10(a). The Service has expressed its concerns relating to violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations. What assurances can the Service be provided that these violations are not continuing as of December 31, 1989, and that those who were involved in the commission of the acts described in the CSC case are no longer affiliated in any capacity or employed by the Church of Scientology, including any Scientology-related organisation?
The Service’s ongoing concerns about “violations of public policy committed in the past by certain individuals affiliated with Scientology and by various Scientology-related organizations” appear to be based on the Tax Court’s decision in CSC. The misconduct that gave rise to the Tax Court’s public policy findings in CSC was the criminal misconduct of individuals within the Guardian’s Office. As discussed in detail in response to question 3(a), the Guardian’s Office has been disbanded, the principal wrongdoers removed from staff permanently barred from ever serving on staff of any Scientology church in any capacity, and other former GO staff with lesser involvement removed and retrained. The procedures instituted that prevent recurrence of misconduct by Church staff in their official capacity apply equally here — the legitimate functions of that office now are carried out under full and direct ecclesiastical supervision, and there are no organizations or groups performing church functions in the practice and propagation of the religion of Scientology or its affiliated social welfare and public benefit activities which can operate independently of CSI and the ecclesiastical hierarchy.1/
1/ Church of Spiritual Technology is autonomous from the CSI hierarchy. CST has its own unique activities and purposes which require it to be autonomous. CST’s autonomy does not create a risk of a recurrence of the Guardian Office misconduct, because CST is not involved in any way with the ministry of religious services to the public, the proselytization of the Scientology religion, or the performance of its social welfare and public benefit functions.
b. The term “Snow White” referred in the 1970s to a covert operation carried out by the Guardian’s Office under which illegal acts were perpetrated, including burglarising the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service. Is any operation known as “Snow white” still in existence? If not, please describe and document the method by which it ceased operations. If an operation under the name still exists, please describe the operation and provide supporting documentation. In addition, please describe any operation of whatever name that may be designed to achieve goals similar to the “Snow White” operation that existed in the 1970s.
As discussed in our responses to Questions 3(d) and l0(a), during the 1970s the Information Bureau of the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) carried out a series of operations to infiltrate government offices, including the National Office of the IRS, to obtain copies of documents concerning the Church. While the GO used various names to refer to those operations, we do not believe it ever used the name “Snow White” to designate those operations. However, we understand that the term Show White may have been misused within a program involving infiltration of government agencies. This may be the source of the misconception about this program conveyed by the Service’s question. The term “Snow White” correctly refers to a program written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1973 for the purpose of correcting false governmental reports about the Church of Scientology through strictly legal means.
Mr. Hubbard wrote the Snow White Program because several countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea had denied entry to their ports to the ship Apollo, which at that time housed the Church’s senior ecclesiastical management bodies, as a result of false reports concerning the Church that were being distributed primarily by certain governmental officials in England and the United States. Mr. Hubbard wanted to correct the record and to seek redress for religious persecution. Accordingly, Mr. Hubbard wrote:
To engage in various litigation in all countries affected so as to expose to view all such derogatory and false reports, to engage in further litigation in the countries originating such reports, to exhaust recourse in these countries and then finally to take the matter to the United Nations (that now being possible for an individual and a group) and to the European Commission on Human Rights, meanwhile uprooting and cancelling all such files and reports wherever found.
This program did not contemplate anything illegal whatsoever, and in fact expressly stated its “Ideal Scene” to be “All false and secret files of the nations of operating areas brought to view and legally expunged . . ..” (Emphasis added).
An example illustrating the use of the Snow White Program, why it was necessary and its results, concerns the country of Portugal. Between 1969 and the first half of 1974 the Apollo frequently docked at ports in Portugal with no problems and good relations with the people and local governments. In July 1973 a rumor was first heard in the port of Oporto that the Apollo was a “CIA ship.” This same rumor had first surfaced at ports in Spain in 1972 and as a result of this and other false reports the ship had been denied entry into some Spanish ports. Although the rumor continued to surface in 1973 and 1974 in Portugal, the Apollo nonetheless continued to be welcome in Portuguese ports without major incident.
On October 3, 1974, when the Apollo was docked at the port of Funchal on the island of Madeira, Portugal, it was attacked by a large crowd throwing rocks and shouting “CIA ship.” The local police and army stood by and watched, doing nothing to hold the crowd back. As a result some Church staff aboard the ship were injured and property was damaged or destroyed. Cars and motorcycles belonging to the Church and Church staff were thrown off the dock into the bay. The ship crew had to fight off the attackers with fire hoses while the ship made an emergency departure to escape the violence, without being able to take on food, fuel or water. The Apollo and her crew were forced to wait miles offshore for over a day while order was restored so she could return to load fuel, food and water and sail to a safe country.
Documents obtained from the U.S. State Department through the Freedom of Information act pursuant to the Snow White Program, trace the “CIA ship” rumor to a State Department telex in April of 1972 sent to various European countries that contained this and other false reports. Following the Snow White Program procedure of locating and expunging false reports and seeking redress for religious persecution, a suit was filed in Lisbon by the company that owned the Apgllg, Operation Transport Corporation (“OTC”), against the government of Portugal seeking damages as a result of this riot. In June of 1985 the Administrative Court of Lisbon awarded damages to OTC finding that the riot in October of 1974 had been sparked by the CIA ship rumor, and that this rumor was false. These damages were sustained by an appellate court in 1987.
Based on these decisions and clearing up of the false
information originally generated by the U.S. government, in April of 1988 the Minister of Justice in Portugal officially authorized the registration of the Church of Scientology in Portugal, accomplishing the Snow White Program’s objective for that country. The principal activities in the United States under the Snow White Program have consisted of filing Freedom of Information Act requests with all Federal governmental agencies and public record requests at the state and local level, pursuing litigation to compel disclosure of records being withheld, and the filing and prosecution of a large lawsuit in 1978 against a number of federal government agencies for the purpose of expunging all false reports on the Church and Mr. Hubbard contained in their files. Other activities under the aegis of Snow White, both in the UZS. and abroad, had to do with investigating and exposing Interpol as an autonomous police agency serving as a conduit for false reports on the Church and others.
The Osler Decision:
The Service need not simply rely on our representations about the Snow White Program as we are providing a copy of the original program with this write-up as Exhibit 10-A. Additionally, Justice Osler of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada, reviewed this program in 1985 to determine whether an Ontario Provincial Police officer should be cross-examined on an affidavit he had sworn in support of a search warrant against a Church of Scientology in Canada. The officer had characterized the Snow White Program as calling for illegal actions.
In an opinion dated January 23, 1985, after reviewing the Snow White Program document and other related evidence, Justice Osler noted that
“. . . it is not without significance that the affidavit of Fletcher Prouty, appearing in Volume 8A of the record at tab KK, makes it appear that he formed the conclusion, as a highly placed official of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States that since 1950 there has been a definite campaign of harrassment against this organization (Scientology) for nearly thirty years primarily by means of the dissemination of false and derogatory information around the world to create a climate in which adverse action would be taken.against the Church and its members. Defense against this type of activity was, of course, the stated objective of the SNOW WHITE program.
