A letter to Mike Rinder: Your victim speaks up (Part 6) (February 26, 2018)

I have no doubt that cowardice, moral cowardice, abounds in the world. Without my knowing what it was, I think it was my “ruin,” which was important in my recruitment into Scientology. I didn’t speak up when I morally should have. If we are all moral cowards, then there would be no one who modeled for people moral courage. Yet it is known that such people do exist. It is also obvious that the morally cowardly can fake or pretend moral courage. You did this as a “post beingness” throughout your OSA career. Hubbard faked fearlessness on a gargantuan scale and even faked military service, wounds and medals to prove it. Cowardice was his human sin, above which he never rose.

Cowardice is one of what I’ve called elsewhere the Scientologists’ valuable final products (“VFPs”) which are produced and maintained in their characters or psyches. For many years, one of your most important hats was enforcing cowardice among Scientologists. In large part you succeeded by threatening and silencing or destroying any Scientologists, or wogs like me, who might get courageous. In Scientoloworld, getting courageous is really speaking up and telling the truth about their Scientology-related experiences and knowledge.
It is not hard to see that people’s moral cowardice puts the whole world in peril, and moral courage stands against it. I was just sent a Winston Churchill quote: “courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities…because it is the quality which guarantees all others.” Conversely, cowardice guarantees, I think, the antiqualities, the rest of the anti-valuable VFPs. It would be foolish to uncritically let known cowards be accepted as models of courage.

The resolution of your cowardice cannot but involve the truth of what exactly you did and made others do to persecute individuals – wogs, whether in the SP class or not — and you have never spoken up about it. Even Rathbun, who now publicly and insouciantly serves the Miscavige sect’s antisocial purposes, which, for years after leaving the SO, he had covertly served while pretending to expose and oppose these purposes, is acknowledging that you have never said what you did and had done to whom to silence or destroy them, or drive them crazy.
In his recent videos, Rathbun repeated this accusation of the obvious, almost as a commendation to you for holding the line so perfectly and not spilling your conspiracy’s criminal beans. Rathbun, Miscavige and the rest of the cult coconspirators do not want you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell the truth about your persecution of people, the truth-telling class. Many Scientologists and their collaborators, duplicitous or duped, want you to stay dumb, when morally you should be debriefing.

Rathbun in his “Troublemakers Part 7” video:

So Rinder begins establishing his credibility by saying, “If the believe… If the Church believes someone was an enemy and needed to be silenced, it was my job. And I did it.”

Okay. I challenge anyone to go find and cull where Rinder has disclosed in the 9 years that he’s been out, or the 7 years that he’s been out, the specific confession of his having silenced anybody.

There’s not a single one. I was involved with the guy during, during his entire time over the Church’s External Affairs Bureau, and was the guy that got him a job once he got out. Was the guy that got him job after job after job that allowed him to continue to go after Scientology without having to work.

He’s never, he’s never, he’s never given a single specific or particular to back that up. And yet that’s how he establishes his credibility for Episode 1.1

Your statement in Episode 1 of the Aftermath series that Rathbun is referring to was:

Part of my job, according to Scientology policy was to discredit and destroy critics who spoke out against the Church. If the Church believed that someone was an enemy and needed to be silenced or destroyed, it was my job, and I did it.2

Rathbun’s reason for ostensibly pillorying you for not giving any specific or particular about the persons your sect’s conspiracy wanted silenced or destroyed is very different from my reason for publicizing your unwillingness to provide these facts. Certainly neither Rathbun nor his Scientology coconspirators actually want you to tell the truth about the people you silenced or destroyed or tried to silence or destroy, or what exactly – “time, place, form and event,”– you did to try to silence or destroy us. You have so far, without apparent objection, complied with your coconspirators’ orders or command intention that you not divulge those facts. On the other hand, I do want you to tell the truth, for everyone’s sake and survival, including yours. I do not want your cowardice to continue.

Rathbun was your senior for many years, and is likewise responsible for silencing or destroying people your criminal conspiracy wanted silenced or destroyed, and specifically and particularly me. As I’ve been doing with you, I made real and sincere efforts over several years, ever since Rathbun started publicly presenting himself as a regenerate reformer and valiant truth-teller, to get him to tell the truth about what he did to persecute me and his other SP class victims. Like you, Rathbun has never given specifics or particulars about his victims and what he did and made others do to victimize us while he and you were inarguably in the SO. Like you, he has continued to victimize us after he claimed to have left the SO and his sect’s control. As you are doing, Rathbun conned or maneuvered people into defending and encouraging his cowardly refusal to tell the truth. He even got people to ignore or vilify his victims and others who legitimately challenged his dishonesty and antisocial actions. In Rathbun’s recent videos, where he appears to be attacking you, he is using Hubbard’s “confusion tech,” and actually generating cover for you, and for himself, and for Miscavige and undoubtedly for other coconspirators. Embedment without the truth is stupid, as well as unsafe.

The Scientologists use their seemingly sagacious precept that their victims are “responsible for their own condition” to excuse and enhance their victims’ victimization. This precept is no more true, as the Scientologists apply it, than terrorist bombing victims are responsible for their own bombing, or responsible for their condition of terrorist bombing victims. In your case, however, you are responsible for your own condition of cowardice. Bombing victims have no power to change their condition. You can change your condition just as Zinberg changed his cowardice condition – simply muster the easily musterable courage to tell the unadorned, unrationalized truth about what you did.

The persecution of SPs is motivated and rationalized by religious doctrine. The Scientologists base this doctrine on the SP class’s religious actions or sacraments. These are improper, criminal or punishable only by Scientology religious scripture and by the religious hierarchy’s religious edicts, the religious criminal conspiracy’s commandments. The person you say is responsible for making you silence or destroy people, or otherwise black PR and fair game us, David Miscavige, is, without argument, the Scientology religious sect’s ecclesiastical head. You not only criminally conspired to deprive us of our rights, but your actions to silence or destroy SPs like me, and to make others produce so as to silence or destroy us, also constitute hate crimes.

You continue to manifest the hate toward me that was instilled in you and demanded of you when you were officially posted in the sect’s SP persecution department. You have also not communicated anything that signals to me that you are now more restrained than previously from acting on that hate. The cover and “good PR” you have garnered in the “critic community” have not generated in you a discernible desire to reach out to me to correct your black PR or the injustices you perpetrated. I am not a member of the “critic community,” and was hated and attacked by several of its members before you and Rathbun assumed opinion leader roles, but I am more of a target since your assumptions.

In relation to us — your SP victims – you share several factors or conditions with Hubbard. Both of you sought or seek to convince us, and other wog publics, and your Scientologist juniors, of your honesty, your sincerity, your trustworthiness, your integrity, your courage, your ethics, and your excellent, loving, humanitarian intentions toward your fellow man. Both Hubbard and you used and use evil tech – fear and lying — to do your convincing. You both used deceptive and hypnotic devices to obtain undue influence over your targets. You both used the same antisocial PR and intelligence tech, waged lawfare and committed crimes to gain acceptance. You have not signaled that you are now using some other PR tech. People, both wogs and Scientologists, who told the truth about Hubbard and his coconspirators’ dishonesty, insincerity, treachery, fraud, cowardice, criminality or evil intentions, became your fair game targets.

Notes

  1. Unofficial transcript:https://youtu.be/051SoaHXXos?t=45s
  2. Scientology and the Aftermath Season 1 Episode 1.

GA letter to Mark Rathbun Re Black PR to the IRS (August 14, 2009)

Dear Mark:

I’m writing you politely to request your help to correct the black PR on me included in Scientology’s submissions or other statements to the IRS. The IRS’s grant of tax exemption to Scientology and its separate pieces is based in clear part on that black PR.

The specific black PR on me that I’m asking for your help with is contained in a set of Scientology’s answers to the IRS’s questions in the period before it granted tax exemption. In your video with the SP Times, you confirmed your involvement in events with the IRS before these answers were prepared and in writing and presenting the answers:

Rathbun: […] I mean we were literally commuting to Washington D.C. almost every week. It was Monday, or Sunday out to D.C., see the IRS, present the answers to their, their set of questions, get another set of questions, go back to L.A., get the information together, get the, you know, some would entail audits of certain units, or this sort of thing, you know, you have to account for different things, [Scratching left ear] in, in operations, in finances, and that sort of thing. Boom! Next Sunday, back on a plane, back to D.C., another meeting with– That went on for two years.

Reporter: And this process is, is it, is it you and Mr. Miscavige primarily?

Rathbun. Primarily.

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=30965

(A transcript of the IRS part of your interview on the SP Times site is about 2/3 down the first page of the thread.)

Why I’ve said some of what I’ve said in my communications to you so far has been because of the need for other people to understand where we’re coming from. You know all about the black PR on me that you and Miscavige submitted to the IRS, and all about all the other black PR and all the fair game attacks on me, but other people won’t necessarily know. Other people will undoubtedly see this letter because I’ll also post it publicly, and I’ll make it public and available to everyone for optimum transparency and to make the best possible record. Otherwise, thinking courteously of course, people might get the mistaken idea that I didn’t send it. I just believe it’s most considerate to eliminate such a possibility and excuse as early as sensible. So, please understand why I am, as considerately as possible, stating facts that in most instances you already know.

I actually left the US in 1997 when I discovered online part of this black PR in sections of Scientology’s answers on someone’s web site. I’ve provided the facts concerning these events in a number of sworn declarations, documents filed in Scientology’s legal proceedings against me, and in many public statements. This is from a 2006 declaration I wrote to support Keith Henson in his defense against the cult:

6. In January 1997, while living in San Anselmo, California, I obtained an Internet account and discovered for the first time a section of Scientology’s IRS Form 1023 responses that included several pages of Black Propaganda on me. Scientology had obtained its tax exemption, and consequently “full religious status,” in October 1993 on the basis of this 1023 submission. “Black Propaganda” or “Black PR” is Hubbard’s and Scientology’s term for the organization’s practice of covertly and overtly, widely and relentlessly, defaming and defiling their targets to destroy their reputations, credibility, relationships, livelihoods and lives. Black PR is a key channel in the Fair Game campaigns Scientology wages against SPs such as Caroline, Mr. Henson and me. The Black PR Scientology and its agents have generated and used against Mr. Henson over the past decade is in fact a confirmation of his classification as an SP. Scientology only Black PRs or otherwise Fair Games people whom organization leaders identify as SPs.

