles Merten.

Merten refused to re-try the case because of his disgust with the church’s new order. But he had already briefed and argued the appeal of the 1979 verdict, so there was no way for the Special Project to mess that up. Had it not been for the original Christofferson case appeals court decision, we likely would not have attained several of the more minor — but useful in their cumulative effect — religious recognition precedents we did wind up achieving through the perilous fight for an All Clear.

A new trial lawyer had been retained in Portland to try the case. Ted Runstein was a personable, seasoned and successful trial attorney. He was, however, demoted to ride shotgun to Earle Cooley and keep his mouth shut as local counsel after saying something for which Miscavige never forgave him. Runstein had suggested that “the jury needs to hear from some real Scientologists from the witness stand.” Miscavige replied that we have plenty of Scientologists on our witness list. Runstein countered, “Those are all Sea Org staff; I am talking about having them hear from Scientologist parishioners who live and work in the same community as the jurors — real Scientologists.” Miscavige snapped, “Sea Org members are real Scientologists, public Scientologists are dilettantes.” Miscavige ruminated on this affront by Runstein throughout the trial, calling him a “theetie-weetie, airy-fairy idiot” behind his back.

So when Earle Cooley rolled into town he had free rein.

David Miscavige, as the chairman of the board of Author Services, would spend the next several weeks in Portland supervising and dictating every last detail of the trial. He was going to show me, the dozens of other attorneys he categorized as “defensive losers,” and the entire OSA network how a trial was conducted, Scientology style. No more counter-intention from lawyers who knew best. He had a soul mate in Earle, so that in his view L. Ron Hubbard’s slash-and-burn policies with respect to detractors and attackers would run into no internal interference. David Miscavige would prove to Ron once again why he needed him to ramrod his intentions through. Hubbard himself was apparently incommunicado, as evidenced by little to no dispatch traffic arriving — which made Miscavige’s two-month, full-time battle of Portland stint possible.

We rented a number of units at a downtown condominium, walking distance from the courthouse. One unit was inhabited by Earle, his long-time mistress Jeannie and their fourteen-year-old son. Another one-bedroom unit was occupied by Miscavige and me. Another was reserved for a couple of Office of Special Affairs staff, and served as a document preparation area and repository. We had a dozen more staff working out of the offices of the mission, which were only a few blocks away. One more condo unit was occupied by Earle’s partner and protégé, Harry Manion.

Harry would prove pivotal to the case, though he did very little speaking in court. Harry was in his early thirties. A big, strapping man — if overweight, like Earle — with a boyish face and an infectious smile and personality. Harry was the archetypal hale fellow well met. He had a glib, friendly word for everyone he encountered, and a natural ability to make people feel comfortable and light. Harry had something else going for him. He was a former college and minor-league professional baseball player, and that really meant something to the judge.

Judge Don Londer was respected by many locally. But because he was Jewish, he was not really accepted into Portland’s traditionally WASP judicial circles. Londer consider himself an old jock, often reminiscing about his boxing career during his younger days in the Navy. He was also a decent, considerate man. However, he was not very bright. In the condo we used to joke that maybe he had his lights knocked out one too many times during his boxing career. But because Harry was a real professional athlete, in Londer’s eyes Harry could do no wrong. Harry struck up a relationship gradually by arriving a little early to court, and thus “bumping into” the judge regularly. The latter always wanted to hear jock war stories from Harry. Harry was the son Don Londer wished he had fathered.

In Miscavige’s view, the Christofferson case was the perfect test case. Christofferson had only ever had a few months engagement with Scientology. She had spent a total of $3,000 on auditing and courses. She had not been harassed by the Guardian’s Office. The court of appeals had already ruled that she could make no case for infliction of emotional distress/outrageous conduct.

Her only remaining cause of action was for fraud. The court of appeal had even narrowed the issue to whether the representations made to her were motivated by sincerely-held religious belief.

In retrospect, it was probably the stupidest move imaginable to not settle the case before trial, for those very reasons. Christofferson claimed fraud primarily based on alleged false representations about L. Ron Hubbard’s pre-Scientology credentials. These were the very issues aired in the Armstrong case, which had made an All Clear all but unattainable. By going to trial, we were affording a woman — who effectively had no damages to claim — a worldwide platform to replay the Armstrong inquisition all over again. Except this time Flynn’s stable of witnesses was bolstered by the former Executive Director of International Scientology, Bill Franks, and the former head of the organization Christofferson had interacted with — the Scientology Mission of Portland, Martin Samuels.

Samuels had been the owner of the Portland mission when both Christofferson and I were parishioners there. He was the owner of the Portland mission when the first Chistofferson trial played out. Samuels had joined the Flynn camp shortly after being expelled, during Miscavige’s mission holder purges of 1982. Samuels testified in the first Christofferson trial on behalf of the church. In the second trial we knew that he would testify that the mother church had not only run every single detail of the trial, but even forced Samuels to lie on the witness stand. And thus Christofferson II was rather a cinch for the Flynn camp to hit the mother church with a sizable judgment (something that had not occurred in the first trial).

But Miscavige — and thus we — looked at it in the simplistic, black-and-white, good-vs.-evil worldview of L. Ron Hubbard. This was our big opportunity to play it all over again. In our view, the 1979 Chistofferson verdict had been what motivated Flynn and FAMCO in the first place.

All of the testimony in the Armstrong trial (including that of Armstrong and Laurel Sullivan) came pouring into the record. More horror stories were added by Samuels and Franks, and by a host of other witnesses. Miscavige and I directed a couple dozen staff, frenetically working through each and every night to provide Earle with material to discredit each witness on cross examination. While direct examination was still in progress, I, Miscavige and several other staff would pore over the real-time transcripts being relayed from court, marking them up for every bit of discrediting documentation we had available in a massive file room at the mission. When the court day ended, we would huddle with Cooley and outline the preps required for the cross exam the next morning. The crews stayed up until 1 or 2 every night, putting the material together and getting final ok from me and Miscavige. Then we would sleep for two to three hours, wake up at 4 a.m. and prepare to meet Earle in his condo at 5 a.m. We would spend the next three hours briefing him on details about how each witness had lied, exaggerated, and twisted the truth or was somehow morally reprehensible. We liberally used material from the ethics records from their days in the church, even copying internal reports to use on cross. This went on for weeks. We continually engaged in echo-chamber, confidence-reinforcing sessions, reviewing how Earle had so thoroughly destroyed each witness’ credibility.

There were external indicia to support our overconfidence. Earle Cooley brutalized the plaintiff’s witnesses on cross examination. So dramatic were his cross exams, that each day Earle was up, the courtroom was packed with local lawyers. They had no interest in the case itself, but Earle’s cross examinations were so dramatic that word had spread through the legal community that Cooley was the best show in town. They were there only to watch a master of their own trade at work. What we were blind to was the cumulative impression that so much manhandling conveyed.

We received a wake-up call of sorts in the middle of the plaintiff’s case, but collectively chose not to heed it. We had planned to enter the covert Armstrong-Griffith-Park surveillance tapes into evidence during the cross examination of Armstrong. Earle set up Armstrong masterfully, leading him to deny that he had ever talked to anyone about taking over the church, orchestrating federal raids, and least of all manufacturing and planting documents in church files. Then Earle started quoting Armstrong from transcripts of the surveillance tapes, clearly demonstrating he was lying from the witness stand. The warning we did not heed came in the form of Judge Londer’s reaction to the courtroom spectacle. In chambers he loudly chastised the church’s behavior in being involved in such cloak-and-dagger activity to begin with. Londer, who clearly did not think much of Chistofferson’s case based on comments he had made up to that point in the trial, was more disgusted with the secret video-taping than the lies they revealed. Had we not been so thoroughly in the throes of a thought-stopping, alternate-reality creation, we might have given thought to how the jury felt about the aggressive, “gotcha” manner we were using with all the plaintiffs witnesses.

Even though it backfired in the case at hand, getting the Armstrong surveillance videos on the public record would serve as a major step in dealing with the more serious government threats of criminal indictments then still extant. The stakes were far higher than merely the Chistofferson case, and there was a great deal of tension in getting the tapes put on the record. We did not want to submit the producer, private eye Gene Ingram, to cross-examination, for fear that he would be forced to disclose anything about the increasing number of operations he was privy to. In the course of coordinating the transportation of the tapes to Portland and into the hands of church coordination attorney John Peterson, Miscavige insisted upon bypassing me and speaking directly to Ingram — something he had not done up to that point in time. I advised him that was a bad idea, should Ingram or he ever be subject to deposition.

I picked up the phone to make the call to Ingram, and Miscavige came flying at me — tackling me into a sofa and attempting to wrestle the phone from my hand. I would not relinquish my grip even though he was strangling me. I threw my chest out to buck Miscavige from me. He violently stabbed his fist into my chest and said menacingly, “Don’t you ever cross me,
motherfucker! I’ll have you declared [excommunicated] in a heartbeat if you ever fuck with me again.” I looked Miscavige in the eye for a moment and considered the weight of that statement. For four years no one on planet earth could communicate to L. Ron Hubbard but through Miscavige — not even his wife. Miscavige was the recipient of personal communications on a weekly basis from Hubbard — but for the extended periods the latter went incommunicado entirely. He was right, he could have me declared in a heartbeat, and all I’d fought for to date would have been for naught. I handed him the phone. He had established himself — much as he had done with Mary Sue Hubbard — as boss buffalo.

So dramatic were Earle Cooley’s cross examinations that we were all swept into the sweet oblivion of the drama of it all. We heard from Judge Londer, through Harry, and we heard from dozens of lawyers who attended as spectators and students: Earle Cooley was magnificent. Earle huddled us up in the condo one evening over beers.

“Have you guys ever heard of Percy Foreman?” Earle asked us.

We all replied that we had not.

“Foreman was one of the premier trial lawyers in American history. He once defended a woman who was up for a murder rap in Miami. The government brought a bunch of scumbag convicts in to bolster their case against her. Foreman demonstrated on cross examination that the testimony was obviously paid for. When he saw the jury understood that, he surprised everyone. After the case in chief, he rested the defense without calling a single witness. He wanted those cross examinations fresh on their minds when they went to deliberate.”

“Brilliant!” exclaimed Miscavige. “We don’t want to serve up our people to McMurry anyway.”

“Exactly,” Earle replied, “sending in Runstein and his ‘real Scientologists’ would be like sending sheep to slaughter.”

“You’re fucking-A right, Earle!” Miscavige proclaimed, as final authorization of the strategy.

And so Earle Cooley shocked the judge, the plaintiff’s team, and all who were watching when he announced the next morning in open court that the defense would call no witnesses, and rested. Judge Londer thought it was a great idea. He didn’t want to sit for another several weeks on this case. And he agreed with Earle that the plaintiff had never made a case worth a hill of beans. It was judge Londer’s nonchalant manner of dealing with jury instructions that helped set us up for the shock of our lives. Londer told Earle and Harry to relax on their stressed arguments to attempt strict control of the jury before their deliberations began. He said, “Hey, what has she got, three grand in damages? The jury isn’t stupid.” And so, with the judge’s assessment of the merits, we were optimistic — albeit nervous — as we awaited the verdict.

Nobody was prepared for the result. On a Friday afternoon the jury awarded Christofferson $39 million. That not only buried any idea of an All Clear, it put the church’s very future at risk. Earle Cooley wasn’t sure why he did it, but he asked the judge to hold off on recording the verdict for a few days. The judge wasn’t sure why either, but he granted Earle’s request.

Miscavige had flown back to Los Angeles after closing arguments. Cooley left that night for Las Vegas to blow off steam and to try to deaden the devastating loss with a weekend of amnesiainducing recreation. In a way, I was left alone holding the bag at the scene of the crime. Early Saturday morning I met with two associates of our local counsel in their Portland office. We frantically traded ideas for challenging the verdict before the case went up to the court of appeals for the two-to-three-year appellate process. One of the associates was a cheery, bright British woman. She came up with a wild idea. Since the verdict had not yet been recorded, we could still make a motion concerning the case before the lower court. That court retained jurisdiction until such time as the verdict was recorded.

We reckoned that since there were motions brought by our side continuously, against prejudicial matter being entered into evidence throughout the trial, and since those motions had been consistently denied, there was no way to challenge rulings already made along the way. However, what if we brought a motion for mistrial based on what was put before the jury during closing arguments? That was the one small window of trial history we had not already brought legal challenges to. With Cooley incommunicado, we got busy dissecting the transcript of the closing arguments to find something, anything we could hang our mistrial motion on. We noted some particularly prejudicial statements that plaintiff’s counsel had made, and drafted a motion for mistrial on the basis that the statements were so outrageous and prejudicial as to have potentially caused the jury to act on passion and prejudice, rather than on the evidence presented over several weeks of trial.

When Cooley returned at the end of the weekend, he thought the motion was brilliant. We filed it early the following week. Harry Manion artfully used his weeks of informal credibility-and-sympathy- building with judge Londer to obtain his agreement to set a hearing for a few weeks down the road, to consider the motion. Londer would not and did not ever record the jury’s verdict.

Miscavige returned to Portland and we had a conference in Cooley’s condo with a couple of legal staff. Miscavige was distraught and desperate. He talked of moving L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology management to a South American country in order to assure the church’s future survival. We discussed how with a 39-million-dollar judgment being publicized internationally, the three dozen similar FAMCO suits heading toward trial, and the DOJ and IRS champing at the bit to clean up anything remaining after the damage was done, the United States was about the least safe territory in the world for Scientology.

Miscavige railed about the stupidity of Judge Londer, how he continued to allow the trial to go out of control while reassuring us that the worst-case scenario was a few thousand dollars in damages. He ruminated how a mighty institution like Scientology could be brought to its knees by a group of degraded “wogs” (non-Scientologists) from a cow town. His own characterization prompted a lightning bolt from the blue.

“I got it!” he exclaimed. “We’ll take over this shit-hole town. I’ll bring in one hundred thousand Scientologists from around the world and we’ll surround that courthouse and make this town comply. We’ll overwhelm them. We’ll overwhelm not only the judge but every other criminal judge he talks to in his town.”

The battle of Portland had only just begun. We called in every Public Relations officer assigned to every church of Scientology in the world (several dozen) and gave them orders to call every person who had ever taken a service at each local church and order them to get to Portland for the biggest, most important event and contribution they would ever make to Scientology. Ken Hoden was pulled out of mothballs and put in charge of the “religious freedom crusade.” Hoden had been the Guardian’s Office person in charge of external affairs in Portland during the original Christofferson case appeal. Miscavige and Starkey had busted him and relegated him to backlines PR work in Los Angeles back in 1981, when they decided he had screwed up the appeal of the original case (the result of which was ultimately the vacating of the original two million-dollar judgment, and Scientology’s strongest religious recognition to date). But now Hoden was integral — he was the only one who knew the ropes in Portland, as well as all allies of the church and public officials in the Portland area. Hoden was instructed to wear a religious “dog collar” shirt and coat at all times in public. He would be the spokesman and he would position all utterances along the line that the Christofferson judgment was the worst assault on religious freedom in the United States in modern times.

Within days, several hundred Scientologists had shown up in Portland. Hoden organized them up, made signs and began regular marches around the courthouse. The trademark chant of the crusade echoed down the streets of Portland:

Hoden: “What do we want?”
The crowd: “Religious freedom!”
Hoden: “When do we want it?”
The crowd: “Now!”

Initially, the protesters came across as angry, in compliance with Miscavige’s orders to intimidate the city into compliance. As Miscavige was back in LA, and there was no allowance
for discussion of mitigation of his ideas, instead Hoden discussed with me the need to tone it down and create a far less threatening and far more dignified presentation. I told Ken he was right, and told him follow his instincts, just learn to report to Starkey and Miscavige in the language they liked to hear. That was to emphasize, in briefing them, how loud you were, how numerous you were, and how shocked and awed the public watching was — while taking a slightly different approach in conducting affairs on the ground. It was an art I had come to learn out of necessity, to avert many church catastrophes over the years.

Ken got the knack of how to play shock absorber to the brass — and did a masterful job in controlling the masses in a fashion that had maximum impact. Over the next week, thousands of Scientologists showed up and the regular protest marches easily surrounded the entire block the courthouse occupied, with parishioners marching in ranks of several abreast. Hoden took care to brief each arriving Scientologist on the importance of being polite and friendly, cleaning up after themselves and generally creating a good impression of “regular Scientologists.”

We wound up having two hearings before judge Londer, separated by several weeks. As much as the crusaders were creating the impression we wished they would, Londer could not wrap his wits around the constitutional arguments we were making. In one chambers meeting with counsel, he uttered something which, despite the public relations gains we were making with the “religious freedom campaign,” flagged our hopes of success. Earle Cooley had made a lengthy presentation, backed by citations to court case precedents. Londer had seized on one particular case that Cooley cited, buoying our attorneys’ hopes that he might understand and adopt our position. After a back-and-forth conversation about its parallels to the case at hand, Londer shocked them all by saying, “Wait a second. That was a court of appeals decision; this isn’t a court of appeals.” Of course, all legal precedent is created by opinions rendered by courts of appeal, and these are binding law for the lower courts to apply and follow. Londer’s statement belied a challenged cognitive capacity. As Earle Cooley put it, “Oh my God, we’re in the hands of the Philistines!”

We kept orchestrating Harry’s having “chance” encounters with Judge Londer, hoping to divine where he stood and hoping that he might begin to understand this case was not only important to the church and Earle, but to Harry’s future. Try as he might, Harry would come back from his meetings befuddled. His refrain was that Londer was as dumb as a sack of rocks, and he couldn’t tell whether anything we were presenting was getting through.

On the afternoon prior to the final hearing and the announcement of decision on the mistrial motion, Earle, Harry and I sat in Earle’s hotel room in Portland preparing our arguments. We had a last-minute brief to file, and had purposely waited until mid afternoon, when we knew Londer took a break. That way, when Harry was bringing the brief into the clerk, Londer might see him and invite him into his chambers for a chat. That went like clockwork. Earle and I beseeched Harry to call in any chips he might have with Londer. Earle told Harry to tell him outright that Londer needed to do this for Harry. Harry reported back that he had schmoozed with Londer, but that it wasn’t appropriate under the circumstances — open chambers doors — to make his ultimate personal pitch. However, Londer had invited Harry to come to his home that evening to meet his wife, since it might be the last time they would see one another. Harry had not committed, out of concern for doing something that would smell of impropriety and could come back to haunt us.

Earle and I discussed the matter in some detail. He explained the downsides of a visit — if it were ever found out it could raise the ugly specter of the decades of GO improprieties we were attempting to live down. “On balance,” Earle said, “this is up to the client. You need to brief the boss [Miscavige] and I’ll trust his instincts.” I called Miscavige and briefed him on all that had transpired. He said, “What is your hesitance? It’s a no brainer. Of course he sees Londer, and he does whatever he has to do to get the product.” I told Earle the verdict. Earle told me, “Okay, now it’s between me and Harry. I’m going to protect you and Dave. Leave it to me.”

Earle did report that Harry had gone to Londer’s home. He did not give particulars beyond saying that Londer was thrilled with the visit. He gave no guarantee of any particular outcome, “But,” Earle added, “tell Dave to relax.” And then Earle told me an anecdotal aphorism he would repeat several times to Dave and me over the next couple of years. He said, “Here is my only test of friendship. I know you are going to testify tomorrow in front a grand jury investigating me.

Do I sleep tonight…or don’t I?”

Even though Earle said he would sleep well that night, I did not. Of secondary importance was my own life. I was so thoroughly invested in the crusade to protect LRH and Scientology that the possible impact on them loomed larger than my own spiritual death — which would be a virtual certainty if we did not win. As I had learned by then on Hubbard’s lines of operation, there had to be a head on a pike after a catastrophe of this magnitude. And I had been around Miscavige long enough to know that regardless of his having micro-managed every move in the trial, down to strangling me the first time I attempted to counter him, it would not be Miscavige’s head on this particular pike.

The next morning, the Multnomah County Courthouse was surrounded by Scientologists. The hallways and wide stairways inside were packed with Scientologists, from the front door,
through the lobby, up to the third-floor courtroom of Judge Londer. Londer gave a touching soliloquy about how well the “real Scientologists” who had descended upon Portland had
conducted themselves. He said he might not have been so gracious and polite had his own religion been compared to botulism soup, as plaintiff’s counsel had done to the jury. He found
such conduct to be extremely prejudicial, and in violation of his own orders — having already determined that Scientology was a religion. The judge granted the mistrial motion, wiping out in one breath the $39,000,000 judgment.

After having survived a nuclear explosion by, among other things, successfully defrauding the court as to L. Ron Hubbard’s inaccessibility (Ron had been a named defendant, but we managed to get through the entire trial without the issue of his personal liability ever being adjudicated), Ron had two handwritten messages relayed to Miscavige. The first was a short note to the “real Scientologists,” the crusaders, commending them for having pulled off a feat of historical proportions by influencing the winning of the mistrial motion. The second consisted of two words and a single letter, sprawled across a full page in Ron’s signature style. It read, “Earle, congratulations! — R” The “R” stood for Ron, a signatory he had used for years on internal church dispatches.

Two months later, at our annual Sea Org Day celebration, Miscavige and I would be awarded special medals of honor, of a type never before issued by Ron. We had slipped on a banana peel and somehow managed to fall on a fur rug.

Notes

Mark Rathbun: on Robert N. Harris and Eugene Ingram (May 28, 2013)

 That is one thing a lot of folks don’t get about Miscavige. They remember him only as coming down like thunder, as he often does. They seldom see the charm, which can be engaging. I saw a lot of both. I believe one reason Miscavige kept me as a close aide for twenty-two years was the quality of my communication training routines. Unlike most people who came and went his way, I could hold my position in space, unflustered when Miscavige regularly lit up like the Fourth of July. He could vent on at me in rather dramatic and overwhelming fashion, and I would not be affected or distracted. I would hear what he had to say and acknowledge him comfortably. And
that would generally calm him down and make him far more pleasant. I saw a lot of folks over the years who never made it past the venting stage. They would get nervous — which would set him off even more — or get overwhelmed and get blown away. So they never saw that at bottom he had a likable human being aspect. Maybe it was the communication training routines, or maybe it was the training I received from my dogs in childhood. In either event, I think that same ability to not get flustered was my greatest asset for my entire church career. We experienced a lot of shocking threats and losses. Generally, I was able to keep my head when others tended to flail. Having experienced Miscavige’s human side I was also sympathetic to the cross he had to bear, being the only man between L. Ron Hubbard and enough seasoned enemies to easily defeat any lesser man.

The only church attorney who had previously worked with investigators was Bob Harris. Harris had worked with the GO for years on the colossal tax trial over the mother church’s (Church of Scientology of California) tax years 1970 through 1972. It was the huge, pending test case that all concerned figured would determine whether the church of Scientology would ever attain tax exemption. Bob was once a fairly prominent and successful criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles. For the past few years he had pretty much moved in to church premises, working full time on the all-consuming ’70-’72 case. That trial went on for several few-weeks stints over two years. Bob told me of the best private investigator, pound for pound, he had ever worked with.

According to Harris, Eugene “Gene” Ingram was a former Los Angeles Police Department street cop. Using his street smarts, better-than-average intelligence, and brash, aggressive style, he had worked overtime as an officer defense representative before the LAPD Board of Rights — where internal affairs charges would be aired out in mini trials. Ingram was so effective in securing acquittals of charged officers that he became not only a thorn in the side of the notoriously corrupt LAPD Internal Affairs Division, but also of the to-become-infamous Chief of Police, Daryl Gates. Harris told me that if we were going up against the FBI and US Department of Justice, we would be hard pressed to find anyone as qualified or as trustworthy for the job as Gene.

I met with Gene. I was immediately struck by his intelligence, healthy suspicion of bureaucratic authority, and engaging personality. Gene was in his late thirties, wore a neatly-coifed pompadour, and had tanned skin and large, brown, alert eyes. He spoke with police-business-like precision. He almost always wore neat, stylish suits and ties. I questioned Gene about his dismissal from the LAPD. Gene said that after he produced a string of acquittals of cops that Gates had sorely wanted dismissed, he began receiving anonymous death threats. In the middle of one of the biggest, most hotly-contest internal Board of Rights cases he had ever defended, personal disaster struck. While alone on a late-night call to a remote section of LA, he was shot in the back of the neck with a sniper’s bullet. He showed me a huge round entry scar on the back of his neck, millimeters from his spine. While he was recovering, Gene was indicted by a Los Angeles County Grand Jury on ten counts of trumped up pimping and pandering charges. Working with Harris and another criminal defense lawyer who often worked with Gene on Board of Rights cases, they attained an acquittal by a jury on all charges. He handed me a series of articles in the Los Angeles Times that chronicled and corroborated much of his story.

Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (pp. 219-20).