Decision of Supreme Court of Ontario, Osler, J., pp. 33-34.
Concluding that the document on its face called for actions to “legally” expunge files and that the word “legally” appeared to have been purposely left out of the officer’s affidavit, Justice Osler ordered that the cross-examination of the officer go forward. Following the cross-examination, on February 7, 1985, Justice Osler issued a second opinion stating that while he did not believe that the officer’s mischaracterization of the Snow White Program rose to the level of a fraudulent misrepresentation, he did find that the officer had made “errors in judgment” in characterizing the program as calling for illegal actions.
Current Snow White Activities:
The Snow White program is not being executed today. It was a very specific program tailored to a particular state of affairs at the time it was written. However, over the years the term Snow White became synonymous with the activity of legally locating and correcting false reports on the Church. So the term may be heard in connection with this activity from time to time. The Church’s legal bureau, working with Church counsel, utilize the Freedom. of Information Act and similar statutes around the world to locate false reports on Churches. When located they seek cooperation of the agencies involved in expunging and correcting such reports. These staff and attorneys carry out no activities that are in any way illegal, and neither does any other unit or function in the Church.
A copy of the Snow White Program as issued in 1973 is attached as Exhibit II-10-A.
Question 10 (c)
Please state whether, to the best of your knowledge and belief, there are any pending United States or state or local governmental investigations regarding possible criminal law violations by a Scientology-related organization or by any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization. For purposes of this question, please include any information relating to any Class V Church or Mission without regard to whether such Church or Mission is required to be listed in your response to question 1. Please include any pending criminal charges (and/or any pending court action including relevant docket number(s) against such entity or individual. Include in the description the investigating agency and any knowledge and/or documents known by you, or in your possession, or known by a Scientology-related organization or in the possession of such an organization regarding the investigation (e.g., what the allegations are and the date the acts were allegedly committed). In addition, please list all positions held by the individual listed in response to this question in any Scientology-related organizations at the present time and at the time the activity in question allegedly occurred.
There are no known pending governmental investigations regarding possible criminal law violations by any Scientology-related organizations or by any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization.
* * * * *
Question 10 (d)
d. Please provide a list of all civil or criminal litigation commenced on or after January 1, 1980 in which it is alleged that any Scientology-related organization (as that definition has been modified in c. above) or any individual alleged to have been acting under the direction of (as agent or otherwise), or in conjunction with, any such organization, has violated any criminal law or has committed an intentional tort. The list should contain parties’ names, the docket number(s) of the litigation, the court in which the matter is or was pending, a short description of all claims (and any counterclaims) by the parties, including any additional facts you believe would be relevant to allow us to understand the bases of the suit, and the status of the action. The list need not contain litigation in which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a named party.
Although only litigation that commenced on or after January 1, 1980 has been requested, background information is necessary to put those cases in context. In the 30 years prior to 1980 there were only a handful of alleged intentional tort cases in the United States. These were principally cases involving a disgruntled former member wishing a refund of his or her donations, and who included tort causes of action as a litigation tactic. Such cases were typically dismissed without a trial or settled for a refund of the donations made.
The response to Question 3 (d) describes in detail how during the 1970s the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) acted as an autonomous organization unchecked and unsupervised by the ecclesiastical management of the Church. GO staff carried out illegal programs, such as the infiltration of government offices for which eleven members of the GO were prosecuted and convicted. There were also instances in which GO staff used unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived as enemies of the Church — means that were completely against Scientology tenets and policy.
Although these activities involved a very small number of Guardian’s Office staff members operating autonomously in violation of Church policy and the law, their actions provided ammunition for those who would attack the Church and damaged the Church’s credibility with courts and the government. The GO carried out several years of secretive, questionable and often illegal activities before they were exposed and stopped. Much of this was recorded in documents that were seized in FBI raids on GO offices and made publicly available during the criminal prosecutions of GO members. The Commodore’s Messenger Organization
CSI Prod 11-4-93
investigated and disbanded the GO in the early 1980s, dismissing a large number of GO members from Church staff along with a few GO sympathizers in Church management. The GO documents and the activities that they revealed, along with a small group of rabid apostates, came to the attention of Boston personal injury attorney Michael Flynn, who concluded that this combination made the Church an easy litigation target in cases which he hoped to position for large monetary settlements.
Flynn, whose practice had theretofore centered on medical malpractice, launched his litigation assault on the Church of Scientology in 1979. His formula, which he repeated in all of the cases he brought, was to: (1) locate someone who had left the Church, had been purged or who could be induced to leave the Church; (2) convince the person to file “cookie-cutter” fraud and emotional distress claims; and (3) commence an action through an inflammatory complaint, relying on documents from the Guardian’s Office to give an air of false credibility to the claims.
Flynn, however, did not sue the GO; instead, his targets were Churches of Scientology generally and L. Ron Hubbard. As part of his design, Flynn enlisted the aid of ousted GO sympathizers and former GO members as witnesses, thus enabling him to orchestrate a highly prejudicial portrayal of Scientology for judges and juries and for the media.
On a separate front, Flynn set out to create broader problems for the Church in the hope both of spreading Church resources thin and imparting a false air of credence to his civil claims. This he accomplished by instigating governmental investigations and attacks on the Church, often through IRS personnel who were more than willing to cooperate.
The Van Schaick Action
Flynn’s first step was to file a class action lawsuit on December 13, 1979, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.. No. 79-2491-G. In that action, Van Schaick, purporting to act as a supposed class representative, alleged an array of torts and sought $200 million in damages. However, no class certification was ever pursued by Flynn. Instead, he used the lurid allegations and huge prayer of the Van Schaick complaint as a tool for soliciting additional clients to sue the
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Church. Ultimately, Flynn recruited 28 plaintiffs to file virtually identical actions in various jurisdictions.
Flynn Associates Management Corporation
In 1980, Flynn created a corporate entity to promote his burgeoning business of suing the Church. Flynn Associates Management Corporation (“FAMCO”) was formed, in the words of a FAMCO document, to promote four basic goals:
- Closing Scientology organizations (Churches)
- Adverse media
- Adverse public reaction
- Federal and state attacks (on religion)
FAMCO was merely a front designed to generate money to finance Flynn’s litigation against the Church. A “get rich quick” scheme outlined in one FAMCO document actually promised FAMCO “investors” between $2 and $4 for every $1 invested in FAMCO shares. FAMCO was essentially a franchising scheme through which Flynn solicited co-counsel in various other jurisdictions to join in the Church litigation through a fee-splitting system. Flynn’s plan was “. . . to position ourselves such that to fight us would be cost ineffective.” He forecast “One thousand lawsuits (against the Church of Scientology) . . . by the end of 1981.” Flynn provided attorneys with “turn-key” lawsuits. He promised other attorneys that, “We provide the clients, the damages, the pleadings, the memoranda, the documents, the witnesses and virtually everything required for an instantaneous trial with little or no necessity for discovery.”