7. Scientology is a “religion” and its Suppressive Person doctrine, Fair Game and Black PR policies and practices are laid down in “religious scripture.” SPs comprise a religious class, established by the religious dogma and religious hierarchy of the Scientology religion, and are portrayed and viewed within the SP doctrine as roughly equivalent to “demons,” “devils” or “bogeymen” in some other religions. Hubbard and Scientology teach that SPs comprise two and a half percent of the planetary population and are totally evil, totally destructive, totally criminal and totally insane. Hubbard and Scientology teach that SPs are the cause of all illness, accidents and bad conditions and should be given no civil rights. Hubbard and Scientology impute to SPs the characteristics given in psychiatric texts for “antisocial personality disorder” or “sociopathy,” and in fact Scientology scripture also refers to SPs as “Antisocial Personalities.”

8. Hubbard and Scientology teach that Scientologists will lose all their “gains;” which are the “wins,” abilities or awarenesses the Scientologists had “gained” by doing Scientology; just by being connected to a Suppressive Person. Hubbard and Scientology also teach that SPs are unsalvageable, cannot be reasoned with, and may not be listened to. These teachings justify an organization-wide practice called “Disconnection” that prohibits Scientologists from communicating with or even “granting credence” to SPs, on penalty of the Scientologists themselves being declared SPs. The only Scientologists or organization agents that the leaders permit to have any contact with SPs are those persons whose specific duties are to Fair Game the SPs. Disconnection justifies and mandates even the breaking up of families if Scientology’s leaders declare a family member an SP.

9. In truth, what makes an individual an SP and Fair Game is standing up to Scientology by communicating about its evil, dangerous and religious doctrines, policies and practices, such as Suppressive Person, Fair Game, Black PR and Disconnection, and its organized deprivation of property and rights, lies, trickery, barratry, injury and destruction. In 2001, when Caroline communicated some of her criticisms of certain Scientology doctrines, policies and practices, organization leaders made her daughter Ann disconnect from her, and Caroline has not heard from Ann since. To be an SP and Fair Game, a person must have knowledge of Scientology’s doctrines, policies and practices, must have the calling, ability, courage or other qualities necessary to communicate these things, and must stand up and communicate. The only response that Scientology scriptures permit, and what has been Scientology’s practice throughout its history, when confronted with criticism of its doctrines, policies and practices, is to attack the SPs communicating. Many people with the requisite knowledge are afraid to stand up to Scientology and Fair Game, and some people who are perhaps not afraid have little knowledge and no desire or calling to acquire more knowledge to communicate. Mr. Henson has stood up to Scientology and communicated his criticism of its doctrines, policies and practices for many years, and he has continued to acquire more knowledge of these things. Scientology has forced the SPs, such as Caroline, Mr. Henson and me, to find out ever more about this religion and to communicate that knowledge ever more widely and effectively to everyone reachable and teachable with it. The only safe place to head for is everyone understanding and communicating freely about Scientology’s antisocial doctrines, policies and practices so that there will be too many SPs for Scientology to ever Fair Game or destroy us all.

10. Following Scientology founder Hubbard’s death in 1986, enforcement of the SP doctrine, the identification of SPs to target, and Fair Game activities against SPs, have been directed by David Miscavige. Mr. Miscavige exercises control over the whole Scientology enterprise as head or “Captain” of the Sea Organization, or “SO,” Scientology’s pseudo-military core “elite;” and as head or “Chairman of the Board” of the corporation Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), which claims to own the Scientology trademarks and service marks and to control Hubbard and Scientology copyrights. RTC operates as Scientology’s religious police, and Mr. Miscavige is its “ecclesiastical head,” enforcing the orthodoxy and exact application of Scientology scriptures such as the Suppressive Person doctrine, Fair Game, Black PR and Disconnection.

11. The Black PR on me in Scientology’s submission to the IRS that, as mentioned above, I discovered in January 1997, was particularly alarming because, even by Scientology’s admission, there was a billion dollar tax liability or windfall involved; because the organization had withheld this material from me in the cases it was then prosecuting against me in Marin County Superior Court; because I had already been Fair Game for fifteen years, including being physically assaulted and threatened with assassination; and because the IRS had accepted this Black PR and granted the global Scientology enterprise tax exemption. I almost immediately decided to leave California and to move to Canada, where I had grown up, where I am a citizen, and where I believed I would be able to speak out to correct Scientology’s Black PR on me and to defend against Fair Game’s other forms.

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-2006-03-07.html

Please let me very politely tell you, Mark, that this black PR on me, which was submitted to who knows how many US Federal Government agencies and personnel, during a time when you all were trying to silence me, judicially and otherwise, so that I could never respond to your black PR, was shocking and life-altering. If Miscavige, you and Scientology’s signing-off lawyers would do that to me to obtain Scientology’s undeserved tax exemption unlawfully, what would you all do to me to make your black PR be “true,” or to protect the unlawful tax exemption you’d black PRed me to get? Anything. Would you now do anything to correct the wrong done?

It is shocking and life-altering to have a cult full of people led by, and executing the command intention of, a clear, violent sociopath, who want me obliterated. Some wogs said that you probably don’t help people like me that you’ve helped victimize for decades unless they’re extremely polite to you, which is why I’m being perhaps overly polite. If I am being overly polite, please accept my apologies in advance.

The black PR on me in Scientology’s answers to the IRS that I discovered while living in California is included in these excerpts:

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/csi-prod-1993-11-04-152077-152094.html

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/csi-prod-1993-11-04-152016-152073.html

These are items on my “Scientology Lies To the IRS” page on my site:

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/index.html

A few years later, someone sent me more materials Scientology filed with the IRS that contained even more black PR on me, including this statement:

Our consistent view has been that the civil litigants are solely motivated by greed. The exception is Armstrong who we truly believe to be psychotic.

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/csi-prod-1993-11-04-152016-152073.pdf

Scientology agents have repeated this black PR attack line on me around the world endlessly and have done nothing to correct it. If no Scientologists can assimilate the data needed to know that I am not psychotic, when so much is easily available, you prove that Scientology makes you universally hopelessly ignorant. If Scientologists, from Miscavige on down, or up, have all the data needed and know that I am not psychotic, yet disseminate the black PR that I’m psychotic, and treat me as a psychotic to make the black PR “real,” you prove that Scientology makes you universally criminal.

I do understand, just so you understand, that there is a third possibility, which is that Scientology (being a Scientologist and applying Scientology) makes Scientologists both woefully ignorant and criminal. This seems, however, unlikely, because pretended ignorance is so prevalent in Scientologists it is a virtually universal condition. If Scientologists were honestly ignorant of all the things they say or imply they’re ignorant of when they’re Scientologists – such as, and clearly importantly, Gerry Armstrong isn’t psychotic –  they wouldn’t, when they become wogs, suddenly lose that ignorance.Yet universally, wogs, and even those who had recently been utterly indoctrinated or completely devoted Scientologists, when given the same evidence as is available to the Scientologists, say that I’m something different from psychotic.

It is true that there is a set of wogs who are motivated, some even paid, to execute Scientology cult head Miscavige’s command intention to have me black PRed as psychotic. Certainly Scientology’s attorneys in the campaign to get tax exemption fit into that set. The vast majority of earth’s 6.7 billion wogs, however, when they become aware of my communications and documented history, which all Scientologists have freely available to them, recognize the clear and simple truth that I am not psychotic. The only reasonable conclusion then is that Scientologists also universally know that I am not psychotic but they universally lie because Scientology (being a Scientologist and applying Scientology) makes them criminal.

In addition to Scientologists’ willful dissemination of the black PR on me that I’m psychotic, their responses and non-responses to my many requests to correct this black PR also supports the conclusion that Scientology is a philosophy that when applied makes its appliers dishonest, unethical and criminal. Happily, since Scientologists know they’re lying and are only pretending to be ignorant to tell those lies, it’s very easy for them to become honest, ethical and uncriminal. Just tell the truth. If it’s necessary for Scientologists to become wogs in order to tell the truth, the Scientologists should be grateful they have such an opportunity. With all due respect, and unbridled solicitousness, may I suggest that you give it a try.

Given your collaboration in black PRing me to the IRS as psychotic, and undoubtedly your involvement in the dissemination of the same psychotic black PR to other government agencies, governments or individuals, I know that most people would see great irony in official cult spokesperson Tommy Davis’ rant that the SP Times recorded.

And the thing that is so SICK about this is is that Marty KNOWS we can’t talk about them. And he knows we won’t. But they get, they cut right to the core of exactly why he was UNCEREMONIOUSLY removed.

Because let me tell you I’ve dealt with THAT GUY. And when you, when you talk to him again, you tell him that Tommy Davis said he is an outright coward. And that he made him out, himself out like a tough guy and he’s a bastard and a coward. And a PSYCHOTIC. PSYCHOTIC! That he would do this to his friends? The people that he worked with?

Joe, look at me when I’m talking to you!

The people that he worked with? Like US? His friends? Who trusted him? Who thought that he had our backs? In the clutches? When people were trying to destroy us? And he does THIS?

He has no credibility. He’s a bad man and he’s PSYCHOTIC. And you make sure that you tell him that I said that he’s PSYCHOTIC. Because he is. Only a PSYCHOTIC would do what he’s doing.

I realize that you could say that because Scientology’s PR is so terrible, having its spokespersons call you psychotic is an honor. You could even say that because Scientology’s PR was just as abysmal in the early 1990’s, I should be honored by your black PRing me as psychotic. But that’s like saying the Jews should be honored that it was Nazis who black PRed them as vermin, or even honored that it was Nazis who rounded them up and fair gamed them to death.