Notes

Mark Rathbun: on the Check Forgery Frame Ads (May 28, 2013)

When the DOJ utilized the Flynn tactic of seeking L. Ron Hubbard’s deposition and then asking to win by default when the church failed to produce him, it only reinforced our view that Flynn and the DOJ were in league. When I met with the Boston DOJ office attorney responsible for the check investigation, our suspicions of a grand conspiracy became virtually irrefutable fact, in our minds. Bracket Badger Denniston III was the Assistant US Attorney
in the fraud division who was assigned the case. Denniston was a snooty, thirty-something, conservative blue-blood. He treated me with cool disdain. Denniston never shared a single detail of his own alleged investigation. He listened to the results of our investigation with disinterest, and when I detailed Flynn or DOJ connections with the Bank of New England he merely smirked condescendingly.

When we had exhausted all leads and run into a stone wall with the DOJ, mild-mannered Geoff Shervell came up with an audacious idea. We would place a full page ad in the New York Times, offering a ten-thousand-dollar reward for information leading to the conviction of the masterminds behind the attempted passing of the forged $ 2 million L. Ron Hubbard check. Miscavige loved the idea and green-lighted the project. Within days of the ad’s publication, Ingram, the contact point named in the ad, received a call from a woman in Boston.1

Notes

  1. Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (p. 222). Amazon Books. Kindle Edition.

Mark Rathbun: on mounting the offensive against Flynn and FAMCO (May 28, 2013)

In early May, 1982 I was busily mounting the offensive against Flynn and his FAMCO scheme to bankrupt and destroy Scientology. Up to that point in time, several people had served as buffers between me and David Miscavige. All that changed one morning when Miscavige called me over to his offices at Hubbard’s newly-formed personal services corporation, Author Services Incorporated (ASI). Miscavige was the chairman of its board. As such he was recognized as the most senior and powerful person in the Scientology hierarchy. It was understood by then that all communication to or from L. Ron Hubbard went through Miscavige’s hands. I hopped into the small Japanese car that came with the job of Special Unit Litigation Director and sped over to see Miscavige. I brought Geoff Shervell with me. Geoff was my opposite number for the intelligence/ investigation function of the church. He was a short, portly fellow from New Zealand. He was handsome and friendly in looks and manner. Geoff had worked at the Guardian’s Office Worldwide in England for years. The Special Project had investigated him thoroughly and concluded that he had not engaged in any illegal acts while in the Guardian’s Office. His amiable demeanor and his training and understanding of intelligence had resulted in Miscavige tapping him to run all intelligence for the church. Up to that day Shervell had been reporting directly to Miscavige.

[…]

Miscavige seemed somberly unnerved, an attitude he rarely showed to anyone. He wore a dirty blonde mustache and glasses then. He stood about five feet, five inches, solidly built. He looked at me with piercing, intense blue eyes. “Marty, Geoff’s a nice guy, but he doesn’t have the confront for this job.” With that succinct statement, Miscavige put the intelligence function, and Geoff, under my supervision. “Does the GO have any PIs you can trust?” “I haven’t worked with any, sir.” “Well, you need to find a PI that has a pair of balls and won’t be compromised.” “Ok, I’ll get right on it.” “Look, somebody tried to pass a forged check on LRH’s account at Bank of New England. Some Arab guy named Aquil Abdul Amiar shows up at Middle East Bank in New York City with an LRH check with a forged signature. The check is from LRH’s account at BNE. BNE calls us and we tell them LRH never signed any check made out to any Arab, and no check for two million dollars to anybody . They stopped payment. We keep LRH’s check registers. There are no checks missing. We write all of LRH’s checks and submit them to him for signature. He signs them. We mail them and every one of them is accounted for. Norman can show you all that.” I looked at Norman. Norman gave a serious nod back. Miscavige continued, “We asked BNE for more particulars. BNE won’t give any. We have Sherman Lenske (LRH’s corporate and finance attorney ) call MEB and BNE and nobody will cooperate with him. BNE says they want to hear from LRH directly. We have all the proper powers of attorney on his accounts, but they won’t recognize them. They tell us the FBI is investigating. And the FBI won’t tell Sherman anything either. This whole thing smells . These fucking bankers are supposed to be working for LRH, and it looks like they are doing the work of Flynn and the FBI. You need to get a PI onto this and get to the bottom of it.” “Yes, sir.” “Okay, Norman , show him the documents we have, like the POA (power of attorney) and all. Marty, you report direct to me on this . Tell the finance people this is top priority if they give you any flack on the PIs.” “Yes, sir.” “Nobody in the GO or Special Unit or anywhere else needs to know about this, get it?” “Yes, sir.”  1

Notes

  1. Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (p. 216-218). Amazon Books. Kindle Edition.

GA letter to Mark Rathbun: Apology not needed or wanted (September 4, 2009)

Dear Mark:

Some people have been saying that I wanted an apology from you, or you should apologize to me, or even that you’ll never apologize to me, for the fair game you perpetrated against me and got others to perpetrate against me while you were in the Scientology organization. I want to assure you and everyone else that I am not seeking or asking for an apology. In fact, an apology from you without you doing what you can to correct the wrongs you perpetrated and are ongoing could be yet another cruelty. With your apology plus a quarter I could make a local payphone call.

What needs attention and resolution are ongoing black PR, ongoing injustices, ongoing human rights violations, and the ongoing effects of other crimes, which you were involved in and can help resolve. I know that you know this.

The situation between you, me and Scientology is analogous to a conspiracy that gets a person falsely imprisoned. The victim sits for years in prison. One of the co-conspirators leaves the conspiracy, perhaps because the head conspirator, the crime boss, beat up one too many of the otherwise happy criminal co-conspirators. The falsely imprisoned guy learns that the ex-conspirator has left the conspiracy (or at least the ex-conspirator claims he’s left the conspiracy) and is publicly offering to help people that he or the conspiracy had hurt. The ex-conspirator seems to be claiming that his ethics are now one hundred eighty degrees diametrically opposed to what his ethics were when he was a lieutenant conspirator under the head conspirator.

Although the Sea Org/Scientology is more a criminal organization than a spiritual organization, because it calls whatever it is and does “religious,” you could use the usual Catholic analogy, in which an ex-Catholic had been a Cardinal Conspirator under the Pope Conspirator. The Catholic Conspiracy, from the Pope through some Cardinals down through some more clergy to attorneys and lay thugs, would have been carrying out the Pope’s Holy Command Intention to have the earlier ex-Catholic falsely imprisoned, and in other ways criminally attacked. The person who’d left the Church years before the Cardinal blew could have been a Bishop, or maybe just a Clerk, but perhaps was an uncommonly blessed Clerk, who’d known God personally, and had been authorized by God to do the research for His Biography. The Catholic analogy is not inapt, but I think the conspiracy is easier to follow and understand without the vaticanist trappings, since it is a simple criminal conspiracy, even if called a sacrament.

The falsely imprisoned guy writes to the ex-conspirator asking for the offered, and clearly needed, help. The ex-conspirator doesn’t respond to his victim’s request, which his victim e-mailed to him and posted on various Internet sites to make sure the ex-conspirator got, and very clearly, where his victim was coming from. With good reason and, especially given the circumstances, good humor, and with accuracy and care, the victim communicated some of his sincerely held thoughts about the situation and the human relationship. As an icebreaker, the victim made his initial communication an interparagraphing analysis of a perjurious declaration the ex-conspirator had executed to cause the victim trouble and harm a number of years even before getting him falsely imprisoned.

As you can see, the ex-conspirator would be even crueler than he had already been if he “apologized” to the victim and then did nothing to bring the ongoing crime against the victim to an end. In our analogy or scenario, the ex-conspirator does neither. He doesn’t apologize and he doesn’t help. In fact, clearly contemptuously, he doesn’t communicate back at all.

Not receiving a response from the ex-conspirator, his victim again writes him requesting his help to correct the injustices the ex-conspirator had for many years perpetrated and prolonged against the victim. Specifically, the ex-conspirator had known about the conspiracy’s theft of the victim’s valuable documents and artwork, also years before the false imprisonment, and could have been, if he really had left the conspiracy, a great help in getting them back to the victim. Again the victim receives no acknowledgement, not a word granting him a shred of credence.

The victim waits another month or so then writes the claimed ex-conspirator again, about another cruel injustice that the conspiracy had perpetrated against the victim. Some people had suggested to the victim that victimizers like the ex-conspirator wouldn’t help their victims unless their victims were extremely polite to them. The victim thinks that this is what bullies or sociopaths standardly do to their victims; nevertheless, he is extremely careful to be extremely polite, and even pre-apologizes in case he was being thought of as overly polite. Again, the victim insures the victimizer gets his communication by sending it directly and publishing it publicly. Despite his victim’s extreme politeness and his care in making sure the claimed ex-conspirator really got his communication, the claimed ex-conspirator again doesn’t even acknowledge his victim.

As you can imagine, by this point, the victim is fairly certain that the claimed ex-conspirator is still part of the conspiracy, doing some twisted nastiness for the conspiracy as he’d done for many years; or he is simply a coward and a bully, and just blowing smoke about helping victims. Nevertheless, the victim writes yet again, trying to assuage his victimizer’s guilt, if he was feeling any, and if he was using the guilt he was feeling in excusing not helping his victim. The conspirators, including the ex-conspirator, as a key part of their criminal conspiracy to destroy the victim, had conducted a global defamation/psychoterror campaign that included lies the ex-conspirator knew were lies. The ex-conspirator had been in places and positions in the conspiracy to know the truth, including the truth about the other conspirators’ knowledge of the crimes they were committing against the victim. The ex-conspirator knew that the conspiracy against the victim and his rights was unlawful, and knew that unlawful acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. The ex-conspirator correcting those lies and confessing to the knowing unlawfulness of the conspiracy and its actions would be a very effective step to start righting the wrongs they had committed and were ongoing.

Despite the victim being one of the conspiracy’s most victimized victims, and despite the claimed ex-conspirator’s vital participation in the victimizing, yet again the claimed ex-conspirator doesn’t respond, or even acknowledge the victim’s existence. Yet again, the victim’s letter had been reasoned, factual, accurate and polite. The ex-conspirator comments publicly in another matter about only responding to communications that are civil, and he’s probably intimating that he hasn’t responded to his biggest victim because he wasn’t civil enough. His victim, of course, was not only civil, but polite, and not overly polite, and the ex-conspirator, whether or not he really had left the conspiracy, is treating and handling him with contempt.

Again too, I’m sure you can see, an apology from the ex-conspirator without his doing whatever he could to correct the judicial injustices and other ongoing iniquities, would be cruel. The ex-conspirator’s contempt for the victim, which the silent treatment à la Lisa Tech evidences, was made willfully more contemptuous and crueler by the ex-conspirator’s setting up a “practice” in which he is the possessor, seller and deliverer of superlative “ethics.” If the ex-conspirator would help his victim as he could and never apologize, doubtlessly the victim wouldn’t object. If the ex-conspirator apologized at any point in their relationship from here on, doubtlessly the victim, being reasonable and not at all like the black PR the conspirators had manufactured about him, would be grateful. An apology could even help, and psychologically and socially could even help the ex-conspirator. But the victim isn’t asking for an apology, because, without the requested help, it would be cruelty.

The analogy is closer to reality than most people would imagine, I would imagine, because, although I have not been falsely imprisoned all the years of your analogous victim above, the Scientology conspiracy did obtain and currently possesses a series of unlawful orders jailing me in California and fining me. I simply didn’t comply with these unlawful orders because they’re unlawful, and no one has any lawful obligation in California, or anywhere in the US, to comply with any order that isn’t lawful. There are still unlawful orders to jail me in California, and you could be very helpful in getting them canceled. If I had complied with even one of those unlawful orders jailing me, the Scientology cultists could have kept me jailed for years, or decades or forever.

You know all the details of the Miscavige regime’s unlawful orders against me, in fact you know details of all Miscavige’s and his regime’s fair game on me, up until 2005, I suppose, when you say you blew from Gilman. I’ll provide a brief description of the unlawful orders and circumstances, and some comments on the relevant related issues, however, so that others who will read this will have enough information to create a pretty clear picture. The available and relevant documents, of course, for all Scientology’s legal cases against me are well organized on my site.

The 1995 injunction Scientology got against me in California Superior Court in Marin County was obtained unlawfully and is on its face unlawful. The injunction has been one of the most insane, self-destructive successes imaginable for Scientology. What a flap! And it’s still ongoing. And you, Mark, were involved in the litigation to obtain the injunction, and in the enforcement actions following its unlawful grant. In fact, you were, throughout many of those years, directly over the litigation. It’s funny really, if you could think about it, that you write to Bert Fields that you held the “second highest ecclesiastical position in the [Scientology] religion” when you were over litigation. This supports the reality that litigation is an ecclesiastical activity, or religious expression, or religious exercise. In my life, as I have proven, it certainly is.

You were on the approval line for the unconscionable contract that would make every Scientology church, every affiliated entity, and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, assigns and attorneys, beneficiaries, not only in the unlawful contract, but in the unlawful injunction that enforced the unlawful contract, and in all the actions, which are all unlawful, taken to enforce the unlawful injunction. I won’t focus on the injunction here, although clearly it is an injustice that must be corrected, even for the benefit of the Scientologists it makes universally and willfully suppressive of basic human rights, but I’ll deal mainly with the enforcement efforts, which resulted in the unlawful jail sentences and fines against me.

You were also involved in fair gaming my attorney Michael J. Flynn from the day you were assigned to the Special Project or MAC. The “Juggernaut” eval is actually a criminal conspiracy. You were also involved in the operation to frame Flynn with the $2 million check forgery, using testimony Scientology purchased and which you knew to be false. From Vicki Aznaran’s July 19, 1990 declaration:

I have been informed by Mark (Marty) Rathbun, a high ranking Scientologist, that his private investigator, Gene Ingram, “fed” confession to Ala Tamimi when visiting him in an Italian prison. This false confession was, in substance, that Tamimi had been involved in a bad check scam involving an account of L. Ron Hubbard. This false confession implicated attorney Michael Flynn in the check scam. Michael Flynn was at the time considered a major enemy of Scientology because he represented numerous clients with claims against Scientology. This purported confession was used to slander and attack Michael Flynn. Michael Flynn has also been sued by Scientology as part of its “strategy” for handling enemies.

So you know what was done to conspire against, threaten, manipulate and degrade Flynn to get him to get me to sign your unlawful contract. These actions too must be confronted, the contract rescinded as unlawful, and the record cleared. As I said above, however, I will just deal now with the efforts to enforce the injunction that enforces the contract, and the unlawful jail sentences and fines you and your fellow religious conspirators obtained against me.

You will recall my August 14 letter, in which I requested your help to correct the black PR on me that you and Miscavige submitted to the IRS to get Scientology’s 1993 tax exemption. I mentioned in the letter that in January 1997, while living in San Anselmo, California, I discovered some of this black PR on the Internet, and that the discovery was so shocking that I felt I had to flee. I was also well aware at that time, of course, of Scientology’s leaders’ willful dishonesty, evil intentions toward me, and their propensity for physical violence, and I felt I had to be in a place, Canada, where I could more safely deal with this black PR and Scientology’s other attacks and threats. As you know, now twelve plus years later, time has proven me right. I also was painfully aware, obviously, that I could not get justice, or even reason, from the Marin Court Judge who’d issued the unlawful injunction and other unlawful orders and who had unlawfully denied me a fair trial, or any trial, Gary W. Thomas.

Back in January 1997, as Randomity would have it, just a few days before I actually left California, and while I was getting ready to leave, which was an extraordinarily threatening and troubling time, Grady Ward, a friendly fellow fighter against Scientology lies, abuses and criminality, served me with a subpoena for production of documents in the US District Court copyright infringement case he was defending against the cult. The following day, Andrew H. Wilson, the cult’s attorney in the Scientology v. Armstrong state case, sent me a letter claiming that my production of the subpoenaed documents to Ward would be a violation of the contract and injunction, and threatening me with enforcement if I produced the subpoenaed documents to Ward. Wilson didn’t copy Ward or the US District Court with his letter, and, although Wilson stated that Scientology would file a motion for a protective order in the Ward case to prevent my production of the subpoenaed documents, the cult never did file the motion.

Because Wilson’s threat and attempted interference was clearly unlawful, since I was a subpoenaed witness, I wrote a declaration reporting the threat and sent it to US District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte, who presided over the Ward case and the related copyright infringement cases, Erlich and Henson. It was completely lawful, in fact arguably a legal duty, to report Wilson’s threat, and the report could not lawfully be prohibited by any injunction, certainly any State Court injunction. After reporting the threat, I left California for Canada. I had already filed a notice of appeal from the injunction and was awaiting the Marin County Clerk’s creation of the record and transcript for the appeal.

While I was in Canada, Scientology had Wilson file an application in Marin for an order to show cause re contempt against me for sending the declaration reporting Wilson’s threat to Judge Whyte. Scientology never served me with the application, or the OSC. Only many years later did I obtain a copy of some of the documents Wilson and Scientology filed in this matter. In his declaration in support of the application, Wilson omitted any mention of Grady Ward serving me with a subpoena duces tecum, any mention of Wilson’s threat, and any mention of the fact that I was sending my declaration to the federal judge to report that threat.

Scientology and Wilson, with machinations you would know about, then got the Judge Thomas, who had already granted the unlawful injunction and an equally unlawful judgment, to grant the cult’s contempt order, punishing me with two days in jail and a $1,000 fine. There is no mention in the order of Grady Ward serving me with the subpoena duces tecum, of Wilson’s threat, or that my declaration reported that threat to Judge Whyte.

While reasonably safely in Canada, I received the Marin Superior Court Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal, and I wrote and timely filed my Appellant’s Opening Brief in August 1997 in the California Court of Appeal in my appeal from Scientology’s unlawful injunction and judgment. Given where I’d written my brief, my situation, condition and resources, my brief is actually very good, and eminently civil, and no one has offered any reasoned and legally supported opposition to its substantive arguments. Scientology didn’t file a respondent’s brief, but filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the unlawful contempt order Judge Thomas had signed, which, the cult said, made me a fugitive from justice and therefore barred me from appealing.

What machinating Scientology, Scientologists and your attorneys organized to get Division Four of the First Appellate District to dismiss my appeal from the patently unlawful judgment and injunction, after I had filed a competent, well-supported and civil brief that showed that the injunction on which the contempt order, jail sentence and fines were based was unlawful, you would know, I’m sure, in considerable detail. After you got that appellate division to dismiss my appeal, it became clear to me that defiance and not civility was what was needed for Scientology and Scientologists.

My becoming very defiant as a result of your criminal abuse of process and conspiracy against my rights led me to see, of course, that defiance and civility weren’t mutually exclusive. My civility as a terrorized victim was simply transformed into the civility of a victim who has become very defiant. Defiance, as I intend it here, is “bold resistance to an opposing force or authority” and is, as you can see, neutral. Scientologists, for example, defy me to try to correct the injustices you’re perpetrating against me, and, of course, they defy logic, and even defy God. I defy Scientology’s and Scientologists’ lies. I defy you all to confront your “Suppressive Person” doctrine. I defy you, Mark, to prove that you’re on the right side. I defy you to prove you can’t understand what I’ve written. I defy all Scientologists to prove their “reason” is superior, or even reason at all.

Throughout my adult life, I have been civil, and in fact consciously and automatically polite and courteous. In an earlier communication to you, I mentioned my need to communicate as I communicate, and to publish what I publish, to counter Scientology’s and Scientologists’ lies and black PR on me. I mentioned specifically the big lie to the IRS to get your tax exemption that all of you truly believe I’m psychotic. The very same abundance of my writings and other communications now also has to prove, and does prove, that I’m civil. I am as civil as anyone as defiant as I am could be. I defy you to find anyone as defiant as I am and more civil than I am. In fact, I defy you to find anyone who is, whether a defiant victim or not, as big a victim of Scientology persecution as I am, and more civil.

The common, non-social emotion and attitude among Scientologists, which is installed in them by the application of Scientology, is contempt. They even watch each other to make sure they’re contemptuous enough of the right victims. Scientologists are universally contemptuous of me. Contempt is also, you should be aware, the actual, non-social tone and attitude of bullies and sociopaths. Scientologists’ group contempt for someone, or for others, facilitates aggression toward the targets or victims of their contempt. One of the available tones and attitudes in response to Scientology’s and Scientologists’ contempt and aggression or fair game is defiance, bold resistance. I’m happy to be able to report that the number of wogs defying Scientology’s and Scientologists’ contempt and aggression has grown exceedingly over the past several years. This expansion of planetary defiance, of course, has validated my own choice to defy these evils, and even made my defiance more defiant.

Your communications indicate that you are elevating your contempt for me to the point of demanding that I be civil. Yet, as a defiant victim of Scientology and Scientologists, you included notably, I am excruciatingly civil, dotting every i, crossing every t, and obeying every other convention or rule of grammar, etiquette and civility. You’re actually demanding that I stop being a civil defiant victim and just be your civil lickspittling victim, which I could never be even if I wanted for some insane reason to be. Your demand, of course, is both impossible and ludicrous. Victimizers demanding politeness from their victims is a form of what Hubbard called in scripture “double-curving.”

My defiance of your contempt is good for you, for me, and in fact it’s good for everyone. When you stop being contemptuous, naturally, I’d stop being defiant. I’d still be civil, but I’d appear very differently to you. You’d see in fact what you already know; that I’d been civil all along. So really, an apology from you, as long as you remain contemptuous of me and don’t help to end the continuing injustices and other fair game against me, would be just more contempt, more fair game, and, as I said, more cruelty, which, of course, is what contempt and fair game is intended to be.

Following your success getting Judge Thomas to sign your contempt order jailing and fining me for my sending my threat report to Judge Whyte, you also got Judge Thomas to sign a second contempt order for thirteen religious expressions about the Scientology religion I expressed in Europe and Canada, punishing me with another twenty-six days in jail and another monetary fine. Such an order is no more lawful than it would be to jail a person for expressing religious expressions about the Christian religion. The idea that an injunction issued by a California State Court judge, clearly either deranged or degraded, can lawfully prohibit a Canadian citizen from expressing his religious expressions about a religion in Canada or anywhere else is, of course, obscene, and clearly impossible.

After Judge Thomas retired, you used his series of unlawful orders and the Court of Appeal’s unlawful dismissal of my appeal to get another Marin Court Judge Vernon F. Smith to sign another contempt order against me for one hundred thirty-one religious expressions of my religious experiences and religious knowledge of a religion and its religionists. Being as defiant as I humanly could be, knowing that the contract’s and injunction’s conditions that I was violating were inarguably unlawful, and just living my life, I had, even by that time, actually violated these conditions hundreds of thousands of times. I would say that I have violated these unlawful conditions millions of times.

Over my sincere opposition at every stage, you priced each religious expression of my religious experiences and religious knowledge at $50,000 per expression, and you got Judge Thomas to agree that was a reasonable, fair and judicially enforceable figure. I disagreed that my religious expressions of my religious experiences and religious knowledge had that monetary value, but Scientology and all Scientologists, and certainly you, who were then in charge of litigation, insisted upon that valuation, and Judge Thomas went along with you. To further unlawfully help Scientology and Scientologists to unlawfully persecute me, he also went along with your unconscionable math, ruling it perfectly fathomable. The multiplicand for the $50,000 would be determined by the recipients, or even intended recipients, of any religious expression of my religious experiences in and religious knowledge of the Scientology religion.

You’ll recall that you had Scientology state in its early lawsuit to enforce its contract against me that I had sent a single religious expression to 19 people establishing its value at $950,000. All my religious expressions times their recipients times $50,000 a pop, I’m sure you’re aware, generates more monetary value than there is money in the world. In his deposition in the case, your junior during many years Lynn Farny provided the ecclesiastical adverb “a pop” when explaining how Scientology performed its monetary valuations of my religious expressions.

[Attorney Michael L. Walton:]  Q. The sending of this letter Scientology has alleged entitles it to $950,000 in liquidated damages. Can you explain that to me?

[Lynn R. Farny:]  A. Yes, I can. The letter which is attached to the Complaint as an Exhibit E is nine pages long and provides an extensive amount of information. Now each of the individuals designated in paragraph 87 received a copy of this letter, so it’s the disclosure of information to those individuals at $50,000 a pop which totals 950,000.

This letter to you, which I intend and expect conservatively a million people will receive, is worth, according to the Scientology “beneficiaries,” $50 billion.

Based on the unlawful injunction, judgment and contempt orders, in 2002 you had Scientology sue me again, seeking $10 million for two hundred of my religious expressions, virtually all of which were expressed in Canada or Europe. Your suit was also against Bob Minton and the Lisa McPherson Trust, seeking more millions from them for “acting in concert” with me in violation of your unlawful orders against me. You sued Minton for purchasing a computer for me because that computer would be used by me to express my religious expressions about the Scientology religion. Your attorneys unlawfully threatened several people with judicial enforcement of the unlawful injunction.

