John J. Quinn
Eric L. Dobberteen
QUINN, KULLY AND MORROW
520 South Grand Avenue, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 622-0300
William T. Drescher
23679 Calabasas Road, Suite 338
Calabasas, CA 91302
Earle C. Cooley
COOLEY, MANION, MOORE & JONES, P.C.
21 Custom House Street
Boston, MA 02110
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
AUG 12 1991
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY [initialed] DEPUTY
Kendrick L. Moxon
BOWLES & MOXON
6255 Sunset Boulevard,
Hollywood, CA 90028
James H. Berry, Jr.
BERRY & CAHALAN
2049 Century Park East
Suite 2750 Las Angeles, CA 90067
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,Plaintiff,vs.
C. PHILLIP XANTHOS; ALAN LIPKIN; MARCUS OWENS; MARVIN FRIEDLANDER; S. ALLEN WINBORNE; ROBERT BRAUER; JOSEPH TEDESCO; CHARLES RUMPH; RAYMOND JUCKSCH; MELVYN YOUNG; CARL CORSI; GREGORY ROTH;WILLIAM CONNETT; KEITH ALAN KUHN; CHARLES JEGLIKOWSKI; MELVIN BLOUGH; RODERICK DARLING; and DOES 1 – 200,
No. 91 4301 SVW (TX)COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM:
1. FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS;
2. FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS;
3. DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT: AND;
4. EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATIONS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT1
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. As this action seeks damages for violations of the United States Constitution brought under the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown Accents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship and the claims arose in this judicial district. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant-to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) in that this is a civil action in which all the defendants are or were employees of a United States agency, some of whom are residents of this judicial district, which is the judicial district in which plaintiff resides and in which the causes of action set forth arose.
3. Plaintiff Church of Scientology International (“the Church”) is a not for profit religious corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. In accordance with the ecclesiastical policies of the Scientology religion, plaintiff is the Mother Church of the Scientology religion, an internationally recognized religion engaged solely in spiritual, charitable, humanitarian and community-oriented endeavors intended to enhance adherents’ spiritual knowledge of themselves and their Creator. The Scientology religion has more than 8 million members and Scientology Churches, Missions and groups exist in 90 nations around the world.
4. Except for three who have retired from government service since performing the acts hereinafter averred, the defendants are, and at all relevant times were, employees of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). The matters averred in this Complaint are largely drawn from information only recently discovered by the Church in the course of Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) litigation.
5. As the conduct which gives rise to the Church’s claims of constitutional violations occurred within different divisions and offices of the IRS, the defendants are grouped within their respective divisions for the purposes of the following identifying averments:
A. Los Angeles Criminal Investigation Division.
i. Defendant Philip Xanthos (“Xanthos”) is, and at all relevant times was, a Branch Chief of the Los Angeles Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS (“LA CID”). Upon information and belief, Xanthos resides in this judicial district.
ii. Defendant Alan Lipkin (“Lipkin”) is, and at all relevant times was, a Group Manager within LA CID. Upon information and belief, Lipkin resides in this judicial district.
B. National Office Exempt Organizations.
i. Defendant Marcus Owens (“Owens”) is currently the Director of the IRS National Office Exempt organizations (“EO”) Technical Division, and was, at all relevant times an official of the EO Technical Division. Upon
information and belief, Owens resides in the State of Maryland.
ii. Defendant Marvin Friedlander (“Friedlander”) is, and at all relevant times was, an IRS Senior Conferee Reviewer in the EO Technical Division. Upon information and belief, Friedlander resides in the State of Maryland.
iii. Defendant S. Allen Winborne (“Winbourne”) was at all relevant times until approximately 1987 IRS Assistant Commissioner for Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations. Upon information and belief, Winborne resides in the State of Maryland.
iv. Defendant Robert Brauer (“Brauer”) was at all relevant times from approximately 1987 to and including approximately December, 1990, IRS Assistant Commissioner for Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations. Since in or about January, 1991, Brauer has been the IRS District Director in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, Brauer resides in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
v. Defendant Joseph Tedesco (“Tedesco”) was at all relevant times until approximately 1987, Chief of the National Office Exempt Organizations Technical Division. Since in or about 1987, Tedesco has been in retirement. Upon information and:belief, Tedesco resides in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
vi. Defendant Charles Rumph (“Rumph”) was at all relevant times until approximately 1986, an attorney in the Tax Litigation Division, Office of Chief Counsel at the National Office. Although he did not work in EO, plaintiff is informed and believes that Rumph worked in,conjunction with the other EO defendants in doing the acts hereinafter averred.
Since in or about 1986, Rumph has been in retirement. Upon information and belief, Rumph resides in the District of Columbia.
vii. Defendant Roderick Darling (“Darling”) is, and at all relevant times was, an IRS tax law specialist in the EO Technical Division. Upon information and belief, Darling resides in the State of Maryland.
C. Los Angeles Exempt Organizations Division.
i. Defendant Raymond Jucksch (“Jucksch”) is, and at all relevant times was, a Group Manager within the Los Angeles Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS (“LA EO”). Upon information and belief, Jucksch resides in this judicial district.
ii. Defendant Melvyn Young (“Young”) is, and at all relevant times was, a Revenue Agent within LA EO. Upon information and belief, Young resides in this judicial district.
iii. Defendant Carl Corsi (“Corsi”) was at all relevant times to and including
July, 1989, a Revenue Agent within LA EO. Since in or about July, 1989, Corsi has been in retirement. Upon information and belief, Corsi resides in this judicial district.
D. Los Angeles District Counsel Office.
i. Defendant Charles Jeglikowski (“Jeglikowski”) is, and at all relevant times was, an attorney within the IRS District Counsel’s office located in Thousand Oaks, California. Upon information and belief, Jeglikowski resides in this judicial district.
ii. Defendant Gregory Roth (“Roth”) is, and at all relevant times was, an attorney within the IRS District Counsel’s office located in Thousand Oaks, California. Upon information and belief, Roth resides in this judicial district.
E. Los Angeles District Office.
i. Defendant William Connett (“Connett”) was at all relevant times to and including January, 1986, District Director of the Los Angeles District Office of the IRS. Since in or about 1987, Connett has been the IRS Representative in Paris, France, where, on information and belief, he now resides.
F. IRS National Office Internal Security
i. Defendant Keith Alan Kuhn (“Kahn”) is, and at all relevant times was, Chief of the
Investigations Branch of the Internal Security Division of the Office of the Chief Inspector of the IRS. Upon information and belief, Kuhn resides either in the State of Maryland or the Commonwealth of Virginia.
G. St. Petersburg, Florida Exempt Organizations Division.
i. Defendant Melvin Blough (“Blough”) is, and at all relevant times was, a Revenue Agent within the Exempt Organizations Division of the St. Petersburg, Florida office of the IRS. Upon information and belief, Blough resides in the state of Florida.
6. Upon information and belief, IRS employees other than those named as defendants in this action performed acts which are unlawful and unconstitutional in connection with the facts set forth in this complaint. The Church will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint when the IRS employees not named as defendants, but whose conduct warrants their inclusion as defendants in this action, are identified.
NATURE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
7. By this action, the Church seeks damages for violations of its First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights arising from the conduct of the defendants and others within the Internal Revenue Service. While this action focuses on recent events, it is the culmination of three decades of IRS coercion in violation of the free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, discriminatory treatment in violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection component of Due Process under the Fifth Amendment, as well as the denial of procedural Due Process rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and actions in violation of the Church’s Fourth Amendment rights.
8. Although the IRS has withheld the vast majority of documents requested by Churches of Scientology under the FOIA, the limited FOIA information recently discovered by the Church through the production of documents and testimony demonstrates the actionable conduct hereinafter averred. This action, moreover, does not arise in a vacuum. It is an outgrowth of IRS conduct that includes:
a. Efforts by the IRS’ Chief Counsel’s office to persuade at least one municipal authority to find “local statutes and ordinances available as tools to curtail or close down” Scientology Churches;
b. Employment of “plants” to infiltrate Scientology Churches to obtain copies of Church records;
c. Recommendations of the IRS Chief Counsel that “defining church in regulations is one method to attack Scientology,” which recommendation was followed by the formulation of such a definition in General Counsel Memorandum 36078 entitled “Church of Scientology” (later promulgated as Revenue Ruling 76-415);
d. Targeting the Church of Scientology as
“subversive,” and conducting non-tax-related surveillance and intelligence gathering that a United States Senate Subcommittee would later find was “used to stigmatize, to set a group of individuals and organizations apart as somehow inherently suspect .:.” and which a Senate Select Committee found to be “an effort to employ tax weapons for essentially nontax purposes”;
e. IRS documents which refer to the Scientology religion as “religious bunco” and a “grab-bag of philosophical voodooism,” as well as IRS tape recordings of witness interviews in which defendants Young, Corsi and Roth referred to Scientologists as “crazy devotees,” characterized Scientology’s religious services as a “dog and pony show,” compared adherence to the Scientology faith to drug addiction, and called the religion itself a “facade” and
f. Encouragement given by Corsi, Young and Roth to individuals pursuing civil cases involving claims for damages against plaintiff and other Scientology Churches.
9. The claims for relief asserted in this action arise from the demise of a two-year criminal investigation of plaintiff, other Scientology Churches, and individual Scientologists that produced no indictments, no charges, and nothing more than the refusal of the Department of Justice to take any action with regard to that lengthy investigation. In the aftermath of that investigatory debacle, defendants, as is
more fully averred later in this complaint, embarked upon a course of conduct which has included: a. EO employees demanding documents from plaintiff and other Scientology Churches ostensibly to evaluate applications for exemption under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), while in reality making such demands so that those documents could be turned over to IRS criminal investigators in violation of the Fourth Amendment;
b. Inauguration of nationally and locally coordinated campaigns to single out plaintiff and other Churches of Scientology as targets for tax inquiries because they were Churches of Scientology, and to use such inquiries as a means to generate otherwise unavailable tax liabilities such as under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and
c. Embarking on a nationally and locally coordinated campaign of collections activity which arbitrarily and capriciously freezes and attempts to freeze bank accounts of plaintiff and other Scientology Churches for alleged tax obligation of still other Scientology Churches without notice and without any
opportunity to be heard before seizing plaintiff’s property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment Violations by Defendants Xanthos, Lipkin, Owens, Friedlander, Darling, Winborne, Tedesco, Rumph, Jucksch)
10. The Church repeats and realleges each and every averment set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9, inclusive.
11. The Scientology religion has been in existence for nearly four decades. From its earliest days, it has been a target of IRS scrutiny and hostility. After years of controversy and litigation, the IRS agreed with various Churches of Scientology to conduct an examination of a representative church and issue an exemption ruling based upon that examination for the representative church and all others similarly situated.
12. The IRS, for 25 consecutive days in March and April 1975, conducted an exhaustive examination of the Church of Scientology of Hawaii (“the Hawaii Church”), addressing every aspect of that church’s operations, including Scientology beliefs and practices. As a result of that examination, Church of Scientology of Hawaii and twelve other Scientology churches were granted exemptions under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).
13. The grant of exemption to the Hawaii Church followed an unsuccessful attempt by the IRS to employ a litigation tactic appropriately described as “harass and moot” to avoid judicial adjudication of the exemption issue. When the Hawaii Church
filed suit contesting the IRS’ 1969 denial of exemption, the IRS tendered a refund of the taxes to avoid an unfavorable court decision. When the Church refused the refund and pressed for a judicial determination, the IRS moved to dismiss claiming that the issue had been rendered moot. After the Ninth Circuit rejected this litigation ploy, the IRS settled the case and later granted exemption.. The IRS, however, continued to resist applications for exemption by Scientology churches despite the fact that its only thorough, comprehensive examination of any church had resulted, begrudgingly, in more than a dozen exemptions.
14. Exemption applications for plaintiff Church of Scientology International, Church of Spiritual Technology and Religion Technology Center were filed with the Internal Revenue Service in 1983. These exemption applications were forwarded to the IRS National Office by the local offices where they were filed. Responsibility for the exemption applications resided with defendants Owens, Friedlander, and Tedesco of the National Office EO working in conjunction with defendant Rumph of the Office of the Chief Counsel. EO requested additional information of the filing entities. Discussions between Church counsel and the IRS personnel processing the applications began with regard to the IRS’ requests for additional information, and at the request of those defendants the applicants provided further information to the IRS based on the belief that the newly formed churches all qualified for exemption and that the IRS was acting in good faith in the negotiations. EO letter requests to plaintiff and the other applicants dated July 30
and October 5, 1984 and January 18 and April 22, 1985 requested the applicants comment on specific allegations made by LA CID informants that were at the heart of the ongoing CID investigation. FOIA records and discovery in FOIA litigation reveal a continuous flow of information from EO to LA CID.
15. It is now clear, however, that defendants and the IRS were not dealing in good faith, but rather, were merely asking for and receiving voluminous financial and other records from plaintiff and the other churches without any intention of ever granting any section 501(c)(3) exemptions and as an unlawful means of obtaining data for LA CID. The use of the exemption process to obtain information for a criminal investigation deprived plaintiff of its rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violated specific IRS rules designed to protect those rights. The Internal Revenue Manual contains specific provisions which require EO to “immediately suspend” an inquiry if EO learns that “an assigned case involves a taxpayer who is the subject of a criminal investigation.” The EO agents responsible for plaintiff’s exemption application did not suspend the civil proceeding, but instead continued to use it as a means for gathering information for CID.
16. Between 1984 and 1986, LA CID conducted an extensive criminal investigation of plaintiff, other Scientology churches, and individual Scientologists, under the auspices of defendant Connett, the then-District Director, defendant Xanthos, the LA CID Branch Chief and defendant Lipkin, the assigned LA CID Group Manager. That investigation included the
use of mail covers, paid informants, summonses to dozens of financial institutions and church members, and infiltration of Scientology’s ecclesiastical hierarchy. The infiltration of the Church was planned as an undercover operation by the LA CID along with former Church member Gerald Armstrong, who planned to seed church files with forged documents which the IRS could then seize in a raid. The CID actually planned to assist Armstrong in taking over the Church of Scientology hierarchy which would then turn over all Church documents to the IRS for their investigation. The CID further coordinated this plan with the Ontario Provincial Police in Canada, through direct contacts and exchange of information, hoping that through simultaneous assaults the “momentum of . . . charges will cause [Scientology] to collapse.” Thus, the documents being channelled from EO to CID were being used for the unlawful purpose of forwarding criminal investigations in both the United States and in Canada.
17. That criminal investigation, the results of which were ultimately rejected in full by the Department of Justice, was doomed from its inception because it was based upon a faulty premise — that plaintiff and the other Churches were engaging in criminal conduct (conspiracy to interfere with the collection of taxes) by the mere fact that they had applied for section 501(c)(3) exemptions. In other words, at the time that EO was allegedly processing the exemption applications, the IRS had already made a determination that the exemption applications were criminal instruments because the applying churches had already been prejudged as non-exempt.
18. The IRS personnel charged with responsibility for the exemption applications — defendant Friedlander, and his superiors Owens, Tedesco and Winborne — were fully aware of the ongoing criminal investigation, yet despite the fact that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and IRS written procedures mandate that all civil IRS proceedings concerning a given tax period be suspended during the time in which a criminal investigation of that same period is in progress, EO personnel continued to request and receive information and documents from plaintiff and the other Churches and delivered such information and documents to defendants Xanthos, Lipkin and the other LA CID personnel conducting the criminal investigation.
19. In late July 1984, the Church learned through the media that LA CID had initiated a criminal investigation relating to Scientology organizations and individuals. Leaks to the media regarding the CID investigation had already resulted in unfavorable and harmful media reports, prior to the time when the organizations and individuals became aware that they were under investigation. In response to one such article, Church counsel contacted defendant Connett who confirmed that an investigation of Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and another Scientologist was in progress, but who expressly misrepresented to counsel that the criminal investigation was separate and distinct from the ongoing exemption application process, and encouraged the Church to continue the application process. Connett,, with the assent of defendants Friedlander and Winborne, told the Church’s attorneys that the CID investigation did not directly involve
any of the applicants and might not lead to charges being filed. He stated that in that case, it would not make sense to drop the existing team which was developing the exemption 4 applications. The truth of the matter was that defendants Friedlander and Tedesco were turning material over to LA CID, either directly, through Connett, or through the Los Angeles Exempt Organizations Division (which was staffed by defendants Jucksch, Corsi, and Young).
20. Connect did not merely misrepresent the status of the CID investigation to the Church. He also set into motion the coordination between the National Office employees processing the exemption applications, and the agents of the CID. In January 1985, Friedlander contacted Xanthos and his superior, CID Chief Ronald Saranow, at the suggestion of defendant Connett for the purpose of obtaining information from CID’s files. Friedlander informed defendant Tedesco of his plan to travel to Los Angeles along with defendant Rumph, for the purpose of reviewing CID’s materials as well as CID’s “draft prosecution letter.” In order to prevent plaintiff and the other churches from learning of the CID investigation, Friedlander proposed that EO and CID could mutually coordinate when or if any CID material would be included in any applicant’s administrative file to preclude premature disclosure. Tedesco approved of the trip, as did defendant Winborne, who stated they should leave when ready.
21. In approximately February 1985, during the course of EO’s information gathering on’behalf of LA CID, defendants Friedlander and Rumph traveled to Los Angeles and met with
defendant Lipkin to acquire information about the criminal investigation and to learn of the criminal investigators’ areas of interest so that EO and LA CID might work together more efficiently. At that time, Friedlander was provided with a draft copy of a “Special Agent’s Report” (“SAR”) prepared by the LA CID defendants, Xanthos and Lipkin, requesting prosecution of various Scientology Churches, entities, members and their counsel, and setting forth the theories of prosecution. Friedlander thereafter sought information from plaintiff and the other applicants relating to areas addressed in the draft SAR, representing that the information was necessary for EO’s evaluations of the pending exemption applications. The information requested by Friedlander was supplied to EO, and thereafter forwarded by EO to LA CID to assist in the criminal investigation. Friedlander kept defendants Owens, Tedesco and Winborne informed regarding the provision of information by EO to LA CID. Moreover, Friedlander, knowing that he should have suspended the EO examination in light of the pending CID investigation, consulted agents of LA CID as well as Tedesco, Winborne and others concerning the requirement of suspending the EO proceeding. Friedlander was specifically directed to continue the exemption process, and he did so.