Scientologists’ organized black PRing of good people isn’t just to make them feel it’s an honor or fun because it’s coming from a cult and its cultists with terrible reputations. It’s to do as much evil as the Scientologists can get away with, including inciting other Scientologists to hate, fair game and even obliterate these people. These people, of course, that Scientology has Scientologists black PR are, of course, already Scientology’s victims. Remember too, that it is Scientologists who publicly and officially proclaim that they have the best, in fact only workable mental science. They claim that they have the tech to identify, and to cure, psychosis. I would kindly point out that you’re still doing that.

I’m not. When I read the black PR in 1997, Scientology’s reputation with me, by which I mean my understanding of its nature, intentions, personnel and actions, was virtually the same as it is now. Hubbard’s reputation with me was essentially identical in 1997 to what it is now. I’ve continue to study Hubbard’s, Scientology’s and Scientologists’ writings and other materials and expanded my understanding of their natures, intentions, actions, etc., but I’d say they’ve had terrible reputations with me since the early 1980’s. And they should have had from the first day I read about them in 1969. But, God even uses ignorance to teach people, although I don’t think that pretended ignorance could be His, because it’s, of course, a lie.

In any case, it’s Scientology’s Suppressive Person doctrine, not Miscavige, that ensures the cult or religion will always enjoy a terrible reputation. The apparent increasing terribleness of Scientology’s and Hubbard’s reputations parallels the increasing number of wogs who are becoming conscious of this evil and stupid doctrine. Yet Scientologists cling to it like it’s their only hope. If you bumped DM off his post, Scientology’s terrible reputation will only continue to spread, and Hubbard’s terrible reputation will as well. The SP doctrine has to be confronted and rejected, and that can only be done by communicating honestly about it. And that, apparently, can only be done by becoming a wog. I would be very happy to help you, having been a successful wog for over 27 years, and also knowing the doctrine inside and out.

Immediately, and regardless of your becoming a wog or not, however, I’m asking most politely for your help to correct the black PR on me, which you know to be black PR in Scientology’s submissions to the IRS. That can be started, as a Scientologist who knows what evidence, facts and black PR are, although I’d admit that you could be even more honest and consequently more helpful as a wog. If you don’t know what to do, please contact me and I’ll tell you. If you do know what to do, then there’s the matter of you doing it, and I would remind you courteously that you haven’t. A key lie to me, and possibly to you Scientologists as well, and perhaps the easiest lie to correct, and the stupidest not to correct, is the lie that I’m psychotic. Please tell the truth.

Yours sincerely,

Gerry Armstrong

Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (March 7, 2006)

[…] 1

28. Scientology leaders had used the same Ken Hoden in a similar attempt in 1985 and 1986 to have me prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney on charges

23

that the organization itself manufactured. Scientology ran a covert operation on me from 1982 through 1984 involving a writer Dan Sherman whom organization leaders operated to befriend me, get close to me, and set me up in a series of secretly recorded and videotaped meetings with other covert agents. Mr. Sherman and the other agents claimed that there were people inside the organization who wanted to reform it and stop Fair Game, but they were afraid for their lives and so sought out my help. The other agents David Kluge and Michael Rinder, pretending to be reformers, attempted to entrap me into the commission of crimes, without success. The recordings were made without my permission or knowledge and were illegal, and were in no way evidence of what Scientology claimed they were. Nevertheless, Scientology edited the recordings and used Mr. Hoden and others to try to get the LA DA to prosecute me, as well as my attorney Michael Flynn. Appended hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the letter dated April 25, 1986 from LA DA to Mr. Hoden, et al. fortunately refusing prosecution or further investigation of Scientology’s claims.2 Scientology claimed that its covert videotaping operation was legal because it was authorized by the LA PD. As mentioned above, a Scientology agent had paid an LA PD officer at least ten thousand dollars for a series of phony “authorizations” to wiretap and eavesdrop on Mr. Flynn and me. Appended hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a public announcement of April 23, 1985 from the LA Chief of Police denouncing the “authorizations” as not from the LAPD3 Despite the scathing denouncement from the Chief of Police, and the corrupt officer being suspended from

24

the LA PD, Scientology has continued to this day to justify its unlawful entrapment operation and the false charges it sought with the lie that the videotaping was approved by the LA PD.

29. At the time he attempted to have me prosecuted on Scientology’s trumped up charges, Mr. Hoden was part of the organization authorized and directed to handle or treat or Fair Game SPs. Scientologists in such positions are expected to lie, including under oath, to obstruct justice, and do what is necessary and can be gotten away with to harm the people organization leaders want harmed, like Mr. Henson and me. I believe that Mr. Hoden was used specifically in the efforts to have us prosecuted because he has been willing to lie, testify falsely or otherwise Fair Game us, whereas other Scientologists might not be so willing. I believe that my knowledge of Scientologists lying and testifying falsely as a practice, and specifically Ken Hoden lying, to have the organization’s SP victims prosecuted and jailed or otherwise harmed, was very relevant in Mr. Henson’s terrorism case, and if the jury had heard that testimony he would have been found not guilty on all counts.

30. The scriptural principle given by founder Hubbard that Scientology is following in its actions in the legal arena against people like Mr. Henson and me states:

The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO,
yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will WIN. And the public, seeing that you won, will then have a communication line to the effect that Scientologists WIN. Don’t ever let them have any other thought than that Scientology takes all of its objectives.4

25

The charges that the Scientologists and their agents who execute the Suppressive Person doctrine bring against their SP victims are often false charges. Scientology sought to have me falsely charged by the LA PD in 1982 for theft. In 1985 and 1986, as shown above, Scientology tried to have me prosecuted by the LA DA. In 1985 and 1986 Scientology tried to have me prosecuted by the FBI in Boston on a charge Scientology manufactured that I had impersonated an FBI officer.5 In 1992 through 1994, Scientology sought to have me punished for contempt of court on false charges. In 1997, Scientology was successful, as shown above, in having me punished with a fine and jail for reporting the organization’s threat to me after I was subpoenaed. In 1998, Scientology was successful in having me fined and ordered to jail for twenty-six days for expressions expressed in Canada and Germany.6  In 2001, Scientology was again successful in having me found in contempt of court for more religious expressions in Canada.7 In 2001, Scientology also sought to get me in trouble with the FSB, the Russian intelligence service that succeeded the KGB, and tried to have me picked up by U.S. agents in Moscow.8 In 2002, Scientology sought to have me charged by the Ekaterinburg, Russia prosecutor on the basis of false statements by Scientologists that I had trespassed in their office in that city. In 2004 and 2005 a Scientology agent leased an office across the street from my apartment in Chilliwack, B.C. Canada, spied on my wife throughout that period, and tried to trick us into making a video recording to later be used against us.9

31. I am convinced that Ken Hoden and any Scientologists who testified that they were frightened by Keith Henson possibly bombing them or hurting them in any way are lying as part of a conspiracy run by Scientology’s leaders to deprive him of his rights in violation 18 U.S.C. § 241, and in violation of other state and federal criminal statutes. What Scientology is trying to do in silencing me judicially and

26

extra-judicially demonstrates the same, and the list of beneficiaries of Scientology’s efforts to deprive me of my civil rights shows that the conspiracy is organization-wide. Since Scientology is demonstrably inter alia a criminal conspiracy against rights, Mr. Henson has every justification in the world to interfere with the conspiracy, even if the conspirators call their conspiracy religion.

[…]

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 2) (July 8, 2002)

0159

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

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

vs.

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

CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief

Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 2

DATE: July 8, 2002.

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

BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, Notary Public, State of Florida at large.

160

APPEARANCES:

KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

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

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

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

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

MR. ANTHONY S. BATTAGLIA
BATTAGLIA ROSS DICUS & WEIN
980 Tyrone Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33743
Attorney for Mr. Minton.

0161

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS

   PAGE           LINE

Recess                                                      261             18
Recess                                                       327              1
Reporter’s Certificate                            328              1

0162

(The proceedings resumed at 8:58 a.m.)

[… Other court business]

0191

THE COURT: I understand that. Take it up.

Mr. Prince —

Are we going to put Mr. Prince back on the stand?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, we are.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Prince, you want to step forward?

Mr. Prince, you’re already under oath. So you understand that the oath that you took will be valid throughout your testimony.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Would you please resume the stand?

Let me make sure, before we start, that I’ve got the right book.

Give me just a minute, Mr. Dandar.

0192

Hugh Haney? Was that the last witness?

MR. DANDAR: Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian Haney.

THE COURT: Okay. I wrote down Hugh. Hugh Brian?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. He goes by Brian.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I’ve got the right book. I’m ready.

Mr. Bailiff, before we start, is this coffee — I mean — coffee — see, I was thinking of coffee. That’d be nice. Maybe you’ll bring me some. Is this water fresh?

THE BAILIFF: I’m not sure, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: I would say that would be —

MR. FUGATE: — a “no.”

THE COURT: That’s what I would say.

Would you mind?

No telling how long that’s been sitting in there. You know what he’ll do? It’ll have mold on it. He’ll go — pour it out — Thank you very much.

When this trial comes — because I will let you

0193

all have water during the trial. Not coffee, once we get to a trial —

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: — just water.

But I’m going to get me a little cooler and keep it up here. Because I don’t trust them — I can’t ask every day. Just one of the tiny little things that needs to be done.

And by the way, Mr. Dandar —

MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: — if I might just suggest, I did notice in that article that you were quoted. The truth of the matter is, this is an ongoing case. It would be well for you not to be quoted in these articles.

MR. DANDAR: I do not believe that I or Mr. Prince gave an interview for that article.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I think — I think the reporter is quoting from in-court testimony.

THE COURT: If that’s the case, then we can’t help that.