In 2004, at a trial of your $10 million suit, which was not the fair trial I seek in which I can put on a defense, Marin Superior Court Judge M. Lynn Duryee dispensed with the jail sentences and fines Scientology had obtained against me as unconscionable punishment. Amazingly and demonically, and through a very dishonest connection in the same appellate division that had dismissed my appeal of the unlawful injunction on the basis of the unlawful contempt order, Scientology was able to get this unconscionable punishment reinstated. I have the complete appellate record on my site.

Thus there are still these unlawful jail sentences and fines that prevent me from traveling to California, and even threaten my traveling anywhere else in the US. You know they’re unlawful, and shouldn’t want them, if you have any conscience, to be considered lawful by anyone; and you’re perfectly able to help me correct these and all the injustices Scientology and Scientologists have perpetrated against me all these years. That you worked so assiduously under Miscavige to silence people about Scientology, and make it appear lawful to silence people about Scientology, is a crime not only against me but against all wogs, and even more, against all Scientologists.

Scientology and Scientologists, as you know and doubtlessly directed, have also used, and continue to use their unlawful California jail sentences and other unlawful orders against me to black PR me and cause me trouble all around the world. See, e.g. this 2001 OSA black PR to a huge list of Russian Federal, and Provincial departments and officials, the clergy, and the mass media :

I am talking about Gerald Armstrong, a man who will take part in this conference and will present a paper on April 24, 2001.

In May 1998 the Supreme Court of the State of California issued an order to “arrest him and to bring him to the court” and that this arrest “can be conducted any time day or night” (cited from the court decision). I should add that this Armstrong was to be brought before the court and held accountable for anti-religious propaganda.

The order has not been executed until now for the simple reason that Armstrong is not at the moment residing in the US and thus is outside the reach of American justice.

I have no doubt that neither the Diocese of Nizhny Novgorod nor the authorities of Nizhny Novgorod Province and the city of Nizhny Novgorod have access to this data; otherwise this man would not have been put on the list of participants in the Conference.

I include here a copy of the document sent to me from the USA and I ask you to find out whose initiative it was to invite this man to Nizhny Novgorod, deliberately not informing the government that he is a criminal element. It is necessary to carefully screen all the list of the participants as well.

I also would like to inform you that this document, with an explanatory letter similar to this one, has already been submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the information about the arrival of Armstrong in Russia has been handed to the U.S. Embassy in Russia so that the necessary measures may be taken for his detention.

Or see Scientology’s false statement to have me prosecuted in Ekaterinburg, Russia in 2003, which included this “support” for the demanded false prosecution:

We ask you to take measures, which are provided for by the law in relation to the members of this group of people. And we inform you, that G. Armstrong was brought to justice for his illegal activity. Namely, the Supreme court of the state California, County of Marin, case #157680, sentenced G. Armstrong to be guilty and demanded him to pay the compensation in the amount of $300 000 to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of state California county of Marin, case #152229, awarded the Order to immediately arrest G. Armstrong, who purposely violated the writ 13 times. Also, the Supreme Court of California county of Marin, case #157680, #152229 declared, that the defendant G. Armstrong is guilty in 13 acts of contempt of court. Also he is punished for the previous contempt of authorities by the fine $200 for each infringement (totally $2600) and confinement in the County Jail for a period 48 hours for each infringement (totally 26 days). G. Armstrong should appear before the Court of the county of Marin, obeying the law, or should be brought to suffer punishment till 10 of February 1998. In case G. Armstrong does not obey to the mandate of the court, the bench warrant will be issued to arrest him immediately and subject to confinement, till the punishments for the contempt of the court are fulfilled.

If you stick with the Scientology position that the orders jailing me and fining me for expressing my sincere religious beliefs, experiences and knowledge about this religion, or any other religion, are desirable, moral or lawful, then you support Miscavige on this most key issue confronting Scientologists. On the other hand, if you really want to bring Miscavige to justice, to get justice for the victims of his regime’s injustice, and to actually defend human rights, then these orders and my relationship with Scientology and Scientologists provides an excellent opportunity. My case and the orders against me are all about human rights, and I have fought for this opportunity for over twenty-seven years. The help I need from you is your knowledge of what you were doing, or getting others to do, or of what Scientology was doing, that was not lawful, or fair, or conscionable, or even arguably advisable in its conspiracy to silence, imprison, ruin, and beastify me. If you tell the whole time, place, form and event, my attorney and I will make great use of it to do great good.

Yours civilly as always,

Gerry Armstrong
[contact info]

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 1) (June 18, 2002)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
Defendants.

_______________________________________/

 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 1

DATE: June 18, 2002, afternoon session.

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR,
Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

2

APPEARANCES:
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
35340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
Attorney for Plaintiff

MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
40 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN
MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP
150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381
Attorney for LMT.

3

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS

PAGE                                              LINE

JESSE PRINCE                                    5                                                       13

DIRECT Mr. Dandar                           6                                                         5

[…]

MR. DANDAR: All right. Plaintiff calls Mr. Prince.

JESSE PRINCE, the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. WEINBERG: For the record, your Honor, I want to preserve the same objection that we’ve made to Mr. Franks — is that his name — Mr. Franks and Mr. Young, which is, among other things, the 404, 406, the First Amendment, and overall, at least as it relates to the — paragraph 34 of the complaint, to competence, in light of the fact that he left the church years before and doesn’t have any personal knowledge of what if anything occurred in 1995.

THE COURT: All right.

6

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. I presume that it’s preserved? And I will limit my objections to things like hearsay and other —

THE COURT: It is preserved.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Please state your name, and spell your last name.
THE COURT: What witness is that? Do you all have the numbers by any chance? How many witnesses have you called, do you remember?

MR. DANDAR: Caught me off guard.

THE COURT: All right. I’m just trying to put a number with it.

Go ahead.

A Jesse Prince, J-e-s-s-e, P-r-i-n-c-e.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I think we’re number six.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll double-check. Mr. Lirot will be checking.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how long have you lived in Pinellas County?

A Oh, for a little over two and a half years.

Q Are you currently employed?

A No, I am not.

7

Q When is the last time you were employed?

A Last September.

Q And who were you employed by?

A The Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q What is the extent of your formal education?

A Went to Catholic school pretty much all of my elementary years. I was born and raised a Catholic. Went to Chicago Vocational High School; went to Job Corps; went to community college, college prep in Chicago. I had a scholarship for University of Louisiana which I never took. And that’s pretty much it.

Q Why didn’t you take the scholarship to Louisiana?

A ‘Cause I was afraid to go there.

Q All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we possibly — I don’t know if the microphone’s on or not, but I’m having a hard time hearing Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Check and see if the microphone’s on.

MR. WEINBERG: If you could get — not that close, but a little bit closer than he was.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Just try to talk into it.

A Okay.

Q So what did you do after finishing your formal

8

education?
A I had various jobs. I worked at the Norfolk and Western Railroad as a clerk. I’ve worked in binderies, a place in Chicago, Fidelity Bindery. And — well, wasn’t too much time after that before I became a Scientologist.

Q What year did you join the Church of Scientology?

A It was 1976.

Q Where at?

A San Francisco.

Q And when did you become a Sea Org member?

A I became a Sea Org member that same year. I believe I transferred to Los Angeles from San Francisco, maybe in November, September or — maybe September; sometime between September or October, November, I went to  the Sea Org.

Q Okay. And can you tell us — give us a capsule of your experience in the Church of Scientology after becoming a Sea Org member? What did you do?

A Well, I joined the Sea Org in ’76. And then at that time, when you joined the Sea Org, there was a program that was called the EPF that everyone who was becoming a Sea Org member did. EPF stood for estate’s project force.  This was located in a little house in — in Los Angeles. I guess it was an old Charlie Chaplin estate. It was a place where you had to do training to become a Sea Org member.

9

The training for the most part culminated to making you a missionaire. A missionaire in the Sea Org is a person that has studied certain levels up to at least what’s called staff status 2, which basically means you’re familiar with the basics of the organization, how it operates, how it’s staffed, how it’s organized, the statistics of the area and the rules and regulations. It trains — the mission school training involved something that I guess I never even thought before. It was very military, where you — you wear a uniform and you — you’re trained on orders to go to a Scientology organization and improve the statistics by either changing personnel or increasing production one way or the other.

Q And how long did you maintain that status?

A During the entire time, from — from that point, which would have been in 1977, to the time that I left in 1992.

Q And what organization — when you became a Sea Org member and became staff, what organization was paying you?

A Organization called the Advanced Organization Los Angeles.

Q And did you ever change from that to another?

A Yes, I did. I never made it through the EPF before I was put on the RPF. I was on the RPF for — RPF being the rehabilitation project force. I was on the RPF for 18 months. And I got out of the RPF and went to an organization called the PAC Co-Auditor Organization, P-A-C, Pacific Area Command, Co-Auditor Organization. This was a Scientology organization that basically supervised and trained staff members to audit themselves on Scientology’s bridge.

Q How long did you stay there?

A I probably stayed there for probably a little under a year. And I transferred from Los Angeles to here in Clearwater, Florida in 1979, and I worked in — at the Ft. Harrison —

Q What did you do —

A — and various other buildings.

I came there — I came to Florida here to be a supervisor; to actually train and supervise the training of auditors, which are members that partake in the — the technical aspect of delivery of Scientology services.

Q You were an auditor?

A Yes, I was.

Q And when did you —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. You came to Clearwater when, sir?

THE WITNESS: 1979.

THE COURT: To train supervisors.

THE WITNESS: To — to become a supervisor. I

11
came here actually as a supervisor, to train auditors.

At the time, NED for OTs had recently come out. This was a big advance.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q NED, N-E-D?

A Yes.

Q What does that mean?

A New era dynamics for operating thetans.

Q This had just come out?

A Yes. This was new technology that had came out. And it was urgent at that time in Scientology to be able to train auditors in this new rundown. This rundown is delivered only by certain organizations, Flag being one of them. There’s others in other countries. And this was a very specialized type of auditing. So I was to train the bulk of the auditors on this process so that they could then go back to their organizations and deliver this new rundown.

Q How did you did learn how to do it — how did you learn about it before you were able to train other auditors?

A Well, there were other auditor levels that one had to train on before being able to train on this NED for OT levels. I guess there was a requirement that a person had to at least do Scientology academy levels, which are levels 0 to 4, specific auditing techniques. And once you were in — trained and interned on that, you became eligible to also learn to do this new NED for OTs business. You also had to be of the same case level in order  to do that. So for a person to be trained as a NED for OTs auditor, they would have had to go through Scientology’s bridge all the way up to and through OT 3 expanded.

Q How far up the bridge had you gotten before you came to Clearwater?

A I had done — or I was mid what was called old OT 6.

Q Okay.

A And at the time, the levels only went to OT 7. So I was on the old OT 6. Now, those OT levels changed with he advent of NED for OTs to become something totally different. OT 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are something totally different than what the services that were earlier offered under those same names.

Q How long did you stay in Clearwater, from 1979, to supervise and train auditors?

A I was here from the summer of ’79 till the fall of 1982.

Q And did your scope of the work that you were doing at the Ft. Harrison and other Scientology buildings here in Clearwater from ’79 to ’82 change?

A Yes, it did. It changed several times. I went

13

from supervising auditors, to train them to get up to the level of NED 4 OTs, to being —

THE COURT: I don’t know what you’re saying. NED fro-teez (phonetic.)

THE WITNESS: New era dynamic for operating thetans. This is —

MR. DANDAR: NED is N-E-D.

THE COURT: For OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r. Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

A Anyway, I forgot what I was —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was NED for OTs —

A Yes.

Q — written by Mr. Hubbard?

A At the time that I studied them, I thought that it was that. I — subsequently I guess it was determined in the courtroom that the materials were actually written by David Mayo.

Q Okay. But anyway, you were — who were you working for when you were sent to Clearwater from ’79 to ’82?

A Well, when I first arrived in 1979, I worked for an organization that wasn’t at the Ft. Harrison but at the Clearwater Bank Building. It was called the International

14

Training Org, ITO for short. At the time the commanding officer for the international training organization was Bill Franks.

Q Okay. So you worked under him?

A Under his command as the commanding officer. I had — there were other people between myself and —

Q Okay.

A — Mr. Franks for sure.

Q Did you run into — in Clearwater, did you train Alain Kartuzinski?

A Yes. Alain Kartuzinski was a student that had come from Paris to train on NED for OTs. I do believe the original idea for him was to go to one of the European organizations such as Advanced Organization for Europe or — 15 yeah. I think he was supposed to go to AOSH EU —

Q Okay.

A — it’s called, which is located in Copenhagen, Denmark. Or he would go to the one located in Saint Hill, East Grinstead, Sussex.

Q Try to keep closer to the microphone.

A I’m sorry.

Q And what else did you do in Clearwater from ’79 to ’82, in addition to training auditors on this new rundown?

A Well, I became what’s known as the intern supervisor, which is the supervisor that takes the students

15

that have finished their courses and then puts them through a period of time where they have to demonstrate their skills by auditing other people. And they continue to do this until they can do it perfectly and flawlessly. The  intern supervisor is there to guide and direct and correct students on the materials that they may not have understood as deeply and as — as would later be required for them to apply. So I was the supervisor for a long time. And then there is another position — and all of these things are — kind of segue into one another — of what’s called a cramming officer. Now, a cramming officer will take a person who maybe is making errors in auditing and then correct them on their procedures or go over the exact bulletin or policy or whatever it may be that was not followed exactly, and to make the person understand and agree with that policy, and then apply it as written.

So I did that for a long time. And then I became the chief cramming officer at the Flag Service Organization. I did this correction type of activities for auditors from level 0 to level 12, which would be the highest level in what are called the Ls in Scientology. And I would do correction on all the auditors as well as the case supervisors.

Q Now, were you — did you have — in order to be a supervisor or cramming officer for auditors and supervisors,

16

if I’m saying this right, did you have more training than they had?

A Not necessarily. I certainly did not have more training than the majority of the case supervisors that I would do correction on. And I did not train on the Ls, which would be 10, 11 and 12, which are the highest levels of — of Scientology. But I was like a class 9 auditor.

Q At that time.

A Yes.

Q Did you ever get higher than that?

A Yes. I became a — I was interned as an auditor, certified as a class 9 auditor; certified as a corrections — a cramming officer, correction officer; certified as a case supervisor for a class 9 as well.

Q Okay. And how high on the bridge did you go?

A When I left, I had completed what’s known in Scientology as OT 7.

Q Okay. All right. So have we covered your years from ’79 to ’82 in Clearwater —

A Yes.

Q — as what you did?

A Yes.

Q Okay. What did you do after ’82?

A I was transferred — well, in 1982, in the fall of 1982, I was transferred to work at the Scientology

17

International headquarters. Of course I didn’t know it was that at the time. But I was transferred to work at Golden Era Productions, which is the movie production studio that Scientology has in the desert at Gilman Hot  Springs, California. I was transferred to work in the RTC as a corrections specialist.

Q And how long did you do that?

A I probably did that from ’82 — for about a year and a half. I did that job for about a year and a half. Maybe to 1985 and — or maybe even ’84. Because after that, I was promoted to a higher position; became the deputy inspector general for the Religious Technology Center.

Q And who appointed you to that position?

A Vicki Aznaran appointed me to that position. It was approved by those that — you know, the seniors above that area, which was David Miscavige.

Q Did Mr. Hubbard ever have any input in any of the selections — selecting you for any position?

A In — in as much as when I left here in Florida, there was a — a mission out to find the best supervisor, best cramming officer in Scientology, and to bring that person to international management, and correct international management on its application of Scientology policies. A search was done in the organizations internationally, and at the end of that — the weeding-out

18

process, I guess my name came up as the person to fill that job. So he was informed that I had that job, and he welcomed me to that job when I arrived in California.

Q How did he — Mr. Hubbard welcome you to that job?

A He sent me a dispatch, a letter —

Q Okay.

A — welcoming me.

Q And what is the duties of the deputy inspector general of RTC?

A Well, this may take a while. But as the deputy inspector general — there’s only one position higher than that in the Scientology ecclesiastical org board, which would have been inspector general. RTC licensed other Scientology corporations to use the trademarks, a licensing agreement. And RTC was responsible, I believe — maybe still is responsible — for ensuring the purity of application and delivery of Scientology technology, auditing technology as well as administrative policies.

And so because we licensed different corporations such as the Church of Scientology International — if you had organizing chart you would have RTC, which would be here; then you would have the mother church, which is the Church of Scientology International, which is here. The

19

mother church in turn then license other organizations, such as the Flag Service Organization, AOSH EU, AOSH UK, and the Los Angeles organization missions. Whatever entities were using the trademarks and copyrighted works of L. Ron Hubbard, they were given a licensing agreement.

So in that regard, ultimately — there’s a very strict policy in Scientology called Keeping Scientology Working, where it’s imperative that everything is done exactly according to the policies and technical bulletins written. I was ultimately responsible to ensure that not only the Church of Scientology International was making good on its licensing agreements, but it was also enforcing it down through other organizations to make sure that they were  adhering to their licensing agreement to apply Scientology technology 100 percent standard. You know, this is a — a term that they use. So I had that responsibility —

[Other court business transpires.]
[…]

THE COURT: — okay?

Okay. Go ahead and continue.

A I hadn’t quite finished answering the last question.

71
BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you remember what it was?

A Yes. The last question was what were my responsibilities as deputy inspector general —

Q Yes?

A — at RTC.

And I mentioned we used to do the technology side of Scientology.

Then there was a separate area, areas that I also had responsibility for. And those were the legal intelligence and PR activities of OSA, which is a separate network in Scientology. And I had the responsibility of also registering, getting trademarks registered in the different countries of the world where Scientology was — had activity.

Q Okay. So what did you have to do with legal and intelligence departments of OSA?

A In the — in the beginning, not very much, because it was nothing that I really knew anything about. This was something that I learned as part of this — this job activity. So I would — I was privy to the activities of those areas as I learned the strategies for those areas.

Q Would you receive reports from OSA? A Yes. I would receive a report. Every executive — well, not every — I shouldn’t say every

2
executive, but the top executives in Scientology were kept abreast of the different operations in intelligence, legal and PR, by — at the end of the night — just before the end of the night, I would receive an envelope that said “Eyes only.” And inside the envelope there would be typewritten pages, maybe seven or eight typewritten pages, that gave a summary of the different operations that legal, PR and intelligence were involved in. And after reading that information, it was shred — something that had to be shredded instantly.

Q It wasn’t stored somewhere?

A No.

Q When you say legal operations, what are you talking about?

A Legal cases.

THE COURT: Did you get this every day, you say?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Every day we get —

THE COURT: How — in those days — I don’t know. There was no e-mail. How did you get it?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, this isn’t information that — in an envelope, typed on, obviously, a —

THE COURT: I mean, if you’re in Los Angeles, and Flag down here in Clearwater wants to send you

73

something at the end of the day, how did they get it from Clearwater to you?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, no one from Clearwater would have sent me anything, because there’s a chain of command. There are channels. In other words, executives in Scientology aren’t accessible to staff members of lower organizations or things like this. You have to go through a chain of command in order to have correspondence with an executive, or be asking for a specific privilege from that executive, after having gone through the  channels.

THE COURT: Okay. But somebody — if — you got seven or eight pages from somebody —

THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. This was brought — brought around from a person in the intelligence area, and they would simply come in, drop the envelope on the desk and leave.

THE COURT: Okay. Whoever it is that would bring that envelope to you, from wherever it is, how was it that they got the information, for example, from Flag on the day’s activities? This is really a very simple question. This is: Was it faxed? Was it gotten there by horseback? I mean, how did they get it from Flag in

74

Clearwater up the line to whoever it is that dropped it off on your desk? Just physically.

THE WITNESS: Well, there could have been several ways that the information could have been passed along. It could have been passed along from telephonic communications; it could have been passed along via the computer.  At that time, when — the time that I’m speaking about there was no, quote/unquote, real Internet, but Scientology had its own computer messaging systems where we could send messages to each other from Europe or from Florida to Los Angeles. So that was a way that information would come in as well.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And was OSA part of RTC?

A No. Not — not during the time that I was there, OSA was not part of the RTC. During my time period in OSA, OSA was in a very formative stage of being formed, being — departments figured out, purposes, duties, that kind of thing.

Q Was there any carryover from The Guardian’s office to OSA?

A Yes, there was. The staff — there were a

75

carryover of some of the staff and some of the — and the policies.

Q Now, let’s just go back — you said one of the things you would get daily is a report on legal operations. Is that just in the United States?

A Yes. Well, predominantly. But I don’t think we had any cases abroad of any real significance outside of the United States during my time period.

Q And when you were a deputy inspector general, who was your senior?

A The inspector general, which is Vicki Aznaran.

Q And who was her senior?

A David Miscavige.

Q And who was his senior?

A L. Ron Hubbard. Pat Broeker.

Q And when Mr. Hubbard died, who was Mr. Miscavige’s senior?

A He had none.

Q And when you were deputy inspector general, you were a member of the Sea Org, correct?

A Correct.

Q Who was the head of the Sea Org?

A The captain of the Sea Org was David Miscavige.

Q Did he have any equal to his rank?

A I’m sure he probably did.

76

Q He had other captains?

A Yes.

Q And would they have equal power as David Miscavige?

A No.

Q Why not?

A Well, again, I’ll refer to the organizational chart, the command charts, which is an exhibit in this case.

You have a — a kind of pyramid system of organizations as far as seniority, powers — broad powers and responsibility. And at the top of the chain is RTC, Religious Technology Center. Below that is CSI, Church of Scientology International, which is the mother church. And then from there you have like a — what’s called a FOLO, Flag Office Liaison Office, which is supposed to be a management center in the different sectors and countries where Scientology has activity.

An example of — of that would be here in Clearwater. You have the Ft. Harrison as one — the Ft. Harrison Building, or the Flag, which is one organization. And separate from Flag you have another organization called the FLB, the Flag Land Base organization, which, during my period of time, concerned itself with the buildings, the maintenance of the buildings, and then also did the missions, where they would pull Sea Org members to send to

77

other areas, train them on specific orders to go out and accomplish different things in the organizations.

Q While you were in Scientology, could a Sea Org mission go in and take over a completely independent org like the Boston org?

A Well, that — that was the entire purpose of a mission, to go in an area —

Well, that’s not entirely true. There’s different types of mission. You could have a mission that would simply go in there and observe —

THE COURT: His question was, could the Sea Org go in and take over?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And what gave it the power to do that?

A The Sea Org is the organization that is responsible ultimately for the success of Scientology. The persons that are in the Sea Org have dedicated themselves to Scientology for one billion years, and their dedication is to ensure that Scientology carries on and prevails in the society we live in.

Q And you signed a billion-year contract as well, correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, the intelligence operations —

78

Well, let’s go back to legal operations. Would you receive a report daily of what was going on in each and every case that the Church of Scientology was involved in?

A Pretty much, yes. If there was activity, if there was courtroom activity that day, or a motion that was being put together or — or whatever, I’d receive the report about that.

Q So if there was a lawsuit that the Boston org —

I’m sorry. I’m picking on Boston — the Boston org was a party to and had a lawyer representing them in court, would you receive a daily report on the activity of that lawsuit?

A Yes. If there was daily activity on that lawsuit, I would certainly receive information about it.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we just date from when it started to when it ended, that he was getting this kind of info?

THE COURT: I think he was saying during the whole time that he was deputy inspector general.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. And I think he hadn’t said when that ended.

THE COURT: Okay. What was the period of time that you were deputy inspector general?

THE WITNESS: I would say from early 1985 until January, 19, 1987. ’84. I’d say ’84. Early ’84.

THE COURT: ’85 — early ’84 to January of ’87.

79

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, when you were deputy inspector general of RTC, was Mr. Miscavige the chairman of the board?

A No. Mr. Miscavige was the chairman of the board of Author Services.

Q Okay. Do you know who the chairman of the board of RTC was at the time you were deputy inspector general?

A I later came to find out the chairman of the board of RTC — it changed a couple of times, to my knowledge, but I think the person who was — the last person who I knew was actually chairman of the board was David Miscavige.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: Well, I thought — let me stop you just for a minute here. I thought you indicated that the chain of command was the deputy inspector general, who was you, reported to the inspector general, who was Vicki  Aznaran, who reported to David Miscavige. In what capacity?

THE WITNESS: David Miscavige was the chairman of the board of Author Services. Author Services was a literary —

THE COURT: Believe me, I know about Author Services.

80

THE WITNESS: Okay. So —

THE COURT: So that — all I’m trying to find out is the capacity in which David Miscavige was, that Vicki Aznaran reported to, was as chairman of the board of ASI?

THE WITNESS: No. He was really captain of the Sea Org.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How could Vicki Aznaran and RTC, a religious organization, have a senior who’s a chairman of the board of a for-profit organization?