22. Following Friedlander’s return from viewing CID’s files in Los Angeles, EO employee Roderick Darling communicated with Friedlander regarding the use of the CID materials. Darling suggested that EO could pose questions to the Church based on certain documents in CID’s files, since it would not involve reliance on any testimony solicited by CID and,
therefore, would not expose the IRS to the charge that the IRS EO function had allied itself with CID or was tainted by CID’s conspiracy theories. Darling also informed Friedlander that CID hoped that EO would somehow be able to extract information from the Church, and that EO would be able to turn up something which CID had not been able to. In March 1985, defendants Lipkin and Connett attended a meeting at the National Office to discuss the pending exemption applications with defendants Friedlander, Winborne, Rumph and Tedesco. They discussed the possible timing of denials of exemption to coincide with the CID’s prosecution. Connett also assured the EO defendants that CID would provide them with the Special Agent’s Report when it was completed.
23. Numerous instances of the provision of information from defendants responsible for EO functions to defendants responsible for LA CID functions are presently known to plaintiff through FOIA requests, FOIA litigation and discovery in such actions, and numerous other instances of such unlawful acts are believed to exist but have not.yet been discovered by plaintiff. The IRS has even attempted to thwart such Freedom of Information Act discoveries by improperly withholding documents and portions thereof concerning the unlawful collusion between EO and CID which should have been released. The IRS has improperly asserted that records revealing the collusion were not discloseable based on the IRS’ “deliberative process privilege,” and thereby seeking to keep its unlawful acts from coming to view.
24. To prevent the revelation of the unlawful and
unconstitutional collusion between EO and LA CID, Friedlander destroyed copies of memoranda and notes taken during his visits to LA CID, and on information and belief, notes of subsequent telephone communications with Lipkin and others. Friedlander also destroyed documents he requested from LA CID because he did not want to place them in the application files and thereby be required to supply them to the applicant churches. Darling also supplied documents obtained during EO’s examination to LA CID for its use in its criminal investigation and received a copy of the draft SAR.
25. The initial conduit for transmitting information and documents from the Church through the EO in Washington, D.C. (defendants Owens, Tedesco, Rumph, Darling and Friedlander) to LA CID (defendants Xanthos and Lipkin, under the supervision of defendant Connett) was the Los Angeles Exempt Organizations Division (defendants Jucksch, Corsi and Young). At some time during the concurrent EO examination and LA CID criminal investigation, defendant Connett agreed to assume personal responsibility for transmitting the material from EO to LA CID.
26. Plaintiff and the other applicant Churches were unaware that EO and LA CID were colluding with one another behind the scenes, and continued to cooperate with EO personnel in conducting the examinations which the IRS represented were being conducted in good faith. Any potential suspicions by plaintiff or the other Churches that the information gathering may not have been completely for civil purposes, were allayed by the receipt of a letter to CST dated July 26, 1985, written by Friedlander and Darling, in which they stated: “We assure you
that our questions (in previous correspondence) have heretofore been solely directed at developing the applications to the point where your purpose and activities have been sufficiently described in accordance with the standards for issuing rulings ….” These representations were fraudulent, as the SAR, written 2 months earlier, unequivocally called for denial of tax exemption.
27. Notwithstanding that representation, EO continued to gather information for use by LA CID. A copy of the SAR obtained in FOIA litigation makes it clear that the purpose of the defendants who participated in the EO – LA CID collusion was for defendants to combine their efforts to create “another round of denial of exempt status,” a circumstance which the SAR states was intended to cause “a final halt to” and “the ultimate disintegration of” the Scientology religion.
28. In September of 1985, plaintiff and the other applicants learned that LA CID had forwarded a recommendation for criminal prosecution to the IRS LA District Counsel’s office, and that at least RTC and CST were named as targets of the investigation. On information and belief, plaintiff was also a target of the criminal investigation. By December 1985, the District Counsel’s office had concluded that the SAR did not warrant immediate prosecution and forwarded the matter to the Justice Department with a request that an investigative grand jury be convened.
29. The request for a grand jury coincided with the January 7, 1986 issuance of letters by the IRS National Office proposing the denial of exempt status to plaintiff, RTC and
CST. Defendant Friedlander made the decision to issue those letters at that time. At the same time, January of 1986, defendants Jucksch, Corsi and Young, on behalf of the IRS’ LA Exempt Organizations Division, prepared to launch a third prong of attack (to coincide with the grand jury request and the proposed exempt status denials) in the form of examinations conducted by LA EO. Those examinations were an outgrowth of the stalled LA CID investigation, and LA EO defendant Corsi had held a series of meetings during the course of the criminal investigation with LA CID defendant Xanthos.
30. The three prongs of attack which defendants had coordinated to begin’in January 1986 were all delayed, first, because the Justice Department did not convene a grand jury and, second, because plaintiff, RTC and CST submitted an approximately 500-page protest of the proposed exemption denials.
31. By October 1986, LA CID’s criminal investigation of the various Scientology Churches and individuals was moribund, and since the Justice Department had refused to pursue the matter before a grand jury, the case was about to be officially closed. By that time, the protests to the proposed denial of exempt status had bogged down the efforts of the EO defendants. In October 1986, with the investigation about to close, agents of LA CID attempted to utilize the news media to revive the investigation. The October 1986 issue of “Forbes” magazine contained an article by writer Richard Behar which falsely stated that the CID investigation was “gathering momentum.” On information and belief, these and other
allegations which appeared in the Forbes article were “leaked” to Behar by defendants Lipkin with the knowledge and consent of defendant Xanthos to encourage the Department of Justice to more seriously consider the allegations set forth in the Special Agents Report. Indeed, Behar openly applauded the SAR’s stated goal – the “ultimate disintegration” of the Church – in a recent Time magazine article. Defendant Owens, in turn, was quoted by Behar in the recent article, stating that there have been thousands of IRS agents involved in Church related tax matters for years. The IRS also apparently provided Behar with information concerning the Church’s FOIA cases, as Behar was able to report on the number of such matters filed. Thus, the IRS’ pattern of utilizing media to flank its actions against the Church continues to the present.
32. In November 1986, the Department of Justice rejected the request made by LA CID through LA District Counsel to convene a grand jury to continue the criminal investigation. The LA CID defendants, however, remained undaunted, and further sought to exploit their collusive connection to the EO and the LA EO defendants. In that regard:
a. On or before December 16, 1986, defendant Lipkin of LA CID met with defendant Corsi of LA EO to arrange for a meeting between Lipkin and Corsi’s Group Manager, defendant Jucksch. At that December meeting, Lipkin discussed the LA CID files on the Church with Corsi and explained that defendant Friedlander of National Office EO had reviewed those files
b. Defendants Lipkin, Corsi, and Jucksch met on January 5, 1987 to coordinate further actions with respect to plaintiff and other Scientology Churches;
c. In conjunction with National Office EO, LA CID and LA EO planned, coordinated, and implemented a plan to audit fourteen Churches of Scientology and two related trusts, all already exempt: and
d. LA District employees were invited to the National Office to review the data submitted by plaintiff, CST and RTC during the exemption application process. Plaintiff and the other applicants, unaware of the ongoing collusion among the EO, LA EO, and LA CID defendants, continued to negotiate with EO to attain rulings of exempt status under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Those negotiations continued throughout 1987.
33. As a result of the conduct of the defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has been coerced into diverting resources and attention away from the pursuit of its religious beliefs in order to defend itself against defendants actions. Plaintiff also has been burdened in the free exercise of its religious beliefs by the intrusion of defendants into its records practices, beliefs and ecclesiastical structure and policies by the defendants as is hereinabove averred. Such coercion and burden each constitutes a violation of the, Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
34. The collusion between the EO defendants, the LA EO defendants, and the LA CID defendants by which plaintiff was misled to believe that documents sought by defendants were for the purpose of a good faith exemption examination (rather than a sham exemption examination) when in fact such documents were being funnelled directly to criminal investigators, constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
35. The defendants, and each of them, by their conduct alleged herein, have singled out plaintiff for invidious discrimination in the application of the laws of the United States on the basis of plaintiff’s religious affiliation, in violation of the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
36. The conduct of the defendants, and each of them, has been arbitrary and capricious, and has resulted in the deprivation of plaintiff’s property. Such conduct, motivated by religiously rooted bias and prejudice, is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
37. Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damaged thereby in an amount to be proven at trial. That amount is not presently capable of precise calculation but is believed to be in excess of $20,792,850 which represents direct expenditures by plaintiff. Plaintiff has also suffered consequential and resulting damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which is in an amount in excess of $100 million.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For First and Fifth Amendment Violations by All Defendants)
38. The Church repeats and realleges each and every averment set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive.
39. On or about December 4, 1987, defendant Friedlander informed Church representatives that the IRS insisted upon a “limited” review of the financial records of plaintiff RTC, and CST for 1986, to be conducted by the Los Angeles District Office, for the purpose of verifying the integrity of their records and to rule out the existence of any private inurement, the only remaining potentially disqualifying factor. In early 1988, defendants Friedlander and Brauer assured plaintiff of favorable exemption determinations as long as the limited review did not uncover inurement or an inadequate accounting system.
40. Those representations were false. Documents released by the IRS in later FOIA litigation included drafts of final denial letters for plaintiff, RTC and CST written by Friedlander and Darling in January of 1988, at the very time when defendants Brauer and Friedlander were representing to Church counsel that exemption was imminent. In fact, the representations were no more than a ploy to entice plaintiff and the other Scientology Churches to continue turning over detailed information to the IRS in violation of the Church’s civil and constitutional rights.
41. On March 17, 1988, the National office provided plaintiff, RTC and CST with new letters of assurance stating that the IRS was prepared to conduct a review so that “we may
complete favorable consideration” of the exemption applications. The letters further stated that the purpose of the review was to “determine the integrity of your financial and accounting systems” and “verify that no part of your net earnings inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and that there is no other disqualifying activity.” Each Church executed its letter of assurance, permitting the extremely unusual process of an on-site document review of plaintiff’s records to proceed.
42. Extensive, on-site reviews began, starting with CST, in March of 1988. Despite the initial statement by Friedlander that the review would be limited, the Los Angeles office initially assigned four full-time agents to the review, and after eight weeks, another four full-time agents were added. This staffing represented 48 personnel weeks or roughly one year of IRS time. Friedlander and his superior, defendant Owens, testified that these examinations were the “most sweeping” examinations these officials had witnessed, “far exceeding” any they had previously experienced, and that the volume of information provided was “truly record-breaking.”
43. The examination of CST was completed on June 2, 1988. At that time, the IRS Branch Chief responsible for the review stated that the agents had found nothing to show inurement and affirmed that, as to CST, “we have no concerns at this time.” These statements confirm the findings of a memorandum written by defendant Friedlander in November 1987 which stated that private benefit ceased to be an issue following the death of L. Ron Hubbard in January 1986. Following the completion. of the
examination fo CST, the IRS Los Angeles office began its review of RTC, which was completed in June 1988 — again with no concerns raised by the agents.
44. On June 22, 1988, the Church discovered that in May 1988, defendants Corsi, Young and Roth secretly interviewed two disaffected Scientologists, Richard and Vicki Aznaran, who were suing CSI and other Scientology churches. Prior to leaving the Scientology faith in 1987, Vicki Aznaran had served as one of RTC’s officers. These defendants had engaged in deceitful conduct designed to prevent the Churches from discovering that the IRS investigation was actually proceeding on two tracks: one known to the Churches, which was based ostensibly on good faith cooperation between the churches and the IRS, and the other which was covert and designed to undermine the progress the Churches believed had been made towards the granting of exempt status. The discovery of this conduct raised serious concerns about whether the IRS was proceeding in good faith and in accordance with the March 17, 1988 agreement. The Churches immediately sought a meeting with the IRS to discuss their concerns.
45. It was later revealed that defendant Lipkin of the CID was instrumental in arranging the interview of the Aznarans by the EO agents, thus demonstrating the continuing ties between EO and CID. Plaintiff, RTC and CST were also not aware at the time that the two senior LA EO agents in the examination, defendants Young and Corsi, had met several times with LA CID during the review, that defendant Lipkin had briefed all of the agents involved in conducting the review,
and that defendants Corsi and Young had by this time received and reviewed the Special Agent’s Report. Thus, CID collusion with LA EO did not end in 1985 when IRS District Counsel rejected CID’s request for prosecution, nor in 1986 when the Justice Department refused to convene a grand jury.
46. During their interview of the Aznarans, defendants Corsi, Young and Roth openly displayed their animus toward the Church and the Scientology religion. The agents referred to Church religious services as a “dog and pony show”, and referred to members of the Church as “crazy devotees”. Defendant Young actually encouraged the Aznarans to “take a stand” against the Church. Defendant Roth compared the Scientology religion to drug addiction. These actions violate Internal Revenue Service policies which require an employee to maintain “strict impartiality” between the taxpayer and the government. These agents, who openly denigrated the Scientology religion, should have been removed from any examinations of Scientology churches under The Internal Revenue Manual, Handbook of the Rules of Conduct which indicates that an agent should be removed if his actions could lead others reasonably to question the employee’s impartiality. I.R.M. 0735.1, Handbook of Employee Responsibilities and Conduct § 232.21, MT 0735.1-17 (November 26, 1986).
47. On June 22, 1988, plaintiff contacted IRS representatives from the Los Angeles office and asked why the the summonses had been issued to the Aznarans. The IRS refused to discuss the interview or confirm that it had taken place. Church counsel informed the IRS that the document review was
accordingly being suspended until the matter was resolved with the National office. On June 24, 1988, in response to a letter from the Church regarding its concerns that the document review was apparently being conducted in bad faith, defendant Friedlander admitted that the IRS “owed [the churches] an explanation.”
48. In January of 1988, prior to the start of the on site review, final adverse determinations were already drafted and circulated by Friedlander and Darling. After June 27, 1988, while the Churches were awaiting defendant Friedlander’s promised explanation, the IRS finalized the adverse determination letters from the pre-existing drafts without substantive amendment. On July 7, 1988, the IRS informed CST that in its view the IRS had proceeded in accordance with the March 17 agreement and that it viewed the suspension of the audit as a termination of that agreement.
49. The following day, July 8, 1988, plaintiff and the other Churches wrote the IRS reiterating that they had not terminated the examination, but were waiting for the promised explanation regarding the Aznaran interview. The letters stated that the Churches did wish to fulfill the terms of the March 17, 1988 agreement, and that all they sought was a meeting with the IRS to clarify matters before the examination procedure resumed. That same day the IRS issued final adverse ruling letters to all three churches denying tax-exempt status. These letters were nearly identical to those drafted six months earlier by Friedlander and Darling. Despite previous assurances to the contrary, the denials of the applications of
plaintiff and RTC were based, in part, on alleged commercialism in the sale of religious goods and services.
50. The IRS on-site review procedure was an utter sham, designed not to make any good faith determination of the tax exempt status of plaintiff, but merely to continue to collect information which would not otherwise have been provided to the IRS. The on-site reviews also included examination of myriad ecclesiastical and confidential Church scriptural materials and other materials concerning the religious practices of the Churches which had no reasonable relation to any tax exemption issue.
51. The defendants, and each of them, by their conduct alleged herein, have singled out plaintiff because of its position as Mother Church of the Scientology religion and, through those acts, have invidiously discriminated against plaintiff in their application of the laws of the United States, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
52. The defendants, and each of them, by their conduct alleged herein, have singled out plaintiff for invidious discrimination in the application of the laws of the United States on the basis of plaintiff’s religious affiliation, in violation of the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
53. The conduct of the defendants, and each of them, has been arbitrary and capricious, and has resulted in the deprivation of plaintiff’s property. Such conduct, motivated by religiously rooted bias and prejudice, is a violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
54. Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damaged thereby in an amount to be proven at trial. That amount is not presently capable of precise calculation but is believed to be in excess of $20,792,850 which represents direct expenditures by plaintiff. Plaintiff has also suffered consequential and resulting damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which is in an amount in excess of $100 million.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For First and Fifth Amendment Violations by All Defendants)
55. The Church repeats and realleges each and every averment set forth in paragraphs 1 through 54, inclusive.
56. The IRS began additional harassive actions against plaintiff and Scientology parishioners commencing in October, 1988, when the IRS issued letters to several Scientologist taxpayers, who had claimed deductions on their tax returns for money paid to their Scientology churches for religious services, informing them that their cases were part of a “designated tax shelter litigation project entitled Scientology.” Such a designation was blatantly improper and demonstrated discriminatory bias and creation of a suspect category of members of the Scientology religion.
57. Similarly, on February 14, 1989, the IRS office in Laguna Niguel, California sent a letter to two Scientologists concerning Church-related deductions, stating that no deduction would be allowed as they had not shown that Scientology is “other than a sham designed for the purpose of claiming
fictitious charitable contributions.” This statement, too, was blatantly false and the result of bias, since even the IRS has repeatedly acknowledged that Scientology is a bona fide religion and that Scientology churches are bona fide churches. The IRS was forced to correct their files to delete these references after the Scientologists who received this letter prevailed in Smith v. Brady, No. CV 89-2584-RG(Bx) (C.D. Cal. 1990). Indeed, the IRS acknowledged that such designations were improper in a national office memorandum issued in 1986, yet the IRS continued labelling Scientologists as tax protestors as late as 1989.
58. Documents obtained in FOIA litigation reveal an entire set of procedures set up for the purpose of targetting the tax returns of individual Scientologists, monitoring and coordinating the investigations of these individuals, and falsely designating them as “tax protestors.” These documents, from the Los Angeles District, show that the returns of Scientologists who claim deductions for their contributions to the Church are designated with a special code for “Alleged Contributions (incl. Scientology & Alleged Church)”. This code is part of the Tax Protestor Program described in the Internal Revenue Manual, and allows the returns, which are treated as “priority cases,” to be “controlled” through the IRS’ nationwide computer system. A special questionnaire for Scientology cases is included for use by IRS examiners. An internal memo, designed to assist IRS examiners in handling these cases, lists several organizations which have never even existed, and claims that these are names used by the “Church of
59. Defendant Melvin Blough attempted to utilize the Church audit procedures of 26 U.S.C. § 7611 to identify thousands of parishioners of the Church of Scientology Flag Service organization (“CSFSO”) for the purpose of selecting their personal tax returns for audit. Blough testified that he wished to obtain records from CSFSO which would: (a) identify all of its parishioners for a three year period: (b) identify each of the courses delivered by CSFSO and describe them: (c) identify the courses taken by the parishioners; and (d) pull the tax returns of a number of these individuals. Blough stated that CSFSO provides courses to an estimated 8,000 parishioners a year, and further claimed that the IRS would use as many agents as needed to compile this information. In fact, nearly 100 parishioners of CSFSO have received audit notices regarding their contributions to the Church since Blough announced his plans. Blough also utilized the Cult Awareness Network (“CAN”) as a means to improperly gather information regarding the Church. CAN is a modern day hate group, whose tactics include kidnapping, brainwashing and beating of individuals found to be guilty of holding “unacceptable” religious convictions. Despite these activities, CAN was granted tax exempt status by the IRS, and was used by Blough as an information gathering arm, for the purpose of procuring information on individual Scientologists and their businesses.