Flynn’s Probate Gambit
A particularly outrageous tactic employed by Flynn was his attempt to steal Mr. Hubbard’s estate by inducing Mr. Hubbard’s estranged son, Ronald DeWolfe, to bring a probate action in November 1982, falsely alleging that Mr. Hubbard was missing and that DeWolfe should be appointed to control the estate. At the same time, of course, Flynn was representing a group of former Scientologists who had named Mr. Hubbard as a defendant in civil suits against the Church, alleging that Mr. Hubbard controlled the Church as its managing agent. Flynn thus achieved the unique distinction of going into one court room to argue that Mr. Hubbard controlled the day-to-day operations of the Church through a constant stream of orders to Mr. Miscavige, and then crossing the hall to another court room to argue that Mr. Hubbard was ill and dying and that he was being manipulated by his close advisors, especially Mr. Miscavige. By being willing to speak out of both sides of
CSI Prod 11-4-93
his mouth, Flynn was seeking to get rich by trying to gain control of the very estate he was simultaneously seeking to plunder./1
After Flynn’s probate action was dismissed on summary judgment in June of 1983, Flynn shifted gears and announced that his “real” purpose in bringing the probate action had been to force Mr. Hubbard out of seclusion so he could be served in Flynn’s other cases.
One of Flynn’s clients, Paulette Cooper, graphically described in an affidavit how Flynn detailed to her his strategy to “quickly and easily win” cases by “conducting an attack against Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard” by naming him as a defendant in her pending lawsuits. Flynn specifically told Cooper that he believed that “Hubbard would never appear” in those suits because “by approximately 1979, Mr. Hubbard had severed his ties with the
Church.” Flynn boasted that such a ploy would result in quick money judgments because the litigation could be “quickly terminated, either by obtaining a default judgment against Mr. Hubbard,” or by forcing “settle[ment] in order to protect Mr. Hubbard.” Cooper further affirmed that Flynn filed sworn statements by Cooper in her cases alleging Mr. Hubbard’s control when Cooper lacked any evidence whatsoever of the claim, “solely for strategic reasons in pursuit of default judgment.”
Government Support for the Flynn Campaign
As noted above, Flynn obtained government assistance to lend credence and momentum to his attacks and to bring additional pressure on the Church. Tactics, strategies and the goal of the destruction of the Scientology religion were shared and carried out by Flynn in coordination with some parts of the IRS and Department of Justice. The clearest examples of this collusion were in the fall and winter of 1984.
In August of 1984, in civil litigation between churches of Scientology and the IRS and other federal government agencies that had been in progress for some years, the government worked with Flynn in importing one of Flynn’s principal tactics into the Church’s government litigation, namely seeking the deposition of L. Ron Hubbard as managing agent of the Church and then seeking dismissal or default as
1/ It was during that same time period that Charles Rumph of the IRS National Office told Mr. Miscavige that he lacked credibility because he was an “automaton” who only did and said what L. Ron Hubbard told him to do and say.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
a sanction if Mr. Hubbard failed to appear. The evidence used to support the government’s motions to compel those depositions were declarations by individuals who were clients of or had been witnesses for Flynn. Simultaneously, the government launched an “unclean hands” defense in these same suits based on allegations and claims that mirrored those that Flynn had asserted in his redundant lawsuits nationwide.
Two of the government’s principal declarants were Flynn’s client Laurel Sullivan and Flynn witness Dede Reisdorf. Sullivan had been removed from her position and later left the Church because she conspired with the GO to place GO members who had committed crimes in positions of corporate authority within the Church. She was a loser in the purge. Flynn provided her to the IRS who used her as a government witness represented by DOJ attorneys in Flynn litigation. Dede Reisdorf was also a GO sympathizer who was removed from her post in 1981 when she tried to block the investigation in the GO.
In March of 1985, based on the declarations of Sullivan and Reisdorf, Judge Joyce Hens Greene ordered the Church to produce Mr. Hubbard for deposition or face dismissal of a civil suit against the government which was in the process of exposing 20 years of false reports and harassment against Scientology and Scientologists. Unable to comply with the order as Mr. Hubbard was not running the Church or even accessible to anyone in the Church, the Church’s suit was dismissed in April of 1985 as a discovery sanction.
A few courts saw through the charade and refused to order Mr. Hubbard’s deposition. One such Judge was District Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer, who, on January 24, 1986, just hours before Mr. Hubbard’s passing, refused to order Mr. Hubbard’s deposition. In her ruling, Judge Pfaelzer held that, while Mr. Hubbard was “accorded reverence and respect by Scientologists,” he was not the managing agent of the Church corporations.
IRS CID Support of Flynn
It was during this same period that the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Los Angeles commenced a criminal investigation of L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige and various churches of Scientology and other Scientologists. According to the testimony of CID Branch Chief Phillip Xanthos, the impetus for the investigation was a newspaper article detailing allegations made by Flynn and a number of his witnesses and clients. In fact, the majority of the individuals who were interviewed and used as informants by the CID in their investigation were from Flynn’s stable of
CSI Prod 11-4-93
witnesses and clients, among them Gerry Armstrong. In a late 1984 police-authorized video tape surveillance, Armstrong — a Sullivan ally who had made several attempts to join the GO’s intelligence office — was recorded plotting a take-over of the Church. The plan included planting phony documents that would then be seized in a CID raid, the filing of a new lawsuit by Flynn which was designed to wrest control of the Church from its legitimate leaders and to set up the sexual compromise and blackmail of a senior Scientologist.
Just as Flynn expressed his goal of destroying the Church in his original planning papers, in the Special Agents report prepared at the end of the CID investigation, the agents expressed the same aim — “the final halt” and the “ultimate disintegration” of the Church of Scientology.
Resolution of Flynn Cases:
Between 1980 and 1986, Flynn was either counsel of record, of counsel or coordinating counsel on 40 virtually identical lawsuits against the Church. Flynn’s plan to incite 1,000 lawsuits never came to fruition, and his plan to break the Church financially, failed. By 1986, only one of Flynn’s cases had gone to trial. That case, Stifler v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, involved an altercation between Stifler and a Church disseminator in which Stifler claimed injuries.2/ He found his way to Michael Flynn and filed suit, alleging various tortious conduct on the part of the Church and sought $4,250,000 in damages. Flynn took the case to trial and Stifler was awarded the amount of his medical bills ($979) in a judgment against the individual Church member. There was no judgment or damages against either of the Churches.
Realizing his plan had failed, Flynn approached the Church in 1986 offering a settlement. The Church decided to pay nuisance value to get rid of the distraction created by these cases, begin a new era of expansion for Scientology and to settle matters with the IRS. The first two of these objectives were achieved and all of the Flynn-related cases, as listed below, were settled if they had not been previously dismissed already. A new era of expansion did begin for Scientology.
2/ The only other “Flynn” case that went to trial was Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, a suit the Church brought against Armstrong, over Armstrong’s theft of Church archival materials. Armstrong brought a counter-suit with intentional tort claims which was never tried and was part of the Flynn settlement.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
It also appeared that a settlement with the IRS would be possible, but after years of good faith efforts and cooperation by the Church in its efforts to settle with the IRS, agents in the Los Angeles IRS Criminal Investigation Division and hardliners against Scientology in the National Office, such as Marcus Owens, sabotaged those efforts causing the negotiations to break down, as is covered in more detail later.
The following is the list of the Flynn-related suits that were either dismissed or settled: Gerald Armstrong v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., (cross-complaint), No. C 420 153, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Jose Baptista v. Church of Scientology Mission of Cambridge, No. Civ. 81010, Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Mark D. Barron v. Church of Scientology of Boston, No. 5110, Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Donald Bear v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 81 Civ. 6864 (MJL), United States District Court Southern District of New York; Peggy Bear v. Church of Scientology of New York et al.; No. 81 Civ. 4688 (MJL) United States District Court Southern District of New York; Phillip Bride v. Church of Scientology of Portland, Church of Scientology Mission of Davis, et al.. No. A 8003-01189, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County; Eileen Brown for Kevin Brown v. Delphian Fdn., et al. No. 81-435 (FBL); United States District Court of New Jersey transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 28, 1982; Tonja C. Burden v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 80-501-Civ-T-K, U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Gabriel and Margaret Cazares v. Church of Scientology. No. 82-886-Civ-T-15 United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; Gabriel and Margaret Cazares v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. 81- 3472-CA-OI, Circuit Court Seventh Judicial Circuit Volusia County; John G. Clark, Jr. v. L. Ron Hubbard No. 85-356-MCN, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Bent Corydon and Mary Corydon, Mark Lutovsky, Phil Black, Mark Chacon, Church of Sciologos v. Church of Scientology Mission of Riverside, et al., No. 154129, Superior Court of the State of California County of Riverside; Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., et al., No. 81 681 MC United States District Court, District of Massachusetts; Michael J. Flynn, Lucy Garritano, Steven Garritano, James Gervais and Peter Graves v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., (counter-claim), No. 40906 Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Michael J.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Flynn v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 54258, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology International, et al., CV 85-4853, United States District Court, Central District of California; Michael J. Flynn v. L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, Church of Scientology of California, No. 83-2642-C, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Carol A. and Paul Garrity v. Church of Scientology of California, Mary Sue Hubbard, and L. Ron Hubbard, CV 81-3260 RMT (JRX), United States District Court Central District of California; Hansen, Marjorie J. v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Church of Scientology of California, No. 47074, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Betsy Harper v. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, No. 65262, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Ernest and Mary Adell Hartwell, v. Church of Scientology of California et al., No. 196800, Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for County of Clark; Thomas Jefferson v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, CV-81-3261, United States District Court Central District of California; Deborah Ann Keck v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., CV-81-6060 R, United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dana Lockwood v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, CV-81-4109 CBM, United States District Court Central District of California; Nancy and John McLean, v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. 81-174-Civ-T-K United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division; Steven R. Pacca v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 12076-81, Supreme Court New York County; Jane Lee and Richard Peterson v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, CV 81-3259 CBM (KX), United States District Court Central District of California; Patrick R. Rosenkjar v. Church of Scientology of California, L. Ron Hubbard, and Mary Sue Hubbard, No. 81-1350, United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Martin Samuels, v. L. Ron Hubbard, A8311-07227, In the Circuit of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah; Howard D. Schomer v. L. Ron Hubbard, et al., No. CV 84-8335, U.S. District Court, Central District of California; Michael W. Smith v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. and Church of Scientology of California, No. 47236, Superior Court for the State of Massachusetts; Manfred Stansfield, Valerie Stansfield, Franklin Freedman et al. v. Norman Starkey, et al., No. CA 001 012, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles; Lawrence Stiffler v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Roger Sylvester, No. 44706, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Gabor Szabo v. Church of Scientology of California and Vanguard
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Artists International, No. C 312 329, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; Janet Troy v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, No. 41073, Superior Court Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Kim L. Vashel v. Church of Scientology of Boston and Church of Scientology of California, No. 47237, Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Margery Wakefield v. Church of Scientology of California, No. 82-1313 Civ-T-10 United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division. Bent Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. C 694401, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
Other Categories of Cases:
Although the cases generated by Michael Flynn comprised the majority of tort litigation against the Church of Scientology between 1980 and 1986, there were some other cases that arose during the same period of time that were not entirely “Flynn” cases although they were generally of the same ilk. Flynn shared information, witnesses, tactics and sometimes acted as coordinating counsel for other attorneys involved in similar litigation against the Church. In other instances, while there was no apparent direct link between Flynn and a particular plaintiff or attorney in a suit, the similarity of claims and tactics suggests that these individuals or attorneys were copying Flynn’s strategy. The following cases fall into this category: Alberto Montoya v. L. Ron Hubbard, Church of Scientology, et al., No. 450094, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego; Joan Edin v. Church of Scientology Mission of Davis, et al., No. 287191, Rita Engelhardt B. v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. C 312 692, Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles. Each of those cases was dismissed.
There are a few cases where Flynn’s influence was felt that deserve separate discussion as they are cases that actually went to trial and were adjudicated.
The Christofferson case was actually originally filed in 1977, prior to the period covered by the Service’s question.
In 1977, after taking a few elementary courses at the Church of Scientology Mission of Portland and working for a short time at another organization, Julie Christofferson was kidnapped and, over a four day period, deprogrammed to give up her religion by convicted felon Ted Patrick. She was
CSI Prod 11-4-93
then turned over to attorneys by the anti-religion group involved so she could bring suit against the Church on a contingent fee basis.
At trial, Christofferson’s attorneys derided and distorted Scientology’s beliefs and practices to such an extent that the Oregon State Court of Appeals overturned the $2 million verdict, finding that Scientology is a religion and that the trial had been rife with First Amendment violations. Upon remand, Christofferson’s lawyers — by then FAMCO members — applied Flynn’s tactics and inflamed a jury into a $39 million verdict that led the trial court to declare a post-verdict mistrial in May of 1985. There never was another trial. The Christofferson case was part of the 1986 global settlement with Flynn.
Larry Wollersheim had been in and out of churches of Scientology for over a decade before he finally left for good in 1979. While in the Church he was continually in trouble over his unethical business practices. He filed suit against the Church for a variety of claims, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, No. C-332-027, in State Court in Los Angeles in 1980, represented by attorney Charles O’Reilly, a participant in the original FAMCO planning meetings.
During the five month trial in 1986, O’Reilly applied the FAMCO tactics and relied upon Flynn’s stable of witnesses and obtained an absurd verdict of $30,000,000.
While the Wollersheim case is still going through the appeals process, the jury verdict has been reduced to $2,500,000 from its original $30,000,000, and further appeals are pending.
GO Criminal Activity Fallout Litigation:
Another category of cases involved Guardian’s Office members or stemmed from GO illegal activities. This included, for example, proceedings to compel testimony before a grand jury convened in Florida to investigate GO activities and an action by the State of Florida to disbar Merrell Vannier, an attorney who was also a GO operative and who violated the canons of ethics as an attorney. It was this kind of activity that was rooted out and condemned in the disbanding of the GO. Nonetheless a certain amount of fall-out litigation from the years of GO criminality had to be expected. Cases falling into this category — i.e., cases which were not against the Church but which present allegations about the GO — are as follows: The Florida
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Bar v. Merrell G. Vannier,. No. 61,691, Supreme Court of Florida (Vannier was disbarred); Merrell and Francine Vannier v. Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, No. 60 478, Supreme Court of California (Vannier lost an appeal against an extradition order); In re Charles Batdorf; United States v. Batdorf, No. 80 CV Misc (MM-188), United States District Court, Southern District of New York (Batdorf convicted); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Mitchell Hermann, Peggy Tyson, Richard Weigand, and Duke Snider), Nos. 80-5 Misc-T-H and 80-614 CIV-T-H, Municipal District State of Florida — Tampa Division (investigation dropped); United States v. Stephen E. Poludniak. Libby Wiegand, No. 80-00143 CR (1), United States District Court for the Second District of Missouri (defendants plead guilty).