A Well, that’s exactly the point. Being-senior part and — and giving orders and things from Miscavige to Aznaran wasn’t anything that the general Scientology public would know about. This was kind of kept secret, in the same way that Scientology staff members or Scientology public members don’t realize that Gilman Hot Springs is the location of international management of Scientology; in that same regard they would not know that Miscavige ultimately would be the seniors of a person such as myself, Vicki Aznaran and that kind of thing.

Or we couldn’t have that — it couldn’t be clear that — that that was the case because that presented problems with the tax — we’re trying to get tax exempt status — to have a for-profit corporation running a

81

nonprofit corporation.

But Miscavige was the leader. Was and is the leader. I mean, at the even when L. Ron Hubbard was alive, he would do his communications through Miscavige, that would come to us.

Q Okay. And so was — was Miscavige, Vicki Aznaran senior — and I think you already answered — COB of ASI as captain of the Sea Org?

A As captain of the Sea Org.

Q Now, the intelligence reports that you would get daily, what kind of intelligence reports would you get?

A Ones that I remember specifically at this time had to do with different activities in the Wollersheim case, whether it be Wollersheim 3, 4 or whatever; you know, what was happening with the lawyers, what was overheard, what was planned, what kind of information was coming up during what’s called a ODC and CDC. ODC being overt data collection. They would collect information about the attorney, his — you know, his record. They would do an ODC. And then a CDC. And a CDC mainly entailed getting information that is not readily available or is public knowledge, such as personal phone records; a credit report, bank reports, an individual’s bank reports, this kind of thing.

Q How did OSA get an opposing counsel’s bank

82

reports?

A Hiring a private investigator.

Q And how did the private investigator get an attorney’s private bank records?

A This is something that they were hired to do. It was — it was very much shunned that we know specifically how that happened in case it ever went to court or the person was ever caught. So it was just, “Hey, we need this. We need a credit report on this person. We need his phone records. We need to know who he’s talking about, who he’s talking with,” and to do an analysis to find this person’s weakness. What is the Achilles’ Heel? What is going to get this person to stop giving grief to Scientology even if — in a professional capacity as an attorney. And then, you know, pursue those things that will intimidate, harass or discourage.

Q And why — what gave you, as a member of the Church of Scientology, the authority to do that, under the — under the rules and regulations or the policies of the Church of Scientology?

A I’ve seen many exhibits turned into this courtroom concerning policies on intelligence and attitude. And I guess the overriding factor is this: Scientology comes first. Scientology comes before the individual, comes before the individual’s family, comes before our current

83

justice system or whatever laws. Scientology — I mean, it’s even a high crime to speak at — in Scientology’s laws, it’s a high crime to come before a court and give testimony without first Scientology being — knowing completely what your testimony would be, even if it had nothing to do with Scientology.

So they have different rules and a different standard to operate on. I mean, you know, is it legal? Is it right? Those are different matters. But that’s —

Q Well —

A — the —

Q — when you were in this position, reading these intelligence reports, do you know that if you got a credit report of anyone that had not given you written permission to get their credit report, that that was a federal crime?

A You know, at the time I did not. I personally did not. Because again, this is an area where I was kind of cutting my teeth on, so I was being walked through it and shown how things worked.

Q Who was walking you through it?

A Several people. It started out with David Miscavige kind of bringing me in the loop on this kind of thing and showing me. And the person who would normally be involved in these kind of operations would be Marty Rathbun, so I spent time with him, learning about these things.

84

And — and Vicki Aznaran, who had previously had a lot of association in the Guardian’s office, which later became OSA. She was very familiar with the pattern and things that they do. And her husband, Rick Aznaran, who was my junior. He was a person that I used for the physical security of — to ensure the physical security of the Golden Era base of Gilman Hot Springs, which eventually spread to other organizations. But that’s another person who had experience.

Q Did you ever work with Mr. Moxon?

A No.

Q Were you gone before Mr. Moxon came on board?

A I met Mr. — no, I was not. I met Mr. Moxon when — again, I was there in OSA’s formative stages when I actually had the responsibility to put a person in command of it, fill personnel in the legal department, the PR department, the intelligence department, establish it as a organization which then would repeat itself in the other minor organizations within Scientology.

Q So you established the main OSA departments?

A Correct. The main OSA org board. We were there to work on what its organizing board should be, what personnel it should have, what policies it needs to operated on, who it needed to establish lines of communication with.

Q Was OSA still Department 20 like the Guardian’s

85

office was?

A Yes.

Q Did it have the same org board as the Guardian’s office?

A You know, I couldn’t — in some respects they did, but I don’t think totally they did, because — and this is kind of how I learned it as we went along. The — the OSA wanted to make sure that they didn’t make the same mistakes as the past Guardian’s Office did. One of the main mistakes that the Guardian’s office made was putting in writing and detailing some of the operations that they did to some of the people that opposed them. An example that is, oh, Paulette Cooper, with, you know, having a person inside with her to affect her in certain ways, you know, and then the next thing you know —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competence. Because he’s talking about something that he wasn’t part of, that supposedly happened in the early ’70s and it can only be based on hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, what does it have to do with this hearing?

MR. DANDAR: It has to do with our defense of extortion against Mr. Minton and the fair game of Mr. Minton causing him to come to this court and lie.

86

THE COURT: Okay. And what — who is this woman?

MR. DANDAR: Paulette Cooper.

THE COURT: And how did you find out about Paulette Cooper, since Mr. Weinberg objected?

THE WITNESS: I was briefed about it, and I remember her specifically.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, hold on. That’s my objection. This is just pure unmitigated hearsay.

MR. DANDAR: Not when it comes from a corporate client.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, wait a minute. He was only in this position for — whatever he said — ’85 to early ’87. And if I understand this, he’s now going to recount some supposed incident that happened in the early ’70s before he was even part of —

THE COURT: Within — within the organization to which he was the higher echelon person.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, RTC didn’t even exist back in the early ’70s when this supposedly occurred.

MR. DANDAR: But Department 20 did.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I —

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: You can, but your objection’s going

87

to be overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, I’m just making a record.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How did you find out about Paulette Cooper?

A In 1977, when the FBI raided Scientology headquarters in Los Angeles, they broke into a department called B1, and they removed a lot of files.

Q Scientology department?

A A Scientology department. It was their intelligence branch.One of the problems on the files which led certain people to go to jail — I guess 11 people went to jail over this — was the fact that every operation, including the operation like the LSD in her toothpaste — put LSD in her  toothpaste to make it seem like she’s insane, or to lift her fingerprints off a glass and put it on a bomb threat, which she was eventually being prosecuted over — I mean, these things were written in detail of exactly how to do it. And it said on the top who it went to, who approved the program, who executed the program. In other words, details which later came back to bite them severely.

So in putting this new OSA, this new branch there, that had similar functions, but were supposed to operate a

88

little differently. These reports came. Again, it said, “Eyes only.” There was no routing as to who it was going to. There was no author. There were just paragraphs which were just summations of different operations that — that Scientology were enacted to discourage people who were in lawsuits against it or critical of it.

Q And then those — what you saw was then destroyed in some way?

A We were — we had to shred it immediately. Part of the new policy — and Vicki Aznaran is one of the people that told me this — everybody had to had a shred. There were only certain designated people these reports were going to. And we had to verify we shredded the reports. But the reports themselves only contained brief statements of the activities, not who were doing the activities or any details like that.

Q Would those activities include picketing, critics?

A No. These — these were different.

I — I’ll give you an example of an activity.There was an organization called CAN, called Awareness Network, that Scientology had apparently been fighting for years. I had no knowledge of it myself, but I would receive a report that there was a deep cover in CAN, listening in on the legal process CAN was involved in, lawsuits and spats with Scientology.

89

This person would get privileged information —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object —

A — report it to —

MR. WEINBERG: I —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. WEINBERG: I believe that CAN didn’t exist in 1985 through 1987. What’s Mr. Prince talking about?

MR. DANDAR: Well, that’s good cross examination question.

MR. WEINBERG: Well — but then I object to whatever it is: Hearsay, competence. And he’s up here talking about some organization that, if I’m correct — and I think I am correct — didn’t even exist when he was there. How can he be talking about an intelligence operation with regard to it as if —

THE WITNESS: If you’ll let me finish —

THE COURT: Well, just a minute. NO, you don’t get to talk —

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: — until I make a ruling. And we surely do not need help from you. At least, I don’t, in making my ruling.

Now, when did this occur, Mr. Prince?

90

THE WITNESS: The specific example that I’m telling you —

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: — are things that I’ve read with my own eyes concerning a group — it was either CAN or something like CAN — that Scientology wanted to get rid of.So a person was placed in there, deep cover —

THE COURT: You are so far ahead of me. Don’t  incur my ire, because it’s the afternoon and it’s getting close to 4:00, and that’s bad for you and everybody else.

When did this operation take place, whatever it is you’re talking about? When did it occur?

THE WITNESS: It was either 1984, 1985, 1986.

It would have been somewhere —

I’m giving an example of something that I read within those three years.

THE COURT: Okay. And that’s when it occurred?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you were in the organization?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you read it as part of the documents of the organization.

THE WITNESS: No. As part of the envelope that

91

would come by, like I explained earlier.

THE COURT: Oh, and you read it on — in what was reported to you.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. And I’ll cross examine him if it has to do with CAN.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So they put an undercover person into this organization?

A Correct.

Q And what was this person doing?

A The person was there as a volunteer to assist the executives of the organization, you know, carry out whatever they were doing. And this organization was an organization similar in some ways to the Leo J. Ryan Foundation, in that anyone from anyplace could call, “I think my kid is in a cult. My daughter’s in a cult. Can you give me information about it?” It was an organization similar to that.

And this person was put in there to divine and be able to turn over to Scientology’s legal team information that would give them an advantage in court.

Q Okay. Now, besides the reporting of intelligence and legal operations, did you have anything to do with the hiring of law firms?

92

A Yes. I hired — I can’t tell you how many different law firms abroad, simply for the purpose of filing trademarks. But in the United States, a law — well, an attorney that I hired by the name of Joseph Yanni for RTC —

THE COURT: I know this must be relevant, and I’m sure you can tell me, but what — what is who the law firms were or who was hired —

MR. DANDAR: No. I don’t care who the law firms were.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I just want to know if that was part of his duties.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. And to the extent that he’s going to ask Mr. Prince about his discussions with these law firms, that would be privileged.

THE COURT: As to those — those —

MR. WEINBERG: In particular —

THE COURT: — matters — that’s right. During the time that he was in the organization.

MR. WEINBERG: And I assume Mr. Dandar has not talked to Mr. Prince about if Mr. Prince talked to lawyers for the Church of Scientology about —

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear it right now.

93

I mean, this is a question-and-answer period. You have an objection, make it.

MR. WEINBERG: That was my objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In addition to just hiring the law firms, would you also direct the litigation?

A Correct.

Q All right. And we’re not going to go into details about how you directed the litigation.

A Or even participated in the direction of it. You know, maybe not me, “Oh, this is my idea. Therefore we’re doing this,” but as a group. It was a group of people. It was, you know — and if there was ever a single decision to be made, it was certainly made by the highest person. But we operated as a group.

Q Who was in the group?

A It was Mr. David Miscavige, myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Marty Rathbun, Lyman Spurlock, Mark —

THE COURT: It really — I don’t get it yet.

Why I do care how they hire a law firm?

MR. DANDAR: No. This is how they direct the litigation, Judge.

THE COURT: Oh, all right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And was the litigation —

94

THE COURT: Well, I hope they do. They hire the law firm, they’re supposed to be in charge of the litigation, right?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you leave it up to the lawyers to decide how to run the litigation?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Now we are getting into work product as to how it is that the church dealt with their lawyers back in the ’80s.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did the litigation involve RTC, that this group would meet and discuss, or did it involve any organization of Scientology?

A In one instance it did involve RTC. In other instances it involved CSE, such as the Wollersheim case. So you know, it would — depending on the case —

Q Okay. What I’m asking you is it didn’t — it didn’t concern crossing over corporate lines and involving litigation involving different corporations.

A The — the persons that I named that concerned themselves with litigation concerned themselves with all Scientology litigation, despite what corporation or whatever. These were the people that dealt with litigation

95

for Scientology.

Q And there — was there a head of that group?

A Yes.

Q Who?

A David Miscavige.

THE COURT: Are you trying to tell me that David Miscavige is running this lawsuit? Is that what you’re trying to tell me?

MR. DANDAR: Running everything.

THE COURT: Well, I mean in particular are you trying to tell me he’s running this lawsuit?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, why would I care? I mean, why do I care who’s running the lawsuit?

MR. DANDAR: All right. All right.

THE COURT: I mean, this is — this is a motion to determine whether your case should be dismissed.

MR. DANDAR: It’s leading up to this question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You mentioned the Wollersheim case. Can you tell us what activities you personally know about in the Wollersheim case that have anything to do with the destruction of evidence?

A Yes, there is. And I — I’ve done an affidavit about that, and I’m sure it’s filed in this case.

96

But there came a point in time where the judge —

as part of a discovery motion, it was ordered that Lawrence Wollersheim’s PC folders get turned over. I remember during one of these requests — and it looked like it was pretty serious that the judge was going to make them turn over these PC folders — that we had to organize — myself, Vicki Aznaran and other people had to go through the files and redact them by taking out incriminating information, what was considered to be incriminating information against Scientology or anything that could be misunderstood and could then become incriminating. We went through and we redacted files. And then when defense complained and — about the files being redacted and the judge ordered the files just simply turned over straight out, those files were destroyed. They were pulped.

Q What do you mean by pulped?

A They were taken to a paper factory. They were loaded into a — they were shredded, loaded into a solution and turned into a fiber.

THE COURT: Who ordered them destroyed?

THE WITNESS: At the time that I destroyed those documents, the order came to me from Vicki Aznaran, who received it from David Miscavige.

97

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were there — was this a — destruction of evidence — was it pursuant to policy established in the Church of Scientology?

A Well, the old overriding policy in Scientology is to protect Scientology; to make it — you know, protect it in any way and to cultivate it and — of course, something that would harm it —

THE COURT: Where is that written? I mean, everything here in policy is in a document written down somewhere. Where is it?

THE WITNESS: There’s a policy letter called Keeping Scientology Working.

THE COURT: Okay. And that’s in evidence and I have that, so that’s — you’re suggesting that is part of the Keeping Scientology Working —

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: — policy.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Any other policy besides that one?

A Of protecting Scientology, there’s Safeguarding Technology. I believe that’s a HCO policy letter and a bulletin. There’s policies concerning — Well, I — that’s what readily comes to mind. That’s what I mentioned.

98

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: The relevance of this testimony is because you’re going to ask me to believe that Mr. Miscavige directed that the PC folders of Lisa McPherson be destroyed.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Or at least in part be pulped.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are you familiar with —

THE COURT: Pulped. Destroyed in some fashion.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just so the record is clear, we turned over the PC folders.

THE COURT: Well, I understand. But he is testifying, and so did they in the Wollersheim case, that they turned over what they wanted to turn over after all the damaging stuff was taken out and pulped. I’m not saying that’s true; I’m saying that’s the testimony. Maybe it is true. I’m not saying it’s not either.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, in this particular case, Mr. Dandar has used the PC folders he believes affirmatively to indicate it supports his case. I

99

mean, we turned over volumes of PC folders of Lisa McPherson.

THE COURT: I can guarantee you did. If this testimony has any relevance at all, the only relevance it could possibly have is that this witness as an expert is going to tell us that Lisa McPherson’s PC folders are not intact. Is that right?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That was my next question.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q I had you review Lisa McPherson’s PC folders, correct?

A Correct.

Q And you did that with Stacy Brooks, right?

A Correct. In part, yes.

Q And did you — did you find her 1995 —

Well, actually, you looked at — you did a general review of ’95, ’94 and ’93, correct?

A I believe that’s correct. I mean, I don’t remember. But I certainly did an affidavit that laid out exactly what years I covered and what —

THE COURT: Why don’t you let the man have his affidavit while he’s testifying?

100

BY MR. DANDAR: Q Let me show you the 12-page affidavit dated in this case — April 4th, 2000 —

A Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Next exhibit number.

THE COURT: I think this may be in evidence, but maybe not.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think so.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: 108.

MR. WEINBERG: Affidavit — it’s your new 108.

Is that what it is?

MR. DANDAR: Yeah. I — what did I do —

Oh, Judge, let me give you the clerk’s copy. Well, I better give you your copy and I’ll give the witness the clerk’s copy. Then I’ll be left without a copy. Here. Take this one.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Oh, no. This isn’t — I’ve never  seen this before.

MR. WEINBERG: If I’m not mistaken, this is under seal.

THE COURT: Well, really, there isn’t much under seal —

101

Well, this is part of the PC folders.

MR. WEINBERG: I think because of the PC folders.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q First of all, Mr. Prince, you said you were a class 9 auditor in Scientology?

A Correct.

Q You audit people who are members of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, I have.

Q Both staff and public?

A Correct.

Q Of course, you’re not going to tell us what you did in the auditing. I’m not asking that. But who are some of the more famous people you audited?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to that. He shouldn’t — I object to him talking about auditing famous — quote, famous people. I mean, the St. Pete Times is here. Has nothing to do with the proceeding. If Mr. Prince has audited  some famous person, what’s that got to do with this proceeding?

THE COURT: Well, you know, the truth of this matter is, I remember seeing something in this lawsuit that was filed that said he audited David Miscavige.

102

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: I think that would have some bearing, that Mr. Miscavige would trust — or Mr. Miscavige would trust this man to audit the head of the church.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that’s where Mr. Dandar was going.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I think what Mr. Dandar was trying to do was get some famous person’s name, who has been audited, much like a priest gave somebody confession, and just put it out there so that we can read about it tomorrow. And I don’t think that’s appropriate and I don’t think it’s relevant.

THE COURT: Well, you know what I think? That at issue in this particular case is whether Mr. Prince is qualified as an expert, his credentials and everything about it. If he was — I don’t know who picks an auditor, whether he decides who he wants to audit or whether someone hired him — and there weren’t too many when he was there — made that choice. And if they chose him to do a famous person, I would think that showed they had confidence —

MR. WEINBERG: But isn’t that the person’s — I

103

mean, talking about what Mr. Dandar talks about — privacy right, as to — as to who it was that — and when it was that he was talking to a minister of the Church of Scientology —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear anybody say when and I didn’t hear anybody say what they said. What I heard him ask was, who did he audit? I know of no privilege at all —

I mean, are these people not proud to be members of the Church of Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: I think they are, but I think they would prefer that there not be testimony from Mr. Prince, who they don’t have a high regard for, you know, at this point, given —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — given what Mr. Prince has done over the last — whenever it is — four or five or six years —

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s my objection.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

A The fact of the matter is — is as far as Scientology celebrities are concerned, I’ve never audited one. I’ve been a case supervisor for them. I’ve supervised their folders. I’ve reviewed and ordered corrections on

104

their files. But I’ve never audited any Scientology celebrity.

THE COURT: See? Wasn’t that a big bunch of hooey over nothing?

MR. WEINBERG: I guess my question is, why did he ask the question?

THE COURT: I have no idea. But I had to listen a lot longer to him and your objection than I had to listen to him saying no one.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s true.

THE COURT: Is this Number 108, by the way? I can’t read your writing.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: 105? 108. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Who are one of the celebrities you case supervised, Mr. Prince?

THE COURT: I must need a break because I can tell I’m getting cranky. So we’ll be in recess for 15 minutes. We’ll be in recess.

(A recess was taken at 3:30 p.m.)

(The proceedings reconvened at 3:46 p.m.)

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Dandar, continue.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So as a case supervisor, can you give us a couple

105

names of the famous celebrities you case supervised?

A I’ve done case supervision, training exercises, training with John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Karen Black. I don’t know. I mean, there isn’t a one of them that I haven’t, because I specifically ran a project to ensure that the auditing of the celebrities were going well.

Q When was this?

A This was again during the same time period I mentioned before, from I guess 1983 through ’87.

Q Did you audited (sic) Mr. Miscavige?

A Yes. I was his personal auditor for a while.

Q How long?

A Maybe a year, year and a half. Maybe a couple of years.

Q What couple of years was that?

A Oh, I’d say, you know, through ’84, ’85, I audited him; ’86 I audited him. So it’s a longer period of time, actually. Maybe three years.

Q Okay. Did he have other auditors?

A Yes.

Q And he selected you and the other auditors or somehow he gets assigned or rotated or anything like that?

A I was selected to be his auditor by the senior case supervisor international, Ray Mithoff.

Q And were you in RTC at the time?

106

A Yes.

THE COURT: Senior case supervisor, did you say?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am. Yes, your Honor.

Senior case supervisor international.

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay.

THE WITNESS: He would be the highest case supervisor within Scientology.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how was your relationship with Mr. Miscavige until you left in ’87 — I’m sorry — until you left — you changed your post of deputy inspector general?

A Well, shortly after that, there was a big power struggle. And I’ve also certainly written about that and spoke about that. But there was a power struggle in 1987 where I was forcibly removed. However I remained in the Sea Org for five years after that.

Q And of course, Mr. Miscavige was the captain of the Sea Org for those five years, correct?

A Sure.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, at this time I’d like to play a video clip. It’s nine minutes long.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Of Mr. Prince inside Scientology.

107

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a transcript?

MR. DANDAR: There’s no transcript.

This is a copy from a copy from a copy, so it’s not the best quality.

THE COURT: Do the best you can.

MR. DANDAR: Should we dim some lights?

MR. WEINBERG: Can we date this?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, do you know when this speech was given?

A Yes, I do.

Q When?

A It was December 31st, 1986.

Q Okay.

(The videotape, Jesse Prince at New Year’s, 1986, was played as follows:)

THE COURT: 1996?”– discuss expansion, legal victories and acknowledge top contributing members. “Thank you. Thank you very much.

“Next area we wanted to brief you on were the activities and wins from the Religious Technology Center in 1986. As I’m sure you’re all aware, the Religious Technology Center owns the trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology, and their job is really

108

to see that Scientology is applied as LRH intended. Keeping Scientology Working. Along with that, they have started new activities, expansion activities at Scientology, opening up new fronts to Scientology, new countries to Scientology, and seeing that not only is the tech applied correctly, but in some instances seeing that it starts being applied for the first time.

“The speaker we have this evening has been in the Religious Technology Center for four years. In fact, he’s a deputy inspector general. Please welcome Commander Jesse Prince.

“Thank you.

“Thank you.

“Well, good evening. And it’s a pleasure to be with you tonight as we welcome in AD37.

“I want to brief you on some of the highlights of 1986 as we made some breakthroughs in the areas of terminating and handling squirreling and the expansion of Scientology and keeping Scientology working, which I think you’ll all find of interest.

“Squirrel groups are by themselves a rather simple thing to handle. As per HCO spec letter of 27 September, 1965, Internal dissension is what tears these splinter groups apart, formed by people

109

who’s overt acts against Scientology prevent case gain. They rapidly rip one another to pieces. So even if one took no action at all because of their own ability to keep ethics in on themselves, these squirrels always disappear.

“But the real key to it is to handle any squirrels and squirreling so that they are terminatedly handled. To do that takes a no-nonsense and a nonapologetic attitude about who and what we are, and an unstoppable dedication to the preservation of the technology.

“This year, the Religious Technology Center undertook several courses of action designed to shut the door forever on squirreling of any kind, whether it is on the upper-level materials of Scientology, the lower levels, against the copyrights, or even the right to license and control of the trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology.

“First, as you may remember, in 1985 we won an order from a federal court in Los Angeles that prevented certain squirrels and psychs from using, copying or even having the noisy materials.

“Well, in 1986 we actually took this a step further. This year, the noisy materials were officially copyrighted, and we took this

110

breakthrough to the federal court in this lawsuit. We got a green light — of course, against the squirrels’ protest — to add yet another account to the lawsuit for the squirrels’ violations of our copyrights. Now legally this means the squirrels cannot have any unauthorized originals or copies of our upper-level materials at all without being prosecuted under copyright law. And I assure you that any squirrels committing that crime, abusing our materials, will be prosecuted.

“You see, we take a very hard line with those few ill-intentioned small thetans that would attempt to pervert our tech, as for them, to see others become, or better more able, threatens their tiny little beingness. It’s just that simple.

“The reason we take a very hard line in enforcing our trademarks, copyrights and the purity of the tech and its application was very succinctly stated by LRH in Keeping Scientology Working. And I quote, ‘The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.’

“This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting off the tread now, we may never again

111

have another chance.

“The next area to handle was the area of the lower-level materials, which are also protected by copyright. In both the United Kingdom and Europe we found instances of squirrels who thought that they could get away with copying and using various — various of our lower-level materials. In both cases, these squirrels were sued, and in both cases, the squirrel immediately asked for a settlement on our terms completely.

“Now, the final settlement papers contain some strong language that can be used from this point forward to show that the courts around the world will not put up with attempts to steal, use LRH tech in an unauthorized manner. There is however another side to this battle that is actually very fortunate for us. And that is, in HCO PL, 21 November, 1972, issue 1, LRH states, ‘The basic characteristic of extreme madness is perpetual attack. Attacks on anything. Attacks on persons or things which contain no menace. Extreme, not petty crime, is at the root of such an impulse.’