But — but do not — and I’m not going to tell the lawyers how they ought to be lawyers, because you know, part of the — part of the canons say one

0194

ought not to be talking to the press about their case while it’s ongoing.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: That would be like you all having some comment for me. I don’t think you would be appreciative of that.

MR. DANDAR: I do —

That’s what happens to me — off the record?

Can we go off the record for just a second?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Madam Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record.
___________________________________

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked about your position with the Religious Technology Center; you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing investigations involving litigation and other critics of Scientology.

And I’m showing you today Plaintiff’s Exhibit 113, entitled Intelligence Actions.

Can you identify that document?

A Yes.

0195

Q And what is it?

A This is a document — a document written by L. Ron Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.

And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives to be enemies or suppressive persons.

Q Against whom? They’re enemies of whom?

A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of Scientology.

Q On the — it’s a one-page document. The third paragraph talks about a standard, is to — when you’re under attack, you attack back. Does that have anything to do with the prior document where you — where it mentioned, and you explained to the judge two weeks ago, manufacturing evidence if there’s no crimes found?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I object to all this, your Honor.

First of all, this is a 1968 thing.

Secondly, I just want to let the record be clear again as to our position about Mr. Prince interpreting policy. He was booted out of the church — booted out of the position in 1987; left in disgrace from the church; has been — has been —

0196

has been, you know, paid to testify against the church. And now he’s coming in here trying to interpret policies; one a 1968 thing that doesn’t say anything about creating or manufacturing evidence and saying that — trying to interpret it?

I — I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Does this policy have anything to do with the prior policy that you identified two weeks ago, and explained to the court about, if you can’t find the crimes of the attacker, you manufacture the crimes?

A Yes. This is part and parcel of the activities of the intelligence department in different Scientology organizations.

Q What does that mean in that third paragraph from the bottom, attack loudly?

A You know, I think we must be looking at a different — I must be looking at a different document than you.

Q I hope not.

A Where did you see that –Oh, I see, okay. Yes. Okay.

Q What does that mean, attack loudly?

A Noisy investigation.

0197

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. What he’s saying is what it means to him?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to what it means?

THE COURT: That’s what he’s saying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Within your experience and your position of the inspector general RTC worldwide, tell us what that understanding — what you’re understanding of that means.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, see —

A This would mean —

MR. WEINBERG: That, I object to. If he wants to sit up there and say what it means to him, that’s one thing. If he wants to sit up there and say, “This is Jesse Prince and this is what this policy means to a Scientologist,” that’s nonsense. And that isn’t right.

And that’s what’s been going on for — for — you know, with Mr. Prince and Mr. Young and other people that used to be in the — in the church. It’s not right. They shouldn’t be up here trying to interpret for the — for the religion of Scientology, what policy is.

THE COURT: That’s not even your argument; that’s the argument of the First Amendment scholar.

0198

And I have let him preserve that argument —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and it is preserved. And your objection therefore is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Because quite frankly, if I don’t agree with his position, this would be relevant to this, and it would be relevant probably to your counterclaim.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I guess that means I should be objecting to —

THE COURT: No. Because I’ve allowed you to preserve a continuing objection.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I understand that, your Honor.

But the point is, from the First Amendment point of view, to even let this kind of testimony in creates an untenable position for the church. Because if we — if we merely preserve our position, then we’re put in the position of, do we have to counter it? To counter it, we would then have to engage in a process which we shouldn’t have to constitutionally, which would be incredibly burdensome on us and on the court.

Because in order to understand Scientology

0199

policies, you can’t take one and look at it in isolation, and have somebody who was not — who was — who was basically removed from his position —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — by the church —

THE COURT: But he was there. And he was there. And he presumably was high up in the scale. And he presumably knew what was going on, whether he was removed or not.

I’ve therefore ruled he’s qualified.

If you want to withdraw your motion, saying there was no basis in fact or law, and it was a fraudulent claim to file this lawsuit, then I will agree with you.

You filed the motion in this hearing. I think it’s relevant, quite frankly, and I think no matter what your First Amendment argument is going to be, I’m going to allow it in for this hearing. It’s your motion. That’s why I said I think you’re going to have some distinctions that I’m going to be willing to draw for different things. You do whatever you want to do for this motion. I’ve allowed you to preserve it. Your objection is preserved. You can argue it. Quite frankly, you

0200

may lose that motion for this hearing, as long as you have filed the motion you have filed.

You’ve made your argument. I’m ready to move on.

This is not somebody who was not in the church. This is not some scholar outside. This is somebody who was there, who says, “This is what we did.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: I know, your Honor. And he also was — was removed —

THE COURT: Well, then —

MR. LIEBERMAN: — from his position —

THE COURT: — do it on cross examination.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — for not being a Scientology expert; for being the opposite of a Scientology expert by the authority that had the ability to determine who are — who is capable, who is proper to speak for Scientology.

THE COURT: You know, the only thing I can suggest is, by all the argument that I hear from you all about Jesse Prince, you must be really frightened of him.

You’ve made your point. We’re going to move on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third

0201

paragraph on Exhibit 113 states,

“Even if you don’t have enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason is, it is only those people that have crimes that will attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being found out when attacked back.”

Is this considered a scripture of the Church of Scientology?

A During — during my tenure in Scientology, this document was not considered to be any type of scripture. This was a training material to train a person in intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.

Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking about — answering the question about if this relates to the noisy investigation when this document, in the third paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word “loudly.”

A Yeah.

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

A A noisy investigation — I believe we covered that the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted the document in the church. But it’s basically to go around and arouse the neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations about the person that may or may not be true. And according

0202

to Scientology’s Manual of Justice, which is a further document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the use of the word “terrorism” or “terrorize.” I mean, that’s just —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear him say that. Did he say that?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he said.

MR. DANDAR: Use it to terrorize the person who is attacking the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Overruled. I’m not thinking of that as terrorism; I’m thinking of that as just simply a word.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that’s fine. But I’m a little sensitive, after reading this article this morning, where — or yesterday morning, where Osama Bin Laden and David Miscavige were mentioned in the same sentence.

MR. DANDAR: Take that up with the St. Pete Times.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, no, I —

THE COURT: Well, that was mentioned by Mr. Minton.

0203

MR. WEINBERG: Who — who — let’s make it clear — is not our witness, and is a person that has — that has worked very closely with Mr. Dandar from — from the beginning of this lawsuit.

THE COURT: I hate to tell you this, Counselor, but he is your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: You called him.

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, that’s where we disagree. But I’m not here to argue with that.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: We disagree about that.

We called him as a witness.

THE COURT: You can disagree all you want. You called him as a witness. I did not declare him a hostile or adverse witness. It appeared as if he was able to respond to your questions without leading questions.

You called him in this hearing as your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Minton is — Well —

THE COURT: It does seem to be a lot ado about nothing, doesn’t it?

I understand about the article. That was

0204

Mr. Minton who said —

MR. WEINBERG: My —

THE COURT: — that.

MR. WEINBERG: — objection had to do with Mr. Prince saying “terrorize,” which is — which is —

THE COURT: Well, your objection’s overruled.

He can use the word “terrorize” if that’s the word he wants to use. That has nothing to do, in my opinion, with a terrorist attack. “Terrorize” is just a word. We use it all the time. Don’t be so sensitive.

Golly, we’ve got to get down into getting back into — stop being so sensitive.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in — in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?

A Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done —

THE COURT: And I’m sorry. When I indicated about the —

Excuse me.

When I indicated about the motion to dismiss, what I also meant to say is that this is relevant to this hearing because of Mr. Minton and the

0205

allegations that Mr. Minton has been extorted for his testimony. So for that reason as well, I think it’s admissible in this hearing.

Forget what I said about — I — I haven’t gotten my head back into this case.

MR. WEINBERG: My head was doing fine until I read the paper yesterday and then I got all upset.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, Mr. Prince. I interrupted you.

Madam Court Reporter, read back that question before I interrupted him.

THE REPORTER: The pending question is, “In your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?”

The witness began to answer, “Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done –”

A Yes.

As far as out-and-out manufacturing information — And again, I want to clarify that. During the time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls

0206

technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training of things.

Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from me until that point. So I — I actually had a very short amount of time there. But as what I’ve seen as far as manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person — Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John Nelson used to be a person that was the CO — the commanding officer of Sea Org —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

A — International.

MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How’s he know this?

THE WITNESS: Because I was there.

MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?

THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the parties.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in charge of the parties?

A Yes. The party was working in one of my divisions.

At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a

0207

private investigator to investigate a fellow named John Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.

THE COURT: At what?

THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the Commodores Messenger Organization.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And that was an elite organization?

A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs, which eventually became Church of Scientology International. CSI.

Q All right.

A And he had started his own splinter organization with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology. So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that they would know when he was coming and going; and when he left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was to call the police when he came, to say he was a — a heroin dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.

I found out about that because the private investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, “Look,

0208

this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence.”

I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither did the private investigator. He was coming back. I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away — not to do that particular operation.

This was an instance of manufacturing information that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had personal knowledge of. I’ve heard other things about that.

And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. —

Q Well, what year was this?

A That this occurred?

Q Yes.

A This happened in 1985.

Q Okay. Okay. And in your position, though, at RTC, you would hear about many operations against critics or perceived enemies of Scientology, is that right?

A Perceived enemies of Scientology is a — is — is what would correctly define — as opposed to critics.Because there was — you know, critics wasn’t a word that we used in Scientology when I was there. “Oh, this person’s a critic.” That’s not a word that we would use in Scientology. We would use this person is a suppressive.

0209

This person is attacking Scientology. But it wasn’t — this whole critic thing didn’t come into being, I believe, until after I even left Scientology.

Q All right. Well, what about the enemies of Scientology? What other examples can you give us where you have personal knowledge as to the operations that were going on?

A The other partner of this fellow, his name was David Mayo. He was the actual author of the NOTS Materials, the NED for OTs. And he —

THE COURT: Of the what materials?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs materials. This is the — this is the —

MR. DANDAR: NOTS.

THE WITNESS: In Scientology, this is OT4, 5, 6 and 7.

THE COURT: What does the N mean on the front of that?

THE WITNESS: New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans. And it’s an acronym, NED.

MR. DANDAR: NED.

THE WITNESS: NED.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. No foundation for any of this testimony. I mean, that David Mayo wrote this? Based on what?

0210

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand. I thought he was talking about the NOTS. I’ve seen that in some of the literature.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s what he was —

MR. WEINBERG: But what —

MR. DANDAR: — talking —

THE COURT: I just simply asked what it — what it meant.

MR. WEINBERG: No — all right.

But what he said before that was — that prompted your question — was that David Mayo had actually been the author of the NOTS Materials, OT, whatever it is.

MR. DANDAR: You know, this is great for cross examination, but it’s really interrupting the flow of the direct.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

There was an entire proceeding in California about all this.

THE COURT: Well, I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How do you know that David Mayo is the author of NOTS, since Mr. Weinberg wants to know?

A Because it’s — the NOTS Materials, as I saw them in 1985 — each and every one of them had his signature or

0211

his initials on each page of the issues of the various NED for OTs issues. I think at the time there was 55 of them. So 55 little signatures of David Mayo, who wrote these materials. This is what I base that opinion on.

Q And he was a Scientologist at the time he wrote them, correct?

A He was a senior CS international at the time he wrote that.

Q And he worked closely with Mr. Hubbard, correct?

A He was Mr. Hubbard’s auditor, correct.

Q All right. So what happened — what was the operation against Mr. Mayo?

A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.

And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a business place, office complex. They were on the first floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also, a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int —

(The reporter asked for clarification.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

A — was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as well as Nancy Mainy.2

And the purpose of these deep cover operatives

0212

were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced Abilities Center to provide information about financial accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent in there to not only glean information but to disrupt activities, covertly disrupt activities.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we date this, and could Mr. Prince tell us what the basis — what his —

THE COURT: Yes. What was the year?

MR. WEINBERG: — of the information is?

THE WITNESS: This, I believe, was 1985. It was Wollersheim 4, where I actually testified in a hearing in front of Judge Mariana Phaelzer3 ultimately. And on March 15th — not March 15th, but somewhere around that time period. This all had to do with the Wollersheim case.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And when you testified in front of a judge on Wollersheim 4, who were you testifying for?

A Church of Scientology — Religious Technology Center.

THE COURT: You testified for the Religious Technology Center that the — that someone from the

0213

Church of Scientology went into —

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, your Honor.

THE COURT: — this man’s place and —

THE WITNESS: No. I —

THE COURT: — stole —

MR. DANDAR: Wait —

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: — his mailing list and —

THE WITNESS: No, no. No. That’s not what I testified to.

What I testified to was the fact that the materials that were being used in the Advanced Abilities Center were identical, basically, to the ones that the church had owned and copyrighted.

THE COURT: I see. So he — this Mr. David Mayo was another person who kind of broke off and was in a splinter group.

THE WITNESS: Yes. He was — he was kicked out of Scientology.

As a matter of fact, I think I brought the document with me today that — that shows why he was kicked out of Scientology.

And when he left he started his own movement, basically.

THE COURT: Okay.

0214

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the name of that document?

THE COURT: Was he — was he —

A RTC Conditions Order Number 1.

THE COURT: Was he — was he with Mr. Nelson?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They were part of the same splinter group?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor — I’ll tell you what —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just have Mr. Prince say what the basis for his testimony was, whether it’s hearsay or did he give these alleged orders to — to —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — break in and bug and —

THE COURT: How did you know about this?

THE WITNESS: I knew about this because the — the people that were doing the activities were in a division in RTC that I supervised.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And the — the people that were involved — I can tell you specifically the names of

0215

this person. Gary Klinger, who was our intelligence officer in RTC.

THE COURT: Who was “our”? “Our”?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. RTC.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Jeff Schriver.

THE COURT: So you were supervising the people who were doing this?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: There’s your foundation. I mean, that’s the foundation.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I only have — I haven’t copied this yet, but I want him to identify it. We have the copier in the jury room so it doesn’t cause any noise. And then we’ll copy it. But this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 114.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify that?

MR. DANDAR: Then we’ll have it copied.

A This is the first Religious Technology Center Conditions Order, which is a committee of evidence, actually. And it lists — one, two, three, four, five, six, 24 seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 — has 16 individuals listed on this document, of people that are

0216

receiving a justice action. These are people that were once in management, in Scientology, prior to 9 October, 1982. So David Mayo here was the senior CS international. He’s on this document. And this is the document that lists all of their supposed and alleged crimes.

And the people that constituted the committee that would determine their guilt or innocence on this crime composed of — one, two, three, four, five, six — seven people.

And the chairman was Ray Mithoff. The secretary was Shelly Miscavige. That’s David Miscavige’s wife. A member was Laura Marlowe. Laura Marlowe was Commander Steve Marlowe’s wife, who — at the time, he was a commander of the Religious Technology Center. And then is myself, Jesse Prince. Then there’s Gelda Mithoff, who’s the wife of Ray Mithoff, and Matt Pesch and Mark Fisher. Matt Pesch was a security guard. Mark Fisher was a personal assistant to David Miscavige.

And this committee was charged with finding — and this was basically what is constituted all of in management — to, you know, basically do another housecleaning or purging, as has happened in Scientology a time or two.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’d like to go ahead and

0217

have this copied, and I’ll distribute it. Is that all right?

THE COURT: Sure.

Did you mark it?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It’s 114.

MR. WEINBERG: I have an objection to relevance. I haven’t looked at it yet. But what’s the relevance of a 1982 —

THE COURT: I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: — religious justice action against people?

THE COURT: I can only assume that this is part of Mr. Dandar’s case regarding his allegations of threats, extortions or whatever it is he’s alleging about.

MR. WEINBERG: That may be. But Mr. Minton was never a Scientologist so Mr. Minton didn’t — didn’t — didn’t undergo any committee of evidence or Scientology justice action.

I just don’t understand the relevance.

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: No. Not you.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Prince, who Mr. Weinberg

0218

called a janitor, is on this committee of evidence, with the other top Int management people, on a committee of evidence against David Mayo, who is the author of this highly secretive NOTS material. And it just shows Mr. Prince’s involvement in the higher echelons of Scientology.

THE COURT: So this is — this is just to show that he’s got some — what, that is — that he — is — is capable of testifying as an expert here?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. And —

THE COURT: Well, I’ve already accepted him as an expert.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. But it also goes to the policy bulletin on intelligence actions, which he — which is the basis of this testimony before we reached that document.

THE COURT: All right. Then I suppose it may have some relevance. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: How does it go to that?

THE COURT: I don’t know. I mean, I have to believe some of the things the lawyers say.

MR. DANDAR: Let me show our next exhibit.This is in a series of, like, three or four documents on this subject. And then we’ll get on to a different matter.

0219

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you identify that?

A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind of gives the thought process, the — the basis of it. It comes from Klausewitz.

Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is directed against the enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q And then the third — actually, the fourth paragraph from the bottom it states — states, quote, One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. This policy letter goes to — applies to former Scientologists as well as someone who’s an — an enemy, who has never been a Scientologist?

A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a — as an enemy.

THE COURT: Is this again what you call a suppressive person?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Or a suppressive group.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this talks about cutting off

0220

enemy communications, funds, connections; deprive the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory; he raids and harasses. All on a thought plane —

THE COURT: Okay. You don’t have to read it to me, Mr. Prince. I —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — can read.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph states, “Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close quote. What is PRO?

A Public relations officer.

Q And intelligence is what?

A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or department or division of Scientology organizations. Intelligence having to do with the prediction. Again, it goes back to this issue we have here, intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states that in the issue.

So intelligence would predict or would start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data collection, covert data collection, amass as much

0221

information about the situation as possible, then proceed accordingly.

Q That’s the — does that include the use of the private investigators?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 116.

THE COURT: While you’re doing that, can you all tell me whether or not a document called Middle — well, it’s something filed by Middle District of Florida, Complaint for Copyright infringement, Courage Productions versus Stacy Brooks — is that an exhibit in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: I believe so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Not anymore?

MR. LIROT: It wasn’t one of our exhibits.

MR. WEINBERG: No. It was one of our exhibits.

THE COURT: Okay. Petition to Define Scope of Accounting and to Require Expedited Accounting?

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it was just the complaint.

THE COURT: Okay.

0222

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, what is 116?

A 116 is a document in the same vein of the documents we’ve been studying before. It’s the public investigation section. And this basically has to do with — “investigates attacking individual members and see the results of the investigation, get adequate legal and publicity.”

So this again is similar to what we’ve gone over here before.

Q So it’s in a series of the other exhibits on how to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 117, entitled Attacks on Scientology. What is that?

A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. “An attack on Scientology –” well, you know, the basic principle is, never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the attacker. That kind of thing.

Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late ’60s.

Were they still in effect when you were in your management position at RTC?

A Very much so. And they’re still in effect today.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Objection, your

0223

Honor. Based on what?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how do you know they’re still in effect today?

A Because of that time track that was submitted into this courtroom of specific things that have — that have occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over specifically what has happened to me because of my involvement in this case and other cases.

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: I think that he might can draw that inference, but I suspect he can’t testify that that is in fact what’s happening today. But he can infer that, I think.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Minton — Mr. Prince, have any of the — these policies come into play in the — Pinellas County in the past?

MR. WEINBERG: Based on his experience while he was in the church? Is that what you’re asking?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: You mean while he was there?

MR. DANDAR: No. Based upon his experience.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then, I object. Come into

0224

play in Pinellas County?

THE COURT: If he’s talking about what occurred to him? Is that what you’re —

MR. DANDAR: No. What occurred to non-Scientologists in Pinellas County, orchestrated by the Church of Scientology in the past years. Before Mr. Minton arrived on the scene.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: How does he know that?

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me just use these exhibits then. I can see if he can qualify to talk  about them.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I probably gave you the wrong exhibit, but — I withdraw the question. And I’m just going to go to another question. I had the wrong exhibit in my hand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 118?

A Yes. This is similar to RTC Conditions Order Number 1, in that it’s an ethics order that declare — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 — 12 people to be suppressive persons.

0225

Q Paragraph numbered 4 says, “They are fair game.” What does this have to do with?

A Fair game?

Q Yeah. What’s this exhibit have to do with?

A This exhibit has to do with people that used some version of what Scientology perceived to be as upper-level materials and started some type of distribution of those materials, and for this they were labeled suppressive.

Q All right. And —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, again, objection. What does this have to do with this case? If the Church of Scientology, within its internal structure, just like the Catholic church, declares somebody, in their language, a suppressive, you know, because they did something against the church; like, you know, attempt to — to take the — the scripture and change it — what’s that got to do with this hearing?

THE COURT: I think —

MR. WEINBERG: Has nothing to do with this  hearing.

THE COURT: Well, it does have something to do with this hearing. And if you don’t understand it, then I’ll have to explain it to you.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

0226

THE COURT: It is very clear that the assertion being made is that Mr. Minton was a suppressive person; that Mr. Minton was subject to all of these things, including finding out all of the crimes that he may have committed, and bring it to his attention. That is the allegation of extortion.

MR. WEINBERG: These are people that are Scientologists, that are being declared pursuant — at the time, 1968 — being declared pursuant to the Scientology religious practices, under their justice system. Mr. Minton’s not a Scientologist.

THE COURT: There’s no question in my mind that, according to the matters that have been brought to this hearing, that Mr. Minton would have been considered a suppressive person.

MR. WEINBERG: But he’s putting in a document that — that says pursuant to church policy, these Scientologists are — are getting a certain justice action. That’s what that is. I mean, he doesn’t have personal knowledge. This is 1968, before he ever was in the church.

THE COURT: But you remember that the testimony has been that when Mr. Hubbard wrote something, it was followed. And it wasn’t changed. And it would be a high crime to change the writings of

0227

Mr. Hubbard.

You know, we don’t change the Bible just because times change. I presume you don’t change the writings of Mr. Hubbard. I mean, that is about as clear as anything I know.

MR. WEINBERG: To suggest that — that there is only one interpretation —

THE COURT: Nobody said there was one —

MR. WEINBERG: — of 50 words that are written —

THE COURT: Nobody said there is one interpretation. This is something that —

MR. WEINBERG: — is preposterous.

THE COURT: — that Mr. Hubbard wrote.

MR. WEINBERG: That has to do with an internal justice action with regard to Scientologists, in 1968.

THE COURT: I see the relevance, Counselor.

Apparently you don’t. I do. It’s this hearing. I think it’s relevant to this hearing. And it’s coming in. Take it up. Make your objection. It’s made, take —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — it to the appellate court. Do

0228

whatever you want to do. Your objection is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is this document 118 strictly internal?

A This issue would have been published internally, but it would have gone out — but it’s something that would have been put in each organization so that they would know who these suppressive persons are.  The purpose of these ethics orders — one of the purposes of these ethics orders is, when they’re issued, for everyone to have a copy, so that the same people couldn’t then walk into an organization and pretend to be Scientologists in good  standing and — and wreak further havoc on the organization —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A — if that’s what’s —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not —

A — Scientology —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not — objection.

(Simultaneous speakers.)

MR. WEINBERG: He cannot authenticate this document. I believe this document, for whatever it’s worth, is a forgery. But he can’t authenticate

0229

it. He’s just guessing. He’s speculating. He wasn’t there when it was published. If it was published.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how did you obtain this document?

THE COURT: Yeah. Where did you get it?

THE WITNESS: This document was provided to me by Vaughn Young.

THE COURT: So you did not receive this document or see this document when you were in the church.

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then that objection is sustained and it will not be admitted.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince, does this have the — does this appear to be a genuine document?

THE COURT: Well, that —

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: That isn’t going to get it. He can’t — he can’t authenticate something that was given to him by Mr. Young. I mean, this is not quite the same as some of these other things that I’ve seen — this is something called — I mean, I don’t know if this is authentic or not. Some of the

0230

other things that all look like the same, then I’m going to allow it in, necessarily, without his authenticating.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But this is different. So 118 is out.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 119. Can you identify this, please?

A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February, 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those activities within the Scientology organization.

Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that? A Because I think that it, again, just like these other issues that we’ve seen, goes along in the same vein, in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself, including what it says it’ll do here: Create the greatest possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a government or whoever to protect Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I move Exhibits 113 through 117 into evidence, skipping over 118, and I move 119 into evidence.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive those.

0231

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince —

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have an objection. And I know —

THE COURT: And I’m not going to hear from Mr. Weinberg and from you and from counsel from New York. I mean, there’s three lawyers at the table. It isn’t going to happen. So you sit down.

Mr. Weinberg’s making the objections. Or Mr. Weinberg, you defer to Mr. Fugate? Which is it going to be?

MR. FUGATE: Mr. Weinberg’s witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Occasionally I will hear from our First Amendment expert, occasionally.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you —

MR. LIEBERMAN: I’ll exercise restraint, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. LIEBERMAN: But there are times when —

THE COURT: I’m sure.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — I may try —

0232

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q Can you identify that?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Please remember this is a most unusual hearing that we’re having.

A This is a document that explains — a confidential document written by someone in the Guardian’s Office, which was the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs, concerning — the mayor, Gabe Cazares.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Of course, Mr. Cazares wasn’t a Scientologist, right?

A Correct.

Q So these actions — do the actions we just previously introduced into evidence have anything to do with the actions taken by the Church of Scientology against Mayor Cazares?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. He has no — he has no knowledge — he was never in the Guardian’s Office. We’ve heard a lot of testimony about the Guardian’s Office, all of which is that Mr. Miscavige came in and eliminated it because of

0233

its misconduct. This is a 1976 document. There’s no way he can authenticate it. God knows where he got this one and who gave it to him.

THE COURT: Where did you get this?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was, I believe, on our Internet site — not ours — on the Lisa McPherson Trust Internet site.

THE COURT: And —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is this from the evidence in the Washington, D.C. prosecution?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What Washington, D.C. prosecution?

THE WITNESS: This was — I believe this was an exhibit in the D.C. case —

MR. DANDAR: Mary —

THE WITNESS: — where the 11 defendants were —

MR. DANDAR: The Mary Sue Hubbard case, the Guardian’s Office; people who broke into the FBI and other public government buildings and were prosecuted. Mr. Franks talked about this —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

0234

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar likes to throw allegations around. One that he did throw around was David Miscavige murdered or caused the murder of Lisa McPherson, which he has not addressed, and he needs to address it. But this Guardian’s Office stuff has nothing to do with this hearing. Nothing. They were — they were — whatever they did wasn’t authorized by Mr. Hubbard, wasn’t authorized by the Church of Scientology. It was found out, they were thrown out  of the church and they were prosecuted. And that was all long before 1995. And what they were doing before Mr. Prince even got into Scientology. And he said he didn’t have anything to do with it.

THE COURT: This was — yeah. What is the relevance of this? It is true that the guardian ad litem — guardian ad litem. I need to get back to thinking — The Guardian’s office was — but I think that there’s been testimony that the Guardian’s Office was simply supplanted by another office. And I’ve  forgotten the name of it.

THE WITNESS: Office of —

MR. DANDAR: Office of —

0235

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs.

MR. DANDAR: — Special Affairs.

THE COURT: Office of Special Affairs.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same —

THE COURT: And consequently — there is testimony that it was the same — and it was just — it was just something that was done to — I don’t know if this is true, because — I mean, this is — I think there’s sufficient information to allow this in.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not true. And Mr. Prince wasn’t in the Office of Special Affairs. He wasn’t, and he doesn’t have any — he is not competent to testify about what went on in the Office of Special Affairs. He certainly can’t testify about what went on in the Guardian’s Office because he wasn’t even — he wasn’t there, and he wasn’t in the church at the time.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, this is just — it’s just like we’re just going to throw all of the slime we can — excuse me, Ken — we’re going to throw all the slime we can out here? Well, why don’t we —

THE COURT: Well, you know —

0236

MR. WEINBERG: — address —

THE COURT: — it’s your motion. If you want to withdraw it, then you’re not going to have any slime.

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not —

THE COURT: Withdraw —

MR. WEINBERG: — going to —

THE COURT: — or —

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not going —

THE COURT: — listen and make your objection and I’ll rule on it. And sit down. Now. I’m going to rule this is admissible.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: You’re going to hear some slime when you throw out the kind of motion that you made.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand that, but we’ve been hearing it for a long time.

THE COURT: Well, we’re going to hear it for a lot longer. You’ve had your turn. This is his turn.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the significance of 120; Exhibit 120?

A Exhibit 120 here just kind of shows a pattern of conduct where —

THE COURT: I’m not sure that he needs to

0237

explain this to us.

What — was he in the office in 1976, in the church?

MR. DANDAR: No.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in the church at that time?

THE COURT: Well, then —

A Yes —

THE COURT: — how does he know about —

A — I was —

THE COURT: — that?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

A But yes, I was in Scientology in ’76.

THE COURT: Then did this come up when you were with RTC or something like that?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the reason why we have this document in here is because it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing pattern of conduct, where if there’s a perceived enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a specific program to remove him from any position. That’s the first thing it says in this document, you know, to remove this person from his job so that he’s not a threat to Scientology. And — and it goes on where, you know, they had

0238

some college — the person pretend to be a college student and write a letter —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — saying —

THE COURT: — this is 2002. The allegation that this occurred is in the year 2002.

Do we have any thought that was — what was going on in 1976 is still going on or was going in 2002 with Mr. Minton? I mean, it’s farfetched.

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: As I said, I let it in, but I don’t need a whole bunch of —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — explanation from Mr. Prince.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s — we’ll quickly then look at 121, and then we’re finished with this part.