60. Assaults on churches of Scientology by or as a result of actions by IRS personnel have not been limited to the borders of the United States. William Connett is now stationed
as the IRS’ foreign representative in France where he has a wide range of influence in European countries. Since his posting there have been raids on churches of Scientology by police and taxing authorities and unwarranted arrests of individual Scientologists in France, Italy and Spain. When two staff members of the Church of Scientology in Brussells were initially denied visas to travel to the United States, this was traced directly back to false information provided to the consulate officials by Connett.
61. In an effort to harass, discredit and smear plaintiff, to intimidate IRS employees who might otherwise treat plaintiff fairly or disclose IRS misconduct, and to evade FOIA disclosure obligations, defendant Keith Alan Kuhn has begun to proliferate unsubstantiated and patently false allegations against Scientology and Scientologists, which have been used as a pretext to manufacture security risks to IRS employees. In or about May 1990, Kuhn sent out a memorandum to each of the Regional Inspectors around the country, directing them to contact specifically named EO employees who were working on Scientology cases. Based on scurillous and unsubstantiated charges, Kuhn directed that these EO employees be told that there was a potential for harassment against them from the Church, thus creating a climate where plaintiff and other Scientology churches could not possibly receive unbiased treatment from any EO agent throughout the country. Kuhn’s allegations themselves are entirely without merit. The IRS filed a declaration by Kuhn which contained these charges in a FOIA case brought by a Scientology Church. The District Court
judge in that case ordered the declaration stricken from the record, describing it as “scurrilous” and “unfounded”.
62. After the collapse of the criminal investigation and after denying section 501(c)(3) exemption to plaintiff, RTC and CST, the nationwide examination of exempt and nonexempt Scientology Churches and entities which had been planned early in 1986 was resuscitated by defendants and the IRS. A three-day meeting on Scientology was convened at the IRS National Office on October 19, 20 and 21, 1988 to coordinate nationwide actions against various Scientology Churches, including plaintiff.
63. That three-day meeting was ordered by defendant Brauer, organized and convened by defendant Owens, and chaired by defendant Friedlander. Also in attendance were:
a. EO Operations employee Tom Miller, who had drafted the 1986 proposal to re-examine the exempt Scientology Churches;
b. Roderick Darling;
c. LA EO Branch Chief Mel Joseph, along with defendants Young and Corsi;
d. Defendant Blough;
e. IRS agents from at least the Brooklyn, Baltimore, and Los Angeles Regional offices; and
f. IRS National office representatives.
64. Various strategic plans for a continued IRS campaign directed at Scientology were discussed at the three-day meeting in October 1988. Defendant Young prepared and delivered a
briefing at that conference in which he proposed that and explained how the IRS could use the assessment of tax liabilities under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (“FICA”) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (“FUTA”) to exploit the non-exempt status of various Scientology Churches, completely disregarding the fact that the Churches in question, including plaintiff, had filed waivers seeking exemption from those employment taxes which had been accepted by the IRS.
65. At that same three-day meeting, format material for a nationwide campaign of examinations of exempt and non- exempt Scientology Churches was distributed and discussed, and the decision was made during that meeting to commence tax inquiries of plaintiff, Church of Scientology Western United States (“CSWUS”), Church of Scientology Flag service organization (“CSFSO”), Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. (“FCDC”) and Church of Scientology of Boston (“Boston Church”). Those inquiries in fact did commence, upon the issuance of notices of tax inquiry to those Churches which were circulated during that three-day meeting.
66. Upon receipt of the virtually identical notices of tax inquiry, plaintiff, CSWUS, CSFSO, FCDC, and the Boston Church responded by pointing out inaccuracies and deficiencies in the standardized, coordinated notices and, despite those infirmities, responded to the questions posed by those notices. In each instance, however, the IRS issued a notice of church examination under the Church Audit Procedures Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7611. In four of those, summonses were issued and summons enforcement proceedings commenced in the appropriate district
court. In the CSFSO case, the matter is still pending in the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida; this Court, the Honorable Harry L. Hupp, presiding, quashed the majority of both the summonses issued to CSWUS and plaintiff; the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts quashed the summons to the Boston Church outright. The FCDC examination was conducted, and despite nearly two years of intrusive inquiry, the IRS declined to cancel FCDC’s exemption.
67. The coordinated examinations of those five distinct churches were coupled with concurrently timed IRS activities directed against other Scientology Churches and individual Scientologists. These various coordinated activities against Scientology are the responsibility of what defendant Owens has described as “thousands of [IRS] employees in key districts and district offices around the country and the National Office.” Those coordinated actions have also been the subject of later meetings on Scientology at the IRS National Office, involving as many as 40 attendees from different IRS regions and divisions, in pursuit of what the SAR termed the “final halt to” and “ultimate disintegration of” Scientology.
68. Such coordination of IRS offenses against Scientology Churches and Scientologists generally also reaches down to the LA District level. Since approximately July 1989, monthly meetings have been held at the Pasadena, California courthouse that houses the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to coordinate the actions of the Los Angeles EO (represented at such meetings by defendant Young), Examinations
Division, and upon information and belief, LA CID. These monthly meetings are arranged and coordinated by the Los Angeles District Counsel’s office, and are attended by a number of District Counsel staff and, in fact, are chaired by defendant Jeglikowski, who supervises the meetings and the matters coordinated therein, against plaintiff and other Scientology Churches in disregard of the Constitution, the Internal Revenue Code, and policies set forth in the Internal Revenue Code. A regular topic of these meetings has been civil lawsuits involving plaintiff and other Scientology churches. The cases specifically include the civil suit filed by the Aznarans, and a case involving a former attorney for the Church. Defendant Jeglikowski has met with an attorney for one of the civil litigants, for purposes of coordinating actions between the IRS and the civil litigants against plaintiff.
69. The monthly meetings in Pasadena, like the meetings held from time to time at the National Office, are the vehicles by which defendants have singled out a religion and its churches and parishioners for singular and unfair treatment based upon their religious affiliation and set about to administer the Internal Revenue Code in a manner designed specifically to affect such co-religionists in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and to cause the harm hereinafter averred.
70. Plaintiff has made repeated efforts to resolve any legitimate concerns on the part of the IRS. As shown above, the Church has provided voluminous information to the IRS over the years to allay any concerns and to respond to any legitimate questions. These efforts on the part of the Church
have been either been perverted (as in the use of this information for purposes of a CID investigation), or rebuffed. Within the past few months, plaintiff once again attempted to resolve various issues with EP/EO representatives, including defendant Owens. However, the IRS continuously demanded the production of voluminous quantities of documents as a precondition for further talks. Most of the information requested had previously been provided to the IRS over the past years, yet the EP/EO representatives demanded it once again. When informed that the production of documents being requested on a voluntary basis was so extensive as to require months if not years to review, one representative of EP/EO remarked that this did not concern him, as he had twelve years left in the IRS before retirement.
71. The defendants, and each of them, by their conduct alleged herein, have singled out plaintiff for invidious discrimination in the application of the laws of the United States on the basis of plaintiff’s religious affiliation, in violation of the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
72. Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damaged thereby in an amount to be proven at trial. That amount is not presently capable of precise calculation but is believed to be in excess of $20,792,850 which represents direct expenditures by plaintiff. Plaintiff has also suffered consequential and resulting damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which is in an amount in excess of $100 million.
73. The conduct alleged herein is ongoing and, unless
enjoined by this Court through an order forbidding defendants from any and all further participation in any matter involving the IRS and plaintiff or any other Scientology Churches or any other Scientology entities or parishioners, the harm alleged herein will continue and the Constitutional violations will persist to plaintiff’s detriment.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(For Fifth Amendment Violations by All Defendants)
74. The Church repeats and realleges each and every averment set forth in paragraphs 1 through 73, inclusive.
75. Defendants have, in the course of conduct hereinabove averred, acted in violation of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the policies, and procedures, and practices of the IRS created by the IRS for the benefit of taxpayers. Such conduct is a denial of plaintiff’s due process rights as set forth in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
76. Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damaged thereby in an amount to be proven at trial. That amount is not presently capable of precise calculation but is believed to be in excess of $20,792,850 which represents direct expenditures by plaintiff. Plaintiff has also suffered consequential and resulting damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which is in an amount in excess of $100 million.
77. The conduct alleged herein is ongoing and, unless enjoined by this Court through an order forbidding defendants from any and all further participation in any matter involving the IRS and plaintiff or any other Scientology churches or any
other Scientology entities or parishioners, the harm alleged herein will continue and the Constitutional violations will persist to plaintiff’s detriment.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Church of Scientology International prays that:
78. Defendants, and’each of them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from any and all further participation in and responsibility for any matter involving the IRS and plaintiff or any other Scientology Church or entity, or any Scientology parishioner;
79. Plaintiff be awarded damages according to proof, which are believed to be in excess of $20,792,850 in direct expenditures by plaintiff, and consequential and resulting damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which is in an amount in excess of $100 million, and
80. The Court award and order such other and further relief that it deems appropriate under these circumstances.
Dated: August 12, 1991 Respectfully submitted,QUINN, KULLY AND MORROWCOOLEY, MANION, MOORE &
JONES, P.C.BERRY & CAHALAN
BOWLES & MOXON
WILLIAM T. DRESCHER
William T. Drescher
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
PETERSON & BRYNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
8530 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 407
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211
ATTORNEYS FOR: Plaintiff ,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
MARY SUE HUBBARD,
CASE NO. C 420153
DECLARATION OF JOHN G. PETERSON IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
TIME: 8:00 a.m. Defendant.
I, JOHN G. PETERSON, declare:
1. This declaration is submitted in opposition to defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. Plaintiff, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, joins in and adopts by reference the Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Attorney’s Fees filed herein by intervenor, MARY SUE HUBBARD.
2. Defendant’s motion can best be described as a poor attempt to add insult to injury. The defendant’s moving papers are an affront to the intelligence and integrity of this Court and the legal profession. This fee request is an insult to good intentioned legislators who enacted Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, and is ironic since this case was pursued by GERALD ARMSTRONG’S attorneys primarily to use this Court as a discovery tool for other litigation and as an avenue for media coverage to extort settlement of other litigation against Mr. Hubbard and the CHURCH.
3. GERALD ARMSTRONG’S moving papers transparently and despicably use a quote from the Bible and a reference to Jonestown all on the front page. The papers go on to paint GERALD ARMSTRONG as a great protector of truth who risked life and limb to expose the “illegal and unconstitutional actions” of the plaintiffs all to a “significant public benefit and will further constitutional freedoms.” However, nowhere does GERALD ARMSTRONG ever state exactly what these public benefits are and how the fact that he stole documents and invaded a person’s privacy can further constitutional freedoms.
4. GERALD ARMSTRONG’S unsupported claims of public benefit should not come as a surprise since all of his trial allegations were never supported by evidence. GERALD ARMSTRONG’S attorney, on page 9, lines 20 through 28, and page 10, lines 1 and 2, attempt to explain the claim for public benefit and constitutional significance. After reading these lines several times, anyone with any first year of law school education would be compelled to conclude: (I) It is incoherent; (2) the person writing the lines does not understand constitutional law; (3) the person writing these lines is audacious in seeking fees for “legal” work; and (4) any response is impossible and would only dignify the lines by educating the person who wrote them.
5. The Court should examine what the attorneys for GERALD ARMSTRONG really sought in this case. They argued that there was a novel and heretofore unheard of in law defense called “justification”. This is, GERALD ARMSTRONG because he believed his life was in danger and that “harassing lawsuits” were forthcoming he could steal evidence and send it to his lawyer for use in this “potential” litigation. Defendant’s attorneys also asserted that if a person feels he may be physically harmed, he can steal materials and threaten to or even publicize these private materials as a deterrent.
6. While these purported “defenses” advocate the worst kind of lawlessness and vigilantism, defense counsel totally failed at trial to produce any evidence to support these novel defenses. First, GERALD ARMSTRONG had no reasonable belief he was going to be sued. ARMSTRONG himself testified that he knew of no one who had ever left the CHURCH and been sued. It is unreasonable to conclude and foolish to believe that the incident where his ex-wife told him to “get a lawyer” could mean anything other than advice that if ARMSTRONG wanted the photos returned, ARMSTRONG would have to sue the CHURCH. How strange that this is the person found to be fearful of his life and terrified of this organization, yet he was marching up to the CHURCH’S main offices shouting and demanding “his pictures”. Did defendant produce witnesses who said they had left the CHURCH, been critical and then been sued? No evidence was produced at trial, simply because none exists. The only thing the Court heard was the ravings of Flynn.
7. The only reasonable way to view the evidence clearly shows that GERALD ARMSTRONG stole the documents for use in his case against the CHURCH. He left the CHURCH, was unskilled, had no job and he visited Flynn, a notorious anti-Scientology plaintiff’s lawyer, who obviously conspired with ARMSTRONG to steal the documents for use in their cases. It is naive to think that ARMSTRONG’S massive theft of marginally relevant documents is simply overkill. That is also why Flynn argued so strenuously that the Court do his discovery for him and hold the documents for use in the Cross-Complaint and other litigation Flynn is involved in.
8. Defense counsel claim they have exposed the CHURCH’S policy of blackmailing former members by use of PC material (page 4, lines 9 through 10). Flynn argued that the CHURCH blackmailed people. However, no witness was ever produced who testified that they had been either threatened with or blackmailed by the CHURCH. Defense counsel, without legal support or evidence, asked this Court to find that the CHURCH practices this policy. Also, how could ARMSTRONG reasonably fear blackmail when he had no knowledge of any instances of it prior to his theft of the documents?
9. Defense counsel should not be compensated for conducting a heresy trial. This Court took judicial notice of the fact that Scientology is a religion and has rights under the First Amendment. This Court correctly ruled that it could not inquire into or evaluate the merits, accuracy or truthfulness of Scientology. Yet defense counsel sought to try the religion, its Founder and its policies. An example of the dishonesty of defense counsel is when they submitted to this Court Exhibit 500-HHHHH. This 1970, French Government investigation report was authoed by an ex-Nazi, who admitted doing no first hand investigation but relied on other sources. Also, defense
counsel failed to inform the Court that the French court had reversed its findings that Scientology was a fraud.
10. Julia Dragojevic’s dishonesty with this Court is shown by her Declaration. At the beginning of the trial, she said that GERALD ARMSTRONG needed Flynn because Flynn knew the case better, was more experienced and knowledgeable; and we were told she had never tried a jury case. Now she is the “Scientology expert” who is deserving of $150.00 per hour. She is even claiming $150.00 per hour for the time she just sat in the Courtroom during Flynn’s trial. Julia Dragojevic’s hours are inflated, refex time spent on other matters and not relevant to this case (see attached Exhibit “A”).
11. Attorney fees could not be properly claimed because GERALD ARMSTRONG thinks he exposed Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard as frauds. This Court clearly ruled in the beginning of the trial that Scientology was not on trial and that the Court would not consider the truth or falsity of the contents of the documents but only how they were relevant to ARMSTRONG’S “state of mind.” If the Court correctly followed this stated ruling, it could not properly reach any conclusions regarding Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard, and defense counsel could not receive fees for this improper presentation.
12. At the beginning of the trial, plaintiff’s counsel warned the Court about allowing Michael Flynn to conduct the trial. Plaintiff made a motion to disqualify Flynn. Plaintiff warned this Court that Flynn would conduct a heresy trial against the CHURCH and a personal attack against L. Ron Hubbard. Flynn did this under the pretext that he was going to show this person and organization had unclean hands and was not entitled to equitable relief. Defense counsel argued that an old order by MARY SUE HUBBARD (GO-121669) gave her unclean hands that should deny her relief in this case. This ridiculous legal position is so contrary to black letter law that it does not deserve further comment. What is incredulous is that defense counsel seeks fees for presenting and arguing such a patently unsupported legal position.
13. Defense counsel point repeatedly to what they call the unclean hands of plaintiffs. This Court should be aware of the true character and motives of Michael J. Flynn.3
14. Plaintiff can not ignore Flynn’s efforts to prejudice this Court. Plaintiff also asks the Court to admonish counsel for defendant and their client to immediately cease these improper tactics, such as filing this fees motion, in their effort to prejudice this Court. Plaintiff also requests the Court to impose sanctions in the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred by plaintiff in replying to this frivolous motion for fees.
15. According to sworn declarations filed by attorney Michael J. Flynn of Boston, Massachusetts, he is an attorney of fourteen years experience in the State of Massachusetts who has tried 40 to 50 jury trials since 1972. Approximately one-third of Mr. Flynn’s career, since mid-1979, has involved litigating against the Church of Scientology and/or its Founder, L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Flynn has been counsel of record, or counsel but not of record, in cases being litigated in at least the states of Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Nevada, Oregon and California involving the Church. He has made appearances as counsel pro hac vice in California three times in the past two years in suits involving either Mr. Hubbard or the CHURCH.
16. Due to Mr. Flynn’s legal attacks upon the Church of Scientology, its members, practices and Founder, investigative actions were undertaken by professional investigators. These investigations revealed the following facts:
17. In early 1981 a document that laid out a scheme to sell shares in litigation against the Church of Scientology was drawn up in the law offices of Michael Flynn in Boston.
18. This document referred to Flynn Associates Management Corporation, a for-profit Massachusetts corporation incorporated on August 28,1980 by Kevin Flynn, Michael Flynn and Cheryl Flynn. (See attached Exhibit “B”). Kevin Flynn is the brother of Michael Flynn and, at that time, worked as an investigator or researcher for Michael. Cheryl Flynn is Kevin Flynn’s wife.
19. The document stated: “Description: Flynn Associates Management Corp. is a management consultant company. It was organized to manage and oversee the operations and strategy of all Scientology litigation of Michael Flynn Associates.” (See attached Exhibit “C”). Other documents discarded at about the same time from Mr. Flynn’s office revealed that investors were to be promised “a $2.00 return for each $1.00 invested.”
20. Despite claims to the contrary by Michael Flynn, attempts were made to sell shares. In an affidavit executed on October 13,1981, Jim Grey of Clearwater, Florida, stated that on October 2, 1981, Michael Flynn “offered me the position of Trustee of Flynn Associate Management Corporation (FAMCO) in the Clearwater area and told me that as a trustee, I would receive, raise and disburse monies which would be used to file suits against the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY around the country and therefor breack the CHURCH financially. ” (See attached Exhibit “D”).
21. A FAMCO document obtained around the same time, entitled “Scientology – Review and Planning”, demonstrated that the above was an “All Out” strategy which included: “a) closing orgs (orgs -Scientology organizations) b) adverse media c) adverse public d) Fed & State attacks”. Following this “all out” strategy, Michael Flynn and FAMCO engaged in the “adverse media” actions. From the deposition testimony of both Kevin Flynn and deprogrammer Joseph Flanagan in Garrison v. Kevin Flynn, et al. and Miller v. Kevin Flynn, et al. the initiation of the “adverse public” strategy was also implemented with the creation of new potential litigants. Kevin Flynn operating out of the 12 Union Wharf offices of FAMCO and Michael Flynn, solicited, organized and carried out several “deprogrammings” of Scientology parishioners. Following each successful deprogramming, Kevin Flynn had the victim transported to the Boston offices of Michael Flynn where the person was solicited to join the suits filed against the CHURCH they had just departed.
22. This all out effort continued on into early 1982. Affidavits show that through co-conspirators, Michael Flynn obtained access to the Bank of New England where Church of Scientology Founder L. R. Hubbard maintained a Cash Reserve Management account. The conspirators obtained copies of several of Mr. Hubbard’s checks, as well as several checks from an unrelated Florida company, and hired Ala Fadili Al Tamimi to counterfeit and forge these checks in the amount of $2 million.4
23. In a sworn statement, Ala Tamini has detailed how Mr. Flynn promised him $400,000 to pass the forged checks and pass the monies received to an overseas account established by Mr. Flynn in the Cayman Islands. Mr. Tamimi also related, in this same statement, the treatening remarks made by Mr. Flynn regarding the safety of Mr. Tamini’s family. (See attached Exhibit “E”).5
24. Following the failure of the attempt to forge and pass Mr. Hubbard’s checks, Mr. Flynn then filed suit on behalf of Ronald DeWolf, the estranged son of Mr. Hubbard, in Riverside, California. The suit claimed that Mr. Hubbard was a missing person under California probate codes and included charges that Hubbard’s business affairs were being mismanaged as evidenced by the failed attempt to forge one of his checks. Flynn accused Church officials of forging the check.
25. The investigation also discovered evidence that such behavior by Mr. Flynn was not limited solely to litigation against the CHURCH.
26. According to the Declaration of George Edgerly, executed on March 5, 1984, in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, Mr. Flynn both offered to pay Edgerly for his silence during two 1976 trials and made intimidating statements regarding the safety of Mr. Edgerly’s children.6
27. Mr. Edgerly was the defendant in a criminal case for fraud in Lowell, Massachusetts, in February and March, 1976. In approximately March, 1976, Mr. Flynn approached Mr. Edgerly and suggested that Edgerly not testify in his own defense, offering to pay Edgerly’s wife $500.00 a week for every week that Edgerly spent in prison. Edgerly accepted this proposal, was paid $1,000.00 by Mr. Flynn about two weeks later, and was sentenced to three to five years in prison.
28. Between October and December, 1976, Mr. Edgerly was again on trial, this time as a defendant to a charge of conspiracy. One of his co-defendants was represented by Mr. Flynn, both in this criminal suit and in a civil suit against General Motors Corporation.
29. Again, during this trial, Mr. Flynn proposed to Edgerly that he not testify and Edgerly agreed. Mr. Flynn promised Edgerly a share of the recovery from General Motors in exchange for his silence.
30. Later, during the trial, subsequent to Mr. Edgerly’s attorney being removed for a conflict of interest and Edgerly beginning to represent himself, Edgerly decided that he was being set up as the “fall guy” by Mr. Flynn and his co-defendants. He began aggressively cross-examining his co-defendants. They, and Mr. Flynn, became upset by this, resulting in Mr. Flynn’s offering to pay Edgerly $18,000.00 immediately. The money was not immediately forthcoming; Edgerly continued his aggressive cross-examination; and Mr. Flynn then mentioned that he knew of Edgerly’s concern for his family, that he knew Edgerly had a lot of children who were little and that “one of
them could be hit by a car.” Mr. Flynn made similar threatening remarks to Edgerly’s wife. (See attached Exhibit “F”).
31. A fee request by defense counsel is not supported by law as more fully discussed in the Opposition filed by intervenor. A request for fees is inappropriate in this case because of counsel’s conduct of this litigation and other attacks on Scientology. It is plain to see that this litigation was not brought and pursued for any public interest, but was part of a general plan of attack on Scientology and an attempt by Flynn to get documents for use in his
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 30, 1984, at Beverly Hills, California.
JOHN G. PETERSON
- Judge Breckenridge discussed this declaration at an August 2, 1985 hearing in Scientology v. Armstrong: Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (August 2, 1984) ↩
- This document in PDF format. ↩
- See Operator: John G. Peterson. ↩
- See Scientology’s Check Forgery Frame. ↩
- See Declaration of Ala Fadili Al Tamimi (May 5, 1984). ↩
- See Operator: George Edgerly ↩
This is a response to the “Declaration” of Heber Jentzsch who holds himself out as being a “Reverend” for the Church of Scientology. It is interesting to note that a “Reverend” is generally considered to be one who is a member of the clergy and is considered to be worthy of honor, respect, and admiration. Such honor and respect has in our society, traditionally been given to men who either individually or as part of a religious group, have demonstrated a high degree of love, kindliness, charitableness and good will toward all men. While Reverend Jentzsch purports to represent “goodness” about which he speaks in his “Declaration,” he proceeds to unleash a false, vitriolic diatribe against myself, psychiatrists, my colleagues, the government, my clients, (many of whom are former Scientologists who attained clear, OT-VIII, NOTS, auditors, and mission holders), as well as any other person or group who seeks to expose the lies, fraudulent conduct, and criminal activity of the RTC, the Church of Scientology, its agents and representatives, all of whom have inflicted wide-spread harm on many individuals and organizations.
At the beginning of his declaration, Reverend Jentzsch states that Scientology is a “symbol of good.” However, any person of reasonable intellect, upon examination of the record, must conclude that the thousands of “Guardian’s Office Operations” against its perceived “enemies” pursuant to the “Fair Game Doctrine” does not constitute “good.” The malevolence inherent in the very concept of the “Fair Game Doctrine” and “Suppressive Person Declares” is such that any man of good will should conclude that the very writing and implementation of such concepts which call for the “destruction” of anyone who opposes Scientology constitute acts of substantial depravity. Such concepts can only have as their purpose to destroy freedom of thought of which the Reverend Jentzsch purports to speak in support of.
The venom which pours forth from the brain and heart of the Reverend Jentzsch in his Declaration is such that most people knowledgeable of the “tech” would conclude that Reverend Jentzsch probably took special delight in doing the Guardian’s Office Hat Packs which train GO staff how to “destroy” people. Reverend Jentzsch appears to be consumed by an unfortunate quantity of anger, hatred, and delusion. Perhaps someone should recommend to the Reverend Jentzsch that he read verse 37, ch. 3 and verse 62, ch. 2 of the Bhagavad-gita, wherein it is stated:
“It is desire, it is anger, born of Arajo-guna, all consuming and most evil. Know this to be the enemy here on Earth.”
“From anger arises delusion: from delusion unsteadiness of memory: from unsteadiness of memory destruction of intellect: through the destruction of intellect, he perishes.”
If the Reverend Jentzsch sincerely believes that Scientology has its origins in Eastern religion, it would behoove him to read the aforecited chapters of the Bhagavad-gita.
On P. 2 of his declaration, the Reverend Jentzsch states that I have entered into a conspiracy with a corporation called “FAMCO,” through which I am selling shares of stock and through which I am in “collaboration with forces trying to destroy freedom of religion in churches in American life.” The Reverend Jentzsch then goes on to state that I am brutally kidnapping and deprogramming people, depriving them of their legal rights, abusing the judicial process, manipulating the media, committing libel, forgery, and a host of other pernicious activities, all of which are designed to destroy the Reverend Jentzsch’s wonderful Church.
The first question any intelligent person should ask is does Jentzsch really believe such absurdity or is he merely acting as a dupe for someone else. If the Reverend
believes that Michael Flynn is trying to destroy freedom of religion and churches in America, then one need inquire no further and simply dismiss Jentzsch as a nut. However, if Reverend Jentzsch is working for L. Ron Hubbard, RTC, Mary Sue Hubbard, or others, then the inquiry should relate to whom he is working for, what vested interests they have, and does the person he is working for really believe that Michael Flynn is trying to destroy freedom of religion and churches in America. If the persons who Jentzsch works for sincerely believe such nonsense, then they should be dismissed as suffering from delusions, anger and hatred for putting someone like the Reverend Jentzsch out on the street disseminating false information to those who are similarly deluded and who are paying the price for such delusion in the form of labor expended without payment, careers lost, millions of dollars paid, and in some cases even death. The sad, simple truth is that there are many who do and undoubtedly will believe Reverend Jentzsch and will thereby perpetuate their own self-deceit which inevitably, can only have extremely destructive consequences to them, to their loved ones, and to their families. Reverend Jentzsch’s efforts to perpetuate the lies, misrepresentations and chicanery for which the Church of Scientology has become famous, and which Michael Flynn has opposed and sought to
expose, brings to mind the verse in Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If,” wherein Kipling states, “If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to set a trap for fools.”
An analysis of what Michael Flynn has done in the four years in which he has engaged in litigation against the Church of Scientology and on behalf of former Scientologists reveals the following:
1. Mr. Flynn sued the Church of Scientology on behalf of La Venda Van Schaick because this so-called Church, pursuant to “Guardian Program Order 121669” as implemented by the “Assistant Guardian’s Full Hat,” sought to blackmail La Venda by using her auditing information illegally culled from her PC files, and then when the Church undertook a “black PR” campaign against La Venda and Attorney Flynn pursuant to a whole host of Guardian’s Office operations, Mr. Flynn sought to expose the Organization in the media. Is this the manipulation of which Reverend Jentzsch speaks? By this time, is there any question in anyone’s mind, after Mary Sue Hubbard and ten of her other cronies have all gone to prison, that the Guardian’s Office did in fact, conduct such operations, did in fact, conspire and plan to infiltrate and steal from nearly every major state and
federal agency in the United States, frame Paulette Cooper, frame Mayor Cazares, harass former members and their families, blackmail people, and engage in a plethora of other illegal, destructive, anti-social, and deluded activities.
2. Michael Flynn brought an action on behalf of Tonja Burden, after she had given five years of her teen-age life to L. Ron Hubbard and the Church, working 18 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, not receiving a high school education, putting on Hubbard’s pants and zipping up his fly, catching his cigarette ashes while following him around, then fleeing from the Organization in a state of total fear, picked up, brought to Los Angeles, “sec checked” on the E-meter (the religious artefact) and then made to sign $61,000 in promissory notes, releases and disclosure bonds, all to protect Reverend Jentzsch’s wonderful Church. If such activity did not take place, one would question the necessity for making a young teen-age girl participate in such activities, sign promissory notes, sign confessions from culled auditing information, and give general releases to the Church so she can merely walk out the door after expending 5 years of her teen-age life providing free
labor to the Reverend Jentzsch and his ilk. Does the Reverend Jentzsch believe that Mr. Flynn sought to destroy religion or religious belief by assisting Tonja Burden, or that he manipulated the media by bringing a lawsuit on her behalf, or that he abused the judicial process by seeking relief on Tonja’s behalf. Indeed, Mr. Flynn has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money representing Ms. Van Schaick, Ms. Burden and others without receiving a cent from them primarily because he believes that the heavy handed tactics utilized by the Guardian’s Office and the Church of Scientology against its own members is reprehensible, should be exposed, and that such people, even if they have no money, should be afforded judicial relief.
3. Mr. Flynn defended four Scientologists who took their auditing files with them when they left the Church of Scientology in criminal actions brought by the Church (which were dismissed), and subsequently defended them in civil actions brought by the Church. Mr. Flynn has also defended numerous other people in legal actions brought by the Church including the 13 legal actions brought against him, of which 11 to date have been
dismissed. Does anyone believe that these 13 legal actions brought against Mr. Flynn and the literally hundreds of frivolous legal actions brought against other former Scientologists and people who have spoken out against the Church of Scientology constitute anything but a campaign of the Reverend Jentzsch’s Church to use the law to harass people? And yet, it is Jentzsch who asserts that it is Mr. Flynn who is abusing the judicial process. This is “Black PR” in its ultimate form. Any knowledgeable observer need only turn to the 1960 copyrighted edition of Level O Checksheet by L. Ron Hubbard on P. 55, wherein it is stated:
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
L. Ron Hubbard wrote the foregoing instruction to his underlings long before Michael Flynn ever heard of the Church of Scientology. Yet now Reverend Jentzsch claims that it is Michael Flynn who is doing what the Church has done for the past 30 years.
4. Mr. Flynn has defended Gerald Armstrong against an onslaught of harassment and litigation brought by the
Church of Scientology for one purpose: to prevent Armstrong from disseminating the truth about L. Ron Hubbard. Any intelligent observer should ask what is the Armstrong case about? The answer is simple. Gerry Armstrong was personally appointed by L. Ron Hubbard to collect documents for a biography of Hubbard to be written by Omar Garrison. During the document collection process, Armstrong and Garrison realized that most of Hubbard’s biographical data had been fraudulently misrepresented for many years and that thousands of people who paid millions of dollars believed those fraudulent representations. Rather than perpetuate such fraud by writing a biography that was false, Armstrong left the Church, was thereafter issued an SP declare, made subject to the Fair Game Doctrine, and sought legal refuge by contacting Michael Flynn. Would any rational person do anything different? And yet the Church has expended millions of dollars and hired an army of attorneys to prevent the documents collected by Gerald Armstrong from ever seeing the light of day. In fact, the documents were intended to be shredded pursuant to a massive destruction of documents campaign undertaken by the Church in order to perpetuate the fraud that L. Ron Hubbard was not connected to the
Church of Scientology. Has any member of the Church ever asked why L. Ron Hubbard does not want to be connected with the Church of Scientology? The answer is simple. Hubbard has been taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the Church of Scientology through a corporation called the Religious Research Foundation, which has bank accounts in Liechtenstein. These funds have been taken over many years, and the association between Hubbard and the Church if proved by a governmental agency, could result in criminal prosecution. Does Reverend Jentzsch sincerely believe that it is Michael Flynn who is engaged in a “money-making scheme” or will he open his eyes long enough to see that he is the one who is acting as a dupe for a monstrous scheme of such pernicious character that it has had to create a “Fair Game Doctrine” to “destroy” anyone who opposes it.
In creating his declaration, the Reverend Jentzsch has dutifully followed HCO Policy Letter of 11 May 1971 entitled “Black PR” by taking a few germs of truthful information and creating a “parade of lies or half-truths or exaggerations.” Although the undersigned, Michael Flynn, seriously questions
the practicality of bothering to refute the absurd allegations in Reverend Jentzsch’s declaration, since there are many who will believe them, and suffer the consequences thereof, I have concluded that there are many people of good intentions who have been affiliated with the Church of Scientology who are honestly trying to ascertain the “TRUTH.” Therefore, for all such individuals of good will and honest intentions, who sincerely seek to find out “who is Michael Flynn” and what if any truth there is in Jentzsch’s charges, I hereby state under the pains and penalties of perjury that the following is true:
1. There is a corporation called Flynn Associates Management Corporation which was initially incorporated by Kevin Flynn as a financial consulting corporation working with a separate electronics firm incorporated by another brother of Michael Flynn, George Flynn, who is an electrical engineer. No shares in FAMCO have ever been sold to anyone, or promised to be sold to anyone, nor has FAMCO ever raised any money to finance litigation against the Church of Scientology or anyone else.
2. Michael Flynn is not collaborating with forces who are trying to destroy freedom of religion and Churches in
3. Michael Flynn is not collaborating with anyone using brutal “deprogramming” techniques. Michael Flynn has never deprogrammed anyone. Those who have come to his office seeking information, assistance, and legal advice have been freely given such information and advice without charge for the sole purpose of helping them.
4. Michael Flynn has never personally or maliciously harassed any individual members of the Church of Scientology. In fact, Mr. Flynn believes that almost all members of the Church of Scientology, including Reverend Jentzsch at one time or another may be potential clients and he believes that such individuals are the the true victims of a monstrous scheme to deprive them of their money, their careers, their labor, and unfortunately, in some instances it has deprived them of their lives. Michael Flynn has never abused the judicial process by inundating any courts with massive docket filings which were frivolous, unfounded or duplicative.
5. Michael Flynn has merely exercised his First Amendment rights to speak out and oppose an organization whose 11
top leaders have gone to prison and he has never sought to manipulate the media or use libel, forgery or other improper means in any of the litigation.
6. Michael Flynn has made no fraudulent representations of any nature or description but has merely sought to expose the representations made by the Church of Scientology.
7. Dr. John Clark has never been part of any operations of FAMCO of any nature or description, nor has Kevin Flynn through FAMCO or otherwise, attempted to involuntarily kidnap or brutalize anyone.
8. The “class action case development program” related to the fact that shortly after the inception of the La Venda Van Schaick suit, literally thousands of former Scientologists over a period of many months contacted the office of Michael Flynn seeking legal redress against the Church of Scientology. The attorneys involved in the litigation realized that most of these individuals had highly personalized lawsuits that were more subject to individual suits than a class action suit. For that reason, during 1981, more than a year after the beginning of the Van Schaick suit, the various
attorneys began to develop a program to enlist the aid of other attorneys throughout the United States to seek legal counsel for the many victims of the Church. This effort has continued to the present day. Any one who knows anything about litigation with the Church of Scientology realizes how difficult it is to convince lawyers to litigate against the Church of Scientology when they know that they are going to have to take the case on a contingent fee basis, suffer through years of obstreperous and vituperative litigation, expend thousands of hours of work and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in the preparation of the case, and then experience vicious harassment at the hands of the Guardian’s Office. It is obvious under such circumstances, that a concerted effort had to be made to encourage attorneys to represent thousands of victims of the Church of Scientology.
9. The charge that Michael Flynn solicited an individual named “Jim Gray” to enlist him to sell shares in FAMCO is totally false. Gray was never offered any position, no shares were ever offered to him, and why he would make such allegations in a so-called “sworn affidavit” warrants further investigation.
10. The charge that Mr. Flynn has solicited clients in connection with the Church of Scientology is absurd. Indeed, the reverse is true. As most knowledgeable observers are aware, there are thousands of Scientologists throughout the United States seeking to obtain legal counsel to obtain redress against the Church. The problem is that it is very difficult to get lawyers to take on such cases. Michael Flynn has been refusing clients not soliciting them. Although the Michael Flynn law firm has endeavored to help these people, and has never solicited any of them, in fact, it is incapable of representing the thousands of people who need representation.