“You see —

“I’ll say it again: ‘Extreme, not petty crime, is at the root of such an impulse.’

112

“And we have a handling for that. Because this obviously works to our advantage. Many squirrels wound up inside a jail in 1986 and many others are being prosecuted. Their crimes range from robbery to drunken driving and resisting arrest to contempt of court to manufacturing drugs. As we move into the new year, it is important to understand why we will always walk away winners and why our enemies will ultimately end up the losers.

“In 1965, LRH explained this. He said, ‘The basic purpose of orgs is to implement Scientology. Scientology is prior to purposes. Explaining them and handling them, it is of course senior to all purposes and indeed the universe. It simply is life. And being life itself, it has a far greater power than any activity, depending upon purpose alone. That is why people are so happy with it and why groups founded on mere purposes are quite afraid of Scientology. For it is unconsciously realized that life itself, alone, can make and unmake purposes and rise superior to all formulas and actions.'”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, in that video you said something about having settlements with people, and they — they — they beg

113

or they want to settle. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q What did you mean by that?

A Well, I can really only relate that to specific examples.

There was a — a person named Robert Scott who put on a Navy uniform — who put on a Navy uniform similar to the Navy uniforms that were used by Scientology at the time, walked into its top organization in AOSEU — AOSHEU. I hate to keep saying that. But he walked in there, and he demanded a copy of NED 4 OTs so he could use that to review folders, and he took this material and he walked out the door. One thing that I did in my department was to arrange for someone in Denmark, who seemingly wanted to pay a high price for these materials — arranged for him to negotiate a price with that person, and then to fly over to Denmark with a copy of the materials to exchange for money, when in fact what had been set up was, the instant he got off the airplane, to be arrested. And years later, I went back to his house and threatened him even more on that particular issue after he was — got out of jail — I think he was in there for a month — and basically just let him know that we intended on taking everything that he had, and his only salvation was to

114

cooperate with us.

Q Did he cooperate with you?

A Eventually he did, yes.

Q And did you — in what manner did he cooperate with you?

A He — I think even in my own hand I may have gotten him to sign something, because I think he had a countersuit. And I’m just doing this from memory, of course. My former colleagues will be able to provide more information. But he had a counterclaim, I believe. I got him to agree to drop the counterclaim. I agreed with him to drop our lawsuit against him if he listed for us everyone that the materials went to, gave us all copies. And he had a castle called Kendegrade Castle in Scotland.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

A But we were in Scotland at the time, and he had this magnificent castle, and I told him he would certainly lose the castle as part of these negotiations, because there was some financial consideration as well in the settlement.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did he lose the castle?

A Yes.

Q Did the Church of Scientology take it?

115

A I think the castle was sold and they may have gotten money from it.

Q Have you ever been involved in any operation where the Church of Scientology went after attorneys?

A Yes. I’ve been in a couple of instances of that.

My first memory of it happening, again, was in the Wollersheim case. This is during the period of time where I’m kind of being broken in. I’m kind of cutting my teeth on these areas. While I was talking with Marty — I was in a room with Marty and Dave and Vicki, and we were just kind of laughing and talking. And Marty mentioned that Charles O’Reilly — they had followed him to some club after a hearing or something. And I guess they were having drinks and a meal. And a private investigator by the name Gene Ingram apparently had hired a thug or somebody to physically beat up the attorney there, Charles O’Reilly.

Gary Bright, who was an attorney, I think, on — on one of the Wollersheim cases — we had a deep cover in the Advance Ability Center, which was located in Santa Barbara. He would come there to have meetings with his client. And our deep cover was also a trusted person by the client, so that person would have privileged information. That person was the senior SCS international’s brother, Bob Mithoff, who was a deep cover. There were actually three deep covers that we had in there, Bob being the most effective and the most trusted. And privileged information would be taken, financial information would be taken, legal strategies would be known and, you know, used  against them.

Q You’re talking about Mr. Wollersheim, is that right?

A In this last instance, yes, that’s right, the Wollersheim.

Q Okay. Any other attorneys or any other cases that you personally have knowledge of while you were inside the  Church of Scientology?

A You know, I don’t remember anything specific, but I do know that part of it would be to always create complaints that could be submitted to the bar against opposing counsel.

Q Do you have personal knowledge about that?

A You know, I’m going to say, as I sit here today, that I don’t remember specifically who the attorney was or —

Q All right.

A I can’t say that.

THE COURT: In your video you kept referring to the term — which is — happens to be new to this hearing — which is squirrel group and squirreling.

What is that?

117

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, squirreling is a term created by L. Ron Hubbard to mean that anyone that is using Scientology in an unauthorized matter (sic) and is also not using it strictly as it is written.

THE COURT: It could be somebody within or without.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So someone using the tech, is that it; someone using the tech improperly?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Rather than mark all this as separate exhibits, your Honor, I’d like to mark the next document as a composite so it would speed things up.

What number would that be? 109?

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Handing the witness the clerk’s copy, Plaintiff’s 109.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify the first page of 109, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I can. This is HCO executive letter written  in 1966. Apparently parts of it were written by a person named Kathy and the other author is L. Ron Hubbard.

118

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

AThis is an intelligence operation that is done to discourage; to harass and discourage. An example — they give a pretty clear example I  think right here.

But another example of that could be to go around to a person’s neighbors, past business associates, ex-girlfriends, anyone that would have a bone to pick, and make allegations about the person, and ask them, “Well, did you know that he stole the blue ball on the 17th of whatever, and he — he’s doing this, and he’s really a bad person; and do you know anything he’s done?” And an investigator will systematically go through persons associated with the target to create this air of alarm and hysteria, basically.

Q When you were the deputy inspector general, receiving reports from OSA intelligence, do you know — did you see reports on noisy investigations of people opposed by Scientology?

A Yes.

Q And — now, this is an HCO executive letter, 1966. Was that still being practiced when you were deputy inspector general?

A Everything that is written by L. Ron Hubbard and is actually in a published form. Like this is a timeless

119

piece to be followed for eternity. So it’s kind of like the Bible, you know? The Bible was written a couple of thousand years ago but people still stick to that.

In that regard and only in that regard is there a  similarity in that these things are held sacred and forever.

Q Did you observe any noisy investigation of Bob Minton?

A Yes.

Q What — give us some examples.

A Well, the most vivid one that comes to mind is an operation that was done on his best friend, Jeff Schmidt, who he had apparently started a company with. Scientology found out about Jeff Schmidt through its investigation of Bob Minton.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: How do you know about this?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I was there and I spoke with Jeff Schmidt and Robert Minton. We were in the financial district in London. And he made it very clear to me what Scientology had done. And he was in the process of packing up his office to move out of the country.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. It — it is hearsay. You’re right. It’s hearsay. But for the purpose of this hearing, I’m going to allow —

120

there’s a lot of hearsay in this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: I know. I just — you know, you —

THE COURT: Right. And it is hearsay, and it’ll be taken as hearsay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And Jeff Schmidt was Bob Minton’s business partner?

A Correct.

Q And what happened to him?

A He eventually disassociated himself from Bob Minton from fear of losing his business practice. He basically couldn’t stand a threat –What he told me specifically is that a Scientology investigator came to him and asked him to either provide or show them how to create information to get Bob Minton; in other words, to get him in legally, to get him involved in law enforcement, on the bad end of law enforcement. And Jeff Schmidt said that he was refusing to do it, and had had many negotiations with this private investigator. Finally his office was broken into and materials were taken out of the office, and at that point, that’s when Bob and I flew over there to discuss, “Well, okay. What was taken? What does this mean? What can be done?”

Q Do you know where that information ended up?

121

A I do not.

Q Did Jeff Schmidt — was he Mr. Minton’s partner in the Nigerian deal?

A Yes, he was, along with a person, I think, named Miselan (phonetic).

Q And do you know if they made a little bit of money on that deal, or a lot?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I mean, again, Mr. Prince is now being asked what Mr. Minton made on the Nigerian deal, based on a conversation, apparently, with Mr. Minton’s former partner. I  mean —

THE COURT: And Mr. Minton.

MR. WEINBERG: And/or Mr. Minton.

He had the opportunity to ask Mr. Minton this stuff if he wanted to.

MR. DANDAR: And I believe Mr. Minton — well —

MR. WEINBERG: No, he didn’t. He said he didn’t think he did anything wrong in Nigeria.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Just —

A Mr. Minton never disclosed to me the exact figure of how much money he made from doing the debt buyback for the government of Nigeria.

122

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did Mr. Minton go to Howard University and explain to the Nigerian professors and students about what his Nigerian buyback program was all about?

A Yes. This was again a private investigator working on behalf of Scientology in Nigeria, started spreading this idea that something illegal had happened in the debt buyback; that somehow Bob had absconded with maybe a billion dollars or some other thing, or some other crooked regime. And they used a soccer star, John Fashanu. Feds — the — the investigator said this to Fashanu. Fashanu then used his connections. And he was paid to go  around doing this noisy investigation stuff, by, number one, spreading false allegations, allegations that couldn’t be proven.

And this finally culminated — I met with a government official from Nigeria in Leipzig, Germany — I guess it was in 2001. I guess it was in 2001. And it was decided at that point that John Fashanu and his people would show up at Howard University in D.C. and we would debate this and Bob would explain to all concerned, Howard professional students and Howard professors who were familiar with the economic scene in Nigeria — I guess some people were upset about that because there is some

123

criminality over there.

But we set it up to be in a hall in Washington, D.C. And strangely enough, John Fashanu never showed up. But I sat in a meeting with those Nigerian people at that university for many hours as Bob went through a stack of paper like this, showing them exactly how the deal was done, who was involved, how much debt buyback they did; what was their percentage of the company; how that was split. I mean, he took the time to go through this very painstakingly —

THE COURT: This must be — this must have been videotaped by Mr. Bunker, is that true?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: Because it’s all on videotape and it’s all going to be turned over pursuant to the court order. If you want a copy of it, you can get it. You can get it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q My question is, did the false allegations against Mr. Minton by Scientology on the Nigerian deal — how did Mr. Minton react to those allegations?

A He was very disturbed by it, greatly upset. He was upset over the fact that he had — was in the process of losing his best, best friend, who he had been in business with many years, Jeff Selman (sic), who was afraid of  Scientology’s power and influence.

Q Wait a minute. Jeff Selman?

A Jeff —

Q Schmidt.

A — Schmidt.

I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m talking too fast. He was very upset about that. He was very upset about them contacting his other partner in South Africa whose name was Selman. And Bob Minton was disturbed over the fact that he knew that there was corruption itself in Nigeria, and if you paid enough money around, you could kind of get any kind of trouble started you wanted.

Q Are you aware of any kind of trouble that was started with Nigeria in reference to the Swiss government?

A I know that certain allegations were brought in Nigeria. And the private investigator working on Scientology’s behalf did go to Switzerland, talked to prosecutors, talked to law enforcement, and to use whatever sway or ability that they had to try to get charges brought against Bob in —

MR. WEINBERG: Can we just identify the source of your information?

THE WITNESS: Of which — which —

MR. WEINBERG: You just said that investigators and all this did this in Switzerland. And I just

125

would — I ask, your Honor, for the source of it.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. Bob Minton.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did Bob Minton —

THE COURT: It’s all in Stacy Brooks’ time line.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: I know.

THE COURT: I mean, it’s all in evidence already.

MR. DANDAR: But this man’s under oath.

THE COURT: Yeah. I know. And that’s why I’m allowing it. I mean, it’s all in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did Mr. Minton — how did he react to a private investigator making contact with the Swiss prosecutor?

A He was shocked. He — his — his — you know, I think Mr. Minton approached at least some of his dealings with Scientology in a bit of a naive way. He couldn’t conceptualize the fact that this could possibly happen to him. He couldn’t conceptualize that somehow he would be fighting for his credibility, his standing in the different countries and communities that he had done successful business with, to now have to go back and — and kind of

126

resolve things all over again.

Q What period of time was it when you or Mr. Minton first realized that there was a private investigator contacting the Swiss prosecutors?

A You know, from my recollection, I remember maybe late 2000, 2001, early 2001, there was an incident where the prosecutors in Switzerland had been contacted. Bob hired an attorney or whoever to represent himself. The situation was sorted out. But then it came up again.

Q When?

A I think this is after the Howard University — either shortly before or right after, to the best of my recollection.

Q Is that 2001?

A Yes.

Q And was there anything else besides the Nigerian and the Swiss prosecutors — was there anything else that came to your attention concerning Bob Minton being — having a noisy investigation done of him by Scientology?

A Yes. There’s another instances of it. Bob had a interest or stock or something in a car dealership. I believe it was in Boston. And Scientology investigators went around and spoke to the principals at the car dealership. And at the end of that, they no longer wanted to do business with Mr. Minton. They didn’t feel

127

like it was safe. It was putting the company in jeopardy to have investigators running around making these sorts of allegations. And so he lost that business venture.

Q That was a Lexus dealership, correct?

A Correct.

Q It wasn’t some old used car lot on the corner.

A No.

MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, is all this based on conversations with Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, it is.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how did Mr. Minton feel about losing his partnership in a Lexus dealership in New England?

A He just broke down and cried. He was like, how is it possible to live in a country like America and not be able to stop this, to turn this off in some way?

Q What about any other noisy investigations?

A I guess they went to his mother’s house and basically told his mother that he’s crazy and needed to be incarcerated, and to somehow get the family together to try to get some kind of incarceration going, or at least get that idea going something was seriously wrong with Bob.

Q Did you know that Mr. Minton’s father had placed him, I think when he was 16, for a few days in a mental institution of some kind?

128

A Yes. He — he told me about that.

Q So how did Mr. Minton react to Scientology going to his mother and trying to get her and the family to put Mr. Minton incarcerated in a mental institution?

A He was very upset about that. He was — his viewpoint was, you know, “If they don’t like me, then talk to me, but don’t go to my family.” You know, I guess his mother’s in a rest home. She’s actually quite old and would probably never understand these things if you explained it to her for 10 years. And he didn’t see the — it was just pure harassment, intimidation.

Q Did he just get mad about it or did he get excited about it or did he get depressed about it?

A Well, Bob would consult attorneys. He would — I mean, I’ve met almost as many attorneys with Bob as I did with Scientology. I mean, it was always having — Helen Dorr (phonetic), when he would go up there, “This is what they’ve done now. They’ve gone to my mother. They’ve done this. They’ve done that. Is there anything else I can do? Can law enforcement somehow become involved? Will someone open up an investigation to –” and of course, nothing.

So Bob’s answer to do something was to picket.He’s like, “Okay. They keep doing this stuff, they want to do this stuff, I’m going to picket. I’m going to picket. I’m going to make a sign.” Because that was his last line

129

of defense. That was the last thing that he could legally do to say, “Hey, look, I don’t like what you’re doing and I’m showing it.”

Q Did Bob Minton — how long have you known Bob Minton?

A Since the summer of 1998.

Q Okay. Since the summer of 1998 until today, has Bob Minton ever picketed and told you or anyone in your hearing, “Let’s go picket so we can help Ken Dandar win the  Lisa McPherson death case”?

A No. Bob — no. When he — a lot of — often –more often than not when he would get on these things that he wanted to picket, it was in response to something that was specifically — that he perceived was being done against him by Scientology.

Q How did Bob Minton react when his daughters were followed back to or from school in boston?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the form of the question. Mr. Dandar is testifying.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DANDAR: Sustained. I agree with that, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, good. I’m glad you do.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you ever hear about Bob Minton expressing any

130

statement concerning his daughters being followed?

A Yes. He told me that his — his daughters and his wife had gone out, I think, to the theater or something or — or some school event or something, and they were followed. And when they came home, their neighborhood was papered with fliers that were distributed about him having some —

THE COURT: You know, I’m wondering why we are hearing this hearsay. A lot of this just confirms what Mr. Minton has already testified to.

MR. DANDAR: Oh, Mr. Minton said he would just get angry; he wasn’t afraid; he wasn’t concerned; he wasn’t depressed.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, then, how he responded — we don’t need to have Mr. Prince relate what Mr. Minton has already related.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How did Mr. Minton respond —

THE COURT: At least I don’t think. Now, obviously, you can bring in hearsay for impeachment if Mr. Minton told him something different from what he said in court.

MR. DANDAR: That’s what —

THE COURT: But I think much of what we’ve gone

131

over here is stuff that Mr. Minton has said the same thing.

MR. DANDAR: My intention is to see if there’s something different, what he told Mr. Prince compared to what he told you.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: And I’m trying to — I’ll do it quicker, though.

THE COURT: Well, I hope you know — and if, you know, you don’t really have to let me hear it all. Just let me hear what’s different if there is anything different.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Did Mr. Minton express to you that he was concerned when his one daughter was followed to a girlfriend’s house in Long Island?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the same objection.

A Yes, he did.

MR. WEINBERG: He’s testifying again. You know, “When — such — such and such happened.” I mean, that’s just testifying.

MR. DANDAR: I’m trying to make it a little faster.

THE COURT: Yeah. I’m going to —

MR. WEINBERG: He can ask him what his reaction

132

was to whatever it was that he told you.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Well, then, I’ll ask more questions so this will go longer. But okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you about his daughter being followed to Long Island?

A Yes, he did.

Q And how did Mr. Minton — did he tell you how — what he thought about that?

A He — he called me on the phone and he said, “Jesse, you won’t believe what they’re doing now. They’re going after my daughters.” “Oh. What happened?” “Well, she was followed,” or, “They papered the neighborhood,” or, you know, “They’re passing leaflets out. They’re talking to their friends,” his daughter’s associates, parents, or different people, you know, and just kind of doing their noisy investigation. And this was apparently quite upsetting to his wife, Therese, who would always — Bob said she would ask, “Well, what are you going to do about it? Well, this can’t happen. How do you make this stop?”

Q So —

A So he had a lot of pressure.

Q Okay. Did he ever — after all of these noisy investigations, did Bob Minton ever appear to you to be a tough guy about it or not a tough guy?

133

A Well, in the beginning he seemed to be quite a tough guy. But as it — as it progressed — I mean, that — that time track that was submitted as an — as an exhibit, those were instances where we actually could find some type of documentation that proved what the time track said.

There are many instances where things happened where we couldn’t have or find the documentation. So for anyone to — to have that much done to them, I mean, even in my time I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy an individual.

Q That time line, did you help put it together?

A I — I have — yes, I did.

Q Okay. And have you read the entire time line?

A I’m sure I have at some point.

Q And when you read the time line, was it accurate?

A Yes, it was.

Q Now, go back to Exhibit 109 —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to that. Accurate based on conversations with somebody? He just said this time line, which we all know was —

THE COURT: Very, very thick.

MR. WEINBERG: — exaggerated —

THE COURT: Yeah. Most of that would have been through hearsay information.

134

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was it — was it accurate through what Mr. Minton told you?

A Well — well, again, I will just state for the record that the information that was put in that time line was information that could be substantiated in other ways. So there is many things that couldn’t be substantiated. Therefore, it’s not there. But everything that was there, the intent was to be able to substantiate everything there with documentation.

Q So Mr. Minton told you there are more things that happened to him that are not in the time line?

A Sure. I mean, and I’ve witnessed it myself.

Q Like what?

A One time he invited me to New Hampshire — I think it was maybe the 4th of July. The 4th of July. We were up there; myself, Mr. Minton, his wife, Therese, his children. We were having a barbecue in the back. Scientologists came in their cars, started picketing and screaming from the road, “Where’s Stacy?” You know, this is one thing that they really liked to do; tell — make sure that Bob’s wife knew that he was having an affair with Stacy Brooks.

Q Well, she knew, didn’t she?

A Yes, she did.

Q So they’re yelling this in front of the children.

135

A Correct.

Q What else would they yell besides, “Where’s Stacy?”

A That he was crazy.

There came a point in time where somehow they were able to get some of his psychiatric information from his psychiatrists and speak to him about that. And I mean at first Mr. Minton was just amazed that these could even happen; that it was even possible for an organization or an  individual or any — for this to be able to happen to a citizen in America. But then again, as time went on, he wore down more and more and more, I guess. The threat became — I mean, he was just spending so much money defending himself in, you know, three or four countries at one time.

Q Now, let me — since you mentioned psychiatric records, let me jump — let me jump to August — well, June — August of 2001. Do you recall Mr. Minton being upset about records that were put on the Internet, with his wife, his children and himself?

A Yes.

Q What type of records?

A His counseling records from seeing a psychiatrist; I guess information about what kind of medication he had been taking and this kind of thing.

136

Q And did you talk to him about that?

A Yes, I did.

Q And was he scheduled to appear in a deposition in Clearwater the next day?

A I think we’re talking about two separate incidents.

Q Okay. Which one are you talking about?

A Something that preceded the hearing that had to happen in Clearwater.

Q Okay. I’m talking about a deposition —

A Okay.

Q — all right?

Are you aware that he was ordered to appear, in the breach case in Clearwater, for deposition taken by Mr. Rosen?

A Yes.

Q All right. Are you aware that he did — he failed to appear?

A Yes.

Q All right. Did he tell you why he failed to appear?

A Yes, he did.

Q And what did he say?

A Mr. Minton didn’t have a lot of confidence in the justice system as it was being administered in Florida here.

137

He felt that as far as discovery was concerned, that they were able to pretty much get away with murder. And he knew that Scientology was not going to stop until he was completely eliminated as an — as an individual. I mean, part of their policy is to, if possible, of course, ruin the person utterly.

THE COURT: Was he concerned —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor?

THE COURT: — about that or was he concerned about the fact that the discovery was going to uncover the fact that he had illegal — or he had bank accounts outside of this country and money that was coming into this country that he wasn’t paying taxes on?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, he may have had that as a consideration, but it wasn’t anything that I was personally aware of.

THE COURT: Well, what was it about the fact that the church was going to find this out or that the fact that the — that the courts were allowing the church to pursue discovery based on their allegations in the counterclaim that had Mr. Minton so upset?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Minton said that he felt that if he came to Florida, that he was going to go to

138

jail. He had been being told that he was going to jail. He — he —

THE COURT: It was because he was the one that was thumbing his nose at the justice system in the state of Florida, wasn’t it?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: It’s because he was the one coming down here and saying that — he was just acting like a jerk in his discovery depositions, flaunting himself at the justice system, taking the Fifth Amendment when he’d already published it on the Internet, and expecting, I suppose, that we were so stupid that we wouldn’t know enough that he’d waived it. And then, of course, when the judges said that he had indeed waived it and he could no longer hide behind the Fifth Amendment, that he started getting real worried, didn’t he?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: He became —

THE COURT: Because the church and therefore the courts were going to get pretty knowledgeable about what he had, moneywise —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: — overseas.

139

THE WITNESS: Correct. And here in the United States.

He was concerned that if Scientology was allowed to have access to his different bank accounts, that he would end up fighting another war with Scientology as he did with the John Fashanu  fiasco, and he was just tired of it.

THE COURT: Did he talk to you about — it wasn’t any — it wasn’t any secret, was it, that Mr. Minton was a multi-millionaire?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Everybody knew that.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: He doled out millions of dollars to fight Scientology.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Came into court pretty proud, throwing out over $10 million. And everybody knew that, right?

THE WITNESS: Well, I didn’t know that it had been that much, your Honor, myself.

THE COURT: Okay. But I mean, he had doled out —

THE WITNESS: Millions.

THE COURT: — millions.

140

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And everybody knew he had doled out millions.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So the fact that this Church of Scientology was getting ready to find out that he had doled out millions —

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, there’s another aspect to this, your Honor. And the aspect is this: Bob Minton, in his mind, always tried to keep his family separate from his activities. He was ready to exhaust every personal resource that he had for himself to keep the fight going, but he was not willing to risk that for his wife and his children.

And so when the wife and children became a factor I guess something happened.

THE COURT: I don’t have any qualms about your talking about the fact that Mr. Minton was upset about his medical records being put on the Internet; I don’t have any qualms about your saying Mr. Minton was upset about his children being followed, about his business associates being contacted and what have you. I have no doubt that he was upset about that and what have you.

But as far as his being upset with the justice

141

system in the state of Florida, the reason I’m upset about that is because Mr. Minton himself is what caused many of his own problems, right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: And then when it looked like they were going to find out some stuff that was really going to get him in a problem, then he had a problem with the justice system.

THE WITNESS: I assume that, yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did he ever —

THE COURT: But before he had problems with the justice system, he was plenty happy to play with it,  jerk us around, come when he felt like it, answer what questions he felt like, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Until people in the justice system here in the state of Florida said, “Bob Minton, you’re not going to play with our justice system here. We’re in charge,” right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: That caused him a great deal of concern.