The Mayo Cases:
Mayo was removed from a senior post in 1982 due to unethical conduct and the discovery that he had altered Scientology religious practice and Scriptures. Mayo then left the Church and along with a few other ex-Scientologists established the Church of the New Civilization, dba Advanced Ability Center, in Santa Barbara, California, where he delivered his own version of Scientology religious services to ex-Scientologists. He also sought the defection of Church members in order to build his membership. Mayo then acquired copies of certain confidential advanced Scientology Scriptures which had been stolen by some of Mayo’s confederates from a Church facility in Denmark.
As a result, in 1985, Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology of International and Church of Scientology of California sued David Mayo and others in a suit alleging RICO causes of action based on the conspiracy to acquire the secret confidential materials of the Scientology religion and use them for the economic advantage of Mayo’s organization and other related splinter groups. This litigation consists of the consolidated cases, including counter-claims, of Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Scott, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Dal. 1988), No. CV 85-711 JMI (Bx) and Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Wollersheim, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal. 1985) No. CV 85-7197 JMI (Bx).
Although this litigation is still ongoing, Mayo’s Advanced Ability Center has long since ceased to operate and the various individuals who had been associated with it have for the most part scattered to different areas.
The IRS has been supportive of Mayo’s efforts. Mayo became an IRS informant during the CID investigation of the
CSI Prod 11-4-93
mid-80’s. Whereas Scientology organizations have been unable to obtain exempt status, the IRS granted exempt status to Church of the New Civilization – even though it had closed its operations and its sole remaining business was to contest this litigation. Further, much of this litigation is financed by wealthy psychiatrist Sarge Gerbode. In 1986, Gerbode formed a trust known as the “Friends of the First Amendment.” The IRS granted exempt status to this anti-Scientology fundraising entity, and Gerbode has funnelled in excess of $1.4 million dollars to fund Mayo’s litigation through that trust as charitable tax deductions for himself.
The Aznaran/Yanny Litigation:
Vicki Aznaran is the former President of Religious Technology Center and her husband, Richard, is a former Church staff member. Vicki was removed from her position by the Trustees of RTC in March 1987 as she had betrayed the trust of her position and was not acting in the best interests of the religion. By her own testimony, she first got in trouble when she sought to place an ex-GO criminal in RTC’s personnel department. Vicki and her husband then left the Church after Vicki’s removal.
Joseph Yanny served as an attorney for RTC and various churches from 1983 until November of 1987. His primary contact with the Church was with RTC and Vicki Aznaran, with whom he developed a close personal relationship.
After Vicki’s departure, the new officers of RTC examined Yanny’s performance, determined it to be sub-standard, and learned that he was a user of LSD. He was then discharged.
Upon his termination, a billing dispute erupted between Yanny and the Church, and Yanny enlisted the aid of the Aznarans in supporting him in his billing dispute and, in exchange, acted as de facto counsel for the Aznarans in helping them prepare and file a lawsuit against his former clients. The Aznaran suit, Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal. 1988), No. CV 88-1786 JMI, was filed on April 1, 1988. Despite Vicki Aznaran’s high ecclesiastical position as the head of RTC for a number of years, her suit portrays her as a victim who didn’t know for all these years that she was really “brainwashed” and under “mind control” – plus the other stock inflammatory allegations that characterize this sort of litigation. It seeks $70,000,000 in damages and is still pending.
Shortly after the Aznaran complaint was filed, Yanny
CSI Prod 11-4-93
received from Vicki Aznaran a declaration by her as the former President of RTC supporting Yanny’s claim that a retainer he received in 1985 was “non-refundable.” Yanny used this declaration in his fee dispute over the retainer which is now in litigation along with claims against Yanny for his breach of his fiduciary duties.
Even before the Aznaran case was filed, Al Lipkin, one of the agents who conducted the IRS’s CID investigation in 1984 and 1985, was in contact with Yanny and the Aznarans. It was Lipkin who arranged for the Aznarans to be interviewed by Exempt Organizations agents from Los Angeles who were conducting an on-site review of Church records, ostensibly the final step in negotiations concerning tax exempt status for Scientology churches. The day after issuing summonses to the Aznarans to be interviewed and to produce documents relating to their lawsuit, the same agents issued document requests to Religious Technology Center asking RTC to produce Vicki Aznaran as a corporate officer of RTC.
While the allegations of the Aznaran complaint serves as the purported reason for the summonses and interview, in reality the taped interview was a contrived setting for an IRS/Aznaran diatribe against the Scientology religion and L. Ron Hubbard, with the IRS agents urging the Aznarans to press their litigation and the Aznarans urging that the tapes of the interview be furnished to Lipkin and LA IRS CID.
It was the Church’s discovery of this event which precipitated the breakdown of the earlier negotiations between the Church and the IRS.
Coincident with their interview with the IRS, the Aznaran’s personal tax problems evaporated and their private investigation business was retained by Guess? Jeans — the large jeans manufacturer that Al Lipkin befriended during an earlier IRS CID investigation (which also involved tampering with civil litigation and was the subject of a Congressional investigation).
The Aznaran suit is still pending at this time and has not yet gone to trial. Meanwhile Yanny has pursued an agenda to cause as much harm as possible to the Church by repeatedly betraying his fiduciary duties as former Church counsel by providing information concerning the Church to the Aznarans and a number of other litigants against the Church, as well as to the IRS and the FBI.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Other Current Litigation:
Several other suits are pending against Churches of Scientology that allege some form of tort claim. Although there are variations in the claims and different attorneys representing the plaintiffs, there is one common denominator underlying most of these suits: the influence of the Cult Awareness Network (“CAN”).
CAN, which the IRS has recognized as exempt under section 50l (c) (3) as an educational organization, is in fact a bigoted hate group that targets and tries to destroy churches and religions. CAN’s principal activities are negative propaganda campaigns, covert dissemination of false information for purposes of subversion and acting as a referral service for deprogrammers on a fee sharing arrangement. Although complaints have been made to the IRS about CAN’s continued exempt status in light of its true activities, no action has been taken.
The Church of Scientology is presently CAN’S principal target for attack, and CAN’s favorite tactic is to spread false and defamatory information about the Church through all available means while holding itself out as an authority on the subject. When contacted by anyone with a complaint about the Church, CAN manipulates them to attack the Church either through the media or by referring them to an anti-Scientology attorney.