11. Regarding settlement, in January 1981, the Church of Scientology through its lawyers, contacted Michael Flynn’s office and proposed settlement of all existing lawsuits against the Church. Pursuant to his ethical obligation under standard legal procedures, Mr. Flynn communicated the proposed settlement offer to all of his clients. The clients indicated that they wished to pursue the settlement discussions and to seek settlement if the Church was willing to pay reasonable
damages. After a period of approximately 7 months of settlement negotiations, and after the Church had agreed to pay 1.6 million dollars to all of Mr. Flynn’s clients with pending or proposed cases, the Church demanded that all files relating to these individuals be turned over to it. This demand was refused and settlement negotiations terminated. The Church then brought one of its thirteen lawsuits against Michael Flynn and his colleagues claiming as does the Reverend Jentzsch that the settlement negotiations, which were initiated by the Church, constituted extortion! The suit was thrown out by the Los Angeles Federal District Court. It is a total falsehood to state that Mr. Flynn was going to leave any of his clients in the “cold” as suggested by the Reverend Jentzsch.
12. Jentzsch claims that Mr. Flynn is an advocate of “violent depersonalizings and brain-washing techniques” used by Dr. John Clark and the American Family Foundation. First of all, Michael Flynn has never advocated nor would he ever participate in any such activity. Secondly, to his knowledge, neither Dr. John Clark nor the American Family Foundation has ever participated in any such activities. Thirdly, Michael Flynn is not
part of the American Family Foundation. The idea that Dr. John Clark is financing any part of the litigation relating to the Church of Scientology is a total falsehood. Does the Reverend Jentzsch sincerely believe that psychiatry and psychiatrists are as “evil” as he states in his declaration? Does he really believe that men and women who have studied medicine, chemistry, biology, and related disciplines through four years of college, three years of medical school, two years of residency and then generally two more years of residency for a total of eleven years after high school as a group are “evil”? Jentzsch states that “psychiatry seeks to destroy worship, to create evil, to create hate and to destroy religious freedom.” Any person of rational intellect must question how someone in the position of Jentzsch can honestly, under oath, make such an absurd, deluded, hatred-filled statement. Does the Reverend Jentzsch purport to claim that every one of the thousands of members of the medical profession practising psychiatry across the United States are trying to “destroy worship,” “create evil,” “create hate,” and “destroy religious freedom”? If the advancement of the human race through scientific analysis, coupled-with a deep abiding love for humanity
and the care of the mentally and emotionally troubled in our society constitutes “pro-psychiatry loyalties” (P. 19 of the Jentzsch Declaration), then Michael Flynn admits to such.
13. Jentzsch claims that Michael Flynn “kidnapped, held against his … will, subjected to frightening threats and intimidation, and coerced into changing his beliefs,” one Steve Miller. In fact, the Church, through Steve Miller, brought a lawsuit against Michael Flynn and many other individuals who had never even met Steve Miller, knew nothing about him, solely for the purpose of harassment. This is one of the thirteen lawsuits brought harassively by the Church of Scientology against Michael Flynn, which has also been thrown out by the Los Angeles Federal District Court. For Mr. Jentzsch to compare Michael Flynn to “Nazi torturers,” participating in “beatings and rapes” and other such “atrocities,” represents delusion on the border of madness. Any person who has read the Jentzsch declaration and believes that Mr. Flynn would participate in such activities without contacting Mr. Flynn or his colleagues directly and seeking the truth, deserve Jentzsch, the Church of Scientology, and their ilk. Such delusion as set forth in the Bhagavad-gita, aforequoted, brings
about the destruction of the intellect from which a person may ultimately “perish.” The mad ramblings of the Reverend Jentzsch bring to mind the insane and catastrophically destructive beliefs and activities of groups such as the Reverend Jim Jones, which feed on their own self-destructive tendencies. In his declaration, Jentzsch has Michael Flynn involved in “brutal depersonalizing schemes” against Steve Miller, Thomas Ward, Arthur Rozelle, Monty Pelto, Lark Brightman, and “a pregnant woman.” The facts are that prior to the suit brought by Steve Miller against Michael Flynn and others, Mr. Flynn had never even heard of Steve Miller!
Similarly, until Mr. Flynn read the Reverend Jentzsch’s declaration, he had never heard of and knows absolutely nothing about Thomas Ward, Arthur Rozelle, Monty Pelto, Lark Brightman or “a pregnant woman” who have allegedly suffered “atrocities” at the hands of “depersonalizing thugs.” The very suggestion that Michael Flynn had engaged in such activity for the purpose of having “Joey Flanagan,” Dr. John Clark, or Kevin Flynn bring him clients constitutes a falsehood beyond rational belief. Any one of the thousands of Scientologists who have contacted Mr. Flynn in the last four years is
aware that he has continually turned down hundreds of clients because he is simply unable to help them. The suggestion that he is out beating them up and kidnapping them for purposes of solicitation should given anyone of a reasonable intellect a good perspective of the Reverend Jentzsch’s mental aptitudes.
14. The Reverend Jentzsch also has Michael Flynn and Kevin Flynn attempting to deprogram some people called the Garrisons. However, Mr. Jentzsch failed to state in his declaration that Warren Friske, the former head of the B-2 Bureau in Boston has stated under oath and in an affidavit that the Garrisons brought suit against Kevin Flynn and Paulette Cooper for an alleged deprogramming knowing that Kevin Flynn and Paulette Cooper had nothing to do with it, and that the suit was brought solely for the purpose of harassment. Recently, Bill Franks, former Executive Director International, confirmed that these suits such as the Miller suit and the Garrison suit, which are two of the thirteen suits brought against the Flynn office, were brought solely for purposes of harassment and that in fact, the Church knew in advance that Michael Flynn did not know about, nor did he participate in any way in any “meetings”
with the Garrisons or Steven Miller. Significantly, while the Reverend Jentzsch accuses Mr. Flynn of the beatings and punchings set forth in his declaration, Mr. Flynn recommends that any present or former Scientologist interested in ascertaining the truth about such activities, contact John Nelson, Bill Franks, David Mayo and others similarly situated who have been subjected to punching, spitting, and other irrational or abusive behavior of David Miscavige and the RTC. Indeed, the deluded ramblings of the Reverend Jentzsch presumably acting as the mouthpiece for the RTC is analogous to the apocalyptic predictions of St. John in Ch. 13 of the Book of Revelations wherein it is stated that a false prophet bearing the number of the “Beast 666” shall lead astray the inhabitants of the earth requiring everyone to worship “the image of the beast who should both speak and cause that whoever should not worship the image of the beasts shall be killed.” The “Fair Game Doctrine” which calls for “enemies” of Scientology (which is the only salvation for mankind per the words of L. Ron Hubbard) to be “lied to, sued, cheated or destroyed,” bears remarkable similarity to the predictions of St. John. The efforts of the Church of Scientology and the Reverend Jentzsch to destroy Mr. Flynn pursuant to such deluded doctrines solely because
he speaks out and seeks to assist people who have been victimized by the Church and the RTC, suggest that the Reverend Jentzsch would do well to read both the new and the old Testament. The destruction of human beings in the name of religion which the Reverend Jentzsch and his followers claim to be a part of, is something that man has suffered from for hundreds of years. The Reverend Jentzsch’s fervent, maniacal beliefs have led him into a similar trap.
15. Reverend Jentzsch states on P. 24 of his declaration that seven suits have been filed by the Church and that five are still pending. The truth is set forth below with names of the cases and the docket numbers:
I. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, Civil No. 40906, (Suffolk Superior Court, Massachusetts, 1980). Brought against Michael Flynn in February 1980 because 4 members of the Church left, took auditing files with them and gave Mr. Flynn possession of them as their lawyer.
II. Church of Scientology of Nevada, Inc. v. Thomas Hoffman, Kevin Flynn, et al., Civil No. LV-80-10-HEC, (D.Nevada, 1980). Suit dismissed in April 1980, four months after it was brought.
III. Church of Scientology of Nevada, Inc. v. Kevin Flynn and La Venda Van Schaick, Civil No. 196880, Nevada Circuit Court. Case dismissed against Kevin Flynn and Van Schaick.
IV. Church of Scientology of Nevada, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, Civil No. 202573, Nevada Circuit Court. Case dismissed.
V. Steven Miller v. Michael Flynn, et al., Civil No. 81-4275 (C.D.Calif., 1981). Case dismissed against Michael Flynn and others.
VI. Cazares v. Church of Scientology, Civil No. 81-3472-CA-01, Volusia County Circuit Court. Contempt action against Michael Flynn dismissed.
VII. Garrison v. Kevin Flynn, et al., Civil No. 81-2608-T (D.Mass., 1981), Case pending.
VIII. Church of Scientology of California, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, Thomas Hoffman and Thomas Greene, Civil No. CV-83-896-CBM (C.D.Calif., 1983). Case dismissed.
IX. Church of Scientology v. Michael Flynn, Thomas Hoffman, Thomas Greene and Kevin Flynn, CV-81-3259-CMB; CV-81-3260-CMB (C.D.Calif., 1983). Case dismissed.
X. Flag Service Org, Inc. v. Michael Flynn and the City of Clearwater, Civil No. 82-440-Civ-T-WC (Tampa Fla., 1982). Motion to Dismiss pending.
XI. Church of Scientology of California, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, 83-2386-S (S.Mass., 1983). Case dismissed.
XII. Church of Scientology of California, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, CV-83-5202-R (C.D.Calif., 1983). Case dismissed.
XIII. Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Civil No. C 420 153, Los Angeles Superior Court. Contempt action against Michael Flynn dismissed.
16. The Reverend Jentzsch refers to an incident in 1976 wherein Mr. Flynn allegedly “wrote a bad check for $6500.00.” However, Reverend Jentzsch failed to state in his Declaration that the $6500.00 check was written in connection with a divorce proceeding for one of his clients, in which the husband of Mr. Flynn’s client gave Mr. Flynn a check which was deposited into Mr. Flynn’s account and upon which Mr. Flynn was instructed by his clients to issue a $6500.00 check as part of the divorce settlement. The husband however, failed to place sufficient funds in the bank to satisfy the check given to Mr. Flynn, which resulted in the $6500.00
check issued by Mr. Flynn being returned for insufficient funds. Responsibility for the entire episode was the fault of the husband, in the divorce proceeding. Isolating and falsely stating the circumstances surrounding tne $6500.00 check is typical of the thinking and false premises inherent in the Jentzsch Declaration.
As for the quotations from the Attorneys Geller and Katz, who represent the Church of Scientology, both of whom have been involved in actions against Michael Flynn and his office for which they have received thousands of dollars in legal fees to bring such harassive suits, financed by the “donations” of Church members, the motives of such attorneys is self-evident. The allegations that Mr. Flynn has been disruptive in depositions and engaged in “evasive and dilatory tactics” is ridiculous. It is Mr. Flynn who is seeking to obtain trials of all of these cases and it is the Church of Scientology which has paid millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees to prevent the cases from being heard. Any knowledgeable observer is aware that Church “donations” have been flowing out of the Church in a rapidly increasing rate to fill the coffers of the many Church
lawyers who are representing the Church as a result of the surge of legal proceedings against it.
13. The Probate case relating to Ronald DeWolf and the “missing person status” of L. Ron Hubbard was brought for the simple reason that L. Ron Hubbard’s own attorney, Alan Goldfarb, stated that L. Ron Hubbard was missing, and that he could not appear in one of the many suits that had been brought against him because no one knew where he was and no one from the Church of Scientology had communicated with him since February 1980. It was the conduct of Hubbard’s own lawyers and the group that now run the RTC and the failure of Hubbard to appear and defend himself in Court or even to appear and defend or assist his wife for that matter, which resulted in the probate case being brought. It was only after Hubbard filed a legal declaration, the day before a trustee was to be appointed in the probate case, that the Court held that L. Ron Hubbard was not a missing person. The finding of contempt against Mr. Flynn was one of the numerous legal proceedings brought against him. However, the Reverend Jentzsch failed to state that Mr. Flynn did not even appear and defend the contempt proceeding
because of the onslaught of other harassment brought against him by the Church, but that the judge stated that no bad faith or misconduct was involved, but merely a technical violation of one of the court orders regarding disclosure of information about Hubbard.
19. The allegations that the Church of Scientology is beginning to win on the legal front are ridiculous. Every suit brought on behalf of former Scientologists or victims of the Church of Scientology in which Michael Flynn has participated is proceeding toward trial. Extensive legal obstacles interposed by the Church have been overcome, and judgment day is at hand. At the same time, the Church of Scientology is on the verge of losing its tax-exempt status, the Canadian government is investigating numerous fraudulent and criminal activities of the Church which may result in the indictment of high-level Church officials including L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology is disintegrating across the world, L. Ron Hubbard is in hiding, and the Reverend Jentzsch, on behalf of the RTC is now engaging in deluded and vitriolic diatribes that have no basis in reality.
20. The idea that Kevin Flynn, Thomas Hoffman or Michael Flynn or anyone associated with them had anything to do with the forgery of one of L. Ron Hubbard’s checks is simply too fanciful to warrant extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that it was Michael Flynn who brought to the attention of the public and the courts the fact that one of L. Ron Hubbard’s checks, in the possession of individuals controlling the RTC was forged and an attempt to pass it was made right at the time in May-June 1982, when Hubbard wrote a will and in the will turned over control of Scientology to the RTC. It was at the same time that the RTC began to assert total dictatorial control throughout the Church of Scientology. Any intelligent observer can put two and two together to conclude that Mr. Flynn would not participate in the forgery of a two-million dollar check and then do everything in his power to investigate it.
21. The Reverend Jentzsch states that the Church does not violate the priest/penitent privilege. Anyone who is knowledgeable about Guardian’s Office B-l files collected from culled PC files knows that Reverend Jentzsch speaks falsely.
In sum, there are certain inescapable conclusions, which even the Reverend Jentzsch would be unable to deny. These are that Michael Flynn has for four years assisted hundreds of former members of the Church of Scientology without receiving a penny from them. Michael Flynn has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars from his own money to help these people. These same people expended years of their lives and millions of dollars in a fanatical effort by the Church of Scientology to take labor and money from its victims with little or no return. How many former staff members of the Church of Scientology after years of labor at $17.50 a week are now confronted with lost educations, lost career opportunities, no pension or profit sharing plan, no health insurance benefits, disrupted or disconnected family situations, or failed or destroyed marriages. It is the Church of Scientology which has continued to drain the life blood out of its victims like a parasite sucking on a sore wound. Mr. Flynn has sought to heal these wounds. It is earnestly recommended that any present or former Scientologist who objectively investigates the “data” relating to the activities, conduct, believes and character of Michael Flynn, as opposed to the activities, beliefs, conduct and character of the RTC and its mouthpiece, the Reverend
Jentzsch, will come to the inescapable conclusion that it is the RTC who deals in lies and it is Mr. Flynn who seeks justice. Indeed, any person of good intention who is or has been associated with the Church of Scientology and who has been subject to PTS declarations, SP declares, or any other of the insane activities that is characteristic of the RTC should seek justice and in doing so should heed the words in the Book of Isaias, Ch. 40 Verse 29-31, wherein it is stated that the seekers of truth and justice shall be given strength and increase in force and that “they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not be faint, and that they shall renew their strength and take up wings as eagles.” How many of you of you have been subjected to a “suppressive person declare” after giving years of your life and labor and thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology? Where could the justification for such malicious conduct come from? One need look no further than the writings of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject of “the criminal mind.” Mr. Hubbard states that a criminal is one who hides and who cannot confront truth or reality. If such is true, and it is true that Mary Sue Hubbard and other Church leaders have gone to prison for “crimes,” and it is true that the
Guardian’s Office as the controlling agency of the Church has engaged in hundreds of criminal acts over many years and it is true that L. Ron Hubbard was the “Founder” and creative force behind the Church, then one should ask, Where is L. Ron Hubbard? Is he in hiding and if so, Why? In order to answer this question, I recommend that you read L. Ron Hubbard’s, “The Criminal Mind.” After reading it, ask yourself, Who is hiding? Michael Flynn or L. Ron Hubbard, Pat Broeker, David Miscavige.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 4th day of April, 1984.
[Signed] Michael Flynn
Declaration of Heber Jentzsch1
In writing the attached affidavit I wish to make a brief statement about the religion to which I belong. The Church of Scientology has a long history of creating freedom of thought. It has created a great deal of good in the society for a number of years. It has fought against the depersonalizers (psychiatrists) that have tried to destroy minds. It must be realized that Scientology tries to create good and has no interest in destroying others. The psychiatrists (depersonalizers) who work against the good of Man have no right to create obstacles to efforts to explore the dark places in men’s minds. They have no right to destroy freedom of thought just because they wish to dominate.
Scientology has worked ambitiously over the years and has achieved splendid things in the fields of education and drug rehabilitation. It has wisely used its resources in order to bring good to the society. The energy of the church used in bringing about good conditions is well known to all of the parishioners and to many opinion leaders outside the church. The church will expend the time and the effort to bring about a goal of “a world without insanity, without war, without criminals and where honest men will have rights.”
As a religion, Scientology has brought reason into philosophy, health into peoples’ lives and taught people how to survive. It is our intent to help religion and to help people. Therefore it is necessary that the following piece be written to describe the protracted conflict against the good that Scientology represents so that courts can understand the actual issues at hand. Whatever the outcome, Scientology will continue to be a symbol of good.
I, Heber Jentzsch, hereby declare and state as follows:
This declaration reviews in detail information contained in sworn deposition testimony, documents authored by or for Michael Flynn himself, his brother Kevin, or other FAMCO (Flynn Associates Management Corporation) employees, court proceedings, newspaper reports and other sources which shed a different light on Flynn’s and FAMCO’s intentions than they would have the public believe is true. Many of these materials are set forth as exhibits and explained or examined below. It is submitted that this material shows that the Flynn brothers used and intended to use FAMCO in a manner which one could conclude was definitely manipulative and self-serving, and even illegal.
1. The purpose of this declaration is to delineate for the courts the pattern of harassment and abusive conduct instigated and executed against the Churches of Scientology by Boston lawyer Michael J. Flynn and a number of co-conspirators operating as a front group called the Flynn Associates Management Corporation (FAMCO). Said harassment and abusive conduct included, inter alia: 1) conspiracy in the form of a moneymaking scheme in which Flynn and FAMCO promised investors up to a 400 per cent quick return on their dollars; 2) intention to abuse the law by the building of FAMCO, a front group, in order to sell shares to finance litigation; 3) collaboration with forces trying to destroy freedom of Religion and Churches in American life and close work with others engaged in the destruction of belief in America; 4) collaboration with and funding of agents and operatives using brutal “deprogramming” techniques; 5) extensive, personal and malicious harassment of
individual members of the Church of Scientology and of members of the Church in general in order to deprive them of their legal rights; 6) abuse of the judicial process by inundating the courts with massive docket filings as well as apparently frivolous, unfounded and duplicative lawsuits; 7) use of lies in order to manipulate media and government and thus influence pending litigation; 8) use of libel, forgery and other improper means in order to influence pending litigation; 9) repeated and frequent fraudulent representations of activities of himself and associates.
2. Having worked in the office which coordinates legal affairs for the Church of Scientology International for approximately the last two years, I am familiar with Michael Flynn and FAMCO and their activities and have personal knowledge or information and belief as to all charges and allegations as contained herein and Mr. Flynn’s opposition to Scientology’s creation of Religious Freedom.
3. On August 28, 1980, FAMCO’s incorporation papers were filed with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.2 The incorporators, as listed on the Articles of Organization3, were Kevin Mark Flynn, Cheryl Flynn, wife of Kevin, and Michael J. Flynn. FAMCO’s stated purposes 3 were as follows:
“1. To carry on and entertain any business, undertaking, transaction, or operation commonly carried on or undertaken by capitalists, promoters, financiers, contractors, merchants, commission men, and agents, and in the course of such business to draw, accept, indorse, acquire, and sell all or any negotiable or transferable instruments and securities, debentures, bonds, notes and bills of exchange.
“2. To issue on commission, subscribe for, acquire, hold, sell, exchange, and deal in shares, stocks, bonds, obligations, or securities …
“3. To form, promote, and assist financially or otherwise, companies, syndicates, partnerships, and associations of all kinds, and to give any guaranty in connection therewith or otherwise for the payment of money, or for the performance of any obligations or undertaking.
“4. To acquire, improve, manage, work, develop, exercise all rights in respect of, lease, mortgage, sell, dispose of, turn to account, and otherwise deal with property of all kinds, and in particular business concerns and undertakings.”
4. An analysis of documents and sworn depositions from numerous persons reveals that the actual intent of FAMCO was utterly different from its stated purpose. The Flynn brothers instead used FAMCO as a vehicle to destroy. In addition to:
1. Sell shares in hopes of rapidly raising $180,000 to finance litigation against the Church. A “get rich quick” scheme promising $4 for for every $1 invested was designed to lure investors.
2. Solicit clients in hopes of having 1,000 lawsuits in progress against the Church by the end of 1981.
3. Solicit co-counsel based on a fee-splitting system.
4. Arrange for new clients through oppressive, forcible “depersonalizations” designed to make Church members betray their religion and then bring suit for ostensible “damages.”
5. Manipulate the news media in order to attempt to create poisonous publicity problems so that the Church would be forced into a settlement.
6. Instigate prejudicial government attacks on the Church’s Religion by means of lies and false reports.
7. Destroy the future of the Church financially by creating a large number of individual lawsuits to victimize the Church in inconvenient jurisdictions, solicited illegally using a single person “class action” suit as a front.
5. Flynn has repeatedly sought court orders in federal and state court which would prevent the church from using these documents. These efforts have failed time and again. Indeed, in April 1982, Flynn sought a preliminary injunction against use of these documents. His request was denied by the court less that one week later. The Church been using the documents in order to show Flynn’s campaign against First Amendment and the Church of Scientology5 shows that three separate courts have upheld the Church’s use of the documents.
6. The numerous acts against the Religion of the Church of Scientology undertaken by Flynn and his brother, Kevin, via the FAMCO front group, are described in this declaration and are based in part on the poisonous FAMCO documents. The FAMCO documents show that Michael and Kevin Flynn’s attempts to perpetrate one of the greatest abuses upon the courts in the history of modern jurisprudence have destroyed countless thousands of hours of court and lawyer time. Their numerous misrepresentations are described in detail in this declaration. Psychiatrist John Clark was part of FAMCO’s operation. Clark, who has published poisonous articles against religion in The American Atheist
and elsewhere, was used as FAMCO’s propagandist. Michael Flynn’s role was summoning up lies, hatred and invective and targetting them to destroy a religion. Michael and Kevin Flynn and psychiatrist Clark worked together to destroy freedom of religion and to bring a First Amendment institution to its knees and to plunder its assets in order to greedily line the Flynns’ own pockets.
7. In viewing many pages of documents dealing with FAMCO’s and the Flynns’ work against the Religion of the Church of Scientology, one overriding theme emerges: moneymaking; the FAMCO front group was to be used in an “all out” effort against the Church of Scientology in order to rip off upwards of $200 million. As described in “Scientology – Review and Planning” 6 and other FAMCO documents, FAMCO was started as a chaos machine to sell shares in the litigation and to solicit and exploit gullible and money-motivated co-counsel.
8. Although Michael Flynn has tried to escape blame for FAMCO by laying it at his brother’s doorstep, the facts remain that 1) Michael Flynn was listed as an incorporator on FAMCO’s Articles of Organization7; 2) Michael Flynn has pursued to the letter the basic FAMCO strategy as outlined in the FAMCO documents. There were four basic goals in this strategy, all aimed to create unhappiness and destroy religious freedom. As shown in “Scientology – Review and Planning”8, these four basic goals were:
1. Closing Scientology organizations
2. Adverse media
3. Adverse public reaction
4. Federal and state attacks.
The FAMCO plan had as its “primary purpose … to position ourselves
such that to fight us would be cost ineffective.” Attacks against the religion would come from “feeding” media and governments with false and misleading information about the Church and thus influencing them to undertake investigations of the Church. Although Michael Flynn has vigorously denied the implementation of the FAMCO plan as described in “Scientology – Review and Planning,” his actions belie this. As is clearly demonstrated in this declaration and attached exhibits, Flynn has been caught pressing an all-out assault to destroy the existence of Religion the Church of Scientology in the four areas listed above. Flynn’s associates Thomas Hoffman and Thomas Greene have been in the thick of the litigation with him through the years; they knew of FAMCO and its plans yet apparently did nothing to steer away from the course set by Michael and Kevin Flynn.
9. Michael and Kevin Flynn created in FAMCO perhaps the only business venture in the history of the United States openly dedicated to the destruction of a First Amendment institution. The attached proposal, called the “Class Action Case Development Program,”9 was sent by Michael Flynn with a cover letter to numerous attorneys around the country in hopes of getting them to join his anti-religious extortionistic war. The proposal forecast “one thousand lawsuits [against the Church of Scientology] … by the end of 1981.”9
10. Solicitation took various forms, including personal sales pressure by Michael Flynn. Clearwater, Fla. businessman Jim Grey has stated in a sworn affidavit that Michael Flynn visited him in his office and endeavored to enlist him to sell shares in litigation. Flynn offered Grey the position of “Trustee of … FAMCO in the Clearwater area.” As described in his affidavit11, Grey was told by
Flynn that his duties as trustee would be to “receive, raise and disburse monies which would be used to file suits against the Church of Scientology around the country and therefore break the Church financially.” (Emphasis added.)
11. Another example of FAMCO’s outrageous activities is shown in Exhibit 712, a memorandum from an attorney, Chuck Diamond. The memorandum from Mr. Diamond illustrates what Flynn represents FAMCO to be all about. The memo asserts that Diamond’s old schoolmate, Flynn, “has made a substantial living suing the Church of Scientology.” The memorandum indicates that there would be openings for “lawyers in the Los Angeles area who would be willing to undertake the joint prosecution of some of these claims [Flynn’s clients’] on a contingent fee basis.” It was apparently not mentioned to Mr. Diamond that neither Flynn nor FAMCO ever won a cent from the Church in nearly four years of litigation, and thus Flynn’s “prior successes” alluded to in the memo are nonexistent; they are in fact complete and utter delusions. An attorney beguiled into “joining forces” with Flynn because of these “prior successes” and the lure of “a substantial living” as mentioned in the Diamond memo would have linked up based on totally false information and promises. The term “church-busters” as used in the memorandum is appropriate to the context; FAMCO’s campaign against the Church comes across as a vigorous attempt to harm and destroy a religion.
12. Flynn’s operation against the Church of Scientology was also broadly implemented in the Clearwater, Fla. area, where he actively spread malicious lies and false reports. As stated in the attached declaration13, Virginia Snyder met with a Clearwater city official and was informed that Michael Flynn had said he hoped and
expected “to get 10 or 12 lawsuits ‘going’ against the Church [in the Clearwater area] as soon as possible.” The official explained that “Flynn’s strategy was that if there were enough lawsuits brought against the Church with accompanying expenses that would exceed the Church’s income, this would result in achieving the goal of breaking the Church financially.” (Emphasis added.)
13. Michael Flynn made bold and sweeping promises to those who might possibly work for or invest in FAMCO. An April 22, 1981 letter14 dangled “the opportunity to earn substantial monies” as a lure to potential co-counsel in Flynn’s cases against the Church. Another FAMCO document15 promised FAMCO “investors” between $2 and $4 for every $1 invested in FAMCO shares.
14. Up to Dec. 13, 1979, Flynn’s law practice had centered on medical malpractice. This changed when Flynn filed a so-called “class action” suit against the Church of Scientology of California. Strangely, this “class action” suit had just one party, a disgruntled former Scientologist by the name of Lavenda Van Schaick.
15. While the “class action” suit was pending, Flynn initiated a series of virtually identical individual lawsuits. Using the Lavenda Van Schaick “class action” suit as a front, Flynn solicited clients who ultimately filed separate lawsuits in remote, inconvenient jurisdictions rather than joining the single member “class.” These suits were brought by 27 different persons even though, as stated in the attached affidavit by attorney Nancy Gertner16, the claims “involve virtually identical complaints, causes of actions, and indeed, verbatim pleadings” as the original, one-person “class action” suit. It is in keeping with Michael Flynn’s misleading tactics that he has not filed the motion in
the Van Schaick suit which would legally establish the existence of the “class” claimed to require the “class action” suit. Any good attorney can tell you that filing such a motion is not a difficult process, but winning the motion requires that Flynn satisfy very particular rules. It certainly seems likely that Flynn is afraid to file the motion because he will lose it. Then FAMCO will be unable to hustle more lawsuits using the “class action” suit as bait.
16. The Gertner affidavit also pointed out how Flynn’s suits were “designed to tax the Church of Scientology to the breaking point, to inconvenience and harass that institution so that it will be forced to settle with counsel for the plaintiffs [i.e., Flynn and his associates] and to maximize the profits that will accrue to the lawyers.” (Emphasis added.)
18. In the United States, Flynn planned an enormous volume of litigation in the form of what he called “turnkey” or pre-packaged lawsuits. Via FAMCO, aggressive, far-reaching solicitations were made to attract attorneys to join Flynn’s anti-Scientology campaign. “We provide the clients, the damages, the pleadings, the memoranda, the documents, the witnesses and virtually everything required for an instantaneous trial with little or no necessity for discovery,” boasted a FAMCO promotion proposal to attorneys19. “This preparation has taken thousands and thousands of man hours of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars,” the proposal claimed.
19. These ostensibly valuable fruits of FAMCO’s labors were promised to a handful of lawyers who would choose to link up with Michael Flynn in his aggressive attacks against the Church and its religion. Wayne B. Hollingsworth is an example of an attorney that has sought to work with Michael Flynn. As alleged in the attached affidavits and complaints, Hollingsworth repeatedly reneged on agreements with his former partner, attorney Gary A. Pappas. According to Pappas’ affidavits, Hollingsworth made off with key assets of their firm and also wrongly appropriated approximately $750,000 from collections and accounts receivable. Pappas is suing Hollingsworth for an accounting of the assets of their partnership; Pappas claims a 50 per cent interest in the partnership, which he estimates had assets totalling $980,000. Pappas succeeded in getting attachments placed on at least $200,000 worth of Hollingsworth’s property.20 Hollingsworth is also being sued by attorney Philip F. Mulvey, Jr. for activities that sound very similar. According to Mulvey’s affidavit21, Hollingsworth violated their employment agreement, taking for himself in July 1982 monies Mulvey had won in one of his personal cases. Mulvey protested Hollingsworth’s action, and when Hollingsworth insisted on keeping the substantial sum Mulvey was due, Mulvey indicated he would not continue their association. He began packing his files and personal items, left the office briefly and came back to find his personal belongings in a pile outside the office and his files “missing.” Mulvey is suing to recover his files, his money and for other damages as described in22.
20. “Turnkey publicity” was another documented abuse of FAMCO. FAMCO was to provide a “press package” of poisonous material to
lawyers who agreed to participate in “turnkey” lawsuits. FAMCO documents23 show that manipulation of the media was vital to the success of the litigation; “Future Adverse Publicity” was to coincide with the “Filing of future cases by city and state,” and consultations were promised on “effective handling of media.”
21. Adverse publicity was a major weapon in Flynn’s attack on the Church as graphically demonstrated by the five-page summary attached as Exhibit 14.24 The multi-pronged anti-Scientology media thrust planned and implemented by Flynn and FAMCO included newspapers, national magazines, wire services, local and national television programs — even provisions for “Book and Film Rights” — all aimed at “Loss of Income and Business” for the religion of the Church of Scientology, as stated on the document.
22. In effect bragging that he had the media in his pocket, Flynn claimed responsibility for an incredible amount of publicity adverse to the Church. FAMCO documents listed fifteen separate detailed examples under a section entitled “National Media attention attributable to our office.”23, (Emphasis added.) These include a highly defamatory segment on “60 Minutes,” an article in Reader’s Digest in which Flynn’s name appeared as an advertisement for future suits, wire stories on both Associated Press and United Press International and a sensationalized article in the National Enquirer.
23. The FAMCO documents show beyond the shadow of any doubts that Flynn’s motives went beyond merely pressuring the Church of Scientology to settle his client’s alleged claims against it. Thus, in a section captioned “Loss of Business to Scientology” in24, Flynn called for an “increased rate of defection” among existing members
of the Religion of Scientology, and described how he proposed to bring that about, including efforts to “influence” Church members “by [a] continual onslaught of bad publicity.” It was also hoped to create a deterioration in the Church’s image so that “new membership prospects are impaired.”23
24. The campaign has gotten down to specific tactical targets; as described in Paragraph 8 of this declaration, Michael Flynn has called for specific destructive actions against the rapidly growing Church, including loss of income and closing down five separate Scientology organizations in the United States. One of these so targetted is the Church’s splendidly large international training center in Clearwater, Fla. 23
25. The strategy of endeavoring to bring on prejudiced governmental attacks, spelled out in the “Scientology – Review and Planning” document29, surfaced again in a FAMCO document describing the “March  Conference.”30 From this document, Flynn’s plans to coordinate and promote government and media attacks are obvious. Listed under the heading of “Lead Counsel” are “representatives of Internal Revenue Service and United States Attorney’s Office.” These “Lead Counsel” are described in the conference notes as “attornies [sic] experienced in handling Scientology litigation.”
26. In an overt display suggesting utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, Michael and Kevin Flynn plotted how the power of government could be used prejudicially against the Church. Kevin Flynn wrote in the March Conference notes30 that “issues [at the planned March conference] include … integration
of government and private sources” for data collection and exchange. He proposed “development of routine litigation support and consultation service between private and government attornies [sic] engaged in Scientology litigation.” In the same seminar, he included a segment on “integration of organizational file data” — this data to come from not only the IRS, but from several other U.S. governmental departments as well. Of note is that Michael Flynn had worked in an IRS office just a few short years earlier.
27. “First Amendment” is listed as a seminar issue on the “March Conference” document: another issue listed in the same section is “state court jurisdiction over Church of Scientology of California.” Flynn’s attitude over the years has been to view the First Amendment as a mighty barrier to be surmounted in his campaign against the Church, so it is not surprising to see these seminar issues tied together. Nor is it surprising to see that the chief purpose of the “March Conference,” as stated on the document, was to “establish efficient communications, data collection and data exchange among government and private attorneys presently engaged in litigation with Scientology organizations and investigation of Scientology activities.” (Emphasis added.) These documents make clear that the Flynn brothers’ FAMCO, set up as a profit-making corporation, was proposing and seeking direct government collusion to destroy the existence of a recognized religious group.
28. The “Class Action Case Development Program,”9, enumerates the prejudicial government agencies and “numerous media” Flynn and FAMCO nave been in contact with regarding the Religion of Scientology, and he boasts that in a certain IRS case involving the Church of Scientology “most of the individuals
testifying are our clients.” It seems obvious that the “all out,” the anything goes strategy as described in “Scientology – Planning and Review,” was put into effect, despite Flynn’s vehement denials.
29. The same sleazy document boasts that “Since the initiation of the [Lavenda van Schaick] class action suit, our group has generated extensive media attention about Scientology including publication of an extremely cogent Reader’s Digest article, programs on ’60 Minutes,’ ‘Prime Time,’ forthcoming programs on ABC, as well as various local television programs throughout the country and thousands of newspaper articles.” Flynn’s own words defeat him here, as once again it is seen that the “all out” destructive FAMCO strategy against the Scientology Religion was put into effect.
30. Part of FAMCO’s “all out” strategy is demonstrated by the effort to incite federal and state governmental attacks against the Church. Attorney Stephen P. Delinsky, former head of the criminal division of the Massachusetts State Attorney General’s Office, was recently quoted in the May 31, 1963 Boston Globe as being sharply critical of Flynn for “trying to use a possible prosecution of Scientologists to assist his own civil litigation.”33 Such efforts by Flynn were candidly described by attorney Delinsky: “I felt that was not the proper use of the criminal justice system, and I felt uncomfortable.” Flynn has tried the same technique of lighting legal brush fires elsewhere. In Arizona, it recently came to light that Flynn had spread the rumor that an investigation was underway in the state, and that indictments would be handed down on faithful Scientologists by the
Attorney General’s Office there. It appears that Flynn, through his favorite client, Ronald DeWolf, was the source of this fictional information. In lieu of having proper cases, and pursuing them according to established legal procedures, it appears that Flynn prefers to launch a whisper campaign that an investigation of the Scientology religion is occurring and that indictments will be handed down soon and arrests will be made. This occurred in Arizona, in Boston, in Florida, in Los Angeles and even in open court in Riverside, Calif,34. Once the poisonous rumor has been launched, his clients or others are induced to call a key government office in the area where the investigation is supposedly underway, and make unfounded complaints about the Scientology Religion. Repeated efforts to stir up investigations of the hugely successful Scientology Religion and to deliberately inflame public opinion against it have occurred in several areas. Such endeavors enhance Flynn’s chances in whatever litigation might be underway by poisoning the public’s understanding and opinions. Once the rumor of “governmental investigation” gets going, the next step is the tactic of telling faithful members of the Church that indictments will be handed down and that arrests will be made.