THE WITNESS: And I guess that he was mainly concerned because he knew that he would not answer

142

specific questions. And he felt that if he came into court and he was asked those questions that he had made a conviction that he wasn’t going to answer, that he wasn’t going to answer them anyway, and he was just going to go to jail.

THE COURT: And he could rest assured on that; that if this court or any other court that I’m aware of in my circuit told him to answer a question and he said no, he would have gone to jail until he answered it. And there is no question about that. And I am sure that any inquiry that Mr. Minton asked, he was told that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: No wonder he was upset with the justice system here, the way — and the games that he was playing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did he talk to you about trying to figure out a way not to come to court when he was ordered to appear for deposition?

A I think I may have had that conversation with Stacy Brooks.

Q Okay. What did she tell you? ‘Cause she’s also a

143

witness in this case.

A She told me that —

MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, I’m objecting to hearsay, but — I understand what the judge’s rulings have been, but at this —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: All this testimony is hearsay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What did she tell you?

A She told me that Bob was extremely upset; that he was kind of in a — a state — a mental state like — I don’t know — having a breakdown of some sort, and she wanted him to go see a professional. I guess something had happened at that time where the — again, something happened with the children when he was supposed to come down. I think the neighborhood got leafletted again or something happened with the kids again. And the questions themselves, that he became very distraught. Stacy mentioned having him go see a professional, a psychologist or a psychiatrist or something, and he — he didn’t really want to do that. He didn’t want to do that. So — so that was Stacy’s angle of, like, “Okay, well, we need to get him to a professional and get him excused from coming to the deposition.”

144

Q And did Diane Palermo’s name come up in that conversation?

A Yes, it did.

Q And was Diane Palermo, as far as you know, a mental health therapist?

A No, she is not.

Q What is she?

A As far as I knew, a social worker.

Q And was she ever Mr. Minton’s social worker?

A Not that I’m aware of. I kind of doubt it.

Q And are you aware, from speaking with Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks, what Stacy Brooks had tried to get Diane Palermo to do?

A Yes. Stacy Brooks tried to get Diane Palermo to do some kind of an analysis of Bob Minton’s mental state and — and give him advice that would preclude him from coming to the deposition.

Q And did Diane Palermo agree to do that?

A No. Not at all.

Q And so what did Stacy Brooks do next to try to get an excuse —

THE COURT: I know the answer to that and so does everybody in this courtroom. We don’t need to hear it again.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

145

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: This is in Stacy Brooks’ affidavit?

MR. DANDAR: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Is it in Stacy Brooks’ affidavit?

MR. DANDAR: I don’t think it’s in there. Not this way.

MR. WEINBERG: She testified about it and Mr. Minton testified about it. I think it’s all over the place.

MR. DANDAR: They’re calling her a mental health therapist who told him not to travel.

THE COURT: You already got that out. He said she’s not a mental health therapist.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But Stacy Brooks filed something before Judge Baird.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, she did. That affidavit.

THE COURT: That affidavit is what I’m talking about. God, I know this case good, don’t I?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, you do.

MR. WEINBERG: Better than —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did you see that Stacy Brooks affidavit about trying to make an excuse for Mr. Minton?

146

A No, sir. I did not.

Q Okay. Do you know that Stacy Brooks called Steve Hassan?

A Steve Hassan? Yes.

Q And tried to get him to write an excuse letter?

A Yes.

Q Even though he’s never talked to Bob Minton about —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Again, this is all based on conversations with Stacy Brooks. I mean, we’re —

THE COURT: But this is kind of impeachment, so this is what you got to do. In other words, if Stacy Brooks comes in to court and says one thing in front of me and this — she’s told something different to this man —

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think she told anything different —

THE COURT: Yes, she did, about that.

MR. WEINBERG: About —

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did she ask Steve Hassan to write a letter?

A She asked Steve Hassan to become involved, and he

147

declined, based on the fact that Bob was not a patient of his. Bob — they had no prior history or discussions about — you know, Bob hadn’t mentioned to him about anything. And of course I think it was kind of obvious that this was a last-ditch effort to — for Bob not to come down for the deposition.

Q But Bob Minton in truth was really, really emotionally upset about what he saw on the Internet.

A Yes. He was crying —

THE COURT: Bob Minton didn’t come down for the deposition, did he?

THE WITNESS: I don’t believe he did. No, he didn’t.

THE COURT: Then I guess —

THE WITNESS: No. He went to the hospital because he —

Okay. Now — okay. I’m remembering this.

THE COURT: Isn’t this what Judge Baird found him in contempt for?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Why Lord have mercy, why a judge, why, imagine that; this justice system, when Mr. Minton flaunted a demand and a command and an order from a court to come here and he didn’t come, I guess he had every right to be upset at our system

148

of justice because some judge took great offense and held him in contempt. Dear, dear.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Let me — let me go and look at Exhibit 109 —

A But you know, Bob ended up going to the hospital. He was — he started having chest pains or something, and he was in the hospital for a couple three days —

Q Okay.

A — under observation by a doctor. And I do believe that on the day that he was supposed to appear for contempt that he was in the hospital.

Q All right. Let me have you look back at 109 again.

A Okay.

Q You identified the first page. What about the second page entitled —

A — Intelligence Actions.

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q Are you familiar with that?

A Yes, I am.

This is kind of a routine that happens in intelligence in Scientology on any — anything that’s a threat or — or an attack on Scientology. This policy kind

149

of comes into play, where you investigate, you do your ODC, overt data collection; CDC, covert data collection. You do your noisy investigation. You find some skeleton. And if you can’t find it, you manufacture something. And you use that to sue for peace.

Q Is there something in here that talks about manufacturing a skeleton if you can’t find it?

A Not in this particular one. But you were — I think the one that you’re referring to, as far as manufacturing information against an individual, would lie in the department of government affairs for which you just have one page of.

Q Yeah. I see we’ve got two pages of the same thing.

A Yeah. But if I turn one — two pages back and I go to what’s listed here —

THE WITNESS: And I think it’s very hard to see, your Honor. It goes from page 484 in this statement packet — two pages away from government affairs —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Government affairs —

Wait. Let me just correct it now.

A No, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

150

Q All right.

THE COURT: Isn’t this something; they’re just fussing with each other?

MR. DANDAR: You can see we rehearsed all this.

THE WITNESS: See, I’ll show you. Okay. I’ll  find it for you.

THE COURT: You find it.

THE WITNESS: I’ll find it for you.

Here’s the department of government affairs.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this is page 483. And then this is put in there and this is put in there. But then we get back to page 484, where it says right here,

“If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.”

THE COURT: Okay. This is page —

This is not in order, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: I’m going to fix it. I’d like to fix it now.

THE COURT: Well, maybe you could fix it before you introduce it.

MR. DANDAR: I will.

THE COURT: If there is going to be Exhibit 409

151

(sic), you better have this 409-A, B —

MR. DANDAR: 109.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. 109.

MR. DANDAR: That’s what I’ll do. I’ll label them.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I can see where the extra pages —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m lost.

THE COURT: It’s page 484, which is not after page 483. It’s about four pages back.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: It says, if you will look —

Well, where was that?

MR. DANDAR: Exhibit 4 is in there twice.

THE WITNESS: Let me see. It’s in the third paragraph.

THE COURT: Show me where you’re reading from.

MR. WEINBERG: I see it. It’s the third paragraph.

THE COURT: Okay.

“If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.”

What is this?

THE WITNESS: This is a policy letter, your

152

Honor. This is a church policy letter that is a policy letter for the department of government affairs, which is a department or a section or a unit within the Scientology organization, that basically talks about — you know, things having to do with tax matters, legal activities, whatever, for an organization.

THE COURT: What does the term “sue for peace” mean?

THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, it means basically that a person just wants to end what’s-ever happening and let’s just settle it and all walk away as happy as possible.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Like a disengagement?

A Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’ve marked mine, and I’d like to mark the clerk’s copy with the letters.

THE WITNESS: And you see we — I think — I can help you put this in order here, because you got the pages —

MR. WEINBERG: What I did was I eliminated the — the Intelligence Action, second page, it looked like the same thing that was —

THE COURT: Yeah. The second Intelligence

153

Actions, right?

MR. WEINBERG: I threw that one out. They were the same as the first one. And then I reordered, what you did, 483, 484, 485. And I assume everything else is the same.

THE WITNESS: I’ve — so this is the whole document right there, these three pages.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Look at the next part, where it’s previously marked in another deposition, as Exhibit 6, about “make sure that’s all in order.”

A Okay.

Q First of all, do you identify that document?

A Yes. This is also a document that’s relevant to PR, legal intelligence.

Q And what is that called?

A Public Investigations Section.

Q Public investigation.

A Correct.

Q What’s that?

A This would be investigating individuals outside of Scientology using outside agencies. I have to take a moment to look at this.

Q All right.

THE COURT: I’ll tell you what. This looks

154

like something too long to read here to have any meaningful talk. Let’s quit for the day. I’m tired.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m tired.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: It’s quarter to 5. If you will read this over tonight, and we’ll continue on. In the meantime, have these marked by the clerk as 109-A, B, C, D, so we know what you’re referring to.

THE WITNESS: Okay. And I have — I have the clerk’s copies here.

THE COURT: Okay. If you’ll — do you have a copy for your witness to look at?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Prince, while you are on the witness stand, you are in rather a unique position. You not only are under the rule, which means that you can’t talk to any other witness about your testimony —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — nor can they talk to you about theirs, but while you are on the witness stand, you are not permitted to speak to anyone about the case, including Mr. Dandar or counsel for the other side,

155

all right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Now, I may, if I’m gone and Mr. Prince isn’t done and I’m gone for two weeks, let him out from under that, just like I did other people when it was going to be, like, long weekends or what have you. But not for tonight.

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: And I really think, Mr. Dandar, that you ought to be able to get through this a little faster. We don’t need — you can go quickly through those things that your experts have already testified to. And I presume his testimony would be the same.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

I’m going to go through the PC folders and –which is I gave him that affidavit that you haven’t seen apparently before.

THE WITNESS: But this is the clerk’s. This has to go back to her.

MR. DANDAR: And I’ll show him that as well.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Exhibit 108.

And then we’re going to talk about Mr. Minton, the LMT, and what transpired in 2002.

156

THE COURT: You’re never going to finish tomorrow, I’ll bet you, but —

MR. WEINBERG: Plus he’s got Mr. Haney set in the morning.

MR. DANDAR: I have Mr. Haney in the morning.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: So we’re obviously not going to.

MR. DANDAR: And he should be short.

MR. WEINBERG: But I will not necessarily be brief with Mr. Prince, but I don’t know yet.

THE COURT: Well, it doesn’t really matter. I don’t think he’s going to be brief either.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: Because we’ve got a lot of ground to cover with Mr. Prince. And frankly, we’re not to any of the issues.

MR. WEINBERG: No.

THE COURT: But thank you, sir. You may step down, remembering the rule I just gave you about while you’re a witness on the stand.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: If you will remind me Wednesday afternoon when we break for over two weeks,  Mr. Dandar, better yet — I shouldn’t have to rely on this witness — if you will remind me, since he

157

is an expert of yours or a consulting witness or whatever he is, I may allow you to have some discussions with him since we’re going to be in recess on this hearing for two weeks.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: But you’re going to have to remind me so I can decide that.

MR. WEINBERG: We would like to speak to that particular issue.

THE COURT: Okay.

(An overnight recess was taken at 4:50 p.m.)

158

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )

COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 19th day of June, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

Jesse Prince: No conscience, no church (September 29, 1998)

Title: No conscience, no church1
Author: jesse77@gte.net (Jesse Prince)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:15:12 GMT

During September, 1982, through the Spring of 1987, I attended  biweekly
meetings at Author Services, Inc. (ASI), which at the time was located in
the 6700 block of Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA.

From late 1982 until the spring of 1983 I held an executive position in the
Religious Technology Center (RTC) titled Inspector General Cramming
Officer.  During the spring of 1983 I was promoted to Inspector General
External and Treasurer on the board of directors of  the Religious
Technology Center.  There were two other board members; Vicki Aznaran,
Inspector General and President, and Warren Mc Shane, executive over legal
matters concerning RTC, was a member.  David Micavage, Norman Starkey and
Lyman Spurlock were the trustees of RTC.  It was during this time that I
learned the true nature of Scientology management and how it ran its
affairs.

The meetings I attended at ASI were always called and run by David
Miscavige. It was here  that I learned that David Miscavige was a managing
agent of the various Scientology corporations, including but not limited to
ASI, RTC and Church of Scientology International (CSI).  Each senior
executive of RTC, CSI and ASI met once or twice a week to give a report
concerning each of the above corporations.  This in fact was the inner
circle of Scientology’s elite and as a result of my position I was involved
in and received communications concerning Scientology’s most secret
operations.

During my time as an executive and senior executive in RTC, David Miscavige
was the decision maker concerning all legal suits filed by any of
Scientology’s corporations. Miscavige had complete authority concerning all
litigation within Scientology, and he made the final decisions as to how
each case would be litigated as well as which lawyers would be used in each
and every case. Miscavige had two Scientology staff, Marty Rathbun and
Lyman Spurlock, who assisted in Scientology litigation matters, but
Miscavige always made the final decisions. CSI majorly operated on orders
from LRH, which were called advices to avoid legal problems for himself and
Scientology, since he supposedly had not managed any of the corporations of
Scientology since 1966, when he had officially resigned as Executive
Director.

ASI served as LRH’s literary agency, but it was really a clearing house for
his orders into the various Scientology corporations and organizations,
which included but was not limited to RTC, CSI, CSC, Flag Land Base, CST
and the Office of Special Affairs (formerly the Guardian’s Office).
Miscavige was the person responsible for ensuring the execution of LRH
orders in these various corporations, until LRH’s death in 1986. ASI and
some of its staff  members exercised complete financial authority over
other church entities. Fran Harris, a staff member of ASI, was responsible
for the gross income of the organization.

ASI received its operating expenses from commissions it received for
collection of royalties owed to LRH based on moneys collected from LRH book
outlets. Some time ago, LRH wrote a policy letter entitled “Minimum Book
Stocks” which in effect placed a minimum on the amount of books each
Scientology org had to have. Bridge Publications is the organization
responsible for enforcing the minimum book stocks policy.

More often than not, on orders from Miscavige to get the stats up, Fran
Harris would bypass Bridge Publications and go direct to org finance
personnel and demand that the orgs buy books from BPI so that ASI would get
its weekly commissions.  Fran enforced her demands by using lower
conditions, ethics hearings, comm evs and just plain intimidation to make
the nonprofit scientology orgs pay money to BPI, often before the org had
even had a chance to feed and clothe its staff. BPI never saw much of this
money itself, as it was considered that BPI owed a debt to ASI going back
to before ASI was ever incorporated.  This action, which went on every
week, was a known criminal act by all concerned, as not only did it violate
Scientology’s own policy of corporate integrity, it also violated the laws
of the land.

ASI is a for-profit corporation and paid its staff minimum wage plus a
bonus based on royalties collected. Every week ASI had to get more and more
money in order to keep its stats up to receive bonuses. ASI staff were in
fact Sea Org members that were paid very well when you consider the average
Sea Org member was paid $24.00 per week. It was considered a privilege to
be on staff at ASI and the staff were encouraged  not to diskuss with other
Sea Org members what they were paid weekly in order not to create a rift
among Sea Org members.

In 1984 David Miscavige received word there was an IRS criminal
investigation pending with the threat of a raid in Los Angeles. Fran Harris
was flown out of the country and sent to Copenhagen, Denmark, to avoid
possible interrogation by IRS officials. This was just the beginning of the
“clean up” most senior executives executed within various Scientology
corporations. One morning I awoke to find my senior, Vicki Aznaran, her
husband Rick Aznaran, who was head of all security for Scientology, and
Foster Tompkins, executive over INCOMM, removing evidence from hard disk
drives that proved LRH was in fact the managing agent of Scientology as
well as other sensitive information. Vicki and the others had been up most
of the night purging computer files and creating back-up disks to be stored
at confidential storage sights.

At this time I was ordered to verify that other corporations had purged
their files of LRH “advices.” The corporations concerned were RTC, CSI and
CSC. I did in fact verify that no evidence of LRH advices existed. This was
accomplished by gathering up all hard copy advices and getting them mulched
at a paper treatment plant located near Riverside, CA. Back-up copies of
these advices were placed in secret unknown storage facilities by head of
security, Rick Aznaran. The only people who knew these locations were Rick,
the security chief, whose name was Jackson, DM and Norman Starkey.

From 1982 through 1986, LRH would use a dictaphone to dictate his orders to
the various Scientology corporations. The tapes from the dictation would be
delivered by LRH’s top aides Pat or Annie Broeker to the Scientology
location at Gilman Hot Springs. At this location a special unit, headed by
a staff member named Susie Bennick, would transcribe the tapes and issue
hard copy dispatches to various executives and staff of ASI, RTC, CSI, CST
and CSC.  Often, these dispatches had certain time deadlines for compliance
as mandated by LRH. I’ve seen as many as 150 orders dictated by LRH in one
run. Often the staff who had orders issued to them were not allowed to
sleep until they complied to the LRH order issued to them. David Miscavige
oversaw the transcribing operation and enforced compliance to LRH orders by
staff in all Scientology corporations.

Scientology Legal Procedures

During my tenure as an executive and senior executive in RTC, I was taught
how to aggressively  go about destroying an enemy or critic of Scientology.
Enemies and critics of Scientology are considered to be suppressive persons
or groups. In Scientology the suppressive element is basically dealt with
in the same way: investigation, black operations, black propaganda and
frivolous litigation. Scientology believes anyone labeled a suppressive is
“fair game” and  can be cheated, tricked, lied to and even physically
harmed in order to “save” Scientology as mandated in policy by L Ron
Hubbard. The following are specific instances I have either been a party to
or observed being done to persons labeled “suppressive.”

David Mayo

David Mayo was once one of the top senior executives in Scientology. He
worked directly with LRH on technical policies, he was LRH’s auditor, and
even authored the “Ned for OTs” series when it was first issued. By the
time I arrived in September 1982 at the secret management base located in
Hemet, CA, David Mayo had fallen from grace. Upon my promotion to this
secret location, the first duty I had was to security check (interrogate)
Mayo endlessly.  LRH had the idea that Mayo had been bought off  by
Scientology mission holders and was either a dupe or a plant. At this time
Scientology was once again getting rid of its criminals. The executives of
all management organizations had been removed and brought to Hemet to
receive severe Scientology justice and ethics. Mayo was part of a group of
11 management executives being given a comm eve that went on for 3 months.
Nearly all 11were eventually labeled suppressive persons and left
Scientology.

Once David Mayo was off staff he decided to start his own church, the
Advanced Ability Center (AAC), that was an alternative to Scientology and
used many of the same techniques used by LRH. At this point David became
the target for “fair game.” DM became infuriated and ordered  Mayo’s new
group to be destroyed using all means possible. Bob Mithoff, brother of
Senior C/S Int Ray Mithoff, was placed by RTC in David Mayo’s new church as
a plant to obtain financial and critical legal information to forward a
planned attack on his group. Week after week Bob Mithoff provided financial
information to RTC concerning Mayo’s new group. The fact of the matter is
Mayo had drawn a good amount of people who were ex-Scientologists to his
new church and was making $20,000 to $30,000 gross income every week. This
was better than most Scientology Class 4 organizations. Mithoff stole a
copy of the AAC’s mailing list and provided it to RTC. Within four months
of its inception, AAC had a standard newsletter it mailed to its adherents.
With the stolen mailing list RTC operative Gary Klinger designed a similar
newsletter that contained disparaging information concerning AAC to the
same mailing list. This list was used by RTC to contact members of the AAC
for the purpose of harassment and intimidation.

Mithoff also stole a copy of the NOTs materials that David Mayo had
rewritten, and he provided it to RTC. At one point before her “suicide” Flo
Barnett,  David Miscavige’s mother-in-law, became a member of the AAC. More
black operatives were sent into the AAC by RTC. Black operations included
renting the office above Mayo’s AAC to electronically bug him. At one point
private investigator Gene Ingram was hired to pose as an investigative
reporter and Mayo was duped into believing he was participating in a TV
program to promote his new group. Through Mithoff, it was learned that
David Mayo planned to travel abroad to Europe. Through investigator Gene
Igram, it was arranged to have Mayo stopped at customs as a suspected drug
dealer, which did happen, and he was detained for hours based on false
information by European customs officials. Gene Ingram received his
instructions on these matters from Gary Klinger, an executive in RTC.
Ingram’s fee was paid by CSI through the office of John Peterson, who was
retained as in-house counsel by CSC. As a note, John Peterson was not fully
aware of why his office paid private investigator expenses to Bob Mithoff.

Prior to Mayo writing his own version of the NOTs materials it was learned
through Mithoff that several other ex-Scientologists had copied and were
planning to use Scientology HCO P/Ls and HCOBs. A former mission holder,
Sarge Gerbode, had an ongoing project  to copy via computer all HCOPLs and
HCOBs and sell  them to Mayo or trade them for  Scientology OT materials.
Through Mithoff we learned that Mayo and Gerbode had come to an agreement
and Mayo’s new group was in fact more computerized than most Scientology
facilities.

As part of the weekly ASI meetings, Vicki and I were confronted by David
Miscavige concerning what we planned to do to put an end to Mayo and the
AAC. The first option we suggested was to bring a copyright suit against
the AAC. David Miscavige called in LRH Personal Secretary Pat Brice to get
a briefing on the status of current church copyright filings. He was sorely
disappointed when he found out that no one in the entirety of Scientology
was responsible for copyright filings since the Guardian’s Office had been
reorganized by him. He decided at that time to give Pat a project to file
for copyright protection ofall Scientology bulletins and policies. This is
the reason most Scientology copyright filings have a date starting in 1983
forward. The best option for the church to sue Mayo was through trade
secrets and trademarks. Then-RTC lawyer Joe Yanny recommended a RICO
complaint be drawn up, as evidence existed that David Mayo had formed
agreements with other  Scientology dissidents to exchange Scientology
materials to strengthen the alternative movement which David Mayo was the
leader of.

While all of this was going on Mayo and the AAC were successful in getting
a Temporary Restraining Order against RTC and CSI because of the constant
harassment and plants sent in. The specific incident which resulted in the
TRO was in fact when Gary Klinger posed as a Jewish rabbi and went to a
barbecue the AAC had one weekend and created havoc at the party. There is
no difference between the black operations executed by the “Old GO” and the
then new RTC.  Because of  the very nature of Scientology it will never
change.  L Ron Hubbard himself issued the marching orders for Scientology
to become a criminal organization and people are trained to lie from the
moment they walk in the door and take a Scientology course.

Almost immediately a person is taught how to use “ethics” to control
another. Example: Hubbard Policy Letter  29 April, 1965 titled  “Ethics
Review” instructs a person how to effectively harass and attack another, a
few quotes from the above mentioned P/L:

“Levels of Ethics Actions”

“Ethics actions in degree of severity are as follows:

“1. Noticing something non-optimum without mentioning it but only
inspecting it silently.

“2. Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person.

“3. Requesting information by ethics personnel.

“4. Requesting information and inferring there is a diskiplinary potential
in the situation.

“5. Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

“6. Talking to the person derogatorily.”

The list get worse and worse. L Ron Hubbard was mentally ill for at least 4
years before he died that I know of through direct experience and
association. When Gerry Armstrong, Omar Garrison, Vaughn Young and Stacy
Young  all at one time or another tried to write a  biography of  L Ron
Hubbard based on his own records the records clearly showed he was mentally
disturbed much earlier as well.  As can be seen from the above-quoted
HCOPL, a NAZI like dedication to the “group” is required which in fact turn
people against one another in a spy-like fashion.  In Scientology, people
are dehumanized and in fact become members of a human ant family — you are
only as good as you produce for the group. The concept of self is
surrendered to the false idea  that “Scientology” is much more important
than individual life.

In the case of the RICO suit filed by RTC and CSI against the AAC, another
type of Scientology “ethics” was applied. L Ron Hubbard believed certain
words and catch phrases used together in a writing could have a
psychological  effect on the reader. The words and phrases are part of  a
confidential course called “R6 End Words” or “R6EW.” Hubbard ordered  his
“magic words” to be sewn into each and every legal motion and complaint
submitted to any court. Hubbard said by doing this a judge would
subconsciously become antagonistic to anyone trying to fight Scientology
with the current justice system.

It is not necessary to be a brain surgeon to see this as pretty crazy, but
because its so stupid the point can be lost. Hubbard thought he was
superior to his culture and sought to make a mockery of the way everyday
people live. In late 1952 Hubbard thought he had discovered something so
powerful with Dianetics that he had to protect us all from his own
invention. He wrote a journal called “Black Dianetics.” Here is how it
starts: “Death,  insanity, aberration, or merely a slavish obedience can be
efficiently effected by the use of Black Dianetics. Further, adequate laws
do not exist at this time to bar the use of these techniques. The law
provides that only the individual so wronged can make complaint or swear
out a warrant for offenders using these techniques.”