A Okay.

THE COURT: And by the way, you call it slime. I should not have used that word. That was your word. Very poor choice of my words.

MR. WEINBERG: It was my word.

THE COURT: Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: And I never —

THE COURT: Okay. I don’t even know what it

0239

says. I haven’t read it. So I don’t know if it’s slime or not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 121?

A Yes. This is a document called Project Normandy. This was a project that was executed when Scientology first arrived in Clearwater, which describes an intelligence activity so that it would be informed of exactly —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. No competence. There’s no way he can authenticate this document.

THE COURT: Yeah. This document doesn’t look like any document that I have seen. How do you — where did you see this document?

THE WITNESS: There’s a — this — this document, the first copy that I saw, was on a long sheet of paper, and it had an exhibit — an exhibit stamp on it, because this is one of the documents that was taken from the 1977 raid in Los Angeles. As — in this current form, it doesn’t have it. This was something that’s on — that was on the Lisa McPherson Trust Web site.

THE COURT: So you’ve never seen this document except on the Web site?

0240

THE WITNESS: No. I — I have seen the document with the exhibit number on it. The exhibit number was put on it by a court in D.C. It was part 4 of the documents — stipulation of evidence that was turned in in D.C.

MR. DANDAR: There was a stipulation of evidence between the government prosecutor and the Church of Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: How does he know? I mean, your Honor, he — Mr. Dandar’s testifying about some case that went on 20 years ago.

THE COURT: Well, I suppose he knows because presumably he’s done some homework on it. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, there is no exhibit —

THE COURT: I’m not allowing this in.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: I’m not allowing it in because there’s nothing that tells me it can be authenticated by this witness.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And we — I’m not going to let the Lisa McPherson Web site be the basis upon which anything is authenticated.

0241

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 122.

THE COURT: How much of this are we going to have to go through?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the last —

THE COURT: Your point’s been made, I think, the point you’re trying to make.

MR. DANDAR: Last one.

THE COURT: Well, you just said that about Number 121.

MR. DANDAR: Well, you didn’t let it in, so — I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?

A Yes. Number 22 (sic) is a document written and copyrighted by Scientology, written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was intended, when it was written, for persons that worked in the 1st Division of Scientology —

THE COURT: The what division?

THE WITNESS: The 1st, the number 1 —

THE COURT: F-i-r-s-t?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The 1st Division of Scientology, which is called Division 1, HCO division. Hubbard Communications Office division.

0242

And this basically outlined again how to deal with bad press, how to investigate an attacker, this kind of thing. And public relations; how to deal with the press and public relations.

MR. DANDAR: I move 122 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No.

Only as to relevance. This has to do with internal justice actions —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — with regard to Scientologists.

THE COURT: If it can be authenticated —

MR. WEINBERG: I didn’t object to the authentication.

THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted for any relevance that it might have. May not have any. It’s just hard for me to — when documents are presented, to take the time out to read them. It may not have any relevance. And some of these — these things that I’m letting in may be absolutely irrelevant, but they’re long and they’re hard — and it’s hard to read them.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I mean, this church, like the Catholic church and a lot of

0243

churches, has internal — has an internal justice system where they deal internally with — with what —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — you know, what they call crimes but, you know, in the secular world, are not necessarily crimes. And —

THE COURT: And you can make — and you can certainly make that point in your closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: I would object to any reference to similarities with the Catholic church.

THE COURT: Well, you can object all you want.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: It’s been declared a religion. It is a religion. So is the Catholic church a religion.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court’s attention?

A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, “When we need somebody haunted, we investigate.”

This talks about not only people inside of Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of

0244

Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists; people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They don’t have to be a Scientologist. And it — and it — this is — this document itself explains the basis of intelligence, investigation, how it’s used, how you handle bad press. And it — it’s just kind of like a little handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to have that function within Scientology.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Now —

THE COURT: Number 122 is in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever been the subject of a Scientology intelligence operation, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I have.

Q What and when?

A I guess it was 1999. I used to do work with families that would call, that had — members within the Church of Scientology. And they were concerned, they wanted another opinion, a different viewpoint presented to their family member. I was called by a fellow named John Porter, who informed me about a fellow in Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Nevada — Bakersfield, Nevada, who had a son in Scientology.

0245

He had spend $200,000 within a month, and the family was concerned that he was squandering his inheritance. I flew to Vegas, met with the person who supposedly was the father, and we had a chat and were going to proceed with it. But as it turned out the person, John Porter, was a person hired — a Scientology-hired private investigator.

The person that posed as the victim’s father was a retired sheriff. And I guess the purpose — and you know, they paid me a thousand dollars to come down and do this. But I guess the purpose was to see if I was going to say or do anything criminal that could be used to show that I’m forcefully deprogramming or capturing people. And of course, that never happened, so — And then this — I’ve only recently learned that this even was so. The whole deal with having a black private investigator come, give me marijuana, come to my house, putting the seeds on the back porch — you know, I’m  wondering, “Where is this,” you know, and I’m throwing it all — that whole stuff, as later come out, was an operation. I mean, they — they — My father lives in a retirement community. He’s 74 years old. The Scientologists have come and picketed his house and circled his house with signs.

0246

You know, those are just some of the things that have happened.

Q Okay. All right. Now, let’s go to Mr. Minton.

By the way, before we get to Minton, one question. You said you testified in the Wollersheim 4 case for the Church of Scientology Religious Technology Center. Did you ever testify in any other case for the Church of Scientology?

THE COURT: What year was that, please, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe it was 1986.

THE COURT: Were you still in the Church of Scientology at the time?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you testified as an expert for the church?

THE WITNESS: I testified as to — an expert particularly in the NED for OTs material.

THE COURT: See, he keeps saying that. I don’t know what that —

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: Nefrotease (phonetic)?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r.

0247

THE WITNESS: For. NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Oh. Sounds like you’re saying nefrotease.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: NED for OTs.

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I was a person qualified to study those documents, so I did a comparison to what David Mayo had as opposed to what the church had copyrighted, and I gave testimony about that.

THE COURT: So Madam Court Reporter, you understand all this time he’s been saying that, it’s NED for OTs?

THE REPORTER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not “nefrotease.” All right.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. DANDAR: And it’s abbreviated as NOTS.

THE COURT: So you were called to say, what, that this NED for OTs material was —

THE WITNESS: Was virtually identical to —

THE COURT: To some L. Ron Hubbard material.

THE WITNESS: No. The NED for OTs is the L. Ron Hubbard material. I was comparing them to  similar materials that they were using at what was

0248

known as the Advanced Abilities Center.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, my — my understanding is that Mr. Prince was testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert witness.

THE COURT: Well, it does seem as if there’s some complications as to who’s a fact witness and who’s an expert witness, and that’s something we’ll have to wrestle with in this trial too. So we’ll not go there. We’ll say he was either a fact or an expert witness.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And you were — you were always — when you — before you were told — you didn’t choose Mr. Miscavige as being a leader and you were booted out onto the rehabilitation project force, were you considered, before that point in time, an expert on the tech of Scientology?

A Very much so.

Q Okay. I don’t think your microphone’s on.

A Oh. How about now?

Q No. I don’t think it’s turned on.

A Oh.

THE COURT: I can hear him fine. If you lawyers can hear him, okay.

0249

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, is there a — how does Scientology consider a Scientologist coming into a courtroom or anywhere and talking about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. What was the question?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How does the Church of Scientology consider someone who testifies or talks about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He’s now speaking for the entire Church of Scientology now?

THE COURT: I don’t know.

A Well —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Pursuant to the — pursuant to written policy of the Church of Scientology.

A According —

MR. WEINBERG: We —

A — to —

MR. WEINBERG: We object. He is certainly not talking for the Church of Scientology as to how the church considers some Scientologist coming in and testifying.

THE COURT: If he is testifying regarding his experience when he was in the church and as a

0250

witness, I will allow it. He is testifying, however, based on that and not — he really wouldn’t know how everybody else thinks.

MR. DANDAR: No. It’s based on the former.

Right.

THE COURT: Right.

A It is written policy in the Scientology ethics book, in its management series and basic staff books, that it is a crime to come into a court and testify about Scientology without first going over the information with Scientology or ethics officer, somebody within Scientology.

In other words, it’s a crime to just walk into a courtroom and speak, give testimony about Scientology, without first Scientology being privy to what that’s going to be —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we — could he tell us where this policy is?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Introduction to Scientology Ethics. It’s right there. I can pull it out and read it for you.

MR. WEINBERG: Could you point out —

MR. DANDAR: I’m handing the witness a hardbound book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

THE COURT: Did you say without first

0251

discussing it with an ethics officer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Here’s one reference to that. It says, “Testifying hostilely before a state –”

THE COURT: Why don’t you give us a page number?

THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. This is page number 209.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: It’s listed under Suppressive Act. Suppressive Acts. And it says, “Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it –”

THE COURT: Well, that doesn’t really say –what you had just testified to is that it was a crime to testify without first discussing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — it with an ethics officer.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You’re right.

And what I’m looking for is called —

THE COURT: I’ll tell you what we’ll do. Let’s just let him look for that either over the break, our morning break, or at lunch. And if he can’t find it, you can make your objection. And if he

0252

can, then he can cite it into the record at that time and we can just go ahead and move on.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: So you keep that with you and you can —

MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem with bringing the whole book into evidence. I mean, the book — many of the policies in there are — we were probably going to — are completely contradictory to what Mr. Dandar’s witnesses have been saying.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you want to —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: — put it in — this may be Mr. Dandar’s only copy. So if you want to put it in, maybe you have an extra one and you can do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, have you heard the term “acceptable truth”?

A Yes.

Q In Scientology policy, what does that mean?

A An acceptable truth is basically a truth where you don’t have to tell the — tell the whole truth or to tell an accurate truth, but just tell the truth that would be acceptable to the person that you’re speaking to.

0253

Q Okay. Does it have anything to do with not telling the truth?

A Very much so. It’s a way to evade or avoid a question or to avoid — yeah — to — a direct question.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we ask Mr. Prince to identify the policy and show us where in the policy it says what he just said?

THE COURT: I think — I think there’s some stuff in evidence already on acceptable truth.

MR. WEINBERG: There is, but it doesn’t say what he just said, that it’s okay to lie.

THE COURT: Well, then it — I presume, Mr. Prince, whatever it is you’re talking about, is the document that I think I’ve already seen —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — acceptable truth?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: So this is your interpretation of it based on your years in the church?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I can’t — I can’t remember what number it is, but there is some number in evidence that deals with acceptable truth.

MR. DANDAR: It’s — it’s called a PR series,

0254

and it talks about PR, public relations, and the second page mentions acceptable truths. And I’ll find that for you during the break.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right, Mr. — Mr. Prince. When is the first time you met Bob Minton?

A I met Bob Minton in 1998. I think it was the spring of 1998 or perhaps — no, perhaps it was the summer of 1998.

Q And how was it that you came to meet him?

A I met him through Mrs. Brooks. She introduced me to him.

Q Where at?

A New Hampshire. At his home in New Hampshire.

Q And what caused you to be at his home in New Hampshire?

A I was on vacation —

Well, this is kind of a long story. I was on vacation in Connecticut. Previous to that, I had seen the Internet. And I never knew anything about it, and I just typed in, “Hey, my name is Jesse Prince. If anyone sees Stacy or Vaughn, you know, have them contact me. Here’s my number.” So I was vacationing in Connecticut.

Stacy called me, and we met and talked, and she introduced me to Bob.

0255

Q Why is it that you went on the Internet for the first time and asked for — have Stacy Vaughn — Stacy Young or Vaughn Young call you?

A Well, this was 1998. I had literally no contact with computers after leaving Scientology, in a way that there would be messaging systems amongst organizations and people and things like that. I was — I didn’t know anything about the Internet. I was at a cafe, a cybercafe.

And I did a search and typed in Scientology, and saw all of this stuff come up about Scientology. I saw all of these people openly critical of Scientology.

Now, for me this was completely unheard of. Because if a person was critical of Scientology, they would quickly be silenced. And I saw that — that Stacy and Vaughn were saying something, or someone made reference to them.

So I answered their message as best that I could, and say, “I need these people to contact me.”

Q When was the last time you considered yourself a Scientologist?

A You know, I know I’ve answered the question in different ways. And the fact of the matter is, is it’s kind of hard to tell. I — for me, I think probably by 1996, maybe, I was kind of like pretty much completely done with anything about it.

Q You left the — you left the organization where

0256

you — from RTC, then RPF, and — and you went to work for a Scientology-run public company or a private company run by a Scientologist, correct?

A Correct.

Q And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that company?

A Correct.

Q All right. So were you a Scientologist, then, when you were working for that company?

A You know, part of it, yes; part of it, no.

Q Okay. When did you leave that company?

A I left that company, I believe, in 1997.

Q Okay. When did you get contacted by Earle Cooley, the attorney for the Church of Scientology, after you left, formally, your position in Scientology?

THE COURT: Well, let me help myself out here, ’cause I don’t know — When you left, whatever that is, were you still a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. When did you stop being a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: October 31st, 1992.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is the answer to your

0257

question. That’s when he left.

THE COURT: Well, that’s —

MR. WEINBERG: So — so when he left — the day he left, he stopped being a member of the Sea Org, is what he’s telling you, I think.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So why is it, from 1992 to 1996, that you still — you were — You’re saying you were like a public member? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Just a Scientologist. Correct.

THE COURT: Just a Scientologist. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Judge just brought up something.

When — how — what is the — what do the Sea Org people call Scientologists who are not on staff, but they’re Scientologists?

A Public Scientologists.

Q So they use the word “public.”

A Correct.

Q Okay. After meeting with Mr. Minton in the summer of ’98, what did you do after that, in reference to Mr. Minton?

A I went back home to Minneapolis. At the time, I was living in Minneapolis. And I continued to have dialogue

0258

with Mrs. Brooks, who informed me about a lawsuit that Scientology had filed against a corporation called FACTNet. And we started to —

THE COURT: What was the date, now?

I’m sorry, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: This would have been 1998.

THE COURT: Okay. This was after you went to Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire? You stayed in touch? Is what you’re —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

A She said — she talked to me about that, and she put me in touch with Daniel Leipold. And I started looking over some of the issues, and thought that I could help. So I started talking with Daniel Leipold, Mrs. Brooks. And within a week I received a letter from a Scientology attorney, Elliott Abelson4, letting me know that I was going to be sued if I cooperated with anyone against Scientology, basically.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on what?

A Based on — well, for me to leave the situation that I was in in the Sea Org, I had to — it was a kind of a give-or-take thing. I had to make certain concessions.

0259

I was being held there against my will, as well as my wife. We were, you know, deprived of basic human needs and — for months. And we were told that if we signed these documents, we would be allowed to walk out the door. Again, this went on for months. And then finally, in October, whatever they wanted us to sign —

THE COURT: Of what year?

You see, everything —

THE WITNESS: October of 1992.

A Whatever they wanted us to sign, we signed. So he made reference to the fact that I had signed a document saying I wouldn’t assist anyone in bringing any legal action against Scientology, nor would I do it myself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q FACTNet wasn’t bringing legal action; they were being sued by Scientology.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Who was this lawyer again? Which lawyer?

THE WITNESS: Elliott Abelson.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And so when you started to meet with Mr. Leipold on the FACTNet case, you got this letter from Mr. Abelson. What did you do?

0260

A Well, I took it to the lawyer, and I explained the situation to him then, Daniel Leipold. And when I explained the situation to him, he actually drafted a suit against maybe Golden Era or whatever — I never actually saw the suit myself — and filed it in Riverside County. And then there was a whole press thing. I was interviewed by the newspaper and on and on.

Q Okay. Anything come out of that lawsuit?

A No.

Q All right. So did you go to work for FACTNet?

A Yes, I did.

Q All right. And how long did you stay there?

A Maybe about a year, a year and a half.

Q Okay. ’98 to ’99?

A ’98 to ’99. Yeah. About a year.

Q Okay. And at some point in time you came to Florida to look at the Lisa McPherson PC folders?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you looked over those folders with Stacy Brooks?

A Yes, I did.

Q And then after we received a copy of the PC folders under court order, you went and took your time and examined all —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could there be

0261

direct questions and not —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: I’m just trying to speed it up.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I would prefer a direct question.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know what, some of this — you’re right. But some of this is preliminary. We know he looked at the folders.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the — it’s the testimony.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I know he looked at them, and I didn’t object to that part of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll take a break right now.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes or 20 minutes. 15, we’ll try for.

(A recess was taken at 10:48 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:18 a.m.)

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, may I approach the bench?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’d like to announce to the court I’m going to be making an appearance in this matter for Robert Minton as lead counsel, so I will

0262

be submitting a formal notice. I just want the court to be aware of that.

THE COURT: Now, will that be for all purposes?

MR. BATTAGLIA: Well, for all purposes. But Mr. Howie still will be involved in portions of the case.

We will send in a formal notice. We were retained this past Thursday.

THE COURT: All right. Very good. I think, Mr. Battaglia, there is a matter pending that I frankly would like to hear. Because it is a motion, I believe, to dismiss the counterclaim. And if it’s not dismissed, then obviously he needs to answer it because it could have some bearing on the counterclaim.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I have to check that. I understand from talking to Mr. Howie that he may have responded to that counterclaim and affirmative defenses. I’d have to check that out.

THE COURT: If he did, I haven’t seen it.

MR. DANDAR: I’m Ken Dandar, by the way. Judge, Mr. Howie filed a motion to dismiss the pending counterclaim. They never filed the new counterclaim naming Mr. Minton, so he prematurely filed a motion to dismiss. We never received a new

0263

counterclaim which is supposed to name Mr. Minton as a defendant. We’re still waiting for that.

THE COURT: Okay. I think that perhaps the reason why they didn’t file a new one is because I allowed him to be added orally, to be — to be amended, I guess. So perhaps they — I mean, Mr. Howie obviously thought it had been filed, for all intents and purposes, with the oral amendments, because he did file a motion to dismiss or something.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, I did look. That was a problem that puzzled me a bit, because there was no order in the file, and then there was a corrective counterclaim that was filed. And I didn’t understand the import of that, because the party was just added by a corrective counterclaim without an order of the court. I assumed you had granted that orally.

THE COURT: I had. And I had granted it orally, and maybe I just forgot to sign an order. Can you all go back and maybe look into that? Because it was your motion, I believe, to add him.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And I granted it. And I know Mr. Howie was here, and I said, “It’s granted and he

0264

is now a party.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. And he was allowed to sit in as a party from then on, as opposed to being excluded under the rules.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Is there presently a motion to dismiss pending?

THE COURT: Yes. That Mr. Howie has filed.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Filed on behalf of Minton?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: We’ll look into that.

THE COURT: It’s more than a motion to dismiss.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It is. It’s a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I saw that. And we’ll get back to the court.

You got to understand we’re coming in very late. There’s thousands and thousands of exhibits. And we’re just trying to catch up here.

THE COURT: Yes. There are thousands and thousands of exhibits.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It’s going to take a bit —

THE COURT: I’m sure it is.

(The reporter had technical problems and there was a pause in the proceedings.)

0265

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before the break, Mr. Prince had said he was going to find the section —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: In the ethics book that said you had to get the permission of an ethics officer to testify about Scientology. Could he —

THE COURT: Did you find that?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I misspoke as to where the actual quote was. It’s not in the ethics book, but it is in another volume which unfortunately we do not have here, but I will get it and I will submit it to the court.

THE COURT: All right. And the same — if you can’t, why, we’ll strike that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 123. Can you identify 123?

A Yes. This is a series that’s put out for the technical part of Scientology which has to do with the PC Folder and the contents of the