31. A document prepared in early 1981 showed that Flynn’s plans were such that he looked to get more than $200 million from the various suits he had filed against the Church.35
32. Progress in his various cases did not go as Flynn expected. On June 2, 1981, he wrote to one of the Church’s counsel, Jay D. Roth, and proposed to settle “all existing cases” for $1.6 million. Included in Flynn’s offer was a threat. Unless the Church
made a proposal to him “within the next 14 days,” it could expect an “additional 8-10 cases … commenced in Washington, New York and Los Angeles.”36 Fifteen days later, he wrote again to Jay Roth, this time saying that he was planning “20 additional law suits” and that unless a settlement were made quickly, “we will be left with the sole option of increasing the litigation as rapidly and in as great a number as possible.”37 Such a demand, coupled with consequent filings, suggested both a serious abuse of the judicial process and an apparent proposal to sell his clients down the river. Having ostensibly obtained the trust of 20 additional “clients” and convinced them that it was in their best interests to file suit against the Church, he was nonetheless proposing to drop them cold in order to get money by settling cases already pending, in effect using the existence of these future claims to settle pending claims. It might be readily deduced that Flynn’s real aims were not in line with the best interests of his clients, whatever he might be telling them.
33. The Church’s legal department discovered something that could account for Flynn’s strange behavior in working against his clients’ best interests as well as against the Church. In 1979, prior to the filing of the first suit against the Church — the Lavenda Van Schaick single claimant “class action” suit — Flynn had been in touch with psychiatrist John Clark. Clark heads a psychiatric front group called the American Family Foundation (AFF), a group whose name belies the fact that it has supported violent depersonalizings and brainwashing techniques to destroy freedom of thought in order to bring about enforced religious “conversions.”
Clark’s anti-religious stance is well known, in 1981, Clark’s attacks on new religions appeared in a Massachusetts newspaper article38 which quoted him as saying that “Born Again Christians are playing with fire.” More recently, in 1982, Clark described some activities of certain Roman Catholic orders as “culty.”39 Clark’s intention to destroy religious freedom and create hate appears quite clear from these and other statements.
34. Investigation revealed that the Clark-Flynn relationship began as early as mid-1979 and that the two men had met “many times,” according to Flynn himself.40 In early November 1979, Church attorney Ralph Sullivan reported that Michael Flynn had implied to him that John Clark was planning on financing LaVenda Van Schaick’s suit in whole or in part. In the same conversation, Flynn told Sullivan that Van Schaick was “debriefing” to a psychiatrist, and he implied that Clark was the one.
35. The covert extent of the Clark-Flynn collaboration was demonstrated a short while later when the Lavenda Van Schaick “class action” suit was filed, when Flynn filed the suit, he quoted Clark’s “dissociation” theory virtually verbatim within the complaint. Curiously, while entire passages were taken from Clark’s work, no mention was made of Clark in the pleading, possibly in an effort to conceal Clark’s influence and his depersonalizing techniques.41
36. The significance of the Clark-Flynn connection looms even larger when one considers that the Church of Scientology has for years sought to expose the evils of psychiatry — that
psychiatry seeks to destroy worship, to create evil, to create hate and to destroy religious freedom. Indeed, in his 1950 epochal bestselling book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, specifically decries brutal psychiatric depersonalizing treatments and describes a humane yet effective method of showing people how they can help themselves and others. Given the historical context of previous attacks on the Church, it is reasonable to suspect that the animus behind the Flynns’ and FAMCO’s attacks on the Church of Scientology is motivated by pro-psychiatry loyalties.
37. The Clark-Flynn connection turns up again in the “depersonalizations” paid for and carried out by FAMCO. “Deprogramming” is the euphemistic word used to describe a forcible attempt to depersonalize a person and change his or her religious beliefs. John Clark, a vociferous advocate of depersonalizing, was a key factor in by FAMCO’s depersonalizing efforts. He delivered psychiatric counselling to many of the former Scientologists connected with Michael Flynn, including Lavenda Van Schaick. The FAMCO-supported depersonalizations played an important role in the entire moneymaking scheme. A person would be kidnapped, held against his or her will, subjected to frightening threats and intimidation and — if the person was coerced into changing his beliefs — then brought in to meet Michael Flynn to discuss litigation. One of the persons victimized by Flynn and FAMCO in the depersonalizing scheme was a Scientologist named Steve Miller. As graphically described in his affidavit and his lawsuit against the Flynn brothers, FAMCO and others42, Miller
was held against his will and harassed, badgered and threatened relentlessly for three days by three men in a vain attempt to get him to destroy the existence of his religious beliefs. The three depersonalizers allowed Miller no privacy, going so far as to remove the bathroom door from its hinges so that, in Miller’s words, there was “a clear and unobstructed view of all portions of the bathroom.”43 Kevin Flynn, president of FAMCO, who simultaneously acted as private investigator for his brother, candidly admitted in deposition testimony that the unsuccessful depersonalizing of Miller cost Miller’s parents approximately $10,000, FAMCO’s “fee” for its “services” in arranging to have Steve Miller “confronted” by depersonalizers,44.
38. In depersonalizing, the violent tools of psychiatry have been turned loose against all religions. Religious leaders of all faiths have decried the brainwashing, mind control attempts to destroy freedom to believe that has occurred during the process cleverly mis-named “deprogramming.” Like Nazi torturers, depersonalizers wage a constant assault to destroy the mind of their victims by as many channels as possible. This all-out assault includes forbidding their victims to eliminate their waste without permission, not addressing the victim by his or her proper name, stripping the victim of his or her clothing and placing the victim where he or she cannot clean himself or herself. This “re-education” process also frequently has included violence. Beatings and rapes are common, as indicated by articles and affidavits attached as Exhibit 2845. Thomas Ward, for example, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Notre Dame, stated that depersonalizers
“punched and beat me until my face was swollen and bloody.” Arthur Roselle was jumped by a depersonalizing party of 12 men who smashed him to the floor, cutting and bruising his face. His hands were bound tightly behind his back for three days, and he was beaten in the face. Monte Pelto was taped to a bed so tightly that his feet literally turned blue. He was kept motionless on the bed for seven days, his captors loosening his bonds only long enough for him to roll over and urinate into a cup. Lark Brightman suffered a broken leg and a severely sprained ankle in the course of her violent abduction. A pregnant woman in California was assaulted, stripped to her underwear, thrown against walls, and when she tried to escape, dragged on her back by four depersonalizing thugs — each of whom pulled on one of her limbs. The atrocities of depersonalizing have been condemned by innumerable groups such as the National Council of Churches and the American Civil Liberties union, and by such prominent individuals as Billy Graham and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who described it as “brainwashing, often done for huge profit and … sinister and violent.”46
39. The man known as “the father of deprogramming” is Ted Patrick, a thrice-convicted felon who views virtually every group, from the U.S. Marine Corps to the Roman Catholic Church, as a “cult.” Patrick has worked closely with John Clark, the FAMCO psychiatrist. Patrick also personally deprogrammed Joey Flanagan, who subsequently took up the same venal practice for FAMCO. Flanagan was paid by FAMCO to perform depersonalizations, and was one of the three men involved in the failed depersonalizing of Steve Miller described in Paragraph 37. Flanagan has admitted in sworn
deposition that he personally brought at least five persons to Michael Flynn after they had been deprogrammed.47 At least two of these were influenced to bring suit against the Church of Scientology after being put into a suggestible state following days of torturous depersonalizing not unlike the insidious, painful “brainwashing” techniques used on American servicemen by Chinese Communists during the Korean War.
40. Considerable pressure was brought to bear by the FAMCO depersonalizers to get persons to renounce their religious beliefs. Christopher Lloyd Garrison and Ellen Lee Garrison were two such persons victimized by FAMCO, the Flynn brothers and Joey Flanagan in a deprogramming attempt. On August 9, 1980, upon entering the home of relatives, the Garrisons were surrounded by 10 persons, including strong-armed goons, one of whom hovered over Mr. Garrison “menacingly, in a fixed karate stance.”48 The goons and depersonalizers were led by Joey Flanagan, who was working directly for Kevin Flynn, president of FAMCO. All were being paid by FAMCO. What followed for the Garrisons was a nightmare in which they were kidnapped, held against their will, threatened and terrorized continually for nearly two days. After being forcibly imprisoned by Flanagan and his henchmen, they were taken away in the back of a truck against their will to a remote cottage where they were held under close guard. Throughout this time, their beliefs were ridiculed, the founder of their religion vilified. The deprogramming was unsuccessful, yet both Flanagan and Kevin Flynn continued to abuse the Garrisons over the next month. According to the suit the Garrisons filed against Kevin Flynn, Joey Flanagan and
others, Kevin Flynn repeatedly threatened that they would be arrested “unless they agreed to join as plaintiffs” in Michael Flynn’s class action suit against the Church.48
41. The magnitude of the FAMCO effort to procure persons that would sue the Religion of the Church of Scientology is also shown in the April 13, 1982 deposition of Kevin Flynn, wherein he admits that each week he talked with “as many as five or ten parents or spouses or whatever” who had relatives in the Church. The obvious object of such conversations was to sell the relatives on the idea that something should be done about getting their relative to leave the Church, at which point Michael Flynn would potentially have another depersonalized client.50
42. Attempts to unravel the bizarre FAMCO scene have been met with a barrage of lies and obfuscation on the part of Michael [Fly]nn. Faced with a mountain of evidence on the subject of FAMCO’s [impr]oper and disgraceful activities, Flynn has sought to crawl away from any connection with FAMCO, stating in the June 1, 1983 Boston Globe, for example, that he “rejected” the FAMCO scheme because to have done otherwise would have given “the appearance of impropriety.”51 It is understandable that Flynn was so concerned with the appearance of FAMCO. The reality of the matter of course is that FAMCO was implemented, as additionally evidenced by sworn testimony of Kevin Flynn,52. Kevin Flynn admitted that FAMCO paid depersonalizers for “the services provided to Mr. Miller” from its own bank account. Joey Flanagan admitted that he was paid by FAMCO’s check for “the Steve Miller deprogramming” and for other depersonalizations; Kevin Flynn
“handl[ed] the money,”53. In fact, Kevin Flynn admitted54 that others besides Flanagan were paid by FAMCO for the depersonalizations. Just as Michael Flynn cannot change the fact that the FAMCO “all out” effort to destroy the future of religion was implemented, he cannot hide the FAMCO checks written for depersonalizations.
43. The Boston Globe article cited in Paragraph 42 also mentions Flynn’s claims that he “rejected” the FAMCO idea in June 1981. This is another Flynn misstatement, as demonstrated by Exhibit 3655, Kevin Flynn’s admission that at the time of his sworn deposition on April 13, 1982 — 10 months after Michael Flynn asserted the idea had been rejected — FAMCO was still in existence. By June 1981, moreover, FAMCO’s dirty hand had been hard at work for more than a year, engaging in depersonalizations and other goals to destroy.
44. Michael Flynn’s misrepresentations to the media and to the courts have served to distract attention from his own and FAMCO’s misdeeds. Recently, for example, in seeking to portray himself as being “harassed” by the Church, he claimed that 12 lawsuits have been filed against him by the Church56 and stated that he has succeeded in getting nine of these dismissed. He does not enumerate any of the 12, and not surprisingly, considering that only seven have been filed by the Church, and that five of the seven are still pending: two for libel, one for theft, one for conspiracy to violate civil rights and one for abuse of judicial process. Flynn misrepresents the number of suits in order to cover up the fact that it is he who is abusing the judicial process, as
evidenced by the “all out” FAMCO strategy aimed at destroying the courts’ time with 1,000 frivolous and malicious lawsuits.57
45. The first libel suit against Flynn was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Calif. on Aug. 4, 1983. It charged that he had “intentionally and recklessly” poisoned the good name of the Church by telling a group of persons that the Church had attempted to tamper with his airplane before an October, 1979 flight to South Bend, Ind. Flynn never mentioned the incident until nearly three years after it supposedly occurred. No report of the incident was ever filed with the proper authorities. This failure to report such an incident is a curious anomaly when one considers how litigation-prone Flynn appears to be and how this imaginary incident, if it were real, would have lent itself to a large personal injury claim. Flynn made the statement and “knew it to be false,” the complaint states, and the Church is seeking $2 million in damages.58
46. On Aug. 15, 1983, the Church filed a second libel suit against Flynn in U.S. District Court in Boston. The suit charged that Flynn knew he was making a false statement when he told a newspaper reporter from the Clearwater Times that the Church of Scientology had “infiltrated the offices of the Volusia County, Florida court system, interfered with the United States mail and intercepted and stole checks he had mailed to the Court in Volusia.”59 These outrageous statements by Flynn were not substantiated with a scintilla of evidence or documentation. Flynn apparently filed no complaint with the U.S. Postal Service or
with any law enforcement agency concerning the alleged infiltration or missing checks — a marked inconsistency for a man engaged in such massive litigation against the Church and its work. Scientology tries to create good and has no interest in destroying others.
47. Flynn had originally written a check to the Volusia County court system following his being slapped with criminal contempt by Judge J. Robert Durden. This check was reported as being “dishonored,” i.e., bounced, in the Nov. 20, 1982 Clearwater Times.60 In the Times article, Flynn went to great lengths to try to distract attention from his bounced check — seeking to instead turn the public eye on the religion of Scientology. Yet Flynn’s financial history reveals that this bounced check was not an isolated episode. In 1976, as the attached affidavit61 shows, Flynn wrote a bad check for $6,500 from his personal account, even though he knew he did not have enough funds in the account to cover the check.
48. The Volusia County episode exemplifies the tactic of “misdirection” frequently used by Flynn in order to evade questions regarding his personal and professional conduct, other questionable tactics — adopted by Flynn both inside and outside the courtroom — are described in detail by attorneys that have had to deal with those tactics.
49. Attorney Roger Geller noted in an affidavit how, as Flynn’s cases have lost ground, Flynn’s behavior in the courtroom has become increasingly rude and desperate. Instead of relying on the forces of reasoned arguments and legal precedent, Flynn has
followed this procedure: “insult defendants, verbally attack their attorneys, and engage in haranguing diatribes against the defendants’ religious beliefs and practices …”62
50. Attorney Sanford M. Katz has likewise noted that Flynn’s tactics have become geared towards destroying time in the justice system as he sees that legal motions have increasingly been in the favor of the Church. The Katz affidavit63 states that Flynn’s “evasive and dilatory tactics have succeeded thus far in bringing the action at bar to a complete halt.”
51. Flynn’s conduct during depositions taken in the Lavenda Van Schaick case finally became so outrageously insulting and objectionable (destroying the time of all concerned) that the U.S District Court in Boston granted a Church motion to appoint a Master — an officer of the court specifically authorized to take testimony or to perform other functions — for all depositions and discovery in that case. As the document submitted in support of the Church’s motion64 noted: “all of the depositions taken … in this case to date in which attorney Michael J. Flynn has participated have been characterized by improper and obstructive tactics by said attorney.” Deposition transcripts were “rife with instances of Mr. Flynn’s answering questions for the witness, coaching the witness, rephrasing defendant’s questions to his liking, and insulting both the defendant and its counsel.” Similar obstructive and unprofessional behavior on the part of Michael Flynn in at least three other cases made it necessary to seek the appointment of Masters to supervise depositions in those cases as well.65 Flynn’s conduct in depositions has time and
time again been rude, obstructive and harassing. Apparently, there is no limit to the destructive conduct of Flynn when depositions are being taken, even though this is a legal arena normally governed by certain closely prescribed rules of behavior. During the July 21, 1980 deposition of Tonya Burden, for example, Flynn interrupted the deposition to leap across the table in front of Tonya and rip from her hands the diagram she had just drawn of the crucial area in which she claimed she had “crawled” and “hid” before leaving the main building of the Church of Scientology’s international Retreat Center in Clearwater, Fla. Flynn crumpled up the diagram, shoved it into his pocket and refused to allow it into the record. This was an important piece of evidence on a matter in which her testimony had been directly contradicted and refuted by her own uncle, as described further in Paragraph 57. Given this repeated conduct, one could conclude that it is Flynn who has structured his clients’ stories and will go to virtually any length to prevent the true facts from emerging, even from the mouths of his own clients.
52. Flynn’s questionable behavior has been recognized by the courts. One criminal contempt finding against Flynn was mentioned in Paragraph 47 of this declaration. Another contempt finding came recently in the Riverside, California probate case, where Flynn was fined by Superior Court Judge J. David Hennigan for releasing documents the court had sealed. That contempt ruling was upheld, despite Flynn’s request for reconsideration, on August 19, 1983 and on that same date, Flynn’s client, Ronald DeWolf, was found liable to pay court costs in the probate case. Flynn had prepared the original pleading in that case, and naturally pushed it for
maximum media attention by including an incredible volume of false, scurrilous allegations regarding the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Church itself. The invective and poison contained in Flynn’s legal papers were spewn out to the news media primarily via DeWolf. The allegations included the vicious lie that L. Ron Hubbard was either dead or mentally incompetent. This lie was exposed when the case was thrown out of court in June66 and L. Ron Hubbard found to be alive and entitled to his privacy. After Flynn and DeWolf lost the case, their ulterior motives for filing the case were revealed: they wanted to attack L. Ron Hubbard personally and subject him to further litigation. Such an abuse of the judicial process had apparently been organized into two phases or steps long before the original motion came close to a decision. Thus, DeWolf stated in a radio interview on July 14 , 1983: “that particular decision really opened up a terrible Pandora’s box for [L. Ron Hubbard] in that it now, in the legal sense, makes him quite reachable …Step One was to achieve a decision of whether he was missing or not and then now we’re involved in preparing Step Two which is further litigation.”67 This transparent plan was recognized by the Court when it disqualified Flynn from acting as counsel. The Court found that Flynn purported to be representing Mr. Hubbard’s interest in the probate case in order to “protect his estate,” yet at the same time was suing Mr. Hubbard in various courts across the land — an obvious conflict of interest.68 Michael Flynn has already embarked upon Step Two; his most recent spurious suit is described in Paragraph 60.
53. DeWolf, L. Ron Hubbard’s long estranged, disinherited
eldest son, had signed his name last November to a declaration written by Flynn containing gross, absurd lies in an attempt to destroy people and life, Scientology and Mr. Hubbard. This declaration ostensibly formed the basis of the probate action seeking control of Mr. Hubbard’s assets, while Flynn was able to attract some media attention to the sensational misstatements which were woven into the pleading and the declaration, the light of the legal process disclosed the truth and the case fell to pieces.
54. The departure from the facts exhibited in Michael Flynn’s probate motion is shown by the document attached as Exhibit 5069 where DeWolf frankly admitted that he had no direct knowledge regarding Scientology or his father since 1959, and that anything after 1959 DeWolf learned through Michael Flynn. Yet the declaration — prepared and written by his lawyers — failed to disclose this crucial fact and left readers with the false impression that it was based on firsthand knowledge and observation.