Well,  now you know why there is an organization of people that have ruined
lives and are a slave to the idea they are “saving the world.” Of course,
the organization I am talking about is Scientology’s  “Sea Org.” Sorry for
digressing so about this — back to Mayo.

The RICO suit was filed against the AAC and black operations against it by
RTC were at an all time high. There was a preliminary  injunction hearing
in the RICO case. The day before the hearing I was drilled by Earle Cooley
and other church lawyers as to what I would say because I was an expert
witness in this case. The fact of the matter is that I was drilled all day,
all that night and up until the time I arrived in the court room as to what
I would say as a witness. It’s funny  how Sandy Rosen, Scientology’s
replacement for Earle Cooley, asked me in my deposition in the FACTNet case
in Denver several weeks ago if I had been coached at all by my lawyer
before the deposition. He knows he works for criminals and that they are
the ones who commit the
crimes of which they accuse others.

RTC won its injunction against AAC, and Mayo was effectively shut down at
that point.

It is shameful to have been a part of  Scientology. I am grateful to be
free of it physically and mentally. I promise to work just as hard exposing
Scientology for what it is.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jesse Prince

Notes

The Shadowy Story Behind Scientology’s Tax-Exempt Status (March 9, 1997)

 New York Times 1
By DOUGLAS FRANTZ

On Oct. 8, 1993, 10,000 cheering Scientologists thronged the Los Angeles Sports Arena to celebrate the most important milestone in the church’s recent history: victory in its all-out war against the Internal Revenue Service.

For 25 years, IRS agents had branded Scientology a commercial enterprise and refused to give it the tax exemption granted to churches. The refusals had been upheld in every court. But that night the crowd learned of an astonishing turnaround. The IRS had granted tax exemptions to every Scientology entity in the United States.

“The war is over,” David Miscavige, the church’s leader, declared to tumultuous applause.

The landmark reversal shocked tax experts and saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes. More significantly, the decision was an invaluable public relations tool in Scientology’s worldwide campaign for acceptance as a mainstream religion.

On the basis of the IRS ruling, the State Department formally criticized Germany for discriminating against Scientologists. The German government regards the organization as a business, not a tax-exempt religion, the very position maintained for 25 years by the U.S. government.

The full story of the turnabout by the IRS has remained hidden behind taxpayer privacy laws for nearly four years. But an examination by The New York Times found that the exemption followed a series of unusual internal IRS actions that came after an extraordinary campaign orchestrated by Scientology against the agency and people who work there. Among the findings of the review by The New York Times, based on more than 30 interviews and thousands of pages of public and internal church records, were these:

  • Scientology’s lawyers hired private investigators to dig into the private lives of IRS officials and to conduct surveillance operations to uncover potential vulnerabilities, according to interviews and documents. One investigator said he had interviewed tenants in buildings owned by three IRS officials, looking for housing code violations. He also said he had taken documents from an IRS conference and sent them to church officials and created a phony news bureau in Washington to gather information on church critics. The church also financed an organization of IRS whistle-blowers that attacked the agency publicly.
  • The decision to negotiate with the church came after Fred T. Goldberg Jr., the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service at the time, had an unusual meeting with Miscavige in 1991. Scientology’s own version of what occurred offers a remarkable account of how the church leader walked into IRS headquarters without an appointment and got in to see Goldberg, the nation’s top tax official. Miscavige offered to call a halt to Scientology’s suits against the IRS in exchange for tax exemptions.
  • After that meeting, Goldberg created a special committee to negotiate a settlement with Scientology outside normal agency procedures. When the committee determined that all Scientology entities should be exempt from taxes, IRS tax analysts were ordered to ignore the substantive issues in reviewing the decision, according to IRS memorandums and court files.
  • The IRS refused to disclose any terms of the agreement, including whether the church was required to pay back taxes, contending that it was confidential taxpayer information. The agency has maintained that position in a lengthy court fight, and in rejecting a request for access by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act. But the position is in stark contrast to the agency’s handling of some other church organizations. Both the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries and an affiliate of the Rev. Jerry Falwell were required by the IRS to disclose that they had paid back taxes in settling disputes in recent years.

In interviews, senior Scientology officials and the IRS denied that the church’s aggressive tactics had any effect on the agency’s decision.

They said the ruling was based on a two-year inquiry and voluminous documents that showed the church was qualified for the exemptions.

Goldberg, who left as IRS commissioner in January 1992 to become an assistant secretary at the Treasury Department, said privacy laws prohibited him from discussing Scientology or his impromptu meeting with Miscavige.

The meeting was not listed on Goldberg’s appointment calendar, which was obtained by The New York Times through the Freedom of Information Act.

The IRS reversal on Scientology was nearly as unprecedented as the long and bitter war between the organizations. Over the years, the IRS had steadfastly refused exemptions to most Scientology entities, and its agents had targeted the church for numerous investigations and audits.

Throughout the battle, the agency’s view was supported by the courts. Indeed, just a year before the agency reversal, the U.S. Claims Court had upheld the IRS denial of an exemption to Scientology’s Church of Spiritual Technology, which had been created to safeguard the writings and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard, the late science fiction writer whose preachings form the church’s scripture.

Among the reasons listed by the court for denying the exemption were “the commercial character of much of Scientology,” its “virtually incomprehensible financial procedures” and its “scripturally based hostility to taxation.”

Small wonder that the world of tax lawyers and experts was surprised in October 1993 when the IRS announced that it was issuing 30 exemption letters covering about 150 Scientology churches, missions and corporations. Among them was the Church of Spiritual Technology.

“It was a very surprising decision,” said Lawrence B. Gibbs, the IRS commissioner from 1986 to 1989 and Goldberg’s predecessor. “When you have as much litigation over as much time, with the general uniformity of results that the service had with Scientology, it is surprising to have the ultimate decision be favorable. It was even more surprising that the service made the decision without full disclosure, in light of the prior background.”

While IRS officials insisted that Scientology’s tactics did not affect the decision, some officials acknowledged that ruling against the church would have prolonged a fight that had consumed extensive government resources and exposed individual officials to personal lawsuits. At one time, the church and its members had more than 50 suits pending against the IRS and its officials.

“Ultimately the decision was made on a legal basis,” said a senior IRS official who was involved in the case and spoke on the condition that he not be identified. “I’m not saying Scientology wasn’t taking up a lot of resources, but the decision was made on a legal basis.”

The church’s tactics appeared to violate no laws, and its officials and lawyers argued strenuously in a three-hour interview at church offices in Los Angeles last month that the exemptions were decided solely on the merits. They said the church had been the victim of a campaign of harassment and discrimination by “rogue agents” within the IRS. Once the agency agreed to review the record fairly, they said, it was inevitable that the church would be granted its exemptions.

“The facts speak for themselves,” said Monique E. Yingling, a Washington lawyer who represented the church in the tax case. “The decision was made based on the information that the church provided in response to the inquiry by the Internal Revenue Service.”

Church officials and lawyers acknowledged that Scientology had used private investigators to look into their opponents, including IRS officials, but they said the practice had nothing to do with the IRS decision.

“This is a church organization that has been subjected to more harassment and more attacks certainly than any religion in this century and probably any religion ever, and they have had to perhaps take unusual steps in order to survive,” Ms. Yingling said.

THE ORIGINS: AN EXPANDING CHURCH ON A COLLISION COURSE

Since its founding in 1950, Scientology has grown into a worldwide movement that boasts 8 million members, although defectors say the actual number is much smaller. The church, which has vast real estate holdings around the world and operates a yacht based in the Caribbean, describes itself as the only major new religion to have emerged in the 20th century.

Its founder, Hubbard, asserted that people are immortal spirits who have lived through many lifetimes. In Scientology teachings, Hubbard described humans as clusters of spirits that were trapped in ice and banished to Earth 75 million years ago by Xenu, the ruler of the 26-planet Galactic Confederation.

Scientology describes its goal as “a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights.” To reach those heights, Scientologists believe, each individual must be “cleared” of problems and afflictions through a series of counseling sessions known as “auditing.” The sessions are performed by a trained auditor assisted by a device similar to a lie detector, known as an E-meter.

Although Scientology’s complicated finances make a total estimate difficult, records on file at the IRS indicate that in the early 1990s the church was earning about $300 million a year from auditing fees, the sale of Scientology literature and recordings, management services and the franchising of its philosophy. Church officials said those figures were higher than actual earnings.

The original mother church, the Church of Scientology of California, was established by Hubbard in Los Angeles in 1954. Three years later, it was recognized as tax exempt by the IRS. But in 1967, the agency stripped the church of its exemption, and a fierce struggle broke out between the agency and the church.

In its revocation letter, the agency said that Scientology’s activities were commercial and that it was being operated for the benefit of Hubbard, a view supported by the courts several times in the ensuing 25 years. The church ignored the action, which it deemed unlawful, and withheld taxes.

The IRS put Scientology on its hit list. Minutes of IRS meetings indicate that some agents engaged in a campaign to shut down Scientology, an effort that church officials cite as evidence of bias. Some of the tactics led to rebukes by judges, including a 1990 ruling in Boston that criticized the IRS for abusive practices in seeking access to church records.

Scientology retaliated. In 1973 the church embarked on a program code named Snow White. In a document labeled “secret,” Hubbard outlined a strategy to root out all “false and secret files” held by governments around the world regarding Scientology.

“Attack is necessary to an effective defense,” Hubbard wrote.

Snow White soon turned sinister. Under the supervision of Hubbard’s third wife, Mary Sue, Scientologists infiltrated the Department of Justice and the IRS to uncover information on Hubbard. They broke into offices at night and copied mountains of documents. At one point, an electronic bugging device was hidden inside an IRS conference room the day before a meeting about Scientology.

Critics say those actions fell under a church doctrine that Hubbard had called the Fair Game policy. Hubbard wrote that church enemies may “be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

The conspiracy was uncovered in 1977, and Mrs. Hubbard and 10 others were eventually sentenced to prison. Hubbard was named an unindicted co-conspirator because investigators could not link him to the crimes.

The church promised to change its ways. Scientologists said members who broke the law were purged, including Mrs. Hubbard, and the church was restructured to protect against a recurrence. The Fair Game policy, they said, has been misinterpreted by courts and critics.

“There is nothing like that,” said Elliot J. Abelson, the church’s general counsel. “It doesn’t happen.”

THE COVERT WAR: WHISTLE-BLOWERS AND ‘VULNERABILITIES’

But interviews and an examination of court files across the country show that after the criminal conspiracy was broken up, the church’s battle against the IRS continued on other fronts. When Hubbard died in January 1986, his opposition to taxes lived on among the new generation of leaders, including Miscavige, a second-generation Scientologist.

Part of the battle was public. A leading role was played by the National Coalition of IRS Whistle-Blowers, which Scientology created and financed for nearly a decade.

On the surface, the coalition was like many independent groups that provide support for insiders who want to go public with stories of corruption. But Stacy B. Young, a senior Scientology staff member until she defected in 1989, said she helped plan the coalition as part of Scientology’s battle against the IRS in late 1984 while she was managing editor of the church’s Freedom Magazine.

“The IRS was not giving Scientology its tax exemption, so they were considered to be a pretty major enemy,” Ms. Young said. “What you do with an enemy is you go after them and harass them and intimidate them and try to expose their crimes until they decide to play ball with you. The whole idea was to create a coalition that was at arm’s length from Scientology so that it had more credibility.”

Ms. Young said she recruited Paul J. DesFosses, a former IRS agent who had spoken out against the agency, to serve as the group’s president. DesFosses acknowledged that Scientology provided substantial financing, but he denied that the church created or ran the coalition.

“We got support from lots of church groups, including the Church of Scientology,” DesFosses said in a recent interview.

The coalition’s biggest success came in 1989 when it helped spark congressional hearings into accusations of wrongdoing by IRS officials. Using public records and leaked IRS documents, the coalition showed that a supervisor in Los Angeles and some colleagues had bought property from a firm being audited by the agency. Soon after the purchase, the audit was dropped and the firm paid no money.

Kendrick L. Moxon, a longtime church lawyer, acknowledged that the coalition was founded by Freedom Magazine. He said its work was well known and part of a campaign by Scientology and others to reform the IRS.

The church’s war had a covert side, too, and its soldiers were private investigators. While there have been previous articles about the church’s use of private investigators, the full extent of its effort against the IRS is only now coming to light through interviews and records provided to The New York Times.

Octavio Pena, a private investigator in Fort Lee, N.J., achieved a measure of reknown in the late 1980s when he helped expose problems within the Internal Revenue Service while working on a case for Jordache Enterprises, the jeans manufacturer.

In the summer of 1989, Pena disclosed in an interview, a man who identified himself as Ben Shaw came to his office. Shaw, who said he was a Scientologist, explained that the church was concerned about IRS corruption and would pay $1 million for Pena to investigate IRS officials, Pena said.

“I had had an early experience with the Scientologists, and I told him that I didn’t feel comfortable with him, even though he was willing to pay me $1 million,” Pena said.

Scientology officials acknowledged that Shaw worked for the church at the time, but they scoffed at the notion that he had tried to hire Pena. “The Martians were offered $2 million; that’s our answer,” said Moxon, whose firm often hired private investigators for the church.

Michael L. Shomers, another private investigator, said he shared none of Pena’s qualms, at least initially.

Describing his work on behalf of Scientology in a series of interviews, Shomers said that he and his boss, Thomas J. Krywucki, worked for the church for at least 18 months in 1990 and 1991.

Working from his Maryland office, he said, he set up a phony operation, the Washington News Bureau, to pose as a reporter and gather information about church critics. He also said he had infiltrated IRS conferences to gather information about officials who might be skipping meetings, drinking too much or having affairs.

“I was looking for vulnerabilities,” Shomers said.

Shomers said he had turned over information to his Scientology contact about officials who seemed to drink too much. He also said he once spent several hours wooing a female IRS official in a bar at a conference, then provided her name and personal information about her to Scientology.

In one instance, information that Shomers said he had gathered at an IRS conference in the Pocono Mountains was turned over to an associate of Jack Anderson, the columnist, and appeared in one of Anderson’s columns criticizing top IRS managers for high living at taxpayer expense.

Shomers said he had received his instructions in meetings with a man who identified himself as Jake Thorn and said he was connected with the church. Shomers said he believed the name was a pseudonym.

Shomers said he had looked into several apartment buildings in Pennsylvania owned by three IRS officials. He obtained public files to determine whether the buildings had violated housing codes, he said, and interviewed residents looking for complaints, but found none.

In July 1991, Shomers said, he posed as a member of the IRS whistle-blowers coalition and worked with a producer and cameraman from NBC-TV to get information about a conference for senior IRS officials in Walnut Creek, Calif. The producer said that she recalled Shomers as a representative of the whistle-blowers, but knew nothing of his connection to Scientology. The segment never ran.

At one point, Shomers said, he slipped into a meeting room at the Embassy Suites, where the conference was held, and took a stack of internal IRS documents. He said he mailed the material to an address provided by his church contact.

Krywucki acknowledged that he had worked for Scientology’s lawyers in 1990 and 1991, though he declined to discuss what he did. He said he would ask the lawyers for permission to speak about the inquiry, but he failed to return telephone calls after that conversation.

It is impossible to verify all of Shomers’ statements or determine whether his actions were based on specific instructions from church representatives. He said he had often been paid in cash and sometimes by checks from Bowles & Moxon, a Los Angeles law firm that served as the church’s lead counsel. He said he had not retained any of the paychecks.

Shomers provided The New York Times with copies of records that he said he had obtained for the church as well as copies of hotel receipts showing that he had stayed at hotels where the IRS held three conferences, in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and California. He also provided copies of business cards, with fake names, that he said had been created for the phony news bureau in Washington and copies of photographs taken as part of his surveillance work.

One of the IRS officials investigated by Shomers recalled that a private investigator had been snooping around properties he managed on behalf of himself and two other mid-level agency officials.

The official, Arthur C. Scholz, who has since left the IRS, said he was alerted by tenants that a man who identified himself as a private investigator had questioned tenants about him and the other landlords. He said the tenants had not recalled the man’s name but had noted that he was driving a car with Maryland license plates.

“He went to the courthouse and found the properties, and then went out banging on doors of these tenants and made a number of allegations dealing with things that were totally bull,” said Scholz, who had no involvement with the IRS review of Scientology and was at a loss to explain why the church would have been interested in him. “I notified the local police about it.”

Shomers, who has since left the private-investigation business, said he was willing to describe his work for the church because he had come to distrust Scientology and because of a financial dispute with Krywucki.

Moxon, the Scientology lawyer, said the IRS was well aware of the church’s use of private investigators to expose agency abuses when it granted the exemptions. Moxon did not deny hiring Shomers, but he said the activities described by Shomers to The New York Times were legal and proper.

Moxon and other church lawyers said the church needed to use private investigators to counter lies spread by rogue government agents.

“The IRS uses investigators, too,” said a church lawyer, Gerald A. Feffer, a former deputy assistant attorney general now with Williams & Connolly, one of Washington’s most influential law firms. “They’re called CID agents” — for Criminal Investigation Division — “and the CID agents put this church under intense scrutiny for years with a mission to destroy the church.”

A blunt assessment of Scientology’s victorious strategy against the IRS was contained in a lengthy 1994 article in International Scientology News, an internally distributed magazine. The article said:

“This public exposure of criminals within the IRS had the desired effect. The Church of Scientology became known across the country as the only group willing to take on the IRS.”

“And the IRS knew it,” the article continued. “It became obvious to them that we weren’t about to fold up or fade away. Our attack was impinging on their resources in a major way, and our exposes of their crimes were beginning to have serious political reverberations. It was becoming a costly war of attrition, with no clear-cut winner in sight.”

THE UNUSUAL PEACE: AFTER A MEETING, A 180-DEGREE TURN

Scientology made the initial gesture toward a cease-fire when Miscavige, the church leader, paid an unscheduled visit to the IRS commissioner, Goldberg.

The first full account of that meeting and the events that followed inside the IRS was assembled from interviews, Scientology’s own internal account, IRS documents and records in a pending suit brought by Tax Analysts, a nonprofit trade publisher, seeking the release of IRS agreements with Scientology and other tax-exempt organizations.

Feffer, a church lawyer since 1984, said he approached officials at the Justice Department and the IRS in 1991 with an offer to sit down and negotiate an end to the dispute.

The church’s version of what followed is quite remarkable. Miscavige and Marty Rathbun, another church official, were walking past the IRS building in Washington with a few hours to spare one afternoon in late October 1991 when they decided to talk to Goldberg.

After signing the visitors’ log at the imposing building on Constitution Avenue, the two men asked to see the commissioner. They told the security guard that they did not have an appointment but were certain Goldberg would want to see them. And, according to the church account, he did.

Goldberg said he could not discuss the meeting, although a former senior official confirmed that it occurred. An IRS spokesman said it would be unusual for someone to meet with the commissioner without an appointment.

Miscavige does not grant interviews, church officials said, but Rathbun said the Goldberg meeting was an opportunity for the church to offer to end its long dispute with the agency, including the dozens of suits brought against the IRS, in exchange for the exemptions that Scientology believed it deserved.

“Let’s resolve everything,” Rathbun recalled saying. “This is insane. It’s reached insane levels.”

Goldberg’s response was also out of the ordinary. He created a special five-member working group to resolve the dispute, bypassing the agency’s exempt organizations division, which normally handles those matters. Howard M. Schoenfeld, the IRS official picked as the committee’s chairman in 1991, said later in a deposition in the Tax Analysts case that he recalled only one similar committee in 30 years at the agency.

The IRS negotiators and Scientology’s tax lawyers held numerous meetings over nearly two years. An IRS official who participated, and who spoke about the meetings on condition that his name not be used, described the sessions as occasionally rancorous, but he said the general tone was far friendlier than over the preceding years.

There are indications that the early momentum was toward resolution. In a letter to Ms. Yingling on Jan. 19, 1992, John E. Burke, the assistant commissioner for exempt organizations, brushed aside what could have been a stumbling block. Ms. Yingling had apparently objected to the potential public disclosure of information that the church was providing to the IRS.

Burke said he did not want the dispute to delay the talks, and he committed the IRS to allowing only a portion of the information to become public. He said the only hitch would come “in the event that our discussions break down, an eventuality that I have no reason to believe will occur.”

An IRS official involved in the talks said it was not unusual for the agency to negotiate with a taxpayer over what is made public in an agreement. By agreeing at the outset that information could be withheld, however, the IRS seemed to relinquish a big bargaining chip.

Paul Streckfus, a former official in the IRS exempt organization division, first disclosed the existence of the negotiating committee in a trade journal after the agreement was announced. He said in an interview that creating the group meant a settlement was almost preordained.

“Once the IRS decided to set up this rather extraordinary group, the wheels were in motion for a deal,” Streckfus said.

Not even a stinging court decision in favor of the IRS could derail the talks. Midway through the negotiations, in June 1992, the U.S. Claims Court handed down its decision upholding the IRS denial of a tax exemption for Scientology’s Church of Spiritual Technology. The ruling underscored the agency’s longstanding concerns over the commercial nature of Scientology and other matters.

Ms. Yingling, the church’s tax lawyer, said the Claims Court ruling ignored the facts and was filled with gratuitous comments. She said the IRS negotiators were fairer in considering the evidence.

A portion of the correspondence between the agency and church from the two years of negotiations was released when the exemptions were granted three and a half years ago. It fills part of a large bookcase in the IRS reading room in Washington.

The central issues are discussed in a series of lengthy answers by Scientology’s lawyers to questions from the IRS. The church provided extensive information on its finances and operational structure.

The senior IRS official involved in the negotiations, who asked not to be identified, said the church satisfied the agency in the three critical areas. He said the committee was persuaded that those involved in the Snow White crimes had been purged, that church money was devoted to tax-exempt purposes and that, with Hubbard’s death, no one was getting rich from Scientology.

Ms. Yingling argued that nothing substantive had changed. She said the church had been qualified for tax exemption for years, but biased elements within the IRS had stood in its way.

“There were no changes in the operations or activities of the church,” she said. “What came about was finally that they looked at all the information and saw that the church qualified for exemption, and they were satisfied.”

In August 1993, the two sides reached an agreement. The church would receive its coveted exemptions for every Scientology entity in the country and end its legal assault on the IRS and its personnel.

There was just one more step. Scientology entities were required to submit new applications for exemption, which were to be evaluated by the agency’s exempt organizations division. But something unusual occurred there, too.

Schoenfeld, the negotiations chairman, ordered the two tax analysts assigned to the review not to consider any substantive matters, according to IRS memorandums and records in the Tax Analysts case. Those issues, Schoenfeld informed them, had been resolved.

Both analysts, Donna Moore and Terrell M. Berkovsky, wrote memorandums specifying that they had been instructed not to address issues like whether the church was engaged in too much commercial activity or whether its activities provided undue private benefit to its leaders.

Schoenfeld, who has since left the IRS, said he could not discuss the case. But the senior IRS official involved in the talks said there was nothing sinister about the instructions because those matters had been decided by the negotiating committee. He acknowledged, however, that this was not the typical procedure.

The agreement was announced on Oct. 13, 1993. The IRS refused to make public any of its terms, including whether the church paid any back taxes. The IRS also refused to discuss the legal reasoning behind one of the biggest turnarounds in tax history.

Tax lawyers said the IRS could have required the church to disclose terms of the agreement, which it has done in the past. In 1991, the IRS required the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries to disclose that the group had paid $171,000 in back taxes for violations. In 1993, just a few months before the Scientology agreement, the IRS required the Old Time Gospel Hour, a group affiliated with the Rev. Jerry Falwell, to publicize its payment of $50,000 in back taxes.

“The IRS actually specified which media outlets we were to notify and approved the release,” said Mark DeMoss, a spokesman for Falwell. “When nobody picked it up, they put out their own press release.”

William J. Lehrfeld, who represents Tax Analysts in its suit to make the Scientology agreement public, said, “You and I, as taxpayers, are subsidizing these people, and we should see this information.”

THE AFTERMATH: A FORMER ENEMY BECOMES AN ALLY

Five days before the official announcement, Miscavige went before the Scientology gathering in Los Angeles and declared victory. In a two-hour speech, according to the account in International Scientology News, Miscavige described years of attacks against Hubbard and Scientology by the government.

“No other group in the history of this country has ever been subject to the assault I have briefed you on tonight,” he said, calling it “the war to end all wars.”

As part of the settlement, Miscavige said, the IRS had agreed to distribute a fact sheet describing Scientology and Hubbard. “It is very complete and very accurate,” Miscavige said. “Now, how do I know? We wrote it! And the IRS will be sending it out to every government in the world.”

Feffer, Ms. Yingling and Thomas C. Spring, another of the church’s tax lawyers, appeared in formal attire on stage that night and received Waterford crystal trophies in recognition of their efforts.