The majority of the suits against Churches of Scientology recently filed and presently pending, that have not been otherwise discussed above, fall into this category. None has gone to trial. The following are cases instigated or influenced by CAN either directly or as a result of one of CAN’s spread of false information: Terry Dixon v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Portland, et al., No. 9010-08200 Multnomah County – Circuit Court of Oregon (in arbitration); John Finucane, David Miller, Alexander Turbyne v. Emery Wilson Corporation, et al., No. C 045216, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (pending); Dorothy Fuller, an individual v. Applied Scholastics International, et al., No. 92K 11466, Municipal Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (just filed); Lisa Stuart Halverson v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, et al., No. 92K11186, Municipal Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (settled); Thomas and Carol Hutchinson v. Church of Scientology of Georgia, et al., No. D90315, Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia (pending); Mark Lewandowski v. Church of Scientology of Michigan, et al., No.
CSI Prod 11-4-93
91-421716-LZ, State of Michigan in the Oakland Circuit Court (pending); Peter and Francis Miller v. Church of Scientology et al., No. 027140, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (case abated re the Church and in arbitration re Sterling); Ted Patrick, et al. v. Church of Scientology of Portland, et al., State Court of Oregon for the County of Multnomah (dismissed); Dee and Glover Rowe v. Church of Scientology of Orange County, et al., No. BC 038955, Superior Court of California (pending); Frank and Joan Sanchez v. Sterling Management Systems, et al., No. 91-224-CV, 4th Judiciary District Court San Miguel County, State of New Mexico (pending); Thomas Spencer v. The Church of Scientology, et al., BC 026740, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (settled); Irene Zaferes v. Church of Scientology, Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles (dismissed); Jo Ann Scrivano v. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., No. 87-1277, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (in discovery stage); Marissa Alimata and Richard Wolfson v. Church of Scientology of California, etc., et al., No. C 650 988, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (judgment entered for the Church).
Personal Injury, Medical-Related Suits:
Another category of lawsuits involve claims by individuals who have been injured on Church premises or in some way attributed responsibility to the Church for an injury or death. For example, in the Rabel case listed below, a stereo speaker accidentally fell out of the window of a Scientology mission and hit someone on the street below. The case was settled. The Arbuckle case was brought by the parents of an individual who died while a parishioner of a church of Scientology. Although his death from kidney failure was traceable to his use of steroids, the case was settled to avoid expense of litigation. Each of this group of cases was either settled or dismissed. Mira Chaikin v. Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, et al., No. 81 Civ 7525, United States District Court of the Southern District of New York; Gary and Susan Silcock v. Church of Scientology, Mission of Salt Lake, et al., No. C 86-7213, Third Judicial District Court for the Salt Lake County, Utah; Rimando, Pedro H. Irene Marshall v. The Church of Scientology of San Francisco, et al., No. C 669015, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles; Wendy and William Rabel v. Eric Rising, Jane Doe Rising, his wife; Church of Scientology Mission of University Way, et al., King County Superior Court, Washington State; Francine Necochea, a minor child, by her guardian Ad Litem
CSI Prod 11-4-93
Cecilia Garcia v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. C 165360, California Superior Court for the County of Riverside; Roxanne Friend v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. DC 018 003, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles; Bruce and Lynnel Arbuckle v. Skip Pagel M.D., Church of Scientology Celebrity Center Portland, et al., No. 8907-04119, Multnomah County, Oregon Circuit Court.
A final category of lawsuits includes cases that have arisen out of financial or property disputes or transactions involving individual Scientologists, their businesses or creditors or organizations or individuals that Churches of Scientology or related organizations have had financial dealings with. Often the Church is named in such cases simply as a perceived “deep pocket” or as a tactic to try to coerce a settlement. Such cases are typically dismissed or settled. These cases are as follows: In re Dynamic Publications Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Maryland (settled); Gregory F. Henderson v. A Brilliant Film Company, et al., No. 164213, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin (settled); Gregory F. Henderson v. Marvin Price, et al., No. 165165, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin (settled); Peter Siegel v. Religious Technology Center, et al., CV 89-5471, United States District Court, Central District of California (pending); Steve Dunning v. Church of Scientology, et al., No. 060613, California Superior Court County of Los Angeles (dismissed with prejudice); Jeff and Arlene Dubron v. Church of Scientology International, et al., No. NCC 29267B, Superior Court of California Burbank Division (settled); Sherry Fortune v. Church of Scientology American Saint Hill Organization and Chuck Tingley, No. C 099061, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (dismissed as to the Church and settled as to Tingley); Vicki Adler v. American Sun, Inc., Church of Scientology of Los Angeles, SWC 81874, Torrance Superior Court of California (settled); Benham v. Church of Scientology Celebrity Center of Dallas, No. 91-08216, 9th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (settled); Michael Burns v. The Recording Institute of Detroit, Inc., et al., No. 91-422334-CZ, Oakland County Circuit Court, State of Michigan (pending); Clay Eberle and Eberle & Jordan Law Firm v. Church of Scientology of California, No. NCC 166486, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles in the City of Glendale (dismissed in favor of the Church); Mario Metellus v. Church of Scientology of New York, Linda Barragan, No. 01133-89, Superior Court of the State of New York, County of New York (settled).
CSI Prod 11-4-93
The civil litigation campaign against the Church in the 1980’s was unscrupulous in its creation and execution. Using the crimes of the GO and the GO’s documents, Flynn and others have manufactured meritless claims and secured the survival of those claims against the very people and organizations which uncovered the GO’s crimes and harrassment, put an end to GO misconduct, and rid Scientology of the criminals who were responsible for the GO’s terrible legacy. In that regard, the unsettling truth is that what can correctly be characterised as the GO’s last operation, was the litigation campaign the GO criminals, Flynn and his confederates and their IRS allies launched against the people and organizations which put an end to the GO.
* * * *
CSI Prod 11-4-93
MICHAEL J. FLYNN vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., & others. [Note 1]
19 Mass. App. Ct. 59
October 16, 1984 – December 4, 1984
Present: GREANEY, C.J., DREBEN, & FINE, JJ.
Where the case against one of several defendants in a civil action had been terminated by the plaintiff’s timely filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1), 365 Mass. 803 (1974), it was error for a judge, in ruling on a subsequent motion to dismiss, to include that defendant in an order dismissing the action with prejudice. [64-65]
Where the plaintiff in a civil action had moved for voluntary dismissal under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), 365 Mass. 803 (1974), it was error for the judge hearing the motion to order dismissal of the action with prejudice before first affording the plaintiff an opportunity to withdraw his motion to dismiss, when he sought to do so upon the judge’s announcement in open court of his ruling on the motion. [66-67]
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 9, 1982.
A motion to dismiss was heard by Hiller B. Zobel, J.
Harvey A. Silverglate for Church of Scientology of California, Inc., & others.
David M. Banash for the plaintiff.
Charles W. Rankin for Kevin Tighe.
FINE, J. On April 9, 1982, Michael J. Flynn, an attorney, brought an action against the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., The Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., and three individuals, each of whom is alleged to have been associated with the Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., either as a staff member or as an officer. Mr. Flynn claims that the defendants were responsible for the unlawful taking of documents
from his law offices in Boston and from a dumpster located outside his office. He alleges that these acts occurred over a period from December of 1979 until the fall of 1981, and that, among the documents taken, were confidential client communications. He sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and an award of multiple damages and attorney’s fees under G. L. c. 93A.
On October 12, 1983, a judge of the Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice following a hearing on Mr. Flynn’s motion for voluntary dismissal under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), 365 Mass. 803 (1974). [Note 2] The question posed by Mr. Flynn’s appeal in this case is whether that action was proper. In order to answer it, we must examine the history of the particular litigation, as well as other material which was before the judge when he acted on the plaintiff’s motion. Although a considerable amount of other material has been brought to our attention by the parties, we focus our attention exclusively on that material which was before the judge when he rendered his decision. Because the language of the sections of the rules with which we are concerned is almost identical to the equivalent sections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we look for guidance to Federal law in interpreting those rules. Rollins Environmental Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 368 Mass. 174 , 179-180 (1975).
The following is a summary of the relevant events that occurred in the case after the complaint was filed and prior to the hearing. On April 13, 1982, a hearing was held on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, at which all parties except the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., were represented. There was a discussion of proceedings which had taken place in a case pending in the United States District Court in Boston, Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., No. 79-2491-G (D. Mass. filed Dec. 13,
1979), and of certain orders which had been entered in that case relating to the documents allegedly taken from Mr. Flynn’s office or trash, which were the same documents as those referred to in the instant case. [Note 3] Perhaps because those orders provide some protection to Mr. Flynn as to the use that could be made of the documents, on the day it was heard the motion for preliminary injunction was denied. It was again denied after an interlocutory review by a single justice of this court (pursuant to G. L. c. 231, Section 118, first par.) a few days later. On May 10, 1982, all parties except the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., filed answers. On May 17, 1982, Mr. Flynn filed a demand for jury trial. On September 12, 1983, Mr. Flynn filed a notice, dated August 29, 1983, of voluntary dismissal as to the Church of Scientology of California, Inc. On September 19 and 22, 1983, respectively, the defendants gave notice that they would take the depositions of Mr. Flynn on September 29, 1983, and of four other individuals on various other dates. On September 29, 1983, Mr. Flynn filed his motion to dismiss and also a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The motion to stay discovery was allowed. The motion to dismiss was heard and allowed with prejudice on October 12, 1983, all parties having been represented at the hearing except the Church of Scientology of California, Inc.
The judge at the dismissal hearing had before him three affidavits, one from Mr. Flynn, one from Eric D. Blumenson, an attorney representing the Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., and one from Harvey A. Silverglate, an attorney representing the Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., and some of the individual defendants. A considerable portion of all of the affidavits from both sides contained cross-charges of harassment and abuse of the judicial process. Mr. Flynn’s affidavit referred, in addition, to the orders which had been entered by the United States District Court in the Van Schaick litigation and to a complaint in a case filed in the United States District Court on his behalf on September 7, 1983. The complaint in that case (Flynn v. Hubbard, No. 83-2642-C [D. Mass.]), alleges that Hubbard [Note 4] and his agents are engaged in a broad conspiracy to “destroy” Mr. Flynn. Numerous wrongful acts are alleged to have been committed, including the same acts involving documents taken from Mr. Flynn’s office and trash which form the basis of the instant suit. The affidavit of Mr. Blumenson, on the other hand, relates the difficulties encountered in the attempt to schedule Mr. Flynn’s deposition and refers to the age and history of the case. In addition, Mr. Blumenson speculates as to Mr. Flynn’s “hit and run” strategy, characterized by the filing of numerous lawsuits for purposes, he says, other than the receipt of legal redress. He asserts further that Mr. Flynn has shown no reason why the allegations made in this lawsuit should be tried in a different forum, and he states that, if the motion to dismiss without prejudice is allowed, his client’s name will remain tarnished, Hubbard being the only named defendant in Mr. Flynn’s Federal District Court case. Mr. Silverglate’s affidavit refers to correspondence from Mr. Flynn seeking settlement of pending cases against the various church organizations and threatening to file numerous additional lawsuits if settlement is not reached. Mr. Silverglate refers to an
alleged scheme on the part of Mr. Flynn for development of additional litigation against the various church entities and alleges that Mr. Flynn’s general litigation strategy is to file duplicative cases and dismiss them whenever faced with adverse rulings. The affidavit refers to the expense incurred in defending the litigation brought against the church. Mr. Silverglate also describes the proceedings in the Van Schaick litigation regarding the documents. And, finally, he speculates that in the Federal District Court litigation against Hubbard Mr. Flynn’s strategy is to obtain a default judgment against Hubbard, whom he expects not to appear, and then to collect damages from the parties who are the defendants in this litigation.
At the outset of the hearing, the judge outlined three possible resolutions of the motion to dismiss: “dismissal with prejudice; denial of the motion to dismiss; and denial of the motion to dismiss with a stay of the Federal court proceedings” against Hubbard. Mr. Flynn’s attorney declined to accept any of the three alternatives and proceeded to argue against them and in support of the motion to dismiss without prejudice. In the course of the argument, an offer was made on Mr. Flynn’s behalf that he bind himself by an agreement not to sue the defendants in this case on these claims and to pay just costs. Mr. Flynn’s attorney stated that a dismissal without prejudice was sought because of fear that a dismissal with prejudice would preclude him from litigating certain issues in the Federal case against Hubbard. He stated further that his client had no interest in pursuing the instant case at this time. Counsel for the defendants only reiterated their position that Mr. Flynn would seek to recover damages from the defendants in this case should the Federal case against Hubbard be won by default. Without hearing further from counsel for any of the defendants, the judge announced his decision from the bench to allow the motion with prejudice. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Flynn’s attorney sought to withdraw the motion to dismiss but was not permitted to do so. Further material was filed by the plaintiff with the court after the ruling, and a request for reconsideration was filed and denied.
1. The position of the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., is different from that of the other defendants. The case against that party was effectively terminated on September 12, 1983, as a result of the filing by the plaintiff of a notice of dismissal under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), 365 Mass. 803 (1974), which allows dismissal “without order of court . . . by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs . . . .” No answer or motion for summary judgment had been served on the plaintiff by the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., on or before that date. In these circumstances, the plaintiff had an absolute right to dismiss that party without prejudice. There was no occasion for the exercise of discretion, and no conditions could be placed on the exercise of that right. American Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 317 F.2d 295, 297 (5th Cir. 1963). D.C. Electronics, Inc. v. Nartron Corp., 511 F.2d 294 (6th Cir. 1975). This is so even if the party being dismissed is not the only defendant in the case and even if one or more of the other defendants had filed answers. Plains Growers, Inc. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F.2d 250, 254-255 (5th Cir. 1973). Terry v. Pearlman, 42 F.R.D. 335, 337 (D. Mass. 1967). Smith & Zobel, Rules Practice Section 41.3, at 48 (1977). [Note 5] The particular status of the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., with respect to the notice of dismissal was not addressed by the judge or by counsel at the hearing or in any of the documentation provided to the judge before the hearing. Whether the inclusion of the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., within the order dismissing the action with prejudice was intentional or the result of oversight, it was error. To the extent that a defendant needs to be protected against the abuse by a plaintiff of his right unilaterally
to dismiss a party without prejudice, the “two-dismissal rule” of rule 41(a)(1) provides that protection. [Note 6]
2. The dismissal of the case against the remaining defendants, with prejudice, poses greater difficulty. Normally a judge is accorded wide discretion in setting “terms and conditions” when dismissing a case under Mass.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). GAF Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., $no$665 F.2d 364, 368 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The question presented here would be whether the attachment of the ultimate condition, prejudice, was called for in the somewhat unusual and confusing circumstances of this case. The test we would apply is whether to have done otherwise would have caused substantial prejudice to the defendants. Selas Corp. v. Wilshire Oil Co., 57 F.R.D. 3, 7 (D.C. Pa. 1972). See Wright & Miller, supra Section 2364, at 196.
In arguing that the action of the judge should be upheld, the defendants rely on a number of factors, no one of which by itself would be sufficient to justify the dismissal with prejudice. [Note 7]
“[T]he sanction of dismissal is the most severe sanction that a court may apply, and its use must be tempered by a careful exercise of judicial discretion” (emphasis original). Durham v. Florida East Coast Ry., 385 F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1967). The offer by the plaintiff to pay costs and to enter into a covenant not to sue would appear to satisfy many of the reasonable concerns of the defendants. See Goldlawr, Inc. v. Shubert, 32 F.R.D. 467 (S.D. N.Y. 1962). It may be, nevertheless, that, considering all of the circumstances together, in light of the complex background of the litigation between the parties, the numerous other cases filed in various courts by these and related parties, the heavy civil caseload of the Superior Court, and the broad discretion accorded to a judge, the determination that dismissal of the action ought to be with prejudice fell within the bounds of reasonableness. We would be reluctant to rule otherwise. For another reason, however, it is not necessary for us to make that determination.
3. Even if we were to regard the dismissal with prejudice to have been a proper exercise of discretion, we think the judge should have permitted Mr. Flynn to withdraw his motion to dismiss when he sought to do so immediately upon the announcement in open court of the ruling on the motion. The defendants argue that because the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was one of the three options offered by the judge to counsel at the outset of the hearing, and because counsel did not accept that offer, the plaintiff should have been foreclosed from withdrawing the motion. He had no notice, however, that a possible consequence of his failure to accept
that option at the outset of the hearing might be waiver of that option, and it was reasonable for him to avail himself of the opportunity to be heard orally in support of the motion he had filed. It is generally recognized that a plaintiff, having moved to dismiss voluntarily, and being faced with conditions he finds too onerous, may, if he acts promptly, decline to have the action dismissed and go forward on its merits. Scam Instrument Corp. v. Control Data Corp., 458 F.2d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 1972). Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc., 580 F.2d 126, 131 n.13 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 915 (1979). GAF Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 665 F.2d at 367-368. Wright & Miller, supra Section 2366, at 183. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice Paragraph 41.06, at 41-80 (1984). We are aware that on occasion it has been stated that a plaintiff filing a motion voluntarily to dismiss an action should be prepared to take the consequences, including the possibility that the court might dismiss with prejudice. American Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 317 F.2d at 298. Considerations of fairness would seem to require, however, that, except in extraordinary situations, a party should not be penalized for having filed a motion to dismiss. The cases which recognize an option on the part of the moving party, when faced with conditions he finds unacceptable, to fall back to the position of litigating the merits of the controversy in the forum of his original choice appear to be based upon such a concept of fairness. Except to the extent that the defendants are called upon to oppose the motion to dismiss, a consideration which can be satisfied by the imposition of costs, the recognition of such an option leaves the defendants no worse off than they would have been had no such motion been filed. They may still have their day in court.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
[Note 1] Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., Kevin Tighe, Robert Johnson, and David Aden.
[Note 2] The rule provides: “By Order of Court. Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision (a) [voluntary dismissal by plaintiff by filing a timely notice of dismissal or by filing a stipulation of all parties], an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. . . .”
[Note 3] The complaint in the Van Schaick case involved, inter alia, allegations of fraud, unrelated to the alleged theft of documents. Mr. Flynn, on behalf of the plaintiff in that case, filed a “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, for a Preliminary Injunction for Return of Stolen Property and for an Evidentiary Hearing.” After hearing, an order was entered on September 14, 1981, whereby copies of any documents taken were to be furnished to Mr. Flynn and, until further order of the court, the defendants in the case were enjoined from delivering, transferring, distributing, disseminating, or destroying the documents. Further motions were filed, and on April 5, 1982, after a hearing on “Defendants’ Request for Modification of Order,” during which hearing counsel for the defendants agreed to return certain documents to Mr. Flynn, a conditional order was entered vacating the order of September 14, 1981, effective ten days after (1) delivery to Mr. Flynn of all the subject documents in the possession of the defendants’ attorney and (2) the filing of certain representations by defendants’ counsel, including a representation that the defendants would not use the documents for harassment purposes. Also included was an order that the Church of Scientology of California, Inc., produce copies of the documents taken.
[Note 4] Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, also known as L. Ronald Hubbard, according to allegations in the complaint last resided in Hemet, California, and is the “founder, controller, principal and absolute authority over the Scientology organizations and individuals.”
[Note 5] Although there are cases to the contrary, see Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 203 F.2d 105, 107-108 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 964 (1953), according to “[t]he sounder view and the weight of authority” a defendant may be dismissed even if there are other defendants remaining in the case. 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Section 2362, at 149-150 (1971).
[Note 6] Rule 41(a)(1) provides in pertinent part: “[A] notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of this or any other state an action based on or including the same claim.”
[Note 7] They refer first to the length of time during which the case was pending and the absence of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in bringing it forward. We do not view the delay as so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse, particularly in light of the absence of any effort by the defendants to move the case along. Next, the defendants point to Mr. Flynn’s unavailability for the deposition and the timing of the filing of the motion for a voluntary dismissal, on the very day of Mr. Flynn’s scheduled deposition. The effort to schedule Mr. Flynn’s deposition for that date, however, was the first effort by the defendants in this case to schedule the deposition or to conduct any discovery. Mr. Flynn may not have acted promptly or as courteously as one would have liked in an effort to work out a mutually convenient date but, in the absence of a determination that Mr. Flynn was in fact available for the deposition on September 29, 1983, and that he refused to appear, we do not view the deposition scheduling problem as a sufficient basis for the action taken. The defendants argue further that the action was justified because the allegations in the complaint lacked merit. Yet we note that they were sufficiently meritorious to form the basis for some relief afforded by the Federal District Court in the Van Schaick case and for some concessions to be made by counsel for the defendants. The defendants also refer to the expense of the litigation to date as a valid basis for the action taken. The imposition of costs, including counsel fees, as a condition of dismissal, however, ought to have satisfied these interests. Finally, the defendants urge that the action taken was proper because they ought to be allowed to defend themselves in this action and in the forum selected by the plaintiff and not be faced with the same claims at a later time. Mr. Flynn offered assurance that he would not sue these defendants on these claims, and, even if that assurance does not provide complete protection to the defendants, it is not altogether clear why, in fairness, they are entitled to more. (We express no view as to the effect a dismissal with prejudice would have on Flynn’s Federal District Court case.) Moreover, Mr. Flynn’s interest in suing another individual on a broader claim, of which the instant claim is a part, in a different forum is, on the surface at least, a plausible explanation of his desire to have this case dismissed.
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) ↩