55. By about mid-1982 the Church had turned around a great deal of the litigation that Flynn had brought and it was beginning to win on the legal front. It was around this time that Flynn drew up his plans for the probate motion discussed above. Around this time also, a personal check of L. Ron Hubbard’s drawn on a cash reserve management account handled by the Bank of New England in Boston was stolen and a duplicate was made by an offset photolithography technique. The amount of the check and the check number were changed, and the signature was traced in ink. An individual presented the counterfeit check for deposit at a New York City bank. The individual tried to open an account with the check, but was refused because he didn’t have proper identification. He
strangely left the bank and never returned. The bank in New York City reported the incident to the Bank of New England. After L. Ron Hubbard’s personal business managers stopped payment on the check, the Bank of New England immediately started an internal investigation to find out how its security could have broken down. Investigators from Security Management Services, Inc. of Boston found the bank’s security to be outrageously weak and reported this to the vice president in charge of the cash reserves management section of the bank. The next day, the investigators were fired. Flynn learned of the events regarding the check and, after omitting vital information and adding sensationalized items with no basis in fact, he wove the tale of the “forged check” into the probate petition and declaration for Ronald DeWolf, as described above in Paragraphs 53 and 54. Among the wildly poisonous claims was the assertion, since proven false, that L. Ron Hubbard’s own close associates and the Church of Scientology were responsible for the forgery. Because there had actually been an incident involving a forged check for a large amount of money, the false and distorted statements contained in DeWolf’s declaration took some time to be exposed, keeping the petition in court for so long. As with other flamboyant Flynn allegations and accusations, this wild charge was geared to attract publicity and served to give the probate filing national media attention. Subsequent inquiry revealed that the initial investigator on the forged check case was a neighbor of Michael Flynn and had dealt with Flynn previously on a disrelated matter. The investigator, Joseph Snyder of Security Managment Services, Inc., was misdirected on his investigation by Flynn, whose “speculations”: and suggestions to Snyder on the matter were designed to support Flynn’s “theory” as described above. Such speculation ended up
being transmitted to the Bank of New England as factual information. Further investigation also revealed that Security Management Services, Inc. had an informant in the bank who sometimes worked in the cash reserves management section and who had access to cancelled checks, including those of L. Ron Hubbard, during the time that the check in question would have been lifted out of the cash reserves management section for counterfeiting. Careful investigation furthermore turned up someone who had worked in the bank at the time of the forgery who swore that he had seen Kevin Flynn, president of FAMCO, in the cash reserves management section earlier. Kevin Flynn, for his part, left town and in fact left Massachusetts about the time the investigators came to question him on the episode. Thomas Hoffman, one of Michael Flynn’s associates in anti-Scientology litigation, “warned” the investigators that they should stay away from Kevin Flynn, stating that Kevin wanted nothing to do with Scientology anymore. Thus, Kevin Flynn has so far been able to avoid being questioned in the matter. The entire matter of the forged check suggests that efforts to manufacture allegations against the Church and L. Ron Hubbard know no ethical bounds.
56. Michael Flynn’s misrepresentations occur so frequently that it is difficult to keep tabs on them. For example, although it is well documented that Flynn has yet to win so much as a penny from the Church, and he himself has admitted that his cases against the Church have been “an unending continuous loss”70, he frequently will present information to the media or to others claiming that he has won a motion or that his cases are doing well. An example, curiously, is from the very same speech where he claimed that his record had been “an unending continuous loss” against Scientology. Later in that same speech
he claimed “Every major motion we have won … no suit has been dismissed.” Exhibit 5271 contains a sampling of the many motions Flynn has lost, once again demonstrating his inability to face and handle reality.
57. The factual shadings which have come to characterize Flynn’s work both in and out of the courtroom are also characteristic of statements from his clients. For example, Tonja Burden, a Flynn client, described in a detailed affidavit how she had “escaped” from the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, Fla. by crawling through an air conditioning duct.72 The truth of the circumstances of Burden’s departure was dramatically different: she was free to go, and simply walked away when she wanted to. The truth was detailed in a sworn deposition by her uncle, Donald G. Burden, who met her at the Fort Harrison Hotel, (the Church-owned building from which Tonja supposedly escaped), waited for her in the lobby, and walked out with her, later returning together to pick up her personal items.73
58. Tonja Burden’s unreliability as a witness can be seen in her original affidavit and subsequent depositions, which are riddled with inconsistencies. Not surprisingly, her affidavit, like that of Ronald DeWolf, was not written by herself. In a deposition on April 22, 1982, Tonja stated that “I don’t write any of this stuff up. My attorneys do that because I’m not — what’s the word? Literate enough to do it.”74 The author of the such documents, Michael Flynn, has apparently forgotten that the substance of those complaints should conform to reality; But it should be remembered that FAMCO’s “turnkey” lawsuits (see Paragraph 18) were ostensibly set up so that “everything required for an
instantaneous trial” was provided by FAMCO. This included “pre-packaged” claims for damages which — as can be seen in case after case — did not hold up once the Flynn FAMCO client was questioned at a deposition. Richard Peterson, for example, had alleged fraudulent misrepresentations in his original complaint, prepared by Michael Flynn. However, in deposition, he directly contradicted what had been charged in the complaint, stating that he felt the Scientologists he had dealt with had been very sincere. He described the people on the staff at the Church of Scientology as “honest, ethical people. They think they are doing the right thing. Most of them are the most wonderful people I have met. They are very nice, polite. They don’t commit crimes. They don’t harm you. It is a very ethical group.”75 In fact, all the other plaintiffs in that “turnkey” lawsuit — Jane Lee Peterson, Carol Garrity, Paul Garrity, Thomas Jefferson and Dana Lockwood — making the identical charge, nonetheless admitted to believing that the representations made to them had been sincere, leaving one with the firm opinion that Michael Flynn weaves his complaints from whole cloth.
59. One of Flynn’s favorite venomous charges against the Church is that the Church allegedly has as a matter of policy violated the priest-penitent privilege by disseminating information obtained from parishioners in the confessional process. However, just as Flynn accuses the Church of numerous wrongful activities which he commits himself, the alleged violation of privileged communications is yet another routine procedure of Flynn’s. Thus, as recently as June 25, 1983, Flynn addressed a gathering of persons
and brazenly sought to create negativeness and hostility towards the Church. During this speech, Flynn freely discussed the personal lives of several of his clients and in the process revealed intimate details regarding their personal and sexual lives. Ironically, three of these people — Lavenda Van Schaick, Janet Troy and Marjorie Hansen — were the very persons he was claiming to be representing to protect them from these very disclosures. Such conduct is worse than hypocritical — it causes pain for his clients. The group he was addressing was not in any way connected to or involved with litigation regarding these clients, revealing this information to them was a glaring violation of the confidentiality such clients should have enjoyed. Once again it appeared that his clients’ best interests took a back seat to Flynn’s frenzied efforts to generate adverse public attitudes [reg]ards the Religion of Scientology by any means at hand. Although [the] Church retains a copy of a transcript of this event, in the interest of protecting the privacy of Flynn’s clients which he so cavalierly ignores and preventing them further pain, I will refrain from re-issuing it as an exhibit to this declaration.
60. It was not enough for Michael Flynn to launch his “all out” assault against the Church using former Scientologists as pawns. On September 7, 1983, he went into direct competition with his clients, suing on his own behalf using old familiar charges from FAMCO suits. This latest frivolous and malicious lawsuit directly parrots suits he filed earlier on behalf of his clients and appears to be motivated by pure greed. Until Flynn’s meritless suit is thrown out by the court, the Flynn and FAMCO “all out” strategy
of attempting to destroy the future of religion for people by any and all means is still fully operational. Michael Flynn is currently pushing this new case for his own personal gain, and drumming up media publicity for his wild claims. This suit names only the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, whom Flynn knows A) has nothing to do with the charges being made and B) is not likely to respond to the outrageous allegations. It is likely that Flynn has named only Mr. Hubbard in hopes of obtaining a quick default judgment rather than be exposed as unable to prove his imaginative allegations. In papers filed in this suit Flynn already has conceded his purpose in the California probate petition to locate Mr. Hubbard so that he could serve him with a subpoena, Exhibit 5776. Again Flynn’s collateral purposes for initiating litigation are revealed in his own documents.
61. The cumulative effects of Flynn’s attacks on the Religion of the Church of Scientology as well as his activities in handling of his own clients have rebounded to his detriment, as witnessed by the contempt rulings in Florida and California77, and by the judgment against his principal client, Ronald DeWolf, in Riverside, ordering him to pay court costs in that much-publicized probate case.
62. Michael Flynn’s efforts to marshall forces to destroy the existence of a religion are unique not simply because he attacked the Church for money, but because his fundamental goal was to go beyond moneymaking and seek to drive a religious group out of existence. Nearly four years of costly and abusive attacks based on Flynn’s scurrilous, venomous and underhanded efforts to prejudice
public opinion and get media and governmental organizations working against the Church have not daunted the Church’s determination to create a brighter future and to continue helping people around the world. The Church at this writing is doing so.78 While it is beyond the scope of this declaration to chronicle the grievous damage caused by Michael Flynn’s and FAMCO’s poisonous activities, destruction of Belief and vituperations, it is sadly true that the distractions and commotion they have created have interfered with the Church’s efforts to create good conditions of benefit to all people by devoting all its energies to that objective. Our religion remains dedicated, however, to that end.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Los Angeles, California this day of , 1983.
Exhibits to Declaration (pdf format)
- Articles of Organization General Laws, Chapter 156B, Section 12 (08-28-1980)
- Articles of Organization (Under G.L. Ch. 156B)
- La Venda Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Memorandum and Draft Conditional Order (03-30-1982)
- Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology of California: Verified Complaint Seeking Injunctive Relief (Face page) (04-09-1982)
- Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology of California: Order (04-16-1982)
- Scientology – Review and Planning (01-1981)
- Class Action Case Development Program (n.d.)
- Affidavit of Jim Grey (10-13-1981)
- Memorandum To All Attorneys (02-26-1981)
- Declaration of Virginia Snyder (04-14-1982)
- Letter from Kevin Sullivan (Law Offices of Michael Flynn) to Daniel Barbakow (04-22-1981)
- About this Proposal (n.d.)
- La Venda Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Affidavit of Nancy Gertner (excerpt)
- Gary A. Pappas v. Wayne B. Hollingsworth: Affidavit of Gary A. Pappas (07-06-1983)
- Supplemental Affidavit of Gary A. Pappas (07-06-1983)
- Verified Complaint (07-06-1983)
- Summons (07-27-1983)
- Certificate Concerning Insurance (07-06-1983)
- Findings and Ex Parte Order of Approval of Attachment on Trustee Process (07-06-1983)
- Philip F. Mulvey Jr. v. Wayne B. Hollingsworth and Gary A. Pappas: Affidavit of Philip F. Mulvey Jr.
- Loss of Income and Business (01-1981)
- March Conference (Handwritten) (n.d.)
- The Globe: “Ex-Scientologists charge Hub tricks”
- In re the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Reporter’s Transcript (excerpt) (03-17-1983)
- Summary of Damages (Handwritten)
- Letter from Michael J. Flynn to Jay Roth (06-02-1981)
- Letter from Michael J. Flynn to Jay Roth (06-17-1981)
- Middlesex News: Cults called growing threat (01-14-1981)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of John G. Clark, Jr. (face page) (04-16-1982)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn: Deposition of Michael J. Flynn (excerpt) (04-15-1982)
- Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-14-1982)
- La Venda Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Statement of Silvana Garritano (excerpt) (02-19-1982)
- “Flynn/Walters/Clark Collusion” (Timeline) (n.d.)
- Continued Deposition of Tonja Catherine Burden (excerpt) (11-21-1981)
- Affidavit of Don Cooper (01-09-1981)
- Statement of Don Cooper (excerpt) (07-24-1980)
- Letter from John Varley to Raymond Banoun, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Handwritten) (01-18-1980)
- Letter from John Burgen to Ron (Handwritten) (01-29-1980)
- Information Report re: Flynn/Clark (08-28-1980)
- Affidavit of Steve Miller (03-27-1981)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Complaint For Damages (excerpt) (08-20-1981)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- The El Paso Journal: Texas Endangered by Religious Inquisition Bill (01-1977)
- The News World: Ted Patrick, starter of deprogramming, faces sex charges (10-31-1981)
- Affidavit of Arthur Roselle (7-17-1979)
- Affidavit of Debbie Morgan (excerpts)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Joseph M. Flanagan (excerpt) (04-22-1982)
- Continued deposition of Joseph M. Flanagan (excerpt) (04-23-1982)
- Christopher Lloyd Garrison v. Joseph Flanagan: Complaint (excerpt) (10-14-1981)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- Boston Globe: Boston lawyer, Scientology locked in battle since 1979 (06-01-1983)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Joseph M. Flanagan (excerpt) (04-22-1982)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- The Times: Waging war with Scientology (08-24-1983)
- Handwritten notes (02-15-1981)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Michael J. Flynn: Complaint, Verification, Civil Cover sheet (08-04-1983)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Michael J. Flynn: Complaint
- Clearwater Times: Volusia court infiltrated, Flynn contends (11-20-1982)
- Silawmut County Bank v. Mordechai Ben-Harusch and Michael Flynn: Affidavit of Charles W. Craven (09-10-1976)
- Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston: Affidavit of Roger Geller (04-22-1982)
- Christopher Lloyd Garrison v. Joseph Flanigan et al.: Affidavit of Sanford M. Katz (04-13-1982)
- La Venda van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Defendant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Assignment of Master to Supervise Depositions (02-11-1983)
- La Venda van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Defendant’s Motion for Assignment of Master to Supervise Depositions (01-19-1983)
- Proposed Order (01-1983)
- Affidavit of Counsel in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Assignment of Master to Supervise Depositions (01-19-1983)
- Motion for Assignment of a Master (08-21-1981)
- Affidavit of Eric D. Blumenson in Support of the Motion to Assign a Master to Supervise Depositions and the Motion to Compel Discovery (08-21-1981)
- Order of Reference to Master (Jury Action) (09-14-1981)
- Deposition of Robert Dardano (cover sheet) (12-08-1982)
- Certificate of Service (01-19-1983)
- Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Assign a Master to Supervise Depositions (01-19-1983)
- In re Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Statement of Decision (06-27-1983)
- Los Angeles Times: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Over Scientology Dispute (06-14-1983)
- Los Angeles Herald: Judge bards son’s claim to estate of Hubbard (06-14-1983)
- The New York Times: Around the Nation ( 06-14-1983)
- Chicago Tribune: Church founder ruled alive in probate action (06-14-1983)
- KPS7, Palm Springs, CA: Interview of Ron De Wolfe (07-14-1983)
- In re Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Application of Michael J. Flynn (03-22-1983)
- Letter from Barrett S. Litt to Judge David J. Hennigan (03-22-1983)
- Jane Lee Peterson et al v. Church of Scientology of California et al.: Deposition of Ronald De Wolfe (excerpt) (05-26-1983)
- Tape One Side One Phoenix Meeting June 25 1983 Los Angeles (excerpt) (06-25-1983)
- Jane Lee Peterson et al. v. Church of Scientology et al.: Order
- In re Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Notice of Ruling on Submitted Matters (12-15-1982)
- Petition for Appointment of Trustee and for Order for Filing of Petition and Fixing Date of Hearing (11-10-1982)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Paulette Cooper: Order Granting Extension of Discovery Cut-off Date and Sanctions (04-26-1983)
- Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., et al.: Order re Motion of Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. (08-20-1982)
- Jane Lee Peterson v. Church of Scientology of California: Order
- Statement of Tonja Burden (excerpt) (11-20-1981)
- Tonja C. Burden v. Church of Scientology of California: Deposition of Donald Gabriel Burden (04-21-1981)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Paulette Cooper: Deposition of Tonja Catherine Burden (excerpt) 04-22-1982)
- Jane Lee Peterson v. Church of Scientology of California: Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (excerpt) (02-07-1983)
- Michael J. Flynn v. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard: Motion to Approve Substituted Service of Process on L. Ron Hubbard (excerpt)
- In re the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Order of Contempt (07-19-1983)
- Letter from Noel E. Manoukian to Rita Thompson (10-24-1983)
- Letter from Rev. M. M. Merriweather to Church of Scientology (09-23-1982)
- Daily Globe News: Scientologists promote ‘drug-free’ life (08-09-1982)
- Las Vegas Sun: Church hosts drug education week (07-23-1982)
- St. Louis Globe-Democrat: She keeps singing by aiding youth (02-28-1983)
- Letter from Bill Welsh, President, Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to L. Ron Hubbard (07-14-1983)
- This document in PDF format. ↩
- See (Exhibit 1) ↩
- See (Exhibit 2) ↩
- See (Exhibit 2) ↩
- See Exhibit 3 ↩
- Aattached as Exhibit 4 ↩
- (See Exhibit 2) ↩
- See (Exhibit 4) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 6) ↩
- (Exhibit 7 ↩
- (Exhibit 8) ↩
- (Exhibit 9) ↩
- (Exhibit 10) ↩
- (Exhibit 11) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 5, p. 13) ↩
- (Exhibit 12) ↩
- (Exhibit 13) ↩
- Exhibit 13 ↩
- (Exhibit 14) ↩
- Exhibit 14 ↩
- (Exhibit 14) ↩
- Exhibit 14 ↩
- (Exhibit 14) ↩
- (Exhibit 14) ↩
- (Exhibit 4) ↩
- (Exhibit 15) ↩
- (Exhibit 15) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 16) ↩
- (see Exhibit 17) ↩
- (Exhibit 18) ↩
- (Exhibit 19) ↩
- (Exhibit 20) ↩
- (Exhibit 21) ↩
- (Exhibit 22) ↩
- (Exhibit 23) ↩
- (Exhibit 24) ↩
- (Exhibit 25) ↩
- (Exhibit 26) ↩
- (Exhibit 27) ↩
- Exhibit 28 ↩
- (Exhibit 28) ↩
- (Exhibit 29) ↩
- (Exhibit 30) ↩
- (Exhibit 30) ↩
- (Exhibit 31) ↩
- (Exhibit 32) ↩
- (Exhibit 33) ↩
- (Exhibit 34) ↩
- (Exhibit 35) ↩
- Exhibit 36 ↩
- (Exhibit 37) ↩
- (Exhibit 38) ↩
- (Exhibit 39) ↩
- (Exhibit 40) ↩
- (Exhibit 41) ↩
- (Exhibit 42) ↩
- (Exhibit 43) ↩
- (Exhibit 44) ↩
- (Exhibit 45) ↩
- (Exhibit 46) ↩
- (Exhibit 47) ↩
- (Exhibit 48) ↩
- (Exhibit 49) ↩
- See Exhibit 50 ↩
- (Exhibit 51) ↩
- See Exhibit 52 ↩
- (Exhibit 53) ↩
- (Exhibit 54) ↩
- (Exhibit 55) ↩
- (Exhibit 56) ↩
- (Exhibit 57) ↩
- (Exhibit 58) ↩
- (See Exhibit 59) ↩