Miscavige called the agreement a peace treaty that would mark the biggest expansion in Scientology history.

The church immediately began citing the IRS decision in its efforts to win acceptance from other governments and to silence critics. But the biggest public relations benefit may have come from the U.S. government itself.

Four months after the exemptions were granted, the State Department released its influential human rights report for 1993, a litany of the countries that abuse their citizens. For the first time, the report contained a paragraph noting that Scientologists had complained of harassment and discrimination in Germany. The matter was mentioned briefly in the 1994 and 1995 reports, too.

Throughout those years, the dispute between Scientologists and the German government escalated. In an intense publicity campaign that included advertisements in this newspaper, the church said that businesses owned by Scientologists were boycotted and that its members were excluded from political parties and denied access to public schools. The church asserted that the German actions paralleled early Nazi persecution of Jews.

The German government responded that Scientology was not a church worthy of tax exemption, but a commercial enterprise — the very position the IRS had maintained in its 25-year war against the church. German officials said equating the treatment of Scientologists with that of Jews under the Nazi regime was a distortion and an insult to victims of the Holocaust, a view supported by some Jewish leaders in Germany.

The dispute turned into a diplomatic ruckus in January when the State Department released its 1996 human rights report, with an expanded section on Scientology that said German scrutiny of the religion had increased. Artists had been prevented from performing because of their membership in the church and the youth wing of the governing Christian Democratic Union had urged a boycott of the film “Mission: Impossible” because its star, Tom Cruise, is a prominent Scientologist, the State Department said.

German officials were angered by the criticism, and Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel raised the matter with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright when she was in Bonn on Feb. 18. Ms. Albright told him that the issue was a subject for bilateral discussions, but she said she found claims by Scientologists that they are the victims of Nazi-style persecution “distasteful.”

Nicholas Burns, the State Department spokesman, said that, despite the belief that Scientologists had gone too far in drawing comparisons to persecution of Jews, the department had felt compelled to expand on the church’s troubles with the Germans in its latest human rights report.

“The Germans are quite adamant, based on their own history, that these are the kinds of groups that ought to be outlawed,” Burns said. “However, for our purposes, we classify Scientology as a religion because they were granted tax-exempt status by the American government.”


An Ultra-Aggressive Use of Investigators and the Courts

By DOUGLAS FRANTZ

For years, Scientology has gone to great lengths to defend itself from critics. Often its defense has involved private investigators working for its lawyers. While the use of private investigators is common in the legal profession, some instances involving the church have been unusual.

Scientology officials said that the investigators operated within the law and that the tactics were necessary to counter attacks made over the years by Internal Revenue Service agents and the press.

“When people stop spreading lies about them and stop printing false allegations about them in newspapers, the church will stop using private investigators,” said Monique E. Yingling, a church lawyer.

In 1986 the Federal Court of Appeals in Boston said evidence in an extortion case indicated that Scientology investigators had induced witnesses to lie. It identified one investigator as Eugene M. Ingram.

Eight years later, Ingram was charged with impersonating a police officer in seeking information about a sheriff in Tampa, Fla., while working as a church investigator. He and a Scientology employee flashed badges and told a woman that they were police detectives before questioning her about possible links between a county sheriff and what was said to be a prostitution ring, police records say.

Court officials said a warrant for Ingram’s arrest was still outstanding.

Ingram had been dismissed from the Los Angeles Police Department in 1981 after accusations that he was involved in running a prostitution ring and had provided information to a drug dealer. He was acquitted of criminal charges in that case.

Elliot J. Abelson, the church’s general counsel, said he had used Ingram often as an investigator and had the highest regard for him. He said the Tampa case was phony.

Richard Behar, an investigative reporter, incurred Scientology’s wrath when he wrote a cover article about the church in Time magazine in 1991. The article called the church “a hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner.”

The church and a member sued Time and Behar for libel, and the company spent more than $7 million defending the cases. The church’s suit was dismissed last year by a Federal District Court judge, an action being appealed by Scientology. The individual’s suit was settled with a corrective paragraph but no money.

Behar contends in a countersuit that even before the article ran, church investigators questioned his acquaintances about his health and whether he had had tax or drug problems. Behar said that after the article ran, he had been followed by Scientology agents and had been so concerned he had hired bodyguards.

In 1992, Judge Ronald Swearinger of Los Angeles County Superior Court told The American Lawyer magazine that he believed Scientologists had slashed his car tires and drowned his collie while he was presiding over a suit against the church. The church denied the accusations.

In 1993, Judge James M. Ideman was presiding over a suit involving Scientology in Federal District Court in Los Angeles when he took the unusual step of withdrawing from the case. In a court statement, he said he could no longer preside fairly because the church “has recently begun to harass my former law clerk who assisted me on this case.”

Kendrick L. Moxon, the church’s lawyer in the case, said he had tried to question the former clerk about accusations that there was a framed Time magazine cover about Scientology in the judge’s chambers. He said that the former clerk had refused to talk to him and that his subpoena for her testimony had been quashed.

Scientology’s tactics in court have also drawn judicial rebukes. Last year, the California Court of Appeal accused Scientology of using “the litigation process to bludgeon the opponent into submission.” The Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco said last year that Scientology had played “fast and loose with the judicial system” and levied $2.9 million in sanctions against the church.

By aggressively pursuing its opponents in court, the church seems to heed the preaching of L. Ron Hubbard, its founder, who once wrote: “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway … will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decrease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”

One focus of suits by Scientologists was the Cult Awareness Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to countering religious groups it perceived as dangerous.

Scientology has long regarded the network, known as CAN, as an opponent of religious freedom and a hate group. Church officials said the network used “deprogrammers” to kidnap people in an effort to persuade them to leave small religious groups. Deprogrammers affiliated with the network have been convicted of crimes in connection with efforts to force people to leave religious organizations.

Beginning in 1992, Scientologists filed 40 to 50 suits against the network and its officers, contending that they discriminated by refusing to allow Scientologists to attend conventions or join chapters. Some Scientologists prevailed in court.

Moxon, who represented many Scientologists, said the suits had been intended to address network discrimination against people who wanted to reform it.

But Daniel A. Leipold, who represented the network, said during depositions in some of the suits that the actions had been part of a campaign by Scientology to destroy the network.

Last year, the network declared bankruptcy after a $1.8 million judgment against it in a suit brought by a young man who had been a member of a Pentecostal group. The jury found that the man had been forcibly detained by a deprogrammer. Moxon, who represented the man, said that he had taken the case as a religious freedom matter and that his expenses had been paid by the Pentecostal group.

After the network filed for bankruptcy, its name, logo and telephone were bought by a group represented by a lawyer who is a Scientologist. While the church said it had no connection with the purchasers, a brochure mailed by the new Cult Awareness Network in January was a glowing description of Scientology as a means to “increase happiness and improve conditions for oneself and for others.”

Notes

  1. Retrieved on August 8, 2014 from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/nytimes.html.

Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (February 20, 1994)

FIND A BETTER BASKET

A Literary Work Created and Written
by
GERALD ARMSTRONG

FIND A BETTER BASKET
Copyright © 1994 Gerald Armstrong
All Rights Reserved
Contact:
The Gerald Armstrong Corporation
Copyright © 1994 Gerald Armstrong
© 1994 Gerald Armstrong


FIND A BETTER BASKET

    I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

1. I am making this declaration in response to allegations made by Scientology organization leaders, attorneys and agents in court proceedings and public media around the world concerning a 1984 organization intelligence operation targeting me, which has been called the “Armstrong Operation.” I am copyrighting this document prior to its use in court because it will, in addition to putting the organization’s allegations into a proper context, form an outline for a screenplay I am writing. It is my story.

2. After I left the organization at the end of 1981, the organization intelligence bureau assigned Dan Sherman, a Los Angeles spy story writer and intel operative, to get close to me and become my friend, which he did. I had been the intelligence officer on board the “Apollo” with the organization’s founder and supreme leader L. Ron Hubbard, had studied his intelligence policies and Guardian’s Office 1 intelligence materials, had an

1

appreciation for that literary genre, and I was myself a writer, so Sherman and I had a real basis for a real friendship.

3. Sherman told me he was no longer involved in Scientology, wanted nothing to do with it, saw it as a personal waste of time, and also saw that its leaders were ruthless and dangerous, and claimed to be afraid of them finding out that he was friends with me. Sometime in 1982 or 1983 he told me that he was still in communication in a limited way with some of his old friends still in the organization. He described these friends as smart, reasonable and not fanatics. They were still Scientologists and worked on staff, but felt that organization leaders were criminals. Having no allegiance to these leaders, Sherman’s friends would occasionally tell him about conditions inside and their desire to end the organization’s criminal activities. They said the conditions inside were oppressive and chaotic and they were at risk even talking to him because sec checks2 were rampant.

4. During the 1984 trial of the organization’s case against me, Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angles Superior Court no. C 420153 (“Armstrong I“), Sherman told me that one of these friends, whom he called “Joey,” had told him that there was an

2

actual group inside the organization who were dedicated to reforming it because management had become suppressive. They called themselves the “Loyalists,” claiming to be ” loyal” to the preservation of the ideals of Scientology, “what worked.” They also recognized that its leaders were criminal, crazy, dangerous, and not dedicated to those ideals but were acting to destroy them. The “Loyalists” wanted to take control in a well-planned, effective and peaceful action before some tragedy happened. They claimed to know of criminal activities and a key part of their plan was the documenting of these activities.

5. Sherman said they were 35 in number, or at least there were 35 who knew they were “Loyalists,” all smart, reasonable and not fanatics. Some of them were his old friends from B-1. Such persons tended to be smart, reasonable and often were not fanatics. The people whom I knew to be, including Hubbard, the organization leaders, prided themselves on their recognition of unreasonableness as a virtue, and maintained an abiding fanaticism to justify their abuses and keep their positions of power. Sherman was smart and gave every appearance of being reasonable and unfanatical. He said the Loyalists knew he was in communication with me and wanted to talk with me but were afraid for their lives. This was not surprising to me because I knew from my own experiences that the organization had a brutal side and its leaders were dangerous, armed and desperate. Thus the first communications with the Loyalists were a few messages relayed by Sherman. They said that I had a proven record against

3

the organization, that my integrity had been unshakable and they wanted my help.

 6. A few days after the Armstrong I trial ended, Joey, who, I later learned, was actually one David Kluge, made the first direct contact with me, a phone call to my home in Costa Mesa, California. He said the Loyalists knew I wanted my pc folders,3 was the head of the Guardian Office for years and among other things, authored the infamous order ‘GO 121669’ which directed culling of supposedly confidential P.C. files/folders for the purposes of internal security.” “The practice of culling supposedly confidential ‘P.C. folders or files’ to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and/or harassment is repugnant and outrageous. The Guardian’s Office, which plaintiff [Mary Sue Hubbard] headed, was no respector of anyone’s civil rights, particularly that of privacy.”]4  that my folders were being moved on a certain day and that I could get them if I wanted. I told Kluge that even though the folders were mine the organization would claim, if it was discovered I had them, that I was accepting stolen property, so I had to decline his offer. I was also already booked, on the same day the Loyalists said they would get me my pc folders, to fly to London to testify in a child custody case5 involving

4

Scientology, and I told Kluge that I couldn’t change my plans.

7. When I returned from the UK, where, incidentally, I had been harassed by a pack of English private investigators working for the organization, Kluge reestablished contact, and I communicated with him or Sherman several times over the next few months. I was happy to be in communication with them, because I’m happy to be in communication with anyone, and my relationship with the Loyalists, who were admitted Scientologists, seemed a spark of hope in the seemingly hopeless and threatening Scientology situation.

8. I have believed and stated that when Scientologists have the freedom to communicate to the people their leaders label “enemies,” Scientology will cease to have enemies. The organization’s leaders prohibit their minions from communicating with me, thus I am their enemy. This prohibition is enforced with severe “ethics” punishment, which could easily include “declaring” the person who dared to communicate with me a “suppressive” person, thus making him the target of the organization’s philosophy and practice of opportunistic hatred Hubbard called “fair game.”

9. I had lost my law office job because of the Armstrong I trial, which really ran from April into June, 1984, and I did not get another job for some months, so had considerable time on my

5

hands in the fall of 1984 to meet with Sherman and the Loyalists and do some of the things they wanted. I had begun to draw and write seriously during this period, and some of my writings concerned the Scientology battle and the Loyalists. My situation with the organization and the Loyalists was bizarre and psychologically traumatic, and this is reflected in my writings of the period. Thanks to, I believe, my growing faith in God I was given the gift of a healthy sense of humor and that too is a facet of my communications and writings during the period.

10. In late July, 1984 the organization fed to the media the story, and filed papers in various court cases, including Armstrong I, charging, that Michael Flynn, who had fought the organization’s fair game tactics for five years, who had been my friend and attorney for two years and had just successfully defended me in the Armstrong I trial, was behind a plot to cash a forged check for $2,000,000.00 on one of Hubbard’s accounts at the Bank of New England. Sherman and Kluge communicated that the Loyalists knew Flynn was not involved, and that the organization leaders knew Flynn was uninvolved but were framing him with the forgery. The Loyalists said that they were working inside the organization to acquire the proof of the frame-up, and that when they proved Flynn’s innocence they would be in a position to effectuate the reforms they sought. This was fine with me, because I fully believed that Flynn was innocent, and that the organization was framing him just to be able to attack him to eliminate the threat he represented to its antisocial practices

6

 

and nature.

11. Over the next few months Sherman and Kluge communicated with me regularly about the Loyalists’ progress in documenting the truth about the Flynn frame-up. They claimed that all staff were searched before they could leave OSA or management offices, so it was hard to get any documents out. Nevertheless, on a couple of occasions Sherman and Joey gave me a page or two that had been smuggled out. I learned that a US Attorney in Boston had become involved in the investigation of the frame-up, and I passed whatever I got from the Loyalists to him through Flynn.

12. One of the ideas which developed with the Loyalists in the early fall of 1984 was the possible filing of a lawsuit to take control of the organization from the “criminals.” I saw this as an idea with merit, and could be the effective action the Loyalists said they were looking for to avert a major organization tragedy. I told Flynn what they wanted and he drafted a “bare bones” complaint which I passed to them. Sherman, Kluge and I discussed the lawsuit concept on several occasions, both of them asking me for my ideas and I helped as I could within the limits of my knowledge, ability and imagination.

13. The Loyalists then began discussing with me finding a financial “backer” for their lawsuit, basing this need on the likelihood that the bringing of the suit would freeze organization accounts, and the Loyalists would need operating capital. They claimed that the leaders had lots of money they had skimmed from the organization and squirreled away in their

7

own bank accounts, and the Loyalists were all staff members and thus broke. I couldn’t help them with money, and knew of no one who might finance whatever they did, so they said that, because I understood the situation so well, and had a proven record, they wanted me to talk to and encourage some prospective backers with whom they were in touch. One day I got a call from Kluge, asking me to fly to Las Vegas to meet with such a person, a “rich Scientologist” who had been mistreated by the organization and was aligned with the Loyalists on their goal of reformation.

Although on Kluge’s instructions I purchased a plane ticket, I called off the trip before leaving because my lawyers warned me that I could be walking into a trap.

14. 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.

8

15. Because of their fear for their lives they depended on secrecy, duplicity and intelligence procedures and goals.  Although I had been in intelligence in the organization and had the essential quality for the field; i.e., native intelligence, I had, after leaving the organization, come to the conclusion that Scientology’s brand of intelligence; i.e., the secret world of data, duplicity, stealth, hidden intentions and hidden identities, was ineffective, unhealthy, unholy, and not my choice for how I would make my way through life and deal with my problems. Even inside the organization, which is an intelligence-based group, I had urged those who were in positions to do something about it to open up, stop lying, disclose its leaders, divulge its secrets; because I felt that its lies, secrets, and secret orders from its secret leaders would only bring upon it more problems. After leaving the organization, a factor in my life which led to my faith in openness and freedom as opposed to secrecy and leverage, was all the testifying I did, in trial in Armstrong I and in B & G Wards, and in many days of depositions in several more Scientology-related cases. Also I knew that the organization’s leaders, who had an undeniable determination to harm me, possessed my pc folders which contained every embarrassing incident or thought in my life, and my lives back umpteen impossibillion years. These facts had resulted in a tendency in me at times during this period to not care what happened to me and to act a little wild and silly.

16. Sometime during 1984 it came to me that what I was

9

 following, and what was a far superior technology and faith than intelligence, or perhaps perfect intelligence, was guidance. I had been given, before and after my asking, a desire to know my Creator, and I believe I received during this period some of His communications to me. Hubbard in his writings put no faith in his Creator, but put it in something of his own making, an intelligence apparatus in which he was the secret leader with secret bank accounts, secret  communication lines, secret codes, secret intentions, and secret lawyers to keep them all secret. I had come to know God a little, and understood that no matter how scary things got I was in hands in which I was in no real danger. I could be shot, my body could be destroyed, I could be defamed and ruined, and I would still be in no real danger. And things did get scary for me in my dealings with Sherman and the Loyalists during this period. I picked up surveillance on a number of occasions, and there was the nagging strangeness of the Loyalists’ communications and the movie-like quality of this play in which I was being played with. I still retained my intellect and acted with good sense most of the time, but a shift was occurring in my mind and soul. I began to walk deliberately into danger, but I was also new at this approach to life, and as yet a little foolhardy and undisciplined, and these facts too are reflected in my writings and actions of the period.

17. Sherman’s and Kluge’s interest was intelligence and they didn’t want to hear much of my philosophy of guidance, courage and openness, so I turned my mind to the intelligence

10

game, and as always happens when I turn my mind to any subject, I had ideas. Some of these ideas I communicated to the Loyalists, some I wrote down, some were only funny. Our meetings had a secretive, spy story feel to them, partly because of the danger the Loyalists said they were in and the danger I was in anyone would say, partly because of the subject matter we discussed, and partly because of the settings in which we met. Sherman insisted that I couldn’t come to his home, so we met on many occasions in the bird sanctuary in Griffith Park. My first meeting with Kluge was in a cemetery in Glendale. I met him two more times in early November at different locations in Griffith Park, and then met with Rinder two times in late November at two more locations in the park.

18. Sherman told me around October, 1984 that the Loyalists had found a potential backer, a woman named Rene, another “rich Scientologist,” who he said had been horribly hurt by the organization. He said he knew her personally and considered her a good and trusted friend. He said that she owned a publishing company which printed calendars, that he had told her about my artwork and writing, and that she wanted to see some of my materials for possible publication. Following our first meeting in Griffith Park Kluge took me to the Sheraton Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles to meet her. I took along a file of some of my work and left it with her. In my meeting with her she wanted to know my perspective on the lawsuit idea and my thoughts on removing the organization’s criminal leadership.

11

19. 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.”

20. 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.

21. Some time after my last meeting with Rinder, which occurred November 30, 1984, I received a phone call from Kluge, advising me that the Loyalists did not trust me and would not be communicating with me again. I then wrote them my final communication, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A6, and gave it to Sherman to give to them.

12

    22. During my cross-examination7 in the spring, 1985 trial of Julie Christofferson v. Scientology, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, No. A7704-05184, the organization broke the fact that Sherman, Kluge and Rinder had been covert operatives, the Loyalists were invented, and that my meetings with Kluge and Rinder had been videotaped.8 The organization called the whole more than two year affair the “Armstrong Operation.” Organization lawyers, Earle Cooley and John Peterson, claimed the Armstrong operation had been authorized by the Los Angeles Police Department, and they produced a letter dated November 7, 1984, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B 9, signed by an officer Phillip Rodriguez, directing organization private investigator Eugene M. Ingram to electronically eavesdrop on me and Michael Flynn.

23. On April 23, 1985, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates issued a public statement, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit C10, denying that the Rodriguez letter was a correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department, denying that the Los Angeles Police Department had cooperated with Ingram, and stating emphatically that all purported authorizations directed to Ingram by any member of the Los Angeles Police Department are invalid and unauthorized. On information and belief, the officer, Phillip Rodriguez, who signed Ingram’s letter was paid $10,000.00 for his signature.  Also on information and belief, following a Los Angeles Police Department Internal Affairs Division investigation and a Police

13

 Department Board of Rights, Officer Rodriguez was suspended from the Los Angeles Police Force. Eugene Ingram had himself some years before been drummed out of the Los Angeles Police Department. He is reputed to have been busted for pandering and taking payoffs from drug dealers. He is a liar and a bully who has been involved in organization intelligence operations against its perceived enemies for many years. During the period I was involved with the Loyalists Ingram called me at my home and threatened to put a bullet between my eyes.

24. Initially the presiding judge in the Christofferson trial Donald F. Londer refused to admit the tapes because they had been obtained illegally. Then he viewed them in chambers and when he returned to the bench stated that “the tapes are devastating, very devastating to the church.” Then he admitted them into evidence.

25. Despite Judge Londer’s ruling and comments, and despite Chief Gates’ repudiation of the Rodriguez “authorization,” the organization has continued in press and courts around the world to claim that the videotape operation was “police-sanctioned.”

The organization has continued to claim that I originated the “plot to overthrow ” church” management” and that I initiated the contact with the organization members, who merely played along with my plan while remaining “loyal” to the organization. It also has continued to claim that the videotapes show me plotting to forge documents and seed them in organization files to be found in a raid, show me creating “sham lawsuits,” show me urging

14

the Loyalists to not prove anything but “just allege it,” and show me seeking to take control of the organization. The videotapes show none of those things. The tapes show that in the fall of 1984, during the reign of the organization’s present supreme leader David Miscavige (DM), the fair game doctrine was alive and as unfair as ever. The tapes show a mean-spirited, mendacious and malevolent organization using well-drilled operatives and electronic gadgetry to attempt, unsuccessfully, to set up an unwitting, funny, sometimes silly, clearly helpful, at times foul-mouthed, but otherwise ordinary human male.

26. The organization’s refusal to stop telling these lies is not surprising, however, because its leaders have put so many of their eggs in their dirty tricks basket. These leaders are unbalanced and in a very precarious situation. Having lied about the Armstrong Operation in so many courts and publications and to so many people, including their own followers, these leaders risk their positions of power, and in their minds their very lives, if they ever admit the breadth of those lies. Yet it is in the acknowledgement of the truth behind those lies where ultimately their safety will be found.

27. It has not ceased to be embarrassing to me whenever the organization trots out the Armstrong videotapes, because I do say some silly and raunchy things. But the organization has never been able to embarrass me into silence and it won’t now.

28. The Scientology legal war has almost run its course. The organization’s leaders can never rewrite all history.

15

Scientologists of good will everywhere can be free.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at San Anselmo, California, on February 20, 1994.
[signed]
GERALD ARMSTRONG

Copyright © 1994 Gerry Armstrong

16


Notes

 

  1. The Guardian’s Office (“GO”), headed from 1966 to 1981 by Mary Sue Hubbard, who reported to and was controlled by L. Ron Hubbard, consisted of five bureaus: Intelligence, Public Relations, Legal, Finance and Social Coordination (front groups). The GO was responsible for hiding its money and its actual command lines, defending the organization against attacks and for eliminating all opposition to its progress. Hubbard patterned its intelligence bureau, B-1, and the organization’s total espionage mentality on the work of Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s spy master. On Hubbard’s orders, after the conviction of 11 top GO intelligence personnel, including Mary Sue, for criminal activities against the US Government, Scientology’s second major arm of power, the Sea Organization, in a 1981 putsch took control of the GO’s functions and subsequently renamed the GO arm the Office of Special Affairs, “OSA.”
  2. Sec checks are accusatory interrogations using Hubbard’s electropsychometer or E-Meter as a lie detector. Sec checks could be brutal, could go on for many hours or days, could involve several people asking questions, threatening and badgering, and could have disastrous results for the interrogee.
  3. Pc folders, also called preclear or auditing files or folders, contain the record of processes run and questions asked by the auditor (psycho- therapist), E-Meter reads, and answers given and statements made by the preclear (or patient) during Scientology auditing (or psychotherapy) sessions. It was well known that I had opposed and exposed the organ- ization’s misuse of information divulged by the organization’s “preclears” (what were essentially psychotherapist-patient confidences) in auditing. I had been attempting to get the organization to deliver to me my pc folders throughout the Armstrong I litigation, and the misuse of auditing information was an issue in the Armstrong I trial. Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. stated in his decision following the 30-day Armstrong I trial: “[Mary Sue Hubbard
  4. See The Breckenridge Decision, filed June 22, 1984.
  5.  This Royal Courts of Justice case, known as Re: B and G Wards resulted in a Judgment on July 23, 1984 issued by Justice Latey in favor of the non-Scientologist parent. The Judgment, which was upheld on appeal, contained a scathing condemnation of organization policies and practices.
  6. Exhibit A: Letter to the Loyalists
  7. See Excerpts of Proceedings in Christofferson
  8. See Illegal Videos
  9. Exhibit B: Illegal authorization November 7, 1984
  10. Exhibit C: Public Announcement by LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates