CSI 1023 Submission: Response to Question 3(d) [re Guardian and GO] (November 23, 1992)

Question 3(d)

3(d). Did the Guardian’s Office exist on December 31, 1989, or any date since then? During that period, has there been a Guardian? If the answer is yes to either or both of these questions, please list the name(s) of the Guardian(s) and describe the role of the Guardian and the Guardian’s Office. If no, is there any entity that performs functions or operates in a manner similar to the former Guardian’s Office?

Introduction:

In this question and question 10(a), the Service seeks information concerning the Guardian’s Office. Because of the close relationship of this question with question 10(a), we answer both questions fully here.

There are straightforward answers to these questions. The Guardian’s Office (“GO”) was disbanded in 1982 and 1983. A thorough purge of Guardian’s Office staff was conducted at that time: those convicted of illegal acts were dismissed and are prohibited from ever returning to Church of Scientology staff in any capacity. During 1981 through 1983 the Church conducted its own internal investigation and dismissed from its employ anyone found to have been in any way involved with or condoning similar activities. Such individuals are also barred from ever again serving on staff in any Church of Scientology. There is no Guardian currently and there has not been one for over a decade.

No entity replaced the GO. However, certain functions the GO was originally formed to conduct are now carried out by the Office of Special Affairs (“OSA”), the International Finance Network, the LRH Personal Public Relations Network and the Association for Better Living and Education (“ABLE”). Specifically, OSA.deals‘with legal matters; the International Finance Network sees that Church organizations maintain proper financial records and accounts; LRH Personal Public .Relations Office International handles ,public relations; and ABLE deals with the community outreach social betterment programs of drug rehabilitation (Narconon), criminal rehabilitation (Criminon), education (Applied. Scholastics) and raising moral standards in society (The Way to Happiness Foundation).

As discussed in greater detail below, none of these activities operate in a manner similar to the old Guardian’s Office.

3-35

Background:

The Guardian and Guardian’s Office were first established in March of 1966 because legal and other external facing matters were consuming the time and resources of churches of Scientology. In particular, church leaders were being distracted from their primary functions of ministering to the spiritual needs of their expanding religious communities and building their organizations. The first Guardian was Mary Sue Hubbard. Over the next several years, Guardian’s Offices were formed at local churches of Scientology around the world. These local GOs assumed responsibility for each church’s external affairs, with the purpose of freeing their executives and staff to practice and proselytize the religion without distractions. In January of 1969, Mrs. Hubbard appointed Jane Kember as Guardian worldwide, the highest position in the Guardian’s Office, and Mrs. Hubbard assumed the position of Controller, which was senior to the Guardian’s Office.

In 1966, when the GO was formed, the ecclesiastical management headquarters for the Church of Scientology was located in England, at Saint Hill Manor. The highest ecclesiastical body at that time was Executive Council Worldwide. The office of the Guardian was then physically located with the rest of Church management. Mr. Hubbard resigned his position as Executive Director of the Church in September 1966, in order to devote his time to researching the upper levels of spiritual awareness and establishing a base where these levels could be delivered to Scientology’ parishioners.

Needing an environment free from the workaday distractions of Saint Hill, Mr. Hubbard along with his family and a few trusted Scientologists relocated aboard a ship in the Mediterranean. This marked the beginning of the Sea Organization.

The Executive Council Worldwide and the Guardian’s Office Worldwide remained in England and continued to perform their functions from Saint Hill. Within a couple of years it became clear that Executive Council Worldwide was not adequately performing its functions and that the Church was experiencing a decline. In August 1971, after various attempts to correct the perceived problems, the Executive Council Worldwide was disbanded and the ecclesiastical management of the Church was taken over by Sea Org members in the recently formed Flag Bureaux aboard the Sea Orq ship Apollo.

While the Executive Council Worldwide was disbanded in 1971, the Guardian’s Office Worldwide (“GO WW”) continued to be headquartered in England where it was managed and directed by Jane

3-36

Kember. By the 1970s then, GO WW was physically separate from Scientology ecclesiastical management. The reporting and command lines in the GO were also entirely separate. G0 offices were locked and off limits to non-GO staff. The GO thus had become an autonomous network, separate from the rest of Church management.

Within the GO there was yet a further segregation — a group called the Intelligence Bureau (“B1”) kept its activities confidential even from other parts of the GO, particularly those activities it considered sensitive.

During the middle 1970s, the Scientology ecclesiastical management structure continued to evolve with the formation of the Commodores Messenger Organization, the move of the Flag Bureaux from the Aggllg to a landbase in Clearwater, Florida, in 1975, and other changes. Throughout this period GO WW remained in England, becoming more and more distant from Church management. The Guardian’s Office was not Sea Org. Their operations, activities and premises were inaccessible to Sea Org members in Church management — or anyone else not in the GO.

Guardian’s Office Illegalities:

In July of 1977, the FBI conducted massive raids on offices of the GO in Los Angeles and in Washington D.C.. Michael Meisner, who had worked in the Information Bureau of the GO, both in D.C. and Los Angeles, had gone to the FBI and provided detailed information about infiltration of government offices by GO staff and/or volunteers, for the purpose of obtaining documents those offices had on the Church. Litigation over the legality of the raids commenced immediately. Criminal indictments were returned against eleven individuals, including Mary Sue Hubbard and Jane Kember.

Because of the autonomy of the Guardian’s Office, and the secrecy within its Intelligence Bureau, the truth about G0 misconduct remained unknown to the rest of the Church and even to other segments of the Guardian’s Office for several reasons. The GO executives involved.with the criminal activities suppressed this information within the Church and characterized the raids and criminal prosecutions as simply the latest in a long history of attacks on the religion. This explanation was  supported by the fact that government (especially FBI and IRS) disinformation about the Church was rampant in the 1960s and 1970s and Scientologists

3-37

had become somewhat inured to it. 1/ Church management and staff were concerned with the practice of the religion and were not involved with the GO indictees. This combination of circumstances made it possible for someone like Jane Kember to hold herself out as a martyr being unjustly persecuted and yet remain credible with Scientology management. 1/

Indeed the Government Prosecutor in the D.C. criminal trial testified in deposition that only a small percentage of the people within the GO even knew about the illegal acts that were committed by the GO staff.

Church Investigation of the Guardian’s Office:

In late 1979 and throughout 1980 Church management began to receive indications that there were problems within the Guardian’s Office:

1. The Mission network which was the responsibility of the GO (and which was its primary source of funding) was experiencing an ethical decline. One of the largest missions became embroiled in litigation and a number of mission holders were found to be involved in unethical activities when they arrived at the Flag Service Organization for auditing. Instances of GO staff opening businesses and employing Church staff to the detriment of local churches were reported. When this situation was reported to GO WW and to Mary Sue Hubbard, the response was a GO investigation and intimidation of the Sea Org staff who had received the reports.
__________
1/ For example, internal FBI and IRS documents from this period falsely accused the Church of trafficking in illegal drugs and weapons, promoting rampant drug use and.promiscuity, conducting paramilitary operations and plotting civil insurrection .

2/ Mrs Kember recently testified at a trial in Canada that she and her Deputy Guardian for Intelligence, Mo Budlong, confronted with attacks that they believed threatened the very survival of the religion, decided on their own to use illegal intelligence measures to locate the sources of the attacks and defend the religion. She confirmed that these activities were only known to a small number of people within the GO because she knew that these activities would not have been condoned by Church management.

3-38

3. In the Fall of 1980, after having had no communication with the Church for several months, Mr. Hubbard wrote to the Commodore’s Messenger Organization International (“CMO INT”) about a wide range of subjects including an inquiry about whether there were any lawsuits against him that he should know about.3/  When asked about this subject, Mary Sue Hubbard gave only a terse response that there were a number of suits, it would take years to resolve them and that the GO did not welcome anyone’s help or inquiries.

The above, combined with the always bothersome general secretiveness of the GO, were interpreted by CMO INT as very alarming behavior. Accordingly, a full time Special Project was initiated by CMO INT to investigate legal matters and the GO’s ineffectiveness in dealing them and the extent to which the GO had departed from its original purpose and design.

The Special Project’s attempts to get information were thwarted by Mrs. Hubbard. She informed the Special Project that she did not appreciate their investigation of the GO and that if one were needed she would do it. In March 1981 she cut all communication lines to the GO except through herself. It must be noted that Mary Sue Hubbard believed her position as Controller and as the Founder’s wife to be unassailable and beyond reproach by anyone but Mr. Hubbard – who was not around at the time. This, plus her absolute control of the GO made it difficult for the Special Project to get anything done.

In April 1981, in an unprecedented move and without Mrs. Hubbard’s knowledge, Special Project sent a mission to GO WW to inspect the Legal Bureau under the guise that they had been authorized by Mrs. Hubbard. What the mission found confirmed their worst suspicions. They found the Deputy Guardian for Legal involved in unethical sexual activities, not doing his job and desiring to leave the GO to go into private practice as an attorney. An inspection of files showed the legal suits to be severely neglected with overdue motions and pleadings. There was almost no evidence of standard Scientology administrative policy being applied.

__________
3/ As discussed in the response to Question 10(d), in early 1980, Boston attorney Michael Flynn initiated a series of duplicative personal injury lawsuits against the Church and Mr. Hubbard. Part of the Flynn litigation strategy was to name Mr. Hubbard in these suits in the belief that he would not personally appear and thus force the Church to settle or alternatively face default judgments.

3-39

During May 1981 the Special Project’s investigation of the GO intensified. The original mission to the Legal Bureau GO WW brought back a great deal of damaging information. Mary Sue Hubbard, in order to save face, could not admit to her staff that she had not authorized the mission. A second mission fired to GO WW in May and removed the Deputy Guardian for Legal, Charles Parselle, from post and put other GO WW executives and legal staff through Scientology ethics procedures in an effort to correct them and make them more productive.

With increased access to the legal area, in June, 1981 the Special Project discovered startling information. Appended to pleadings by plaintiffs suing Scientology were documents detailing GO criminality which had been seized in the 1977 raid. These documents contained appalling evidence of GO criminality – infiltration of government agencies and harrassment campaigns against those the (K) considered enemies. When further investigation proved the documents to be authentic, CMO INT decided that it would have to take charge of GO WW and the GO network until it could be reformed and corrected.

CMO INT planned a complete take-over of the GO.

There were a number of obstacles. Mary Sue Hubbard was still asserting her position as Controller. Mrs. Hubbard and other GO executives suborned the then Commanding Officer CMO INT, Dede Reisdorf, to call off the investigation. Mrs. Hubbard also befriended Laurel Sullivan who was working on a corporate sort out project for the Church and convinced her to restructure corporate affairs so that she and others in the GO would own the trademarks of Scientology. Sullivan was encouraged and assisted by Gerry Armstrong, who sought a position in B1 as his reward.

Sullivan’s mission was immediately terminated and she was put on menial physical work pending ethics and justice actions. Reisdorf was removed from post by her peers. Armstrong was investigated for having falsified documents within the Church. These GO sympathizers later left the Church and became government informants and witnesses against the Church in civil litigation as set forth in detail in the response to question 10d.

David Miscavige gathered a couple dozen of the most proven Sea Org executives from around the world. He briefed them on what had been discovered in investigating the GO. Together, they planned a series of missions to take over the GO, investigate it and reform it thoroughly. The stakes were high because they faced expulsion from Scientology if they were unsuccessful and the GO prevailed.

3-40

Accordingly, on July 13, 1981, with no advance warning to the GO, a coordinated series of five CMO missions were sent out to take over the Guardian’s Office.

The first of these missions, headed by David Miscavige, met with Mary Sue Hubbard to convince her to resign. This was essential as the GO consisted of around 1,500 staff who were loyal to Mrs. Hubbard. During a stormy meeting she refused to cooperate. She finally relented when Mr. Miscavige told her that regardless of what authority she attempted to invoke, when both public and staff Scientologists were briefed on the crimes of the GO they would demand the GO leadership step down. It would result in a war of wills involving the entire congregation. She would lose, and there would be a lot of bad blood created to the detriment of the religion. Realizing the outrage that would ensue and that the GO would lose any such struggle, she wrote her resignation.

The other missions were then sent out as soon as this resignation was obtained. One mission was sent into the Intelligence Bureau with its principal objective to uncover any and all illegal activities and the persons responsible. Another mission was sent into the Office of the Controller, comprised of assistants under Mrs. Hubbard for each of the areas of Legal, Intelligence, Public Relations and Finance. The Deputy Controller and the Controller Assistants for these areas were all removed from post. They, along with Jane Kember and a number of the individuals who were directly involved in the criminal proceedings were then turned over to another separate ethics mission. This mission, aptly titled the Crim (criminal) Handling Mission, commenced internal ethics and justice actions on these individuals and began the process of removing them from Church employ. Any staff determined by any of the missions to have been involved in any illegalities were put under the charge of this ethics mission to determine more fully each person’s situation and to remove them from staff.

The fifth CMO mission sent at that time went to GO WW to organize that area as most of the executives who had been over it had been removed.

Within a day of Mrs. Hubbard’s resignation, senior Guardian’s Office officials including Jane Kember and the head of Intelligence, Jimmy Mulligan, secretly met with Mrs. Hubbard and conspired to regain control of the GO. Mrs. Hubbard signed a letter revoking her resignation and condemning the actions by the CMO. Scores of GO staff responded, locking CMO INT Missionaires out of their premises and were intending to hire armed guards to bar access to the Sea Org. Mr. Miscavige confronted the mutineers,

3-41

and persuaded Mrs. Hubbard to again resign which ended the last vestige of resistence. While the GO still existed, it was now operating under the direct supervision of CMO missions.

In early August 1981 a Scientology ecclesiastical justice action was convened concerning eleven Worldwide and U.S. Guardian’s Office senior executives who had been removed from their positions, including Jane Kember and three of the other persons who had been charged in the criminal case. In early October each of these individuals formally resigned their staff positions.

It was not until September 1981 that Mr. Hubbard was informed about what had taken place with the Guardian’s Office, when he again contacted the CMO requesting to be updated on current activities in Scientology. He expressed shock at what had been found in the Guardian’s Office and praised those in the CMO who took action on their own initiative.

CMO INT missions and investigations into GO WW in England and the United States Guardian’s Office in Los Angeles continued through the end of 1981 and into 1982, weeding out anyone found to have had any part in anything that appeared to have been illegal or who had knowledge of and condoned the GO’s illegal acts. Anyone found to be in this category was removed from Church employ.

Beginning in October of 1981 missions were also sent to the other continental Guardian’s Offices, such as Canada and Europe, to find out what, if any, illegal activity had occurred there. This process continued throughout 1982 with missions going to virtually all GO offices around the world. Any GO staff who had taken part in criminal activities as well as any staff who believed the GO should operate autonomously and without regard to Church policy were dismissed. During this period the staff of the GO network was reduced by hundreds. Directives were issued that required all orders or communications affecting churches of Scientology originating from the GO to go through the Watchdog Committee of CMO INT.

After the completion of over 50 Sea Org missions into all echelons of the Guardian’s Office, in early 1983 it was decided that cleaning up and maintaining the Guardian’s Office was not workable and that it needed to be disbanded altogether. This was accomplished by a new series of CMO Int missions sent to GO offices around the world. The pattern of the missions was to remove all GO staff from their positions and put them on estates work and physical labor around the Church. Concurrently, each person was

3-42

required to make a full confession of past misdeeds (not limited to illegal acts but also any other violations of Church policy) as part of his or her ethics handlings. Depending on what was found, the person was either dismissed from staff or put on a rehabilitation program. In some cases if the person was relatively clean and willing to abide by Church policy, he or she was retained on church staff but in a lower position on a probationary status. All GO directives and issues of any kind were cancelled across the boards.

Before being disbanded the GO’s Finance Bureaux had monitored some aspects of the Church’s finances, including the production of and maintenance of accounts and financial records. With the disbanding of the GO, this function was taken over by the International Finance Network where it remains. Public relations activities were put under the direction and supervision of the LRH Personal Public Relations Officer International and his staff. All GO social betterment functions – drug rehabilitation, criminal rehabilitation and education reform, were taken over by a new organization known as Social Coordination. Later this function was assumed by Association for Better Living and Education (“ABLE”).  To administer legal affairs, the Office of Special Affairs (OSA) was formed from a mixture of Sea Org staff who had been on one or more of the missions that had disbanded the GO, new staff recruited to work in the area and some former GO staff who had survived investigation and scrutiny and had undergone ethics clean-ups relating to their former affiliation in the GO.

The Office of Special Affairs is not an autonomous group. OSA International is part of the Flag Command Bureaux and the highest OSA management position is that of CO OSA INT. The Watchdog Committee has a WDC member, WDC OSA, whose sole job is to see that OSA INT effectively performs its functions and operates according to Church policy. Continental OSA units are part of the Continental Liaison Offices and local OSA representatives, called Directors of Special Affairs, are staff at their local church subject to the supervision of its Executive Council.

These measures guarantee that the office handling legal matters for the Church will never be autonomous.

Since the disbandment of the GO further steps have been taken to make sure that the negative influences of the GO that were eradicated can never again arise. In 1986 the Church instituted firm policy which makes it mandatory for any former GO staff member to request and get permission from the International Justice Chief before being allowed employment. Any staff who were dismissed

3-43

because of involvement in illegalities are not permitted to return to staff under any circumstances. In 1987 another policy was implemented governing the eligibility of Ex-GO staff for advanced level Scientology religious services as parishioners. Such parishioners are required to request permission from the International Justice Chief and must demonstrate to him that they have been rehabilitated, completed their ethics handlings, are leading ethical lives and that they have made significant contributions toward the overall welfare of the Church.

Summary:

The illegal acts of the GO and its perversion and abandonment of Church policy were not taken lightly by Church management once they became known. It required many months of investigation and severe measures by dedicated members of CMO INT to finally cleanse the Church of this corruption. There are no longer any autonomous groups or networks within the Church. All staff are measured against a standard of compliance with church Scripture and against their performance in advancing the religion in terms of ministering to the Scientology religious community and in attracting new members.

In early 1983, the Service was advised, in response to a similar request, that none of the eleven individuals convicted of involvement in criminal activities was then on staff at any church of Scientology, nor was any of them eligible to be on staff in the future.

This continues to be true today and will remain so. Additionally, the Church dismissed a number of others who were determined to have had some part in illegal activities and, although never charged or convicted, are not eligible to be Church of Scientology staff members in the future.

3-44

Notes

Declaration of Richard N. Aznaran (January 15, 1989)

I, Richard N. Aznaran, hereby declare and state:1

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. There are many factors surrounding the releases attached to defendants Motion for Summary Judgement, attached as Exhibits A & B which are false and/or misleading.

A. The first point is that I do not believe these are the papers which we signed when we left the cult in 1987. We were forced to sign quite a few different papers before being allowed to leave. At the time, we had asked for copies of all of the papers we had signed but were not allowed to have copies of the releases.

B. One of the conditions of being allowed to leave without being declared “fair game”1 was that we report to Mark Rathbun

_____________________
1When the cult declares a person a Suppressive Person he automatically becomes Fair Game. Per the cult’s founder and existing policy when a person is Fair Game he may be lied to, cheated, stolen from and destroyed with no protection from the cults ethics codes. If the person is considered a threat in the eyes of the cult, then scientologists and their agents are encouraged or even paid to do so. This has been documented on many occasions and I am personally familiar with it.

1

on a regular basis. We did do this for a while and repeatedly asked for copies of these releases. We were put off with various excuses on each occasion. We never did obtain a copy of the releases. It is clear to my now that this was so that the cult’s “dirty tricks unit” could change the releases to fit their claims and then supply them as “evidence” if and when they felt they needed them. They didn’t dare supply us with doctored copies which we did not sign as they knew that this alienate us and they didn’t want to supply us with actual copies as this would preclude them from making changes later.

3. At the time that these releases were signed both my wife and myself had been receiving intensive “security checking”. This “security checking” was conducted by Ray Mithoff. Ray Mithoff was at that time (and still is to the best of my knowledge) the highest trained and most senior security checker in all of scientology. He is so senior in fact that normally all he ever does is oversee others doing it. There were two reasons why he was used. The first was obviously because of the intimidation factor he would have and the second is not so obvious.

A. Part of our security checking was so that we could be interrogated on how much we knew and so that the potential

2

threat of our leaving could be analyzed by David Miscavige. Miscavige trusts few people and lives in constant fear that his crimes will become public and land him in jail as it has the cult’s earlier leaders. Mithoff is the only security checker Miscavige was willing to trust. This was the second reason Mithoff was used. 2

B. In retrospect, it is easy to see that this security checking was done to soften us up and remind us of what powers the cult could bring to bear on us should we refuse to cooperate fully. Their tactics obviously worked because at the time, we were in terrible fear that we would not be allowed to leave.

4. We were not allowed to seek legal counsel at the time that we signed these releases. Two of the cults’ attorneys were brought out to further intimidate us. We were told that we could ask them questions if we had any. It was made clear that
________________

2 Mithoff was normally used in such cases as he is trusted and considered a loyal minion by David Miscavige. David Miscavige is the senior most of the founders “messengers” and took control upon Hubbard’s demise. It was Mithoff under the alias of “George Jones” who personally oversaw Michael Meisner’s security checking after the cult had kidnapped him. Meisner was the cult’s agent who had infiltrated various government agencies and stolen documents under the direct control of Hubbard, Hubbard’s wife and the rest of the cult’s management. It was Meisner (having again escaped from the cult and sought protection from the Justice Department) whose evidence lead to the 1977 raids on the cults Los Angeles and D.C. offices by the FBI. I know of Mithoff’s involvement because he spoke to me personally about it displaying great pride in his activities.

3

we could definitely not seek other counsel.

5. It had been my understanding through earlier contacts with scientology’s dirty tricks unit known as the Guardian’s Office and later the Office of Special Affairs that these releases had no legal binding whatsoever. In my early years as a staff member I had seen the various policies issued by the Guardian’s Office concerning releases. Releases were to be signed by every public person and staff before and after every single service they received. The idea being that the person was to be convinced that he had no recourse for lousy service and false promises. Guardian’s Office personnel had told me repeatedly that they did not hold water and were merely a deterrent. This was later confirmed by cult attorney John Peterson.

6. To me the intention behind the releases themselves appeared unlawful. Although not trained in law, it was obvious to me that the intent included the obstruction of justice. Part of our security checking was to ensure that we had no plans to go to any government agencies to give them evidence of crimes being committed by cultists or their agents. It was stressed at the time of the signing of the releases that if we spoke to government agents about any “confidential information” we had concerning the cult that we would be in violation of our agreements and that we would be sued. Additionally we were to

4

withhold information and avoid testimony in any civil litigation where the truth may be harmful to the cult or aid someone else seeking justice. With the purpose of the releases including the withholding of information from lawful authorities I certainly did not feel that they could possibly be legal or binding.

7. The conditions surrounding the sale of our horse and the loan from the cult need to be made perfectly clear. Defense attorneys constantly try to twist this into some evidence of philanthropy on the cult’s part. This just isn’t the case at all.

A. David Miscavige came to visit us in our motel room a few days before we were allowed to leave. Miscavige asked us what our plans were. We told Miscavige that we didn’t have any specific plans but that since I knew some people in the area (southern California) I would probably work something out. Miscavige made it clear that he did not want us to stay in southern California but wanted us to go to Texas. He did not want us connecting up with any of our friends in southern California be they current or former scientologists. We told him that we had limited funds and would have to stay in California long enough to sell our horse and make a little money so that we could travel. Miscavige reiterated his objection to us staying in California and stated that we would have to work it out to go back to Texas.

5

B. The next day Mark Rathbun suggested that the cult buy the horse from us and that they loan us some money so that we could leave right away and go to Texas. Rathbun stated that this had been Miscavige’s idea.

C. This loan and purchase of the horse had nothing to do with the releases.

8. There had been a fire at one of the ranches I had worked at and all of the belongings of four people had been destroyed in the fire. I was one of them. A claim was being negotiated with the insurance company. Rather than have me wait for the insurance claim to settle I was given $1,040.90 which was the value of the goods destroyed in the fire. This is money which I understood was going to be later reimbursed by the insurance company.

9. I received the pay due to me according to their rules but this was just for the previous pay period. I never received any compensation or wages for many hundreds of hours of work I had performed and been forbidden to include on my time card during the previous thirteen months or so while I worked for the Norman Starkey, Trustee of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard. This was not religious work and the estate was not a non-profit entity. I was supposed to be receiving minimum wage.

6

10. The cult purports that my wife Vicki had overall responsibility for RTC’s legal matters and litigation and such. This is only partly true. David Miscavige, the Chairman of the Board at Author’s Services, Inc.3 had final say over what did or did not occur and constantly issued streams of orders concerning everything from personnel transfers to finances. Miscavige either directly or indirectly oversaw all major decisions and even minor ones if it were his whim.

11. While it is true that Vicki (and even myself on occasion) did assign others to the Rehabilitation Project Force, it is not mentioned that there is a basic tenet in scientology’s ethics policies which state that if you fail to assign someone to the RPF and your boss feels you should have then you can be assigned to the RPF with them. In other words it is enforced from the top down. Miscavige as the senior person often assigned people for no other reason that whim. I saw him do this to others and he threatened me on several occasions. He considered such activities his “management style”.

________________

3Author Services, Inc (ASI) was a corporation set up by Miscavige, Starkey and Lyman Spurlock. It’s purpose was to manage Hubbard’s money and oversee the cults’s finances and ensure that Hubbard was getting his “cut”. I was briefed on this by Miscavige himself when ASI was first being set up.

7

12. It is stated that after Vicki escaped from the desert camp where she was being held that she was able to travel freely on her own. This is not true. We were under constant surveillance by the cults’ security personnel and all of our belongings were being held to ensure our cooperation. We feigned cooperation to prevent being declared suppressive persons and opening ourselves up to “fair game”.

13. It is stated that the cult paid three hundred dollars more for our horse than I had paid for it. This is false and in fact they paid three hundred dollars less than I had paid for it.

14. While I am not a psychologist nor am I a psychiatrist, it is clear to me now that both Vicki and I had previously been brainwashed by the scientology cult. This process began in 1972, continued through 1973 when we were forced to give all of our worldly possessions to the cult leaders and has only recently ended since we were able to escape their influence. At the time we left in 1987 we were heavily under their influence and even to this day my wife has nightmares where she is still being held captive by the cult.

A. It was only once we started to become “unbrainwashed” that we began to realize the extent of suffering, misery, fear and intimidation that we were put through.

8

15. Claims are being made to the effect that due to the cult’s philanthropic efforts on our behalf we left as happy little cultists. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At the time of my wife’s escape from Happy Valley I was called in by Miscavige and Mithoff and interrogated until four o’clock in the morning in an attempt to get me to break up with her. When this failed I was called upon to try to get her back. I pretended to do this and even went so far as to encourage Jesse Prince and David Bush (the two men who escaped with Vicki) to go back. But during this whole time we planned to go along with whatever the cultists wanted in order to be allowed to leave without being declared “fair game”. We lived in constant apprehension and fear, not daring to believe that we could pull it off but praying against hope that we could. By the time we had successfully made it through our security interrogations we would have signed anything to be allowed to leave.

16. Scientology purports itself to be a religion. In the early 1970’s when I first became involved with scientology, the cultists were quite open about the fact that they called themselves a religion only for tax purposes. It was only later, in the mid 70’s that the Guardians Office forced the “churches” and franchises to conform to “religious image programs”. These programs covered everything from hanging up crosses to having staff “ordained” and having get togethers on Sundays and calling

9

them Sunday services. It would never stay in though because it was obviously bogus. Finally the threats became great enough to force it in. Hubbard himself, in earlier unedited versions of his taped lecture called “The Road to Truth” stated that there was no god but not to let the “wogs” (non-scientologists) know or they would never join. When scientology was being set up in Mexico it was decided not to make the claims of being a religion due to the fact that it would effect their ability to make money. The same thing goes for a couple of other countries. When the decision was whether to be a religion or make money, make money won out. I know of all of these points from my own personal experience.

17. I have been informed by my former attorney that although we have made discovery requests, Defendants have failed and refused to comply with even the simplest requests. During this time they have barraged us with burdensome and costly demands exceeding all reason. Additional evidence is currently in the hands of Defendants but withheld from Plaintiffs. This evidence is favorable to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement.

I declare under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

10

Executed this 15th day of January 1989, at Dallas, TX.

[Signed]
Richard N. Aznaran

LA Weekly: Inside Scientology: The Other Side of the Looking Glass (April 4-10, 1986)

Inside Scientology: The Other Side Of The Looking Glass (April 4-10, 1986)

Inside Scientology: The Other Side Of The Looking Glass (April 4-10, 1986)

by Ron Curran with Jennifer Pratt 1

LA Weekly

Inside Scientology: The Other Side Of The Looking Glass (p.20)

Inside Scientology: The Other Side Of The Looking Glass (p.20)

The most visible non-traditional “religion” in Los Angeles is Scientology. Everybody sees its buildings; few know what goes on inside them. Critics call it a “Moonie-like” cult; devotees such as John Travolta, Chick Corea Al Jarreau and Karen Black swear it has changed their lives for the better. Opponents say it coerces, menaces and manipulates members and critical outsiders alike; supporters say it has merely defended itself against outside assaults. One thing is certain: Scientology is different.

(L. Ron Hubbard) has now moved on to his next level of… research. This level is beyond anything any of us has ever imagined. It is a level, in fact done in an exterior state, completely exterior from the body. In this level . . . … the body is nothing more than an impediment, an encumbrance, to any further gain … Thus, at 2000 hours, Friday, the 24th of January A.D. [1986,] L. Ron Hubbard discarded the body he had used in this lifetime for 74 years, 10 months and 11 days

-Hubbard protege “Captain” David Miscavige to 1,800 Scientologists at the Hollywood Palladium January 27, 1986

Hubbard’s “Freedom” Army

L. Ron Hubbard

Inside Scientology: The Other Side of the Looking Glass (p. 21)

THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY’s headquarters on Berendo Street off Sunset Boulevard is the busy mecca, of L.A.’s substantial Scientology community.

Approach the “blue building” and young children scurry up and offer to sell you copies of Scientology magazines. As you enter the lobby and near the reception desk (which bears a banner urging members to “Get Trained”), staffers wearing the naval-motif uniform of the church are quick to greet you, eager to help current members or recruit new members. A steady stream, of non-staff Scientologists floods the lobby around you. Some are on their way to or from counseling sessions, others have just dropped by to peruse, the latest Scientology “technology” for sale (such as a set of taped L. Ron Hubbard lectures, selling for $1,888). The Church of Scientology is indeed a world of bustling activity — and bristling anxiety.

For when the staffers learn that you are a “wog” (Scientology-speak for non-Scientologist) or, worse yet, a wog journalist their warm smiles change instantly to icy defensiveness. “What do you want?” snaps the receptionist, who only seconds earlier wanted to be your best friend. It doesn’t take long to realize that although church literature stresses that ” ‘Love thy neighbor’ is a basic tenet,” unless a Scientologist’s neighbor is a fellow member of the church, Scientologists can be zealously self protective.

A closer look behind the facade of good will offers further evidence of this. Security guards are everywhere. Sophisticated locks (whose combinations are continually changed) seal off the building’s catacomb of offices, files and counseling cubicles. A wanted poster offering a $500 reward for incriminating information on several church “enemies” hangs near one of the corridors. And though Scientology claims to be , a “major religion” encouraging “all man’s inalienable rights . . .” to think freely, to talk freely to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others,” its “mother church” seems more like a fortress than a forum to an outsider, its atmosphere more like a city under siege than a citadel of learning.

But to Church of Scientology officials, this hyperprotectionism is a basic necessity if the mission that L. Ron Hubbard has bestowed upon his flock – nothing less than “building a new civilization” – is to be achieved. That the battle lines had been drawn was clear when three of the Scientology leaders most responsible for fulfilling Hubbard’s vision gathered one recent Sunday morning in the office of Church of Scientology International’s 51-year-old president, the Reverend Heber Jentzsch. Seated in front of a wall-size photo of the Andromeda galaxy were Jentzsch, with an ornate Scientology cross hanging from the cleric’s collar of his powder-blue shirt; the Reverend Ken Hoden, the gaunt, intense, president of L.A.’s Scientology flock; and Earle Cooley, a blustery man of considerable girth who serves as the church’s primary attorney. Three well-groomed young aides sat at the ready should the leaders need documents in support their pending points. And above all (literally and figuratively) was L Ron Hubbard, keeping a watchful eye from a portrait hanging high on the south wall. (Though Hubbard officially “resigned” from church leadership in 1966, disappeared from the public eye altogether in 1981 and died last January, the spectre of “Ron” still hangs heavy over every nook and cranny of the Scientology scene.)

The Reverend Jentzsch offered to explain the reason for the Church of Scientology’s history of controversy. “We are the victim of an international assault led by the psychiatric community, Cointelpro, the Rockefellers and governments throughout the world,” said Jentzsch, a former journalist (LA. Free Press) and actor (Paint Your Wagon) who joined the church in 1967 and became president of Church of Scientology International, its management arm, in 1981. “The Church of Scientology is determined to stand up against this attack on First Amendment rights.”(See Sidebar The Government’s War Against Scientology.”)

“I think it goes much deeper,” added Cooley, who has served as the church’s attorney for 16 months, but who has been a church member for only six months. “What we’re dealing with is really a deep underlying problem. Since the dawn of time, mankind has been interested in unlocking the secrets of the mind, of human nature. All religions are engaged in this pursuit, but Scientology focuses on it more intensely. This places Scientology on a collision course with psychiatry, psychology and the forces of government who are committed to behavior modification, thought control and the manipulation of mankind. We are engaged in a war for the human spirit.”

“So we have to protect our church and our freedom to believe in the religion of our choice,” interjected Hoden. “We have been singled out and been the center of so much attention because we have discovered a workable way for man to achieve total freedom. The freedom of mankind is our goal, and we will defend our right to strive for that freedom. ”

L. Ron Hubbard surveyed the scene from his portrait. He seemed pleased.

L.A.’s Most Conspicuous “Cult”?

Scientology is certainly no stranger to attention, and when the reclusive L. Ron Hubbard died of a stroke at his San Lois Obispo, ranch, the bright light of public scrutiny was again cast upon his progeny. But despite the walls of defense evident at Scientology headquarters, the church has, ironically, done everything in its power to keep its product, if not its parishioners, in the public eye. For in the 35 years since Hubbard founded Scientology, basing it on principles propounded in his 1950 bestseller Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, it has consciously positioned itself as L.A.’s most conspicuous religion. (Some say “cult.”

Just look around. In a city of outlandish architecture, Scientology’s bright blue Berendo Street headquarters (once Cedars of Lebanon hospital) certainly catches the eye, while its 70-foot-tall green neon “SCIENTOLOGY” marquee dominates the Hollywood strip. Celebrities such as John Travolta, Karen Black and Al Jarreau publicly praise Scientology’s role in their success. Glossy newspaper supplements trumpet Scientology as a “major religion … [like] Protestantism, Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism.” TV commercials show attractive woman scaling mighty cliffs thanks to Scientology principles. Circus like court trials brought by and against Scientology continually grab prominent coverage in the local and national press. (A $100 million fraud suit against the church is currently being tried in federal court here.) Indeed, in Los Angeles, where a high profile is often more important than high standards, the Church of Scientology has made itself a star.

But despite its pervasive presence, Scientology remains an enigma to most people.

The questions are many: What exactly is Scientology? Is it really a religion or is it a business disguised as a religion? How many members does it have? Who wields the power? Why does it generate so much controversy? Has it, as critics have charged, been taken over by a moneyhungry, manipulative and exploitive coterie who deceive and use the members for their own ends, turning them into fanatics, or is it run by a truly conscientious group? Is Scientology “the only road to total freedom,” as its many supporters insist, or a “greedy, brainwashing money machine and vicious cult engaging in sometimes despicable acts,” as detractors claim? Or is it something in between?

To answer these questions, LA Weekly spent the better part of a year tracing Scientology’s history, studying its doctrines and interviewing former members and other critics of the church. Perhaps most important, the Weekly’s editors approached the press-paranoid leader of Scientology with a deal; “Allow us to examine Scientology from the inside – to interview current church members, tour restricted church buildings and experiment with Scientology technology. In return, we promise to print a fair and accurate presentation of our findings.”

Initially, the offer was met with resistance. During a meeting with these reporters early last year at a restaurant across from Scientology headquarters, Ken Hoden made it clear that, because of previous critical articles in the Weekly, “We don’t want anything to do with your story.” Days later, a prominent advertiser who is a Scientologist threatened to pull his ads if an article critical of the church appeared. But a meeting between senior officials of the church and a Weekly editor eventually took place, the deal was, struck (“We’ve taken so many shots from the press, we have to be careful,” apologized Hoden) and the Weekly was granted unprecedented access to the inner workings of the Church of Scientology. (Not without restrictions, however. Church finances were ruled a taboo subject. We were barred from random interviewing of church members and allowed to tour Scientology grounds only with Hoden as our guide. This defensiveness, seems to stem from a combination of justified apprehension resulting from past press fixation on Scientology’s controversial aspects and a paranoia inherited from L. Ron Hubbard, who considered reporters pawns in the global psychiatric conspiracy. Hoden confirmed that all Scientology officials receive instruction on how to deal with reporters.)

Still, Hoden was surprisingly cooperative, spending nearly 50 hours explaining the structure and philosophy of his church, arranging interviews with current Scientologists and rebutting the allegations of some 30 representative former Scientologists. (There is also an official opposition group called FAIR – Freedom for All in Religion – consisting of about 200 former church members, many of whom still practice “auditing” at independent centers; but who oppose the current church hierarchy as “lying, fraudulent, and “Gestapo-like” to quote one FAIR member.)

Both sides had their axes to grind. Hoden and current church members feel Scientology is a ground-breaking religion unfairly persecuted because of its unique effectiveness. Former members, (vastly outnumbered by current members) claim that abusive church policies have left them emotionally, spiritually and financially bankrupt and feel that attacks on the church are justified.

What did we conclude? That Scientology is neither patently good nor patently evil. Rather, there is a curious dichotomy. The majority of Scientologists attest in being perfectly happy with the church, while former members tend to carry with them intense bitterness and resentment. The church criticizes psychiatry while selling pseudo-Freudian counseling. Scientologists accuse its enemies of launching malicious attacks against the church, but the church itself has a history of harassment and of vengeful (and sometimes illegal) clandestine operations against enemies, real or imagined. But above all, Scientology promises total freedom while undermining that noble theory too often with disturbing practices.

Therapy as Religion

Hubbard's shrine; Builders of a new civilization; E-meter auditing

Inside Scientology: The Other Side of the Looking Glass (p. 22)

Though the Berendo Street headquarters is the hub of Scientology activity in Los Angeles, the church’s showplace is in Celebrity Center at Franklin and Bronson. A grand gothic chateau built for William Randolph Hearst in the 1920s, this complex of Scientology offices and apartments has retained much of its charm, replete with garden grounds and flowing fountains. The idyllic setting is reinforced as you enter the mansion’s foyer. The walls are lined with original art, and music from a grand piano wafts around you. Indeed, it is a serene setting.

That is, until one is confronted in the main lobby by a large advertising display selling a series of taped lectures by L. Ron Hubbard titled “Radiation and Your Survival.” A brochure quotes Hubbard from a lecture: “There is actually such a point where a person’s beingness can be sufficiently great that he becomes practically indestructible.” The inference? With Scientology training, you will survive radiation poisoning. The cost of the lecture tape? Nearly $300. Welcome to the schizophrenic world that is the Church of Scientology: Enlightenment costs money;

It was at the Celebrity Center that we met 39-year old Ken Hoden for the first of several formal interviews. A former electrical engineer who is the son of a Baptist minister, Hoden says he became attracted to Scientology after reading Dianetics in 1973 and realizing he “was not as effective as [he] wanted to be.” He joined the staff the following year and was named titular head of Scientology’s influential L.A. congregation in 1984.

Henceforth, Hoden would be our personal guide through the church’s complex labyrinth of “freedom” and finance. Wearing a traditional priest collar under a well-tailored gray suit, and sipping coffee from a sterling silver service set in one of the Celebrity Center’s conference rooms, Hoden articulated his confidence in the church. “Scientology is the best way I’ve found to help people improve their lives. If Dianetics and Scientology are applied standardly, it will work 100 percent of the time with every single person everywhere. Compared in anything else, it is the only road to total freedom.

According to Hoden, the Church of Scientology currently boasts more than 40,000 members in Los Angeles and 6 million throughout the world. (Church officials concede the world total includes anyone who has taken any Scientology course over the last five years, though of course many of these people now have no affiliation with the church.) Of the L.A. members, 1,500 are full-time staff, 760 of them living and working out of the Berendo complex, earning $24 per week plus minimal room, board and expenses as members of the “Sea Organization,” an elite, almost monastic segment of the Scientology community.

The remainder of Scientology’s L.A. members are those who take courses at any of the five area churches or numerous franchise missions in the L.A. area. (Scientology claims to operate 600 churches and missions worldwide.) L.A. also serves as home to Scientology’s more upper-level Continental and American Saint Hill churches, as well as to “Advanced Org,” at which progressively more sophisticated (and expensive) services are offered.

The day-to-day management of the church is carried out by Heber Jentzsch as president of the Church of Scientology International. Vicki Azneran is head of one of the church’s two major business subsidiaries, Religious Technology Corporation, (RTC), which controls Hubbard’s trade-marks. David Miscavige runs the second subsidiary, the for-profit Author Services Inc. (ASI), which handles Hubbard’s non Scientology literary works (such a the best-selling sci-fi novel, Battlefield Earth). The “ecclesiastical top” of Scientology is in Flag Service Org in Clearwater, Florida. Mark Yeager is the church’s highest ranking ecclesiastic official, assisted by Ray Mithoff. Earle Cooley coordinates all legal affairs, while Lyman Spurlock is church accountant and Norman Starkey serves as its marketing expert.

According to Hoden, these people assumed power “based on their record of production. If you make things go, You’ll move up in the church. It’s based on statistics … on graphs.” (QUOTAS are imposed on Scientologists to encourage the maximum number of new recruits and the highest level of production. Critics claim these quotas often lead to over aggressive recruiting and fraudulent promises of results that warp the church’s altruistic goals. The church’s “Code of Ethics” lists “mistakes resulting in financial loss” as a ‘misdemeanor’ offense.)

Ken Hoden also confirms that same of the church’s most influential advisors come from an inner circle of aides who served Hubbard in his final years. People like Pat and Anne Broeker (who Hoden says serve as “consultants” ) are rumored to have gained substantial power in the church. Miscavige’s role as announcer of Hubbard’s death and host of his annual New Year’s message seem to confirm this special influence.

Obviously, spiritual “enlightenment,” or higher levels getting ‘Clear’ is no requisite for advancement in the church.

Scientology is based on principles Hubbard first expressed in Dianetics – basically that man can achieve “total freedom” by controlling his “reactive mind.” Hubbard later expanded his theories into the more elaborate scenario of human existence and improvement known as Scientology. Upper-level Scientologists are exposed to Hubbard’s theories that abberrant behavior was implanted in humans 75 million years ago by an evil ruler named Xenu, who froze people and dropped them into 10 volcanos, After killing the humans with hydrogen bombs to combat over population, Xenu collected their spirits as they rose in clusters from the volcanos, and implanted the spirits with evil thoughts. Hubbard dubbed these clusters of brainwashed spirits “body thetans.” These thetans according to Hubbard, literally attach themselves to humans as we are reincarnated over the eons and are responsible for all aberrant behavior we commit. (Hubbard collected these and thousands of additional theories into a series of “red books” that serve as the bible of Scientology “technology.” A series of “green books” detail his daily rules and policies for church management.)

It needs to be noted here that Scientologists are not exposed to the “Xenu” theories until they have moved well up through the Scientology courses. These courses deal with more mundane behavioral patterns and relationships, much as any therapy does, and Scientologists insist they are effective aids to human growth, even without acceptance of any of Hubbard’s “higher” principles or theorems.

Hoden and other Scientologists argue that most other churches, at their core, have creation myths that are as strange to outsiders as Scientology’s – “Do you know what Mormons really believe?” one Scientologist asked. (Hoden was so troubled by the impending discussion of the Xenu material that he asked the Weekly not to print it. The material originally appeared in the L.A. Times.) And at any rate, church supporters argue, getting “clear” of psychological trauma is paramount in church practices, not forcing members to accept unusual theories; and members may hold traditional religious beliefs as well.

To eventually rid oneself of the “negative influence, of the mind,” a person must begin by “confronting” memory images of painful experiences accumulated in past and present lives. These negative mental images me called “engrams” and carry with them a negative electric charge. (Scientologists don’t consider the mind to be the brain, but rather a collection of pictures surrounding the person, accumulated throughout one’s present and previous lives. Scientologists consider a person to be a spirit – called a “thetan” that can be affected by these pictures.)

“Close your eyes and think of an apple,,, offers Hoden as proof that these mental pictures exist. “You can see an image of the apple, right? An engram is also a picture. They’re actual images of negative experiences that exist in your mind, and when you address them in auditing you can eliminate their harmful influence.” In an effort to “destimulate” the negative effect of an engram, Scientologists work their way up a “bridge” of increasingly expensive auditing courses until they eventually “clear” themselves of this “source of aberrant behavior and psychosomatic illness” and achieve ” total Freedom “.

“A Scientologist starts a the bottom of the bridge and works his way up to total freedom one course, at a time,” says Hoden. “He or she spends as much time as they need to achieve the results of each level. They decide when they’re ready to move up.”

Conspiracy pawns, sincere critics or just plain broke?

Inside Scientology: The Other Side of the Looking Glass (p. 24)

The bridge is divided into two sections – “processing” and “training.” The lower levels of the processing bridge, according to Hoden, “deal with the mind’s effect on the body, which would include addressing the subject of drug dependencies and self confidence and the psychosomatic source of illness.”Four courses comprise this lower level: “Purification Rundown,” which promises “freedom from residual effects of drug residues and other toxins” ; “Objectives,” which puts the Scientologist “in present time and able to control and put order in the environment”; “Drug Rundown,” which “releases the Scientologist from the harmful effect of drugs, medicine, or alcohol”; and “ARC Straight wire” which assures that the Scientologist “knows he /she wont get any worse.” (Sixty percent of the recruits, according to officials, have drug problems.)

The next level of processing includes seven auditing steps that lead up to the much sought after “clear” stage. Grade 0 provides the subject with “the ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject”; Grade 1 provides the “ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish”; Grade 2 provides “relief from the the hostilities and sufferings of life”; Grade 3 allows ” freedom from the upsets of the past and ability to face the future”; Grade 4 assures that the Scientologist is “moving out of fixed conditions and gaining abilities to do new things”; “New Era Dianetics” proves that the subject is becoming a “clear or well and happy human being”; and “clear” is the stage where the Scientologist is “a being who no longer has his own reactive mind.”

After the Scientologist has achieved the state of “Clear”, he enters the final stages of processing called the Operating Thetan levels. The OTs “address the person as a spirit, improving the abilities of the spirit with the purpose of achieving total spiritual freedom”, according to Hoden. The ability gained in OT courses I through 7 is listed as “confidential” in church literature, but includes such secret teachings of L Ron Hubbard as his “Xenu” theory of man’s beginnings. OT 8 is due out this year, while courses 9 through 15 are scheduled for release in coming years.

“Auditing is a very specific process,” says Hoden, who himself has reached the level of OT 3, though, like many Scientologists encountered, he consumes vast amounts of coffee, adding to a general air of anxiety in the church (chain-smoking seems; de rigueur). “It is a scientific, spiritual technology that must be practiced in a specific manner in be effective in helping people achieve spiritual freedom. If it is carried out uniformly, it will not fail.” The person responsible for conducting auditing sessions at the various levels a called an “auditor” (or “minister”.) Auditors are trained on the “training” side of the bridge in a series of courses titled “Class 0 Auditor” through “Class 12 Auditor” (though an auditor cannot audit anyone, in a processing course higher than he himself has achieved). When conducting an auditing session, the auditor attaches subjects to an instrument called an “electropsychometer” or E-meter) that consists of two small metal cylinders connected by alligator clips to an elementary control board. As the Scientologist holds a cylinder in each hand, a harmless amount of electricity (about one-half volt) is pumped through his body. The auditor then asks questions regarding possible areas of emotional distress.

At the beginning of most anditing sessions (no matter what level the course), the auditor asks the same three questions of the subject Scientologist who is hooked up to the meter: “Do you have an ‘ARC’ break? (Meaning, “Are you upset about anything?”); “Do you have any present time problems?”); and “Has a withold been missed?” (Meaning, “is there any transgression you have witheld from someone?”)

If there are no specific problems, the auditor asks a series of literally hundreds of predetermined questions specific in that auditing level. For instance, in the lower level of “ARC Straightwire”, the auditor asks such questions as, “Can you remember a time when you were happy?~ Or when you had just finished constructing something? Life was cheerful? Somebody had given you something? You ate something good? You had a friend?” After the subject answers each question, the auditor probes him for “sense memory” details ( e.g. sight, smell, touch, color, emotion) that accompany the memory.

As questions are answered the auditor monitors a needle gauge to see if it registers any changes in “mental” electrical charge. Experiences in the past that contain pain or emotional trauma are believed to cause a change in a person’s electrical charge. The auditing minister then notes the E-meter response, in the person’s “PC (preclear) folder.” Case supervisors later examine these notes to assure that the problems will be addressed at later sessions or in more advanced courses. For each type of problem, there is a series of questions intended to neutralize the charge. (The meter will also indicate when the “mental charge” is removed from the traumatic experience, meaning that the engram in question has been adequately dealt with. An engram that is extremely charged is referred to as a “rock slam.”)

“The E-meter and auditing are really quite extraordinary,” says Tony Hitchman, a former South African journalist who now conducts auditing sessions. “They serve as a wonderfully specific guide to what’s troubling a person. Through auditing and the E=meter we cane help that person remove engrams and better his/her life.”

Our brief experience on the E-meter proved inconclusive. Though the needle registered in varying degrees when we were questioned about general emotional topics such as our families and love lives, it seemed little more than an instrument reacting to physical responses (rather than “spiritual pictures”), much like a lie detector.

Regardless of whether E-meter auditing is a scientific probe or purely a placebo, it is certainly popular among Scientologists being shown through the blue building by Hoden, we witnessed literally hundreds of church members auditing and being audited in the deep recesses of the former hospital. Though we were not allowed to question Scientologists as they were auditing, many church members interviewed after the session expressed unqualified raves for the process that is the backbone of Scientology study.

“Scientology auditing has added a lot of meaning to my life,” said Barbara Clarke, a 60-year-old former chemist and teacher who has studied Scientology for 18 years and served as a field auditor since 1975. “I got involved because I knew there had to be more to life than just getting up, working and going back to bed. From the very first lecture I attended, Scientology made so much sense I know auditing works, and I’ve never felt my doubts.”

Phil Gilbert, a 31- year-old plumbing company executive who began Scientology auditing after reading Dianetics in 1974, typically shared Clarke’s enthusiasm. “Scientology is the only logical explanation of how the mind works that I’ve come across,” he says. “Auditing has been invaluable. I studied piano as a kid but had forgotten how to play. My mind had just blocked out that talent. But after just a few auditing sessions I suddenly remembered, and I’ve been playing and writing ever since. It’s really something.”

Jonathan Hawks credited a chance Scientology encounter in 1968 with increasing his communicative abilities. “I was having a lot of problems stemming from my frustrated theater career,” said 52-year-old Hawk, who now works as a computer operator. “One day while my analyst was hospitalized, I happened to see an advertisement for a Scientology lecture and I thought, ‘Why not try it?’ As soon as I started auditing, I turned my problems around. I could finally communicate with people.

Even many former members who claim to have been embittered by their experience with the church … say they believe that they benefited from Scientology auditing. “I achieved some benefits.” remarked Jon Zegel who spent 10 years with the church before leaving to help establish an independent auditing group. “I’m more emotionally stable, and there seem improvements in my life.”

Countering this are, of course, the inevitable failures. While no statistics exist about whether auditing has been perceived by a majority of the participants as beneficial . . the church argues that there are more current members undergoing auditing than ex-members – certainly there is at least a vocal minority professing problems from the process.

More objective analysis of auditing is hard to come by (the Periodical Index lists no scientific studies in medical or psychological journals), and independent psychologists and psychiatric professionals are reluctant to be quoted by name, noting that one colleague who did criticize auditing is being sued by the church, which has built a reputation for litigiousness.

However, one L.A therapist who worked with a former Scientologist said: “A lot of the practices these guys use are very close to the truth, but I suspect it’s very dangerous for the average person because there’s a tendency toward coercive rigid misuse of otherwise good material. In this patient’s case, it was hard for him, to have an individualistic view. He saw everything in terms of ‘Scientology’ world view and jargon. It’s clearly not for everybody.”

Still another L.A. therapist who worked with a former Scientologist noted: “The process of simply having these auditing question, put to him didn’t help him. He had serious self-esteem problems and he needed aggressiveness training and emotional release so he could learn to express himself. The auditing was too passive for that. I suspect it doesn’t work on many people for that reason, and also became it doesn’t truly give them a basis to understand the underlying causes of their behavior.”

“Nancy,” 42, is one such example. She claims she left the church after eight years because “I wasn’t getting out of it what I thought I would. I had a drinking problem and my self-esteem was, low because of it. I’d heard from a friend that auditing was supposed to cure people of alcoholism. But I took courses for seven years, spending $12 000, then left. I went back for another year, a year later to give it a second chance and spent another $1,000, but I still wasn’t making progress. I was still drinking. Then I enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous and I haven’t had a drink since September 1984 . Auditing just didn’t work for me.”

Yet another former member, “Betty” (who also requested anonymity), says she spent come than $80,000 during her 14 years of auditing. “They kept telling me just a little more auditing would solve my problems”, she says. “But all it did was make them $80,000 and make me feel worse about myself.”

Knowledgeable observers told the Weekly that they believe Scientology does have some positive effect, much of it coming from three sources a) that Scientology tends to attract many young drug-damaged, truly “lost” personalities who benefit from the structure as they would from any rigid-rule behavior systems such as prevail in many drug treatment programs b) that many of Scientology’s subjects have so little intercourse with themselves, self-reflection that even what they can pick up from the auditing process is itself the beginnings of self-awareness and therefore changed behavior; and c) the “placebo” effect — the fact that Scientologists believe themselves to be part of a process that helps them, and so they move through life with more confidence and fewer anxieties, creating their own more positive realities.

So what’s the problem? If even many church critics are satisfied that the auditing process has improved their Iives, why has Scientology been the center of so much controversy”?

Payment Before Enlightenment

“Total Freedom” through Scientology does not come, cheap. With registered trademarks affixed to every Scientology term and title, Hubbard’s religion some times more closely resembles K-mart than, say, Catholicism. Scientology’s policy of payment before enlightenment is perhaps the leading cause of questions concerning the church ‘s credibility as an altruistic institution. Although Ken Hoden initially dragged his feet in supplying a promised list of auditing fees because, as he put it, “when you walk into a Baptist church or any other church, [ finances are] just not something you commonly discuss,” He eventually provided a breakdown of prices for Scientology courses and materials.

Scientology’s “Donation Rate Card” shows that “public” Scientologists — who comprise the vast majority of church members — can spend more than $1,000 per hour of auditing (purchases in 12 1/2-hour blocks called ” intensives”) and between $50,000 and $100,000 (and more) to complete the dozens of Scientology courses.

(According to Hoden staff members of Scientology’s elite group whose members receive only $24 per week allowance plus expenses — receive auditing free of charge, and other members receive substantial discounts Hoden also stressed that “people can get Dianetics from a bookstore or library and audit themselves at home for free (up to the “Clear” level), or get their processing free as they study to be an auditing minister. However, the “Donation Rate Card” does not spell out this option, advising potential members to “contact the Registrar at the nearest Church of Scientology for individual consultation and estimate. ‘It also, mentions only ” Scientology churches, missions and field auditors” as outlets for processing services.

According to Hoden more than 90 percent of Scientologists enter the bridge by reading Dianetics and taking any of several “mini-courses” (such, as ‘Anatomy of the Human Mind’) to see if they find Scientology helpful.

The Scientology rate card lists the cost of the lowest-level course on the actual bridge (“Purification Rundown”) at $2,000 total, while intensives for the next nine courses up through “New Era Dianetics” cost $4,3330. A “clear” level intensive goes for $1,690 while OT intensives range from $1,000 to $8,000. There are literally hundreds of periphery Hubbard teachings that range in price from $5 to $16,500. “Recommended” E-meters are also for sale, ranging from, $873 for the Mark V to $3,493 for the Black Mark VI.

Many Scientologists who work their way up to the top of the bridge eventually spend more because the church historically continues to add “revised” auditing levels, each requiring additional investment before “total freedom” can be achieved.

The recent Scientology brochure announcing the addition of a revised OT 5 level provides a good example. The brochure announces a pending “miracle” auditing technology that promises to answer your “wildest dreams” questions about “Ron’s breakthrough into the ‘SECOND WALL OF FIRE.'” The “donation” required is $7,600 per intensive (Through upwards of five intensives my be needed.)

Ken Hoden is quick to justify Scientology’s rates. “There isn’t a legitimate emphasis in the world that doesn’t put an emphasis on money,” says Hoden “People know how much our courses cost when they sign up. Besides, you can’t put a price on total spiritual freedom.” Hoden added that members who question the adding of new study levels “are people who have given up the quest for total freedom. If you talk to people in the church who are up to that point, they’re waiting on pins and needles for the new levels to come out. People in the church have no complaints. Besides, without money the church could not expand and bring further hope to mankind.”

Current church members also insist that Scientology is worth any price. “I’ve found it’s a great bargain because I’m more in control and therefore able to fulfill my potential and make more money,” volunteered Carol Worthy Corns, a 43-year-old professional composer who joined Scientology 15 years ago while still in college. “I’d undergone two years of psychotherapy after spending the 60’s looking for life’s answers in assorted philosophies and the drug culture. But in my first three auditing sessions, I handled a major problem that would have taken me many years and 20 times more money to solve through psychotherapy. Scientology has saved my life at least 10 times. How can you put a monetary value on that kind of help?”

But Scientology’s high prices have caused many members to question the church’s priorities. One such is “Steve” ( who spoke on condition that his real name not be used.) Steve was introduced to Scientology 13 years ago while still in college. He served as a member of Hubbard’s staff for eight years, bringing home the then standard salary of $17 for each of what he describes as “our average six-day, 80 hour work weeks.) Steve claims he spent more than $30,000 on Scientology before joining staff ( borrowing money from his parents and working door-to-door job on his one day off) before beginning to doubt Scientology’s motives.

“When the prices went really high, I started to feel that if Hubbard really thought Scientology worked, it would make it easier, not harder, for people to experience it,” says Steve. “Total Freedom was available, yet we couldn’t afford it.”
Hana Eltringham Whitfield – ex-D/Commodore for L Ron Hubbard and Jerry Whitfield

Caption: Critical Former church members Hana and Jerry Whitfield

Jerry Whitfield, who is on the steering committee of FAIR, is another former member who became disillusioned by the church’s financial priorities. Whitfield spent eight years, and $20,000 in the church before he realized that “though the technology was helpful, the organization was not set up to let people make full use of it. It was arranged to maximize its profit margin.”

A History of Controversy

Hana and Jerry Whitfield

Inside Scientology: The Other Side of the Looking Glass (p. 30)

As anyone who follows the news knows, Scientology has been involved in a series of controversial cases, many of them involving vengeful church actions against its critics. (More on this below.) Although the church always paints itself as the victim, its critics suggest that Scientology hasn’t been persecuted from the outside, but rather is the victim of warped and misplaced priorities inside the church. The critics, – and there are more than the church is willing to admit – assert that the fundamental problems afflicting the church are a direct reflection of the complex personality of the man who sired it, and of the power structure and money-bent of the church itself, as divorced from Scientology Practices.

Step inside the giant brass doors of Scientology headquarters’ Fountain Avenue entrance and you enter a shrine to the legend of Hubbard. Hundreds of proclamations honoring Hubbard from such luminaries as former L.A. Councilwoman Peggy Stevenson, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and Colorado Senator Gary Hart line the walls. Several portraits and busts of Hubbard are prominently displayed. Collections of his detective, science fiction and Scientology writings are meticulously preserved. Unfortunately for Scientology, it has often proven difficult for church members to separate manufactured legend from reality in Hubbard’s life. Official church biographies have at various times described Hubbard as a nuclear physicist, an earner of a Ph.D., and a Navy hero who was crippled, blinded and twice declared dead in battle (but who completely healed his wound with Dianetics techniques).
In fact, Navy records show that Hubbard’s war record my have been exaggerated and that he was hospitalized due to minor ulcers and a fall from a ladder. In addition, evidence suggests that Hubbard obtained his Ph.D. from a diploma mill known as Sequoia University after failing class and dropping out of George Washington University.

(Hoden claims Hubbard left school because because “they couldn’t teach him what the human spirit was, so he went elsewhere.)”

Hana Eltringham Whitfield has unique insight into the man who was; Lafayette Ron Hubbard. Before leaving the church in 1983, Eltringham Whitfield served as a senior Scientology official for 18 years (after signing the requisite “billion-year contract” with the church), including a stint a a personal aide aboard Hubbard’s 320-foot yacht, the Apollo. (“Commodore” Hubbard established a naval motif throughout his church, requiring staff members to wear sailorlike uniforms and giving them various “officer” titles.) Says Eltringham Whitfield of Hubbard: “He was a very shrewd man, but he always wanted to be something more than he really was. He wanted to be a nuclear physicist, a war hero. He was an insecure man in that respect, so he felt the need in romanticize his past.”

Ken Hoden dismisses Hubbard’s biographical inconsistencies as “errors by former public relations people who have since been removed.” But whatever the cause of the confusion, there is no question that Hubbard was ambitious. After a prolific and successful career writing pulp science fiction and detective stores, Hubbard published a thin volume of his Dianetics theories in 1948. He expanded those rudimentary principles in 1949 and published his full Dianetics book in May 1950. The book was a run away best seller and a favorite among artists, writers and other intelligentsia of the day. (Dianetics has sold more than 7 million copies. Scientology officials put total sales of Hubbard’s 589 published fiction and non-fiction stories and books at more than 50 million.)

Hubbard took the profits from Dianetics and created the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Elizabeth, New Jersey. When this initial venture proved unsuccessful, Hubbard moved the foundation first to Kansas, then to Phoenix, where he formed the Hubbard Academy of Scientology in 1954. Later that year, a small group of Hubbard’s followers officially established the Founding Church of Scientology, with headquarters in Washington, D.C., and field offices in L.A. Hubbard was named church director and “founder of the Scientology religion.” Less than five years after reportedly telling a 1949 convention of sci-fi writers that “if a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion,” Hubbard had taken his own advice. (Although Scientology officials have in the past confirmed the quote but claimed Hubbard was only kidding, others dispute the quote entirely, attributing it instead to George Orwell.)

By then, Hubbard’s philosophy had already come under serious attack. His claim that with Dianetics auditing IQs could be greatly increased, that “arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalogue of ills goes away and stays away,” had led to a 1951 New Jersey investigation for fraudulent medical practices. Similar claims attracted the attention of federal officials shortly after Scientology was founded, and ensuing years would see Hubbard’s religion investigated by the governments of Australia, Canada, England, France, New Zealand and South Africa (as well as the U.S.).

Scientology was banned outright in much of Australia from 1965 through 1973. From 1968 through 1980, England barred foreign nationals, including Hubbard, from entering the country to practice Scientology. (Hoden claim that the church received apologies from government officials when the bans were lifted.) French officials in 1978 convicted Hubbard and two Scientology associates ( in absentia ) of fraudulent medical practices and fined them $7,000 before higher courts overturned these decisions. Such claims have also been the basis of several lawsuits, including one last year in which a Portland woman was awarded $39 million in damages before the judge, perhaps influenced by pressure from thousands of Scientologists protesting the decision, overturned his ruling on the grounds that it violated Scientology’s right to freedom of religion.

Ken Hoden confirms that Hubbard’s early claims are still taken as gospel by Scientologists. “We’re not saying that if you lose a leg we can grow another for you,” says Hoden (who stresses that the church “encourages members to see a doctor if they are ill. “Through auditing, the psychosomatic causes of illness can be addressed. Once these are handled, the body is capable of healing itself.” Hoden did, however, reassert that church members – including himself – regularly increase their IQs while studying Scientology.

Another major assertion among Scientologists is that the investigations are not only unwarranted but are part of a global conspiracy to destroy the church, orchestrated in part by the psychiatric establishment. (Hubbard often compared psychiatrists to Hitler, and Genghis Khan.)

“Psychiatry is a self perpetuating fraud that realizes we can do a better job of helping people without shock treatment and pills”, says Hoden, who added that Scientology is now practiced without restriction throughout the world. “The governments who have harassed us are threatened by our investigations into their excesses.”

Scientology’s claims of government harassment may, in fact, have some validity. The church is a leading expert in the intricacies of the Freedom of Information Act and publishes Freedom Magazine of tough investigative reporting that has broken several stories embarrassing to its primary government targets: the FBI, CIA and IRS. (For full conspiracy details, see sidebar.)

Scientology and the IRS have long been particularly bitter opponents. Despite the controversy surrounding Hubbard, the popularity of his philosophy – and Scientology’s bank accounts – grew quickly throughout the ’50s. Money came so fast to Scientology that Hubbard, the pulp author who reportedly said he was tired of writing for a penny a word in 1949 – though Scientology officials deny this attribution – was able just 10 years later to buy a 30-room mansion and 57 acre estate I in England, originally built for the Maharajah of Jaipur.

Soon after, the IRS began examining the relationship between Hubbard and his church. The years of investigations led to a 1984 U.S. Tax Court ruling that the Church of Scientology of California (CSC) had “made a business of selling religion” It had blocked the IRS from collecting taxes by storing large amounts of cash in a trust fund controlled by high-ranking church leaders. “Money that was supposed to be used strictly for church activities was going to individuals, ” says IRS spokesman Rob Giannangeli. “That misuse, combined with other violations of public policies on the part of Scientology officials, led us to determine that the Church of Scientology was not acting as a responsible exempt organization. ”

The 1984 denial of tax exempt status led the IRS to bill Scientology for $1.4 million in back taxes for the target period Of 1970-72, with bills for other years to be forthcoming upon investigation. Scientology has appealed the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and continues doing business as usual. Ken Hoden insists this policy is fair because we are confident [the court] will overrule the IRS,” though he added that a negative court ruling will “affect the church throughout the country.” But Giannangeli, while confirming that Scientology is technically within the law in still encouraging such donations, questions the practice’s propriety.

“If the courts ultimately uphold the IRS decision, Scientologists will have to pay back taxes on any contributions totaling more than $1,000″ says Gimmangeli. so if a Scientologist wrote off contributions of $50,000 a year, he’s going to have a pretty hefty tax bill.”

Allegations that Hubbard’s immense wealth (estimated at up to $600 million, though Hoden would only put the figure “in the millions, and we’re getting all of it”) was due in large part to funds being illegally transferred from his church’s accounts have dogged Scientology since its inception. Cash flow, certainly, has rarely been a problem for the church. Scientology bought its Berendo headquarters for $5.5 million in cash in 1976 and continues to make major real estate purchases. Former Scientology employees who once held sensitive financial positions within die church have testified that various subsidiaries were used to transfer church funds illegally to Hubbard’s European bank accounts.

But to many Scientology critics, the controversy over financial misappropriation is a secondary concern. To these critics, the true danger of Scientology is the system of “control” used by church officials to keep disgruntled members from reclaiming their money and departing if they feel their funds are being mishandled. Ken Hoden claims that members have that freedom: “If someone says they don’t like the way we do things, we say, “Fine. Leave if you want.”

But critics assert that Scientology policy and practices are designed to manipulate members to stay (and keep their money) in the church, or, if members do leave, to intimidate the “squirrels” (Scientology speak for former members) into not criticizing Scientology.

Ideological Totalism?

Juliann Savage is a clinical social worker in the Cult Clinic, six years a non-sectarian affiliate of Jewish Firmly Services operating out of the United Way building in Van Nuys. Savage has treated more than 70 victims of mind control, from Hare Krishnas to Moonies, in her two and a half years on staff. She insists the 10 former Scientologists with whom she has worked, have been her most difficult assignments.

Juliann Savage

Inside Scientology: The Other Side of the Looking Glass (p. 33)

“These people have given their entire lives over to Scientology in exchange for the promise of ‘total freedom,’ ” says Savage. “But what they really get is the exact opposite. Scientology is a textbook example of systematic mind control and totalism.”

To support her assertion that brainwashing techniques are an inextricable part of Scientology practice – especially with staff members — Savage refers to one of the world’s definitive works on mind control, the much heralded “Chapter 22 Ideological Totalism” of Dr. Robert Jay Lifton’s book entitled Thought Reform the Psychology of Totalism. Here, Lifton describes how such psychological tactics as ” milieu control,” “mandatory confession” and “language loading” are used to control masses of people (in his specific case, the Communist Chinese). It is Savage’s contention that Lifton’s theories, although they can be applied to many subcultures, are especially applicable to Scientology.

“What we have with Scientology is a subculture that insists on absolute control of every aspect of a person’s life,” says Savage as she sips herbal tea in her small Van Nuys office. “Adults are greatly discouraged from having relationships with non-Scientologists. They are worked so many hours per week, either doing staff activities or auditing sessions, that they have no time for outside activities. The church encourages an all or nothing, us versus them, everything-outside-the-church-is-bad-everything-inside-is-good idealogy that can be very harmful. And if you question this, you’re Labeled a ‘supressive person’ who doesn’t have the ability to understand. The insular inbreeding in Scientology is incredible.”

(Statistics and statements provided by Scientology seem to lend a least partial credence to Savage’s claim. Church demographics, indicate that nearly half of all Scientologists have family in the church, while Ken Hoden confirms that many Scientology children attend private schools run by Scientologists – such as Delphi in Monrovia – or the Apollo Training Academy, a church-operated afternoon “day-care center” that operates after regular schools let out. “But the church hopes to run its own schools soon,” added Hoden.)

One Scientology practice that critics single out as a form of control is the church’s “ethics” system. Scientologists are subject to a highly detailed code of ethics drafted by L. Ron Hubbard and governed by “ethics officers” and “justice officers.” This ethics code is divided into four categories of “offenses” against the church: “Errors … .. Misdemeanors,” “Crimes” and “High Crimes.”

Errors are defined as “minor, unintentional goofs” in auditing or administration. Misdemeanors include such offences as “mistakes resulting in financial or traffic loss,” “continued association with squirrels,” and “refusing an E-meter check.” Crimes “cover offenses normally considered criminal,” such as “placing Scientology or Scientologists at risk,” “organizing or allowing a gathering or meeting of staff members or field auditors or the public to protest the order of a senior,” and “impersonating Scientologist or staff member when not authorized.” High crimes consist of “publicly departing Scientology” or committing such “supressive acts” as “public statements against Scientology or Scientologists,” “bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization,” and “giving anti-Scientology advice to the press.”

Errors are dealt with by “corrections, reprimand or warnings.” Misdemeanors are “subject to direct punishment,” which for a staff member is “assignment of a personal condition of Emergency for up to three weeks” and up in three months for an executive staff member. If assigned this “condition of Emergency,” a staffer has his or her pay reduced by one-third. If the staffer appeals his or her case to a “Committee of Evidence” and loses, his or her penalty may be increased to even, stiffer penalties, including minor demotion. Punishments for “crimes” against the church must be dictated by a Committee of Evidence (made up of ministers) and can include demotion or “even dismissal or arrest [for theft].” High crimes include cancellation of all auditing achievements and expulsion by the church’s ultimate ethical authority, the “justice minister.”

According to Hoden, “The purpose of ethics is to keep a person living in such a way that auditing can keep them living an ethical life.” But former members claim that its motives are less noble.

Jerry Whitfield claims to have served on “several” Committees of Evidence. They were just a reason to get people out of the church,” says Whitfield. “We were instructed by seniors on how to decide cases. If the higher-ups didn’t like a certain member they were history.”

Another Scientology policy Savage singles out as a control mechanism is known as “Disconnection,” which takes, two forms, Savage argues. First, current church members are often encouraged by auditing ministers to “disconnect” themselves from “suppressive” relatives. Ken Hoden uses an example from The Color Purple to illustrate what he feels is the positive result of such disconnection.

“In The Color Purple, Celie was connected to a suppressive husband,” explains Hoden. “He used to beat her around and treat her mean. But let’s say one day she walked up to the Church of Scientology. We’d tell her, ‘Gelie, you look like you’ve got a problem with your husband. We want you to sit down and communicate with your husband and try to work it out.’ But if that didn’t work, we’d say, ‘If you don’t disconnect from this person, then your life is going to be miserable forever.’ Disconnection is just common sense in some cases. It is left up to the individual, though.”

Critics claim, however, that Scientology encourages far more than disconnection from harmful persons, which every psychologist urges. Instead critics say, Scientologists are often urged to sever ties with loved ones whose only “problem” is their distaste for Scientology – a practice that reinforces the insular, inbred world of “milieu control” criticized by Savage.

“Robert” is a former member who agrees with Savage. Last year, after 16 years, with the church, the 37-year-old departed. He recalls that shortly after he joined the church, his parents sent him news clippings critical of Scientology. Robert claims his “ethics officer” (who determines if Scientologists stay within the ethical guidelines of the church) told him he had to disconnect from his parents if he was to achieve total freedom.

“Here I was, a 20-year-old kid looking for a little meaning in my life,” recalls Robert, “and all of a sudden there’s this ethics officer telling me I should never talk to my parents again. In retrospect, I can see that my folks were trying to look out for me. But I did what the ethics officer said. I wrote my parents a letter telling them I never wanted to hear or speak to them again.”

A second form of disconnection requires church members to sever all ties with Scientologists who leave the church, no matter how close the friendships. This on pain of being labeled “suppressive” themselves. This practice has proved effective in keeping people in the church, since no one wants to lose all their friends. And “disconnection” from the church has been found to be debilitatingly traumatic to a number of people who have left the fold.

“Betty” is one such person. After spending more than 14 years in and $80,000 on the church, she decided “it was just not economically feasible for me to stay.” Interviewing her, her pain was still apparent, as it was with other former members who agreed to talk to us.

“The entire year after I left was the worst one I ever went through,” Betty said. “I had lived for many of my Scientology years with the same, seven people in a small apartment. We did everything together. We loved each other. But when I said I had to leave, none of these people who I’d known and loved for years would even say hello to me. It was absolutely traumatic.

Robert was also disconnected from longtime friends. “I realized a couple years ago that Hubbard was in this whole thing just for the money and power,” he says, adding that he spent $50,000 to reach the highest level of Scientology study (OT-7), only to become disillusioned when the church added “revised” levels. “So I decided to leave. When I officially left the church I tried talking to the friends I had been closest to for years, tried to tell them that I now thought Scientology was a fraud. But they didn’t want to hear it. They started ignoring me. When I sent them Christmas cards this year, I got back several disconnection letters.”

One letter, from a longtime girlfriend, reads: “This is a disconnection letter. I do not wish any [thrice underlined] type of communication from you. You have chosen to be a squirrel and I am a Scientologist. It makes it very black and white. Do not have any comm to [Scientology speak for “communication with”] me until you have handled your scene and am back in good standing with the church and moving on the bridge (in Scientology, not your squirrel group).” The letter noted that copies had been sent to the church’s “International Justice Chief” and the “Advanced Organization Master at Arms”.

“[Sending copies to ethics and justice] is to let her masters know that she is a good little robot who is still properly brainwashed,” says Robert. “If she’d bothered to talk to me, she’d have found out that I’m not in any ‘squirrel group’ [a church term for groups of former members who I practice Scientology without church sanctions] She’s probably scared shitless that her cult-member peers saw her get a card from a suppressive and will file a ‘knowledge report’ on her. [A church member is required to file such a report if he or she witnesses a fellow member commit such an anti-Scientology crime.] But I don’t really blame her – she’s just another victim of Scientology’s brainwashing techniques.”

The church’s answer to this is that the only individuals considered to be “suppressive” when they leave the church are, in Hoden’ s words, “those who are expelled for doing something in violation of the ethical codes and practices of the Church of Scientology. In that case, people from the church should not associate with that person. But if a church member still wants to associate with the expelled person, fine. But he has to leave the church.” Hoden denied that this is an intimidating practice, though obviously members find it just that.

In arguing for the “thought control” vision of Scientology, Savage and other critics point to other church practices such as “Rehabilitation Project Force” (RPF) duty, “Training Routines” and “security checks,” RPF duty, they say, is forced labor intended to help the church minimize costs, and is used frequently as punishment for church members believed to be out of line. Hoden first explained the RPF as little more than “a work force where church members are assigned so they can get five hours of exercise a day while accomplishing something constructive, like repairing Scientology buildings and mowing lawns.” He later conceded that any senior Sea Org member can put any underling on the RPF as punishment for not working up to his ability. “I was RPFed for nine months in 1982,” says Hoden. “I had been slacking off in some of my administrative duties. But I liked the RPF. I could have gotten off earlier, but I asked to stay on.”

“Who wants to scrub floors or cart trash for a year?” says one former church staffer. “The idea is to make you think twice before doing or saying anything that church officials will RPF you for,”

Critics claim also that “training routines” (TRs) are used in control members in a similar fashion. Former Scientologists have testified that in TRs, Scientologists are often made to sit absolutely stiff without moving at all, not even blinking. They claim this drill is often carried out for hours at a time, every day, for weeks.

While being escorted by Hoden through the deep recesses of the basement of the Scientology “mother church,” we inadvertently stumbled upon a TR session. From a distance, we heard a man shouting. When questioned about the source of the scream, Hoden led us to a small room. As we approached, it became clear that the man was shouting “Thank you, thank you” as loudly as he could to a Scientology official. The unusual nature of the scene was not lost on Hoden, who seemed momentarily flustered. “This, is a TR,” Hoden then explained. “Did you ever know someone who was so timid that you could barely hear him speak? This man is being taught to express himself more loudly and clearly. ”

“Security checks” are yet another form of control, disgruntled former members allege. These “sec-checks” are performed while a member is hooked up to an E-meter. One sec-check form submitted as evidence in a recent trial included the following questions:

“Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about LRH [L. Ron Hubbard]?” “Have you ever had anything to do with pornography?” “Have you ever assisted in an abortion?” “Have you ever practiced sodomy?” “Have you ever been a news paper reporter?” “Do you know of any plans to injure a Scientology organization?” “How do you feel about being controlled?” (Hoden confirmed all but the “reporter” and “control” questions, while adding that numbers me asked only if they had “done” anything against Hubbard.)

To outsiders this is obviously a significant invasion of a person’s privacy, but Ken Hoden and many current and former church members insist that the ends justify the means in these practices. “I’ve been in Scientology for 10 years, and I’m here on my own free will,” says Kimberly Nesbig, a non-staff Scientologist who simply takes auditing courses. “These claims [of brainwashing] are ridiculous. Scientology has saved my life. I was on drugs and on my way out. Scientology has given me the technology to do what I want in life.”

“Claims that we’re insulated, isolated and out of touch with the world is just pure propaganda, ” adds Tim Skog, 34, who has served as a Sea Org Public Affairs staff, since 1983. “I read the papers, I listen to the radio, I go outside. More than any other religion, we don’t lead monastic lives.” (Skog added that there is no “us versus the wogs” encouragement in the church. “Definitely us against the psychiatrists, but that’s fine.”)

Says Mike Rinder, a 30-year-old administrative supervisor who’s been with Sea Org since 1973, “I consider [allegations of] cult mind control to be a joke.”

Other Scientologists also add that their practices are not unlike these of more mainstream religions, an assertion that Johanna Savage is quick to rebut. “The difference with Scientology lies in the degree to which these, control practices are carried out and the amount a Scientologist is forced to sacrifice. If a person wants to become a Catholic, they are fully apprised of what they are in for and they are given time to prepare. With Scientology, you are not told that you may have to spend $100,000 or give up your former friends and family.

“The mandatory loss of one’s self into the Church of Scientology is more severe than in my other group I’ve ever dealt with. I don’t know of my group whose members are room fearful and intensely angry after they leave.”

Breach of Faith?

One particular church policy has been partially at the root of the fear and anger: Scientology’s alleged use of personal information in members’ “confidential” PreClear (PC) folders, information confessed during auditing. There is substantial evidence that this information has been culled, perhaps to pressure members either into staying in the church or into, not criticizing the church if they do leave.

Although Hoden denies such practices, (“In all my years here, I have never known of my such action on the part of a church member; the confidentiality of a person’s folder is the most sacred rule of Scientology”), testimony and documents supplied by former church members indicate that, with or without Hoden’s knowledge, there has been abuse of confidential PC folders. According to the testimony of and an interview with one former Scientology intelligence operative, the now defunct church intelligence division known as the Guardian’s Office asked that files be culled for such desirable PC information as “specific things to use for blackmail such in sexual promiscuity, sexual problems, problems with the family, troubles with parents, any alcoholic problem … anything a person would nor want others to know about.”

Several memos from various church offices to the GO seem to confirm claims that PC Code, have been culled for incriminating information. One 1972 memo supplied to the Weekly clearly notes that “the following data was gotten from [name deleted by the Weekly] PC folders.” It then details a female member’s auditing history: “Several self-induced abortions; … two weeks psych treatment … due to alcohol problems … Drug history: Librium, Valium, Miltowns, alcohol, LSD, opium, heroin … Son is in jail … Connected to a suppressive group … probably the IRS … That’s about it. Love, [name deleted by Weekly].”

A second mid-70s memo (which Hoden claims was not culled from a PC folder but from general church files) graphically details the sex life of another female member: “She slept with four or five men during [an early Scientology course] … She has quite a record of promiscuity … She let [three men] touch her genitals during sessions … She masturbated regularly since she was 8 years old, mentioning doing it once with coffee grounds … and once had a puppy lick her.”

Presented with the memos during a recent Sunday morning meeting in the blue building, Hoden was visibly disturbed. “Okay. Fine – Good,” he said after a long pause. “But was there ever my mention that this was used against her? She’s still with the church. She’s testified for us. She knows this exists. I don’t know why someone in the GO would have needed to see this, but I can honestly say that I don’t know of one case in the Church, of Scientology [where] stuff in a person’s folder has been used against them. And this stuff as 10 years old. What I’m saying is very Simply this: Nothing has ever been used against a person out of their folders.”

California Superior Court judge Paul Breckenridge found differently in a 1984 decision in which he agreed with Scientology’s critics that the church has abused the “confidential” folders for unethical purposes. “Each [of the former Scientologists] has broken with the movement for a variety of reasons, but at the same time, each is still bound by the knowledge that the church has in its possession his or her most inner thoughts and confessions, all recorded [in PC folders] or other security files of the organization, and that the church or its minions is fully capable of intimidation and other physical and psychological abuse if it suits their ends,” wrote Breckenridge, siding with several former members – including former church archivist Gerald Armstrong – sued by Scientology The record is repleat with evidence of such abuse … The practice of culling supposedly confidential PC folders or files to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and/or harassment is repugnant and outrageous.”2

The GO was officially disbanded in 1981, and the church now officially disavows its activities, which Hoden insists are not currently being duplicated by other church departments. However, several former church members told the Weekly that abuse of PC folders continues. One former member claims he was contacted as recently as last month by a church operative who warned him that “if I didn’t sign a confession implicating myself and my friends in trumped-up crimes against the church, he would go to authorities with information from my folders that might be incriminating.”

Told this, Hoden again adamantly denied that such abuse of PC folders could happen under the “strict” guidelines in force today. He insisted it was unfair to quote the former member anonymously because the church could not then rebut the allegation. “Maybe the reason they want anonymity is because they are lying to you,”said Hoden and later added, “Get me the name of the person making this allegation and I’ll report it to the police.

“The thing that I find disgusting, Hoden said with an edge to his voice, “is that someone gave those memos to you. Somebody went and dug them up and said, ‘Wow, boy, this will do it . . . ‘ just so they could get some negative article in your paper. And that’s a shame.”

The Minutemen at the Ready

[A ‘suppressive Person’ is ] Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by a Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist [sic] May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed

-L. Ron Hubbard

On February 15, six police officers, stood near the door of Lea Baeck Temple, awaiting the confrontation. They had been called by leaders of Freedom for All in Religion (FAIR), a group of former Church of Scientology members who were sponsoring a speech that evening by Boston attorney and anti-Scientology leader Michael Flynn. Flynn, who has represented marry former church members in lawsuits against the church, was appearing to discuss a new, class-action suit intended to compel Scientology to release PC folders of former members. Because of the nature of the evening’s topic, FAIR leaders anticipated a visit from a group of Scientologists who call themselves the “Minutemen” (because of their ability to mobilize quickly).

To members of FAIR and other church critics, they are known as “Scientology’s ‘Fair Game’ Gestapo.” (Though Hoden, stresses that Hubbard’s “Fair Game” doctrine was officially rescinded 20 years ago, it has emerged throughout the years in a rallying cry among former church members.)

Current church members; allegedly had made their presence felt at the temple throughout the week preceding the the speech. A prominent Jewish Scientologist had phoned temple leaders to warn that Michael Flynn attracted troublemakers. Other anonymous calls stressed similar warnings. And according to the temple’s event coordinator, Nancy Lachman, “A group of men came by claiming to be security for the Flynn speech. They asked to check out the auditorium. But since I hire all security, I knew they were not who they said they were.”

Fearing confrontation, FAIR’s leader, refused entry to what they say were 70 known Scientologists. Despite the right security, disruptions began less than a minute into Flynn’s speech to the 200 FAIR members. A man stood up in the audience and shouted, “Isn’t it true, Mr. Flynn, that you are in this for the money?” The heckler was quickly removed from the auditorium amidst a hail of boos, but minutes later another man stood up and shouted at Flynn. Then another. And before the evening’s conclusion, nearly a dozen alleged Minutemen were escorted from the temple.

“The hassle gets frustrating, but I’m used to it,”said Flynn who has been sued by the church more than a dozen times. Flynn asserts he has been followed by Scientology detectives, (including two who took the room next to his at the hotel where he stayed for the speech) and has been set up for the forgery of a $2 million check written on a Hubbard account. “It was actually a quieter evening than I expected”

Hoden dismisses Flynn’s charges with accusations of opportunism, describing Flynn as a major “point man” in the global conspiracy against the church. (See conspiracy sidebar.) Flynn does indeed have a financial stake in his cases against the church. But irrespective of his motives, the Church of Scientology’s history of harassment of its “enemies,” real or imagined, undermines its claims of humanistic priorities.

The seeds for aggressive defense were sown by Hubbard himself in several policy statements, which were fueled by increasing governmental and journalistic attacks. Hubbard was convinced that the “central agency” carrying out the concerted, global conspiracy to destroy Scientology was the World Federation for Mental Health, which he believed controlled the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, the Better Business Bureau, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the news media.

“Only attacks resolve threats,” wrote Hubbard in 1966. ” . . . Spot [anyone] who is investigating us. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies … Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence [sic] on the attackers to the press. Don’t ever submit tamely to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on the attackers all the way … Remember: Intelligence we do with a whisper. Investigations, we do with a yell.”

To carry out these intelligence and investigative activities, Hubbard formed the Guardian’s Office (GO) in 1966 and named as director, his third wife, Mary Sue. Headquartered in Los Angeles, the GO’s purpose, according to Mrs. Hubbard, was “to sweep, aside opposition sufficiently to create a vacuum into which Scientology could expand.”

“Use all possible lines of approach to obtain files, i.e., job penetration, janitor penetration, suitable guises utilizing covers, etc.,” instructed one GO policy. It wasn’t long before these counterattacks were put into practice. Hoden, a critic of the GO, confirms that the GO soon had agents working in the AMA and California Attorney General’s Office, and breaking into IRS, Justice Department and FBI offices. The World Federation of Mental Health was (coincidentally) burglarized of stationery and a list of delegates for an upcoming conference. Soon after, those delegates received notices on Federation stationery that the location of their conference had been changed from Washington, D.C., to Havana, Cuba.

The AMA was the target of an alleged GO campaign in the mid 1970s. Known as the “Sore Throat” case, it involved the leaking of international AMA memoranda detailing its often unethical political maneuvers and secret attempts to kill a 1970 generic drug bill that it publicly supported. An FBI investigation showed that the memos were most likely leaked by a Scientologist who had recently been hired by the AMA – but who also served as Pacific Secretary of the GO. (The operatives husband had been director of Scientology’s covert activities in Washington, D.C., and was later indicted by a federal grand jury for bugging a high-level IRS meeting in which Scientology’s tax-exempt status was discussed.)

Scientology officially disavowed itself of any knowledge of the “Sore Throat” case and no charges were brought against the Scientologist who had leaked the memoranda. But information made public by the leaks led to IRS, Post Office, Federal Election Commission and congressional investigations into the AMA before the case blew over.

The GO’s covert harassment was not restricted to operations against faceless government agencies. Individuals who church officials claim were “attacking” Scientology were the target of GO efforts as wall. A Hubbard policy released at the GO’s inception offered a blueprint for Scientology operations against individuals:

“As soon as one of these threats starts, you get a Scientologist or Scientologists to investigate noisily. You find out where he or she works or worked, doctor, dentist, friends, neighbors, anyone [sic] and phone up and say, ‘I am investigating Mr./Mrs…. for criminal activities as he/she as been trying to prevent Man’s freedom and is restricting my religious freedom’ just be NOISY – it’s, very odd at first, but makes fantastic sense and WORKS.”

An earlier Hubbard statement was even more explicit: “People who attack Scientology are criminals. Politician A stands up on his hind legs in a parliament and brays for condemnation of Scientology- When we look him over we find crimes – embezzled funds, moral lapses, a thirst for young boys – sordid stuff. ”

Perhaps the most damaging GO operation against an individual had as it’s target one Paulette Cooper, a Near York freelance journalist whose 1971 book “The Scandal of Scientology” examined early Scientology abuses. Upon publication of the book (which Cooper later admitted contained numerous factual inaccuracies), members of the GO initiated a comprehensive campaign, the purpose of which was, according to files uncovered in a 1977 FBI raid of the church’s L.A offices, “getting [Cooper] incarcerated in a mental institution or in jail.” (A file labeled “P.C.’s Personal Diaries” was also found.) Scientology quickly filed several lawsuits, and Cooper’s publisher chose to cease publication.

"Minutemen" line courthouse halls.

Inside Scientology: The Other Side of the Looking Glass (p.41)

In 1973, Cooper found herself under federal investigation on bomb threat and perjury charges after a Scientology undercover agent allegedly stole her personal stationery, and used it to forge two threatening letters to a high ranking Scientology official. Only after two years of unsuccessfully defending herself in the courts did Cooper agree to take a “truth serum” test, which she passed. Cooper’s total costs in clearing her name exceeded $28,000. (Hoden says that the church has since paid Cooper’s attorney’s fees under the condition that Cooper not speak to the press regarding the case, and has “mended the fence” for this old GO activity.)

The GO’s most embarrassing operation took place in 1976, when two Scientologists were caught late at night inside the Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C. One of the insiders turned government witness, and an ensuing investigation led to the conviction of nine top Scientology leaders – among them, Mary Sue Hubbard – on conspiracy and theft charges. Although Mrs. Hubbard appealed the conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the FBI raid on the Scientology offices that followed her indictment (in which 90,000 documents, burglar tools and electronic, surveillance equipment were confiscated) was unconstitutional”, she was sentenced to five years in prison (of which she served one) and fined $10,000.

Church documents provide startling insight into the detailed nature of the GO’s intelligence and subsequent cover-up operations. One 1975 document (marked at the top, “DO NOT COPY!!! “) notes as its “PURPOSE: To clean … files of legally actionable evidence against the GO and it personel [sic].” After first explaining the legal definition of “evidence” the memo describes the proper way to “vet”(or censor) internal intelligence reports of “illegal evidence.”

“Using a razor blade, cut out all parts of reports written by us that would indicate something illegal was happening, already did happen or was being planned,” reads the memo: “When shredding all the pieces you have to cut out please ensure you put the particle into the shredder so that the teeth of the shredder cut the line and not between the lines (put it in cross-wise.”)

The same memo outlines the types of information that should be vetted: “Evidence that anything was stolen by one of our guys … Implications of posing as a government agent … Evidence of tapping phone lines or illegal taping of conversations … Mentions of harassment of an individual … Any mention of bribery … Wordings like ‘this will get him’ or ‘let’s wipe him out’ . . – Any mentions, of entrapment setting up someone, to commit a crime either directly or indirectly. ”

Hoden is quick to admit that “a handful” of GO members were out of control. But he repeatedly stresses that “we got rid of the GO and all those people in 1981 and restructured the church to make sure those abuses never happen again. It’s unfair to keep criticizing us for things that took place 10 years ago and have since been rectified.”

In fairness, there is another light in which to view all these activities. According to Hoden, “there was not one criminal violation on the part of the church 1950 until 1966” – but then, faced coordinated attack from government agencies (see sidebar story), it had to strike back – and the GO over did it. “The fools cost us a big black eye,” Hoden says.

Scientology president Jentzsch goes even further, claiming the GO was driven to some of its acts by “agent provocateurs” infiltrated into the organization by government agencies under the federal Cointelpro program (for more information, again see sidebar). Although he cites only one person by name -Michael Meisner, a former member who became a key government witness, in the trial against Mary See Hubbard – Jentzsch, notes accurately that there is considerable documentation that U.S. government agencies did mount a Cointelpro operation against the church and that the use of infiltrated agents to drive organizations into acts they would not otherwise commit was standard Cointelpro fare. Jentzsch, however, does not deny that the GO did some ugly things on its own. “So we’ve had some bad people do some bad things. But look at the whole person. Look at who we are now.”

Hoden, confirmed, however, the existence of the Minutemen, describing them as “a loose organization of church people who stay in very close contact with each other and can be instantly called to respond very quickly to a problem.” Hoden stresses, however, that “they rally against court attacks on the church, not against individuals.” One such Minutemen operation, said Hoden, took place last year when thousands of Scientologists converged on a Portland, Oregon courthouse to protest a $39-million penalty against the church. (That decision was subsequently overturned and must be retired.) Another occurred last November, when 3,000 Scientologists jammed three floors of the L.A. County Courthouse to block public access in the OT-3 “Xenu” documents temporarily made public by a judge in the Wollersheim trial.

Nevertheless, Hoden insists that the disruption of the FAIR meeting at the Leo Block Temple was not a church-sanctioned Minutemen effort. “If I had wanted to organize something, we could have put 4,000 people in there,” says Hoden. “But I feel they have a First Amendment right to do what they’re doing, though what they’ve trying to do is create a fight, create a disturbance so it’ll get covered by the Press and make the church look like it’s something it’s not. They sent a mailer to people within the church announcing the meeting. That’s really stupid. That’s like running into a Jewish temple and saying it was great what Hitler did to the Jews. But, no, we didn’t do anything out there.”

Hoden added that he would definitely know of my such harassment operations. However, in a letter to temple Rabbi Leonard Beerman dated February 13, Hoden made it clear that such harassment can take place without his knowledge and that he has no intention of intervening or stopping it. “[Scientologists] are, as a rule, strong-minded, independent and ready to voice their opinions and feelings,” wrote Hoden. “If my of these protests have been distressing to your temple’s staff, I apologize. However, I cannot control the individual lives of members of my congregation, nor would I consider doing so.”

When asked on another occasion about a recent “Stamp Out Squirrel Tech” demonstration at an independent auditing center (the Advanced Ability Center in Santa Barbara) – one of 20 such incidents identified by church critics as alleged Minutemen operations over the past two years – Hoden admitted, “Oh yeah, I heard something about that.”

Church critics adamantly dispute Hoden’s assertion that the Minutemen do not carry out church-sanctioned, GO-like harassment campaigns. David Mayo, who claims he was abducted by Scientology agents and “imprisoned” on ethics charges in Gilman Hot Springs (the Scientology compound near Palm Springs when Hubbard resided before going underground) before “escaping,” as he puts it, to form the Advanced Ability Center, claims that Scientologists and private investigators hired by the church have harassed him.

“They’ve held demonstrations out front, physically attacked members and circulated wanted posters putting a price on our heads,” says Mayo. “I feel Scientology is a religion or philosophy, and I feel people who believe in it should be allowed to practice it … [ The attitude of church leaders is a huge contradiction. The church says it can give you the ability to reach self-determination, yet it handles dissent in exactly the opposite way.”

Early church member Fred Stansfield alleged "Minutemen victim."

Inside Scientology: The Other Side of the Looking Glass (p. 42)

Three alleged Minutemen incidents involved Fred Stanfield, a disaffected church member who was one of Hubbard’s earliest followers in the mid ’50s- Stansfield claims he received a death threat from a Scientologist “friend” on March 24, 1984 (a threat reported to the FBI). On October 20, 1985, incident allegedly involved a physical attack on Stansfield by four long time church members who also pelted his house with eggs, while a November 11 attack saw Stansfield verbally harassed by several people who identified themselves as Minutemen.

“These Minutemen and Hoden’s office work as the new GO,” says Stansfield. “The harassment is even more prevalent now than it used to be.”

Hoden dismisses the claims of Mayo and Stansfield and, indeed, of most church critics – as a combination of sour grapes, and financial motivation. “We kicked these people out of the church because we didn’t want them anymore,” says Hoden, who notes that a federal court judge recently ruled that Mayo must refrain from using certain religious scriptures until it is determined whether they were stolen from the church. “And many are new involved in lawsuits against the church. But those few people aren’t our problem. They’re just pawns being manipulated. Our actual problem is that we have cut across various plans by psychiatric associations and certain people in government, backed with millions of dollars, to control man with drugs. That’s our real problem.”

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free J.W. von Goethe

The question of who is enslaved and who is free – Scientologists or their critics – is a matter of personal judgment. However, two things seem evident. First, Scientologists should be allowed to practice their religion as long as it operates within the law. The majority of Scientologists seem happy (whether they are, being controlled or not) and the First Amendment guarantees their right to freely choose their beliefs. However, it’s equally clear that if Scientology is to achieve the mantle of “major religion” it insists it deserves, it must set aside its hyperparanoia and consider the constructive criticisms offered by people who obviously care about the Scientology process.

Whether Scientology’s problems are due to a global conspiracy outside the church or misplaced priorities and a “greedy, power hungry” ruling elite inside, as critics charge, or a combination of both, the stubborn insistence of church leaders that, the Church of Scientology is without fault and that everyone who offers criticism is a “wog” pawn of psychiatrists and politicians who most be silenced- betrays, at best, an irresponsible tunnel vision or, at worst a dangerous misunderstanding of the First Amendment and the church’s own putative creed.

As one former member puts it: “‘The Scientology process has done wonderful things for me and can help a lot of people. But the people who run the church have to realize that these problems of high prices and aggressive defense are like engrams blocking Scientology’s road to total freedom. Until they identify these problems and work to solve them, they can’t fault people for questioning their motives.”

The Government’s War Against SCIENTOLOGY

Scientologists say the church is engaged in “a war for the human spirit” against a global conspiracy involving psychiatrists, the Rockefeller family, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and the U.S. government (including the FBI, CIA and IRS). According to Ken Hoden, Scientologists feel that although each of these diverse entities have different reasons for attacking the church, their enemies have banded together as one to achieve a common end — “destroying the Church of Scientology. ’’

Whether a conspiracy as vast as this exists is problematical, but certainly Scientology has come under unwarranted investigation and unconstitutional attack from most if not all of these agencies, to an extent that might make any organization paranoid and defensive.

Scientology’s adversarial relationship with the psychiatric community doubtless began with L. Ron Hubbard, whose 1950 Dianetics vilified Freudian psychiatry. Hubbard frequently compared psychiatrists to Hitler and Genghis Khan throughout the final 35 years of his life. In return, in the early ’50s psychiatrists were quick to accuse Hubbard of quackery for his promises of what auditing could do. As the governmental and journalistic investigations into his controversial new religion multiplied during the mid-’S0s, Hubbard focused his attention on the World Federation for Mental Health, a psychiatric society he claimed orchestrated worldwide criticism of the church.

Scientology officials still regard the psychiatric community, fearful of Hubbard’s “bridge to total freedom,” as the driving force behind the church’s problems.

Scientologists believe, in fact, that it was a prominent German psychiatric clinic, one of the Max Planck Institutes, that first drew the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) into a “conspiracy” against the church. The Max Planck Institutes, named after the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, were organizations reconstituted after World War II from the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science and its subsidiary societies. A German Scientology magazine noted the connections between the Max Planck Institute’s psychiatric wing and its predecessor, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research, believed responsible for the murder of 275,000 people during the Nazi era.  Scientologists claim the Planck Institute arranged for Interpol to execute an elaborate smear campaign against the church.

To counter this, one of the church’s “reform” groups, the National Commission on Law Enforcement and Social Justice, soon began an investigation of Interpol. Scientologists say its commission discovered that Interpol, until as recently as 1972, had been led by former Nazis. (Their information was accurate.) The allegation infuriated Interpol leaders, who then turned to the U.S. government. Scientologists say the Nixon administration’s shadowy Counter-Intelligence Program (Cointelpro) devised an international network of “harassment and black propaganda” against the church. (Cointelpro, of course, achieved notoriety the Watergate era for its illegal activities against American citizens exercising their rights to freedom of speech and assembly. Two high-ranking FBI officials were ultimately sentenced to prison terms for their roles in Cointelpro.)

According to church officials, government operations involving the FBI, CIA and IRS had sought to undermine Scientology’s credibility since the program’s earliest days. “The strength of those government groups lies in control and manipulation,” says Ken Hoden. “We encourage freedom, so there was immediate conflict. Cointelpro has since infiltrated and disrupted our church, accused us of selling drugs, and generally slandered our church around the world, just like it did to Martin Luther King.”

Although there is considerable documented evidence that some Cointelpro actions against the church took place (including FBI insertion of undercover agents in the church), their extent is not clear. But certainly government agencies sought to get other agencies involved in a campaign against the church and, as Scientologists charge, its freedoms were not respected.

Whether or not at Interpol’s prompting, the church and the U.S. government have been at each other’s throats for more than 30 years. Scientology’s Founding Church in Washington, D.C., was listed on Richard Nixon’s infamous IRS “enemies list,” along with such groups as the Black Panthers and Students for a Democratic Society. Scientologists claim several key letters between Scientology churches have mysteriously found their ways to IRS offices in Fresno and Ogden, Utah. And the FBI staged a massive raid on the church’s Berendo headquarters in 1977 after Scientology operatives were caught in federal courthouses trying to steal government files on Scientology.

The conflict has escalated in recent years as the church, desperate to ward off harassing government investigations and illegal government actions, stepped up its counter-investigation against the government. Scientology’s Freedom magazine has broken several major stories embarrassing to its government targets, including a report of the Army’s mid-1960s experiments in which unsuspecting travelers in Washington, D.C. ’s National Airport were exposed to dangerous bacteria in simulation of a germ-warfare attack. Freedom has also printed confidential IRS memos documenting questionable IRS tax auditing practices, and the magazine continues to solicit testimony on IRS abuses through prominent newspaper ads.

According to church leaders; the current point man for the “legal assault” against Scientology is Michael Flynn, a Boston-based attorney who has represented several former church members in lawsuits against the church. Ken Hoden accuses Flynn of carrying out a “premeditated and very exact plan to destroy the church,” backing the claim with alleged notes removed from Flynn’s trash by Scientologists which detail a plan to enlist witnesses against the church, though not beyond what any good lawyer would do to support his case. Scientologists also accuse Flynn of forging a $2 million check against a personal Hubbard account, a charge that is currently being investigated by a Boston grand jury.

Flynn denies these accusations, and in turn accuses the church of hiring private detectives to follow him around the country and harass his family. Hoden concedes that detectives hired by church attorneys have followed Flynn around the country, but claims the act was justified. “He [Flynn] has worked with the government and taken money to sue the church from the Rockefellers, who feel that Scientology is a threat to their psychiatry and pharmacological interests, in an orchestrated effort to bring down the church.” (Documents show that Flynn has received about $135,000 in grants from a Rockefeller philanthropic trust.)

Critics insist that church leaders have invented this conspiracy scenario to unify members into an “us against them” army fighting for mankind’s freedom. But Ken Hoden and other church leaders express unwavering confidence in their conspiracy theory. “The proof is there,” says Hoden. “Who’s harassing whom?”

“Everybody always points at what the church has done, which was only to defend ourselves,” says church president Heber Jentzsch. “But the real story that nobody wants to look at is what was done to us by government agencies acting illegally. That’s the story.”  -R.C.

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.
  2. See The Breckenridge Decision, filed 22 June 1984.

Sentencing Memorandum: USA v. Jane Kember, Morris Budlong, aka Mo Budlong (December 16, 1980)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JANE KEMBER
MORRIS BUDLONG
a/k/a MO BUDLONG
:

:

:

:

Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3) 1

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States of America respectfully submits this Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court in imposing sentence in this case.

I.
Introduction

The defendants, Jane Kember and Morris Budlong, were each found guilty, following a jury trial, of nine counts of aiding and abetting burglary in the second degree. The evidence which led the jury to return these guilty verdicts revealed that during the years 1973 to 1976 the defendants ordered the commission of brazen, systematic and persistent burglaries of United States Government offices. Their purpose was to ransack these offices of all documents of interest to the organization which they led — the Guardian’s Office of the Church of Scientology — in order to secure total exemption from taxation and to protect Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard. In the process, from their headquarters in East Grinstead, England, they challenged and attempted to undermine the judicial and governmental structure of the United States. They did so by fraudulently using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a manner never intended by the Congress of the United States.

As this Court heard, these defendants set about filing FOIA requests with various Government agencies in order, inter alia, to cause these agencies to gather all the requested documents in a central repository for the review process mandated by the FOIA. Once the Guardian’s Office discovered where these documents were located, they began a systematic pillaging of that office — repeated

– 2 –

and surreptitiously breaking into that office, taking the documents, photocopying them with Government equipment and supplies, and replacing them in the Government files so that, in the words of defendant Budlong, these thefts would not be uncovered.

Notwithstanding the fact that they had obtained illegally all the documents they were seeking, they proceeded to file FOIA suits in the courts of this country, complaining that the particular Government agencies had not given them all the documents to which they were entitled. Thus, they perpetrated a fraud upon the American judicial system. They came into the American courts with unclean hands, seeking documents which they had already obtained by violating the laws of the United States. After abusing the trial courts, they proceeded to abuse the appellate courts never disclosing that they were engaging in litigation in bad faith, totally heedless of the waste of judicial resources involved. Such conduct, which strikes at the very heart of the judicial system, cannot be tolerated.

These defendants additionally ordered the theft of documents and memoranda of attorneys representing the United States Government, a party against whom they had instituted a variety of lawsuits. They did so to discover the attorneys’ legal strategy and gain an unfair strategic advantage in the courts. In effect, they violated the attorney-client privilege of every litigant who opposed them, a fact which they seek to obfuscate by complaining in bad faith, that their own attorney-client privileges were violated. Such conduct cannot be permitted in our judicial system.

Once their emissaries were caught in the midst of one of their criminal acts, the defendants orchestrated from England a massive obstruction of the due administration of justice. Such outrageous conduct, which, we submit, this Court can consider under standards recognized by the Supreme Court, strikes at the very heart of our judicial system — a system which has often, at crucial times in our history, been the savior of our institutions.

– 3 –

Moreover, a review of the documents seized from the two Los Angeles, California, offices of the Guardian’s Office — including log books of messages from these two defendants — show the incredible and sweeping nature of the criminal conduct of these defendants. Indeed, Guardian Program Order 158, and some of the other orders in evidence, have already provided the Court with a glimpse of this conduct. These crimes included: the infiltration and theft of documents from a number of prominent private, national, and world organizations, law firms, newspapers, and private citizens; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless law suits for the sole purpose of destroying private individuals who had attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; the framing of private citizens who had been critical of Scientology, including the forging of documents which led to the indictment of at least one innocent person; and violation of the civil rights of prominent private citizens and public officials. These are but a few of the criminal acts of these two defendants which, we submit, give the Court a glimpse of the heinous and vicious nature of their crimes.

In view of the severity of the crimes of which the defendants Kember and Budlong were convicted, the high level of their positions in the organizational hierarchy of the Guardian’s Office, compared with the positions held by their nine co-defendants who were convicted after a non-jury trial based on an uncontested stipulation of evidence, as well as the additional information which we now bring to this Court’s attention, we submit that the public interest demands the imposition of substantial terms of incarceration. This Court must make it clear beyond peradventure that the criminal conduct of these two defendants cannot be countenanced, and that anyone who sets about masterminding and executing the crimes of which they were convicted, uses and then tampers with the judicial

– 4 –

system as they have, will be dealt with in the most severe terms provided by the law.

II.
The Law

The right of this Court to consider evidence of other crimes prior to imposing a sentence has long been recognized. It is well settled that “before making [a sentencing] determination, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972). Courts have a duty to obtain as much information as they can about a convicted defendant’s background, character, and conduct, criminal or otherwise, so that they can impose a sentence to fit the circumstances of the ease and the individual defendant. See United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978); 18 U.S.C. S 3577 (1976). Thus, hearsay assertions are admissible, Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959), as is information about prior crimes committed by the defendant, even if the indictments for those crimes are pending, United States v. Metz, 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 919 (1973); or the defendant was never tried for the other crimes, Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 244 (1949); or the charges were dismissed without an adjudication on the merits, United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 843 (1965); United States v. Needles, 472 F.2d 652, 655 (2d Cir. 1973); or the defendant otherwise avoided conviction. United States v. Jones, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 233, 307 F.2d 190 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 919 (1963); United States v. Cifarelli, 401 F.2d 512, 514 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 987 (1968). Even facts developed in prosecutions where the defendant was acquitted can be considered by the sentencing judge. United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1972).

– 5 –

In addition, the Court can consider all the circumstances surrounding a defendant’s conviction for the present crime. A court is also warranted in increasing the sentence when it believes that the defendant has undermined the judicial system through repeated perjury. United States v. Grayson, supra.

III.
The Charges on Which the Defendants Were Convicted and the Continuation of the Burglaries after Meisner and Wolfe Were Caught.

Each of the two defendants now before the Court were found guilty of nine counts of aiding and abetting second degree burglaries of government offices at the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and the office of an Assistant United States Attorney in this very courthouse. The evidence at their trial proved beyond any doubt that the defendants not only commanded and directed these burglaries but also received the fruits of the burglaries — copies of the stolen Government documents — and that they commended and awarded their subordinates for their success in these criminal endeavors. Based on this overwhelming evidence, with which this Court is intimately familiar, a jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty against both defendants.

The evidence further shows, however, that the defendants did not stop their elaborate schemes on June 11, 1976 when they were informed that Michael Meisner and Gerald Bennett Wolfe had been confronted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations in this very courthouse during one of their attempted burglaries. Indeed, to the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the defendants continued to issue Guardian Orders and directives commanding crimes identical to those for which they have been convicted. We submit that such evidence is probative at a sentencing because it brings into focus more than anything else the refusal by the defendants to live by the law — their apparently intractable

– 6 –

conviction that they are somehow above the law. This is illustrated by Mrs. Hubbard’s statement on the witness stand that she and her codefendants, including these two defendants, felt they could do to others whatever they perceived, however erroneously, others were doing to them. Thus, they created the “Intelligence” or “Information” Bureau because they decided they had no use for the lawful remedies provided by our legal system. See e.g.: Government Exhibit No. 2 at trial. Such behavior, we submit, cannot be tolerated in any civilized society.

The following is a sampling of a few of the directives and orders which show that the defendants continued their illegal activities beyond June 1976:

Date and Exhibit Order or Communication
 31 July 1976
(Gov’t Exh. No. 109)
(Exh. No. 1 hereto)
Compliance Report Re: Guardian Program Order 302 Operating Target 5. Lists priorities for penetration of Government agencies. Among agencies targeted for penetration: CIA, FBI, Defense Communications Agency, Federal Protective Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of the President and Vice President of the United States, the United States Senate, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
 15 October 1976
(Gov’t Exh. No. 107)
(Exh. No. 2 hereto)
 Defendant Budlong to Richard Weigand: “Attached is a project which can be utilized to debug and accomplish any infiltrating target you may have trouble with in your area.” Budlong demands that n[e]ach time it is implemented . . . B 1 WW is to be notified.”The attached project is called WEAVER’S NEEDLE. Major Target: “To successfully infiltrate (name of agency or organization) to locate and obtain their files on the C of S.”
 27 May 1977
(Gov’t Exh. No. 111)
(Exh. No. 3 hereto)
Defendant Jane Kember reissues Guardian Program Order 158 as GPgmO 158 R (Reissue). While tracking the previous order of 5 December 1975 it refines it and changes some of the targets. Defendant Budlong’s title appears immediately before Kember’s name at the end of the order, indicating he approved the order.

– 7 –

3 June 1977
(Gov’t Exh. No. 112)
(Exh. No. 4 hereto)
U.S. Secretary W.W. Hermann Brendel in a communication sent to defendants Kember and Budlong also lists priorities for B 1 U.S., including obtaining all U.S. Government files, and U.S. District Attorney, Los Angeles, files. It lists various operations against private individuals and organizations and state agencies including getting: (1) Susan Mondale “checked out;” (2) “Time-Life Books discredited.”

Additionally, based upon the correspondence between the defendant Jane Kember and Deputy Guardian U.S. Henning Heldt, there is no question but that the defendant Kember directed, encouraged, and personally monitored the Guardian’s Office attempt to attack and destroy Assistant United States Attorney Nathan Dodell. Indeed on June 6, 1976, defendant, Kember wrote to Heldt: “Have we ever done a really thorough B1 investigation of Dodell? . . . let me know what B1 found on him . . . want the intelligence] actions looked over.” That directive was complied with on 29 June 1976. See Exh. No. 6 hereto. Then on June 9, 1976 defendant Kember telexed former co-defendant Heldt: “Re: Justice Dodell attack strategy & yr desp[atch] 4 June. I consider that yr actions are excellent and that you are holding the line beautifully. V[ery] Well] D[one] and let me know how it goes.” She was given the information on 29 June 1976. See Exh. No. 7 hereto.

We submit that a mere sampling of the orders and communications emanating from these defendants indicates their heavy involvement not only in the criminal activities for which they were convicted but also in identical criminal activities for at least the year following the FBI’s confrontation with Meisner and Wolfe in this 1/ courthouse. Such a pervasive pattern of conduct would indicate

 


1/ While Kember and Budlong claim that the burglaries were carried out solely to remove “false reports” from Government files, the documents show otherwise. In fact, one of the programs of the Guardian’s Office called for the deliberate planting of false reports in Government files. In a World Wide project issued 16 September 1975 by (continued on next page)

– 8 –

that the only reason our proof of these criminal ventures ends in June 1977 is that the searches took place on July 8, 1977. One can only speculate as to whether these illegal activities were ever terminated by these defendants.

 


1/ (continued from preceding page) aide David Gaiman, Deputy Guardian for Public Relations World-Wide, an operation is ordered to plant false information in U.S. Security agency computers, “to hold up the American security to ridicule, as outlined in the GO by LRH.” It describes the plan as “to take a cat with a pedigree name . . . and to get the name into a computer file, together with a record whether it be criminal, social welfare, driving or whatever; and to build the sequence of events to the point where the creature holds a press conference and photographic story results.” The project called for the use of plants to place the false information into U.S. security agency computers. See Exh. No. 5 hereto.

-9-

IV.
The Obstruction of justice
The seized documents demonstrate beyond peradventure that the two defendants before the Court for sentencing, Jane Kember and Morris Budlong, from their secure haven in East Grinstead, England, orchestrated a massive cover-up, obstructing the administration of justice in the ‘United States. They suppressed and fabricated evidence to be presented to and the grand jury in order to insulate from liability for the crimes which they investigating authorities themselves and Scientology had ordered and committed, including the nine burglaries of which they now stand convicted.

In so doing, they committed crimes ranging from harboring a fugitive to suborning perjury. Not only did they commit these crimes against the American judicial system, but they did so with impunity. Examples from a few of the seized documents provide a flavor of the brazenness and singlemindedness with which these two defendants set about obstructing the American judicial system. We submit that this Court not only can, but indeed should, consider this evidence in assessing the culpability of these defendants and the likelihood of their rehabilitation, or lack of such likelihood.

A. As to Jane Kember, the following are summaries of but a few of her communications which show her clearly at the helm of the conspiracy to obstruct justice:

Date and Exhibit Communication
June 25, 1976
GWW Log Book,
p. 141 (Exh. No.
8, hereto)
Jane Kember sends telex to Henning Heldt: “Re: Guardian’s Office D.C., Evaluation. Leave Herbert [Meisner] where he is. If Patsy [Meisner] not OK work out other solution.” [Complied to November 18, 1976].
October 29, 1976
GWW Log Book,
p. 149, (Exh. No.
Jane Kember sends telex to Henning Heldt: “Henning. I am totally overrun

– 10 –

9 hereto) on not getting vital date from BI lines. I want the following data in full. Re: MH [Mike Meisner] and your Boffin eval which has not even been received at WW. Are you having trouble with MM [Meisner] and why? I want full report and precise details. What are the possibilities of a Grand Jury investigation? I want full details. Why does the CSG [Mary Sue Hubbard] ordered time schedule have to be altered to await the outcome of the Silver [Wolfe] trial. If MM pleaded guilty could he then just say nothing or appear to be type 3 [crazy)? Will you please get me a full report on this whole scene without any justifications as to security being the reason for withhold of vital data. Much love, Jane.”
November 1, 1976
GWW Log Book,
p. 150 (Exh. No. 10 hereto)
Jane Kember sends telex to Henning Heldt: “Problems appear to be with MM [Meisner] (1) Overts [thoughts against Scientology] been pulled [i.e., drawn out of him in an auditing session]?; (2) Is he producing? (3) Anyone explained that cooperation out of the question; (4) anyone explained why we want Silver’s case handled first?; and (5) anyone explained he will not open his mouth? . . .”
November 1, 1976
GW Log Book,
p. 151 (Exh. No. 11
hereto)
Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: “D.C. MM [Meisner] Mess. Please get BI data up the line fast and also data on urgent situations.”
November 12, 1976,
GWW Log Book,
p. 155 Exh. No.
12 hereto)
Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: “Re: Herbert [Meisner]. That sounds much better. Please let me know when his overts have been pulled.” [See Exh. No. 10, supra).
January 11, 1977,
GWW Log Book,
p. 162 Exh. No.
13 hereto)
Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: “Henning, Please send me a list of all the people who know about the M [Meisner] cycle. Then please report on how you are getting eyes only actually being duplicated and all extraneous people off, repeat off, the lines. Much love, Jane.”
April 20, 1977,
Exh. No. 14
hereto)
Handwritten letter from Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: [Jane Kember sets out in detail the present plans for the cover-up, and asks what is causing the delay in completion of the cover-up. She concludes: “Please write a detailed

– 11 –

report which actually answers these questions . . .”].

B. As to Morris Budlong, the seized documents clearly show that every detail of the cover-up had to receive his specific approval.

For example:

Date and Exhibit Communication
September 28, 1976
(Exh. No. 15
hereto)
from Mo Budlong to Dick Weigand, DGIUS, cc to Jane Kember: Sets forth plan for harboring Meisner as a fugitive (change his identity, go into hiding) and obstructing justice by having Wolfe plead guilty, giving no details of the reason for being in the courthouse. Concludes: “If any of the above is not clear, please ask immediately as I don’t want any confusions on what has to be done.”
November 2, 1976
(Exh. No. 16
hereto)
Mo Budlong sends telex to Greg Willardson, DDGIUS, criticizing the Information Bureau for handling the obstruction of justice by itself without help from the Legal Bureau. Concludes: “Rectify this immediately. BI handles security and keeps M [Meisner] and Silver [Wolfe] cheered up. Legal handles the cases and Legal handling. You will wrap all of BI round a telegraph pole if you continue this way. Send full explanation by telex, Love, Mo.”
December 1, 1976
(Exh. No. 17
hereto)
To Mo Budlong, cc: to Jane Kember, from Mitchell Hermman: Sets out details on how the obstruction of justice is being handled in the United States Guardian’s Office. Concludes by telling Mo Budlong that the overall cover story for Meisner and Wolfe is being prepared for his final approval.
January 24, 1977
(Exh. No. 18
hereto)
Telex to Mo Budlong from Dick Weigand, DGIUS: “Re: Silver [Wolfe]: Justice going for Grand Jury on Silver matter this month. Also Justice wants to talk with Silver. Plan is to stall Grand Jury by Silver promise of talk in end of January. Handling is to get Silver briefed and drilled at US by BI and Legal to give Justice admission of guilt and back-up story if needed from Herbert [Meisner] Pjt currently at WW, specifically Tgt. 4. Need your ok on use of Tgt. 4 to proceed.

– 12 –

Intention is with Silver drilled and briefed he can get Justice to drop Grand Jury. Grand Jury not wanted as Silver could be given immunity then made to give data as no 5th Amendment rights after immunity. Then data from him could be used to get us or Herb [Meisner) or even used against Silver if proved false. Can I get your telex OK or not OK on Tgt. 4 so as to proceed. Love, DGIUS. . .
January 24, 1977
(Exh. No. 19 hereto)
In reply to the above, Mo Budlong sends telex to Dick Weigand, DGIUS: “Target 4 on my copy is to brief Silver on story. This is OK but DGLWW requires more data on grand jury’s powers and has asked DGIUS for same [A] If Silver [Wolfe] states that he will plead guilty will Grand Jury proceed? [B] Is Grand Jury going for indictment on Silver or Murphy? [C] If Silver is to plead guilty, why does he need a story? [D] Also per plan, if Murphy [Meisner] is to plead guilty, why does he need a story? Surely sequence is he is arrested, goes to trial, pleads guilty and is sentenced. Much love, MO.”
January 24, 1977
(Exh. No. 20 hereto)
In reply to the above, Dick Weigand telexes Mo Budlong: “Re: Silver [Wolfe]. Reply to your Q’s: (A) If Silver pleads guilty, matter should not go to Grand Jury. This needs to be verified by Legal. (B) Grand Jury is for Silver. (C) Story for following: United States Attorney’s Office District of Columbia has theory that Silver and Herb [Meisner] after documents for Church. They want to determine what Silver was up to and will drop charges if they determine theory not true. A meeting with them was set up at their request to go over this. Silver story for meeting. Purpose twofold: to provide time for legal to research and to see if U.S. Attorney’s Office can be convinced to drop charges. Silver attorney predicts Silver will be charged with impersonation and forgery of I.D. and trespass. Silver has acknowledged doing this. Difficulties would come if he were also charged with conspiracy and Grand Jury was used to try to develop this charge aimed at Church. (D) Murphy [Meisner] story would be needed for same sit. . .
May 3, 1977
(Exh. No. 21 hereto)
To Mo Budlong from DGIUS, Dick Weigand and Greg Willardson, DDGIUS; reports on handling of Meisner due to his lack of cooperation: “We went back to BI and organized a crew of guys to handle the worst eventualities

– 13 –

May 2, 1977
(Exh. No. 22 hereto)
by force if necessary (i.e., gag, handcuffs, etc.)”

“We eventually got to [Meisner’s] at about 2:15 a.m., 30 April, and Dick, Brian (SE Sec) and I went in to see [Meisner] first with the three guards . . . Herbert was quite upset about the guards initially . . . [H]e was not going to allow guards staying with him. He then threatened that then he would have to leave even if he had to make a scene, including involving the police . . . .

“At times throughout the above conversations the guards and I were searching through his belongings removing any materials connected with the Church or his notes on the scene, and safeguarding dangerous implements like knives, razors, etc. . . .

“We then left at about 6-6:30 a.m. with the guards in charge.”May 2, 1977 (Exh. No. 22 hereto)To Mo Budlong from DGIUS, Dick Weigand: . . . The guards stayed with [Meisner] and are with him now.

“Then on Saturday and Sunday I had people continue to look for a better place to take him. Sunday a place was found and Brian and the guards tried to move him. He refused and said he would pull in all sorts of trouble if we tried to get him out the door. He was physically removed from the building, and taken to the new place where he is still under constant watch. His auditing will hopefully be started today as the auditor is getting handled today . . . .”June 7, 1977 (Exh. 23 hereto)Letter (CSW) from DGIUS to Mo Budlong containing handwritten approval by Budlong: DGIUS proposes a slight change in the cover story to be used by Meisner when he turns himself in after a year as a fugitive. He is to claim that he found out he was wanted by calling his wife, instead of by calling Wolfe, as was originally the story. Mo approves the change in the cover story on June 15, 1977, writing: “This change is fine. Love, Mo B”June 22, 1977 (Exh. No. 24 hereto)To Mo Budlong, cc: to Jane Kember, from Cindy Raymond: Mo (and Jane) are informed attached) that Meisner has escaped and that B-I is developing programs, inter alia, to provide a cover for “his turning.”

– 14 –

Thus, as the evidence shows, these defendants orchestrated an elaborate cover-up, beginning in June 1976 and continuing through June 1977 and, no doubt, thereafter. In fact, a significant part of the defense they presented at trial — their attack on the integrity and reliability of Michael Meisner — was foreshadowed in the “obstruction documents.” They presented this Court with a shabby attempt at impeaching Meisner’s credibility by claiming that he stole money from the Church — the same false claim they made against another former Scientologist who had the courage to expose their crimes and thus fell victim to their fair game doctrine. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797 (Ct. App.. 1976), cert. denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977).

It is the two defendants before the Court for sentencing who, along with their already convicted and sentenced cohort, Mary Sue Hubbard, bear the greatest degree of responsibility for the massive conspiracy to obstruct justice which they jointly directed. While the others already convicted of that offense (Henning Heldt, Duke Snider, Gregory Willardson, Richard Weigand, Cindy Raymond, and Gerald Bennett Wolfe) indeed deserved the punishment they received, they acted under direct orders of Jane Kember and Morris Budlong, a factor appropriate for consideration by this Court in assessing the relative severity of the sentences that the defendants Kember and Budlong should receive.

– 15 –

V.
Other Crimes Committed by These Defendants

The defendants’ contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in order to protect their Church from Government harrassment collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants. If anything, these documents establish beyond question that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured 2/them by the Constitution. The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment. Their targets included, among others, the American Medical Association (AMA), which had branded Scientology’s practice of “dianetics” as “quackery”; the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which sought to

 


2/ This is precisely how Scientology’s critics viewed Scientology’s activities. Newsweek, November 20, 1978 at 133: “The Church of Scientology relies on suits and petty harassment to register its complaints. In August, the Scientologists slapped a $1 million suit on the Los Angeles Times after it ran a series about the Church. The lilies wasn’t accused of libel; rather, the Scientologists claimed that the paper conspired with the FBI and Justice Department to violate the church’s civil rights by poisoning the atmosphere before a trial” of the nine convicted co-defendants. See also discussion, infra, regarding Scientology’s lawsuits against its perceived “enemy”, Paulette Cooper.

– 16 –

respond to private citizens’ inquiries about the courses offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to report the news and inform the public, law firms which represented individuals and organizations against whom Scientology initiated law suits (often for the sole purpose of harrassment); private citizens who attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize an organization whose tactics they condemned; and public officials who sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected or appointed in a fair and even-handed manner. To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, supra. That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person,” “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. (He may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Id., 58 Cal. App. 3d at 443 n.1, 129 Cal. Rptr. at 800 n.1. 3/ This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.

The United States submits that the activities outlined in this section show the scope, breadth and severity of the crimes committed


3/ This led the California Court of Appeals to state that “Any party whose tenets include lying and cheating in order to attack its ‘enemies’ deserves the results of the risk which such conduct entails.” Id., 58 Cal. App. 3d at 452, 129 Cal. Rptr. at 805.

Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that the fair game policy continued in effect well after the indictment in this case and the conviction of the first nine co-defendants. Defendants claim that the policy was abrogated by the Church’s Board of Directors in late July or early August, 1980, only after the defendants’ personal attack on Judge Richey. Transcript of September 5, 1980, at 14.

– 17 –

by the defendants in this case. It is for this very reason that the United States believes that the defendants must be sentenced to substantial terms of incarceration.

A. Private Organizations

American Medical Association

In the early 1970’s, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued an order concerning the “Great Health Monopoly”, which accused the AMA of monopolizing health care to the exclusion of groups such as Scientology. In this order, Hubbard called for the break-up of the AMA.

In accordance with the Founder’s policy, the AMA’s Chicago headquarters were first infiltrated by Scientology in 1972. Documents stolen during this period were utilized in the publication of a book written by unindicted co-conspirator Joe Lisa using a pseudonym. The book, entitled “In the Public Interest,” was covertly published and distributed by the Information Bureau of the Guardian’s Office in order to discredit the AMA.

In early 1974, Michael Meisner, then the Assistant Guardian for Information in the District of Columbia, was ordered to recruit and place an agent in the AMA’s District of Columbia office. Co-defendant Hermann, who was in charge of covert operations in the District of Columbia, recruited June Byrne and assisted her in infiltrating the local AMA office under the false name of Lisa Giannotti.4/ Among the documents photocopied and stolen by Byrne

 


4/ See Exh. No. 25 hereto, which contains much correspondence among co-defendants Heldt, Weigand and Raymond, with copies sent to defendants Kember and Budlong, concerning the use of Ms. Byrne as a covert operative at the Clearwater Sun newspaper, following her detection by AMA investigators in 1975. At page 4, co-defendant Heldt writes: “P.S. We must get this reported to WW.

At page nineteen, co-defendant Raymond stated that June Byrne had been blown as a Scientology agent at the Clearwater Sun. She added “that there is a chain of events leading up to the base blown agents which starts in late 1974 when June (The CWSUN FSM) was placed in (continued on next page)

– 18 –

were minutes of meetings between the AMA and the National Medical Association; memoranda of discussions with the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and memoranda regarding the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) and the Co-ordinating Committee on Health Information (CCHI).

Another covert operative was placed in the Chicago headquarters of the AMA in order to obtain all documents on the CCHI. That agent, Sherry Hermann, a/k/a Sherry Canavaro, a/k/a Sandy Cooper, obtained all these documents and relayed them to her husband, co-defendant Mitchell Hermann who was her case agent. (Exhibit No. 26 hereto.)

In the Spring of 1975, Mr. Meisner received an order to covertly leak to the press the numerous AMA documents which had been obtained in the District of Columbia and Chicago. That action was intended to provoke investigations of the AMA’s tax exempt status by Congressional Committees, the IRS, and the Federal Trade Commission. Pursuant to these directives, Mr. Meisner was to anonymously contact reporters and send them copies of these stolen documents… Newspapers subsequently referred to that anonymous source as “Sore Throat.” Defendants Kember and Budlong were kept constantly apprised of the operations concerning the AMA, and indeed encouraged these activities. Thus, for example, on October 16, 1975, Jane Kember told Henning Heldt, in response to a report of his on October 7, 1975: “AMA: SORE THROAT . . . Let me know how this goes.” GWW Log, p. 101, Exh. No. 27 hereto. And again on October 21, 1975, defendant Kember telexed to Heldt the cover story to be used by AMA infiltrators, if caught:

Henning Re: Sore Throat . . . David [Gaiman –


4/ (continued from preceding page) the AMA D.C.” Co-defendant Raymond discussed, the placement of Jodie Gumpert as a second covert agent at the AMA in the District of Columbia, her detection by the AMA, and her subsequent infiltration of the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce.

– 19 –

DGPRWW] has laid down a strategy which is to enable us to contain the scene. Our plants when trapped are Freedom investigative reporters just like any other newspaper. The plants themselves do not have to confess or be named. . . . We can undercut AMA’s continual effort to expose us by indicating it is a smokescreen to prevent Freedom from publishing. . . . MLV, Jane

GWW Log, p. 101, Exh. No. 27 hereto. Likewise, on October 7, 1975, defendant Budlong telexed Weigand, DGIUS:

Dick, Sore Throat is an Intelligence matter. Nothing in your data indicates a situation requiring other Bureau assistance. Send full data on the scene before you hand Sore Throat matter over to anyone else. Love, Mo

DGIWW Log, p. 27, Exh. 27-A hereto.

Better Business Bureau

The infiltration of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) began on  December 4, 1972, with the placement of Sherry Canavaro (later Sherry Hermann, a/k/a Sandy Cooper) as a covert agent within that organization. (Document No. 16727.) Defendants Kember and Budlong were informed of Scientology’s covert operations within the CBBB and prospects that the covert agent might become the CBBB’s representative to the CCHI (Coordinating Conference on Health Information). (Exhibit No. 28 hereto).5/

Mental Health Organizations

Guardian Order 121569 MSH (1) issued on December 15, 1969, directed the infiltration of all mental health organizations both nationally and world-wide. Exhibit No. 29 hereto. This Guardian Order was carried out on a number of fronts by operatives of the Information Bureau headed by defendant Budlong. Thus local mental

 


5/ One of the functions of the CCHI was to coordinate efforts against groups believed to promote quackery. The defendants were successful in having their covert operative become the CBBB’s representative to two CCHI meetings, one of which she was able to tape.

– 20 –

health organizations were infiltrated by covert operatives in Las Vegas and St. Louis. Indeed, the Assistant Guardian for Information in Las Vegas reported that “everything possible was done to collect this data, everything from infiltration to stealing to eavesdropping, etc. . . .” (Document No. 13336.)

Co-Defendant Sharon Thomas was recruited as a covert operative in 1973 in the District of Columbia by co-defendant Snider, the Assistant Guardian. She was later assigned to infiltrate the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Beginning in January 1974, co-defendant Hermann supervised co-defendant Thomas’ APA thefts. While in the APA, co-defendant Thomas stole documents regarding Scientology as well as confidential files of the APA’s Ethics Committee concerning complaints against psychiatrists. (Document Nos. 8804 and 8805.) These stolen documents were sent to defendant Budlong.

Moreover, Guardian Program Order 1238 (Exhibit No. 30 hereto), issued la the defendant Kember and approved a the defendant Budlong, had as its “major target:”

To obtain the information necessary to take over the control of NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health) while at the same time establishing the lines and resources to be used in taking over NIMH.

Also included in that program were the infiltration of the Public Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA).

“Anti-Cult” Groups

The Los Angeles-seized documents set out a variety of actions instituted by the defendants and their organization against individuals and groups engaged in so-called “anticult” activities. In February 1977, Jane Kember promulgated Guardian Program Order 1017, entitled “ARM (Anti-Religion Movement) Clean Sweep” (Document No. 13724), which had been approved by defendant Budlong. That Guar-

– 21 –

dian Order called for the placement of “covert agents” for “data collection lines” with anti-cult groups. (Id. at 1.)

B. Law Firms

As part of their criminal activities the defendants actively encouraged burglaries and thefts of documents from private law firms in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California, that represented private organizations sued by Scientology, including the law firm of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn, in D.C.

At least three burglaries were committed during the early months of 1976 at the law offices of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn, who then represented the St. Petersburg Times in a Scientology-initiated law suit. Defendants Kember and Budlong were regularly kept informed of the results. In February and March 1976 three entries were made into the office of Jack Bray and his secretary at the above-mentioned law firm, the first one by Richard Kimmel, the acting Assistant Guardian for Information in the District of Columbia, and the second one by Kimmel and Michael Meisner. On each occasion, documents outlining the law firm’s strategy in defending the law suit brought against the St. Petersburg Times were taken. See Exhibit No. 31 hereto, a telex from defendant Duke Snider to the World-Wide Guardian’s Office, dated 13 February 1976, setting out information obtained by Kimmel from Mr. Bray’s office.

C. Private Individuals And Public Officials

The defendants directed and encouraged a number of covert operations against private individuals and public officials to destroy and discredit these persons because they had either attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights by criticizing Scientology or by attempting to carry out their duties as public officials.

– 22 –

Paulette Cooper

As early as February 29, 1972, defendant Kember had written the DGIUS (then Terry Milner) directing that he find out information about Paulette Cooper so that she could be “handled” (Exh. No. 32 hereto). Paulette Cooper is the author of The Scandal of Scientology, a work highly critical of Scientology. Kember’s interest in handling Cooper continued, and her loyal workers in the United States carried out incredible schemes pursuant to Kember’s directive. 6/ In March 1976, Mo Budlong’s deputy at World-Wide asked for details on an Operation Dynamite to be carried out against Paulette Cooper. The operation was delegated to the Northeast Information Bureau Secretary, with the directive to “Report to WW.” (Exh. No. 33, DGIWW log book pp. 72 and 73.) Also in 1976, the highest ranking Scientologists in the United States, including at least six of the co-defendants (Heldt, Snider, Weigand, Willardson, Hermmann, and Raymond), designed a series of plans in furtherance of the directives of co-defendants Kember and Budlong, which had as their goal Paulette Cooper’s imprisonment or commitment to a mental institution.

In the Spring of 1976 six separate schemes were devised with the express purpose

“To get P.C. (Paulette Cooper) incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks.”

(See Operation Freakout dated 1 April 1976, Exhibit No. 34 hereto; see also Exhibit No. 35.) Their stated purpose was “[t]o remove PC [Paulette Cooper] from her position of Power so that she cannot attack the C[hurch] of S[cientology].” The six separate schemes

 


6/ In addition to Kember’s specific directive that Cooper be handled,” Mo Budlong and other World-Wide supervisors were under standing orders to see to it that all attacks on Scientology occurring anywhere in the world were “reported and handled properly, [or] both CSG [Mary Sue Hubbard] and I will have your heads for breakfast . . . love Jane.” Order of Jane Kember contained in Information Bureau Hat Pack, volume I, Exh. No. 37 hereto (emphasis added).

– 23 –

were jointly entitled “Operation freakout.” In its initial form Operation Freakout had three different plans. The first required a woman to imitate Paulette Cooper’s voice and make telephone threats to Arab Consulates in New, York. The second scheme involved mailing a threatening letter to an Arab Consulate in such a fashion that it would appear to have been done by Paulette Cooper. Finally, a Scientology field staff member was to impersonate Paulette Cooper at a laundry and threaten the President and then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. A second Scientologist would thereafter advise the FBI of the threat.

Two additional plans to Operation Freakout were added on April 13, 1976. The fourth, plan called for Scientology field staff members who had ingratiated themselves with Cooper to gather information from Cooper so Scientology could assess the success of the first three plans. The fifth plan was for a Scientologist to warn an Arab Consulate by telephone that Paulette Cooper had been talking about bombing them.

The sixth and final part of Operation Freakout” called for Scientogists to obtain Paulette Cooper’s fingerprints on a blank piece of paper, type a threatening letter to Kissinger on that
paper, and mail it. 7/

 


7/ The sixth plan bears a distinct resemblance to a scheme of Scientologists in 1972 and 1973 against Paulette Cooper. In 1972 Scientologists obtained Paulette Cooper’s fingerprints on a blank piece of paper, typed two bomb threat letters on that and another piece of paper, sent the threats to Scientology offices in New York, and then advised the FBI that they had received the threats and that they may have come from Cooper. Paulette Cooper was indicted in the Southern District of New York in 1973 for making these threats. An order Nolle Prosequi was filed on that indictment in 1975. As Bruce Raymond/Randy Windment noted in his April 13, 1976 “CSW” to Weigand, which Weigand approved, the sixth plan of Operation Freakout was likely, to prove effective since the same kind of scheme against Cooper had worked in the past. Attached is approved Operation Freakout. This additional channel [the sixth plan] should really have her put away. Worked with all the other channels. The F.B.I., already think she really did the bomb threats on the C of S [Church of Scientology]. (Document No. 11423).

– 24 –

On March 31, 1976, defendant Kember telexed Henning Heldt concerning Ms. Cooper:

PC [Paulette Cooper] is still resisting paying the money but the judgment stands in PT [present time] . . . . [8/] Have her lawyer contacted and also arrange for PU to get the data that we can wait for her to turn up publicly so we can slap the writs on her. If you want legal docs from here we will provide. Then if she still declines to come we slap the writs on her before she reaches CW [Clearwater] as we don’t want to be seen publically [sic] being brutal to such a pathetic victim from a concentration camp.

GWW Log, p. 131 (Exh. No. 36 hereto.)

Gabriel Cazares

When Scientology first decided to set up a base in Clearwater, Florida, in late 1975, it did so using the cover name of “United Churches of Florida” (UCF) with no outward connection to Scientology. Gabriel Cazares, who was Clearwater’s Mayor, campaigned for the disclosure of the true purposes of the UCF. When UCF’s connections to Scientology were uncovered, Mayor Cazares became highly critical of Scientology. Because of his criticism, Mayor Cazares was targeted by the Guardian’s Office and its Information Bureau and covert operations designed to remove him from office were ordered.

To that end, in early March 1976, co-defendant Hermann notified co-defendant Snider that Mayor Cazares was about to attend a Mayor’s Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 13-17, and that Assistant Guardian for Information in Clearwater, Joe Lisa, was formulating a covert operation to claim that Mayor Cazares had a mistress. (Exhibit No. 38 hereto.) Shortly thereafter, Hermann

 


8/ Cooper has been sued by the Church of Scientology on numerous occasions and in many jurisdictions around the world. Since 1970 the Church of Scientology has filed six lawsuits in three foreign countries and numerous lawsuits in the United States against Cooper. As of December 1979, with the exception of three foreign lawsuits and a counterclaim in an American lawsuit, all of the actions had been dismissed.

– 25 –

ordered Mr. Meisner to carry out an operation on Mayor Cazares during his Washington trip — that operaton was to involve a fake hit-and-run accident. Sharon Thomas was to be the main participant in that operation. She was to meet Mayor Cazares, drive him around town, and at a predetermined location stage a hit-and-run accident with Mr. Meisner as the “victim.” On March 14, 1976, Thomas offered to show Mayor Cazares the town. During that drive, Thomas, who was driving, staged her fake hit-and-run accident in Rock Creek Park, hitting Michael Meisner. She drove on without reporting the accident to the police. Of course, Thomas knew that no harm had been caused to the”victim.” (Exhibit No. 39 hereto). In a report dated March 15, 1976, to defendant Morris Budlong, Weigand apprised Budlong of the incident and discussed how Scientology could use that “fake” accident against Mayor Cazares and concluded that “I should think that the Mayor’s political days are at an end.” (Id. at 2.)

On June 6, 1976, Jane Kember promulgated Guardian Program Order 398, entitled “Mayor Cazares Handling Project.” Its purpose was “to remove Cazares from any position from which he can inhibit the expansion of Scientology” and called for, among other things: (1) carrying “out a covert campaign to create strife between Cazares and the City Commission”; and (2) placing a covert operative in his Congressional campaign organization, getting the operative “as highly placed as possible. Use this operative to collect data on planned activities and feed this to PR and Legal to carry out operations to hamper the effectiveness of the campaign . . .” (Exhibit No. 40 hereto.) On November 3, 1976, unindicted co-conspirator Joe Lisa informed co-defendant Snider that Mayor Cazares had been defeated in the Congressional race as a result of the implementation of defendant Jane Kember’s Guardian Program Order 398, and the other Scientology actions which included “[p]hone calls . . . spreading rumors inside his camp, contributing

– 26 –

to disorganization in his campaign . . .  ” (Document No. 1491.)

Celebrities

On January 4, 1976, defendant Jane Kember issued Guardian Order 1361-3 which called for the theft of Los Angeles IRS Intelligence files on “celebrities, politicians and big names.” In complete disregard for the rights of these individuals, Jane Kember directed that the stolen information be published. (Document No. 11513.) In fact, IRS files on former California Governor Edmund Brown, current California Governor Edmund Brown, Jr., Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and his wife, and Frank Sinatra 9/ were stolen from the IRS’ Los Angeles offices and disclosed to the press. (Document Nos. 11514, 1546, and 1548.)

D. Newspapers

The defendants and their organization mounted a head-on assault upon newspapers that had been critical of Scientology. They infiltrated newspapers and, in other instances, without disclosing that they were associated with Scientology, planted stories of interest to their organization. For the sake of brevity, we will cite just one example.

In November 1975, defendant Willardson ordered Michael Meisner to send three District of Columbia covert agents to Clearwater. One of the operatives sent to Clearwater was June Byrne, the blown AMA

 


9/ These are but four examples of the numerous operations conducted against private citizens and public officials. A review of the documents seized in Los Angeles shows the incredible scope of these operations.

In fact, in order to help determine what individuals and groups to develop operations against, the files of the World-Wide Information Bureau, which defense witness Sheila Chaleff so fondly referred to as “Mo’s Files,” are divided into eight “enemy” classifications, depending upon the particular degree of “suppressiveness” which the Guardian’s Office perceives in its “enemies.” Among the eight classifications are “traitor,” “enemy,” and “international enemy.” The latter category includes such “treacherous” groups as the European League for Human Rights, the World Council of Churches, the United Nations, and the World Federation for Mental Health. Exh. No. 41 hereto.

– 27 –

agent. In Clearwater, Ms. Byrne infiltrated the Clearwater Sun and provided Scientology almost daily reports on the activities of that newspaper, all of which were forwarded to defendants Kember and Budlong (See e.g., Documents Nos. 17988, 17991, 17995, 17996, 18006 which cover less than a two-week period.) She remained as Scientology’s covert operative at the Sun until late 1976 when she was withdrawn out of fear that her cover had been blown.

E. State and Local Government Agencies

Numerous state and local Government agencies throughout the United States were targeted for infiltration by the defendants and the Guardian’s Office. These infiltrations and thefts were called for by two programs promulgated by Jane Kember — Guardian Program Order 302, which was also approved by defendant Budlong, and Guardian Order 1080. Guardian Program 302, Government Exhibit 67 at trial, ordered the infiltration of of all Governmental agencies that refused to acquiesce to Scientology’s demand for access to their files.10/

On March 4, 1974, defendant Jane Kember issued GO 1080, an umbrella program ordering the infiltration of the California Attorney General’s Office and all local district attorney’s offices in California. (Exhibit No. 42 hereto.) On January 13, 1976, a sub-project of GO 1080 regarding the Los Angeles Office of the California Attorney General was promulgated. It directed that that office be infiltrated “through any way or means and then locate and obtain full copies of any and all files on the C of S, C of S investigations, etc.” (Document No. 1317 at 13-15.) On February 12,

 


10/ Thus, pursuant to GPgmO 302, Deac Finn, the Assistant Guardian for Information in New England (AGI NE), wrote on June 8, 1976, requesting Weigand’s approval for Finn’s project to infiltrate the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Document No. 1535, p. 2). See also Document No. 21703 entitled “Project OW which sets out co-defendant Hermann’s plans for such infiltration in response to the planned investigation of the Church for criminal fraud and of one of its members for kidnapping.

-28-

1976, it was reported that keys to the Attorney General’s office had been obtained. (Document No. 1318 at 2.) Co-defendant Weigand also outlined for the benefit of defendant Budlong the progress of GO 1080, appending excerpted stolen data prepared by defendant Raymond. (Document No. 1323; See also Document No. 1336 — a similar letter from defendant Willardson to defendant Kember, routed through defendants Heldt, Weigand and Budlong.)

On August 10, 1976, compliance was reported to Guardian Program Order 302 as it pertained to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. (Document No. 149; Documents Nos. 11591-11595 are copies of documents stolen from that office.) On that same date, compliance was reported with Guardian Order 1080 and Guardian Program Order 302 as far as the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office was concerned. (Document No. 813.)

F. Other Federal Government Agencies and the United Nations

Among other direct orders issued by Jane Kember calling for illegal operations against other Government agencies and international organizations, to be carried out by Mo Budlong and his Information Bureau, are the following:

1. Guardian Order 1344, issued October 10, 1974 (Exh. No. 43 hereto), called for penetration of and theft of documents from the 11th District Coast Guard Intelligence and the National Headquarters of Coast Guard Intelligence, Washington, D.C. The program was carried out by, inter alia, the placement of co-defendant Sharon Thomas as Scientology’s covert operative at the Coast Guard (prior to her employment at the Department of Justice). Duke Snider
makes the following cryptic notation on the cover sheet of the G.O.: “Jane also telexed and mentioned that the BI targets are to be done and not just left up in the air.” (Exh. No. 43).
2. Guardian Programme Order 283, issued February 24, 1976

– 29 –

(Exh. No. 44 hereto), which was proposed by co-defendant Cindy Raymond, approved by Morris Budlong, and issued by Jane Kember, had the following over all “Plan: To penetrate, the UN [United Nations] and establish lines for feedback data so that we can predict and handle anything that may stop the acceptance of our submissions to the U.N.” Later documents indicate Scientology recruited an FSM to apply for a job as a security guard at the U.N.

3. Guardian Programme Order 407, issued June 9, 1976 (Exh. No. 45 hereto), subtitled “Off the Hook”, and issued by Jane Kember two days before Meisner and Wolfe were confronted in this Courthouse, called for getting “Scientology in all its aspects ‘off the hook’ with the IRS . . . .” The means to be used included “monitor IRS handling of audit on 1361 lines” and “ensure 1361 Collection Line keeps close watch on area of IRS concerned with LRH tax returns. . . .”

– 30 –

VI
Comparative Roles of These Defendants and the Previously Convicted Co-Defendants

The defendant Jane Kember was, during the periods relevant to the charges of which she was convicted, the Guardian WorldWide of the Church of Sciengology. Her principal role was to “protect” and “defend” Scientology from all persons and organizations, private and governmental, whom Scientology viewed or perceived as its enemies. As such — after L. Ron Hubbard (the Founder and Commodore), and Mary Sue Hubbard (the Deputy Commodore, Controller, and Commodore Staff Guardian) — she was superior in authority to everyone else within the Guardian’s Office. By the defense’s own witnesses this Court was told that the defendant Kember ruled with an iron hand the whole Guardian’s Office network which stretched through dozens of countries in almost every continent in the world.

Prior to assuming her position as Guardian World-Wide, in the late 1960s, the defendant Kember served as the Deputy Guardian for Intelligence (later renamed Information) World-Wide — a position assumed about 1967 by her loyal and hard working deputy and now co-defendant — Morris Budlong. Thus, both defendants Kember and Budlong are long-standing, committed and dedicated high officials of the Guardian’s Office. It was unchallenged at their trial that these two defendants took a leading role in every endeavor of the Guardian’s Office. They drafted, reviewed and issued every order which commanded the commission of criminal acts. They demanded total and absolute loyalty and obedience from their subordinates, awarded them when they obtained it, punished them when they did not. They demanded to be kept informed of every move made by their underlings through an elaborate system of weekly reports and emergency telex messages when the need arose.

– 31 –

Everyone of the other defendants previously convicted after a non-jury trial based on an uncontested stipulation of evidence, with the exception of Mary Sue Hubbard, were below them in the hierarchy of the Guardian’s Office and carried out the orders of these two defendants. Seven of the other eight defendants subordinate to Kember and Budlong were convicted of one felony count carrying a maximum term of incarceration of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In December, 1979, five of them received sentences of four years incarceration and $10,000 fines; the other two received sentences of five years in prison and $10,000 fines.

The defendants Kember and Budlong, on the other hand, were each found guilty following a five-week jury trial, of nine counts of burglary in the second degree — felonies each carrying terms of incarceration of “not less than two years nor more than fifteen years.” 22 D.C. Code § 1801(b). We submit that the sentences this Court will impose upon the defendants Kember and Budlong must be both commensurate with their role in the crimes of which they were convicted as well as with the sentences imposed upon their previously convicted co-defendants.

– 32 –

VII
Conclusion

The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years. It also puts to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harrassment campaign against them.

The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the defendants’ wanton assault upon the laws of this country. The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury investigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in response to a grand jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story, and assisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of this country. Their total disregard for the laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of villification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private and public individuals and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail. One can only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their “Red Box” data. That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims.

– 33 –

The crimes committed by these defndants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard. No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes. It is interesting to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled “Modern Management Technology Defined” that “truth is what is true for you,” and “illegal” is that which is “contrary to statistics or policy” and not pursuant to Scientology’s “approved program.” Thus, with the Founder-Commodore’s blessings they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.

These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed. The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.” That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society.

These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.

Moreover, we submit that in imposing any sentence upon these two defendants, the Court should consider the deterrent effect which

– 34 –

a severe sentence will have upon others — besides the defendant Jane Kember who apparently remains the Guardian World-Wide, all other members of the Guardian’s Office, and L. Ron Hubbard himself, the ultimate responsible authority. It is clear from the press releases issued by Scientology following the jury’s verdict, and their vicious actions against another member of this Court, that they have yet to learn the errors of their criminal ways.

The United States submits that the only appropriate punishment in this case, the only one that is in the best interest of justice and the public, is a substantial term of incarceration for each of the two defendants now before the Court.

Moreover, we submit that there is no reason whatsoever under 18 U.S. Code § 3148, why these two defendant should not be denied bail pending any appeal they wish to take. Both defendants are in this country solely for trial and the service of any sentence imposed by this Court, pursuant to an extradition order from the Government of the United Kingdom. Following the service of their sentences, they will return to the United Kingdom. They are not employed in the United States, and, indeed, in at least the case of defendant Kember cannot be so employed. Thus, the only questions which remain are, in the words of 18 U.S. Code § 3148, whether

[a] person . . . who has been convicted of an offense and . . . has filed an appeal . . [presents] a risk of flight or danger . . or if it appears that an appeal is frivolous or taken for delay. . .

We submit that in the instant case, any appeal taken by these two defendants will be frivolous. and taken only for the purpose of delaying the ultimate day of judgment. The only real issues raised by the defendants involved the challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court over the burglary charges, and whether they had standing to challenge the searches of the two Guardian’s Office premises in Los Angeles, California. The Court of Appeals has already, for all

– 35 –

practical purposes, resolved against them the former issue. In Re: United States v. Kember (Mary Sue Hubbard et al., appellants), D.C. Cir. Nos. 80-2329 to 80-2332 (decided November 24, 1980), slip op. at 11. As for the standing issue, it has been conclusively resolved against the defendants, as this Court pointed out, by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the defendants, international criminals, whose danger to the community the evidence overwhelmingly bears out, have been convicted of serious charges carrying severe penalties and now present a great risk of flight. Thus, we submit, defendants should be denied bail pending appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLES F. C. TUFF
United States Attorney

RAYMONDI BANOUN
Assistant United States Attorney

JUDITH HETHERTON
Assistant United States Attorney

KATHERINE WINFREE
Assistant United States Attorney

– 36 –

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a copy of the foregoing Sentencing Memorandum has been mailed to R. Kenneth Mundy, Esquire, 1850 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20006 and John Shorter, Esquire, Mitchell, Shorter, & Gartrell, 508 Fifth Street, N Washington, D.C., 20001, this 16th day of Dec.

RAYMOND BANOUN
Assistan United States Attorney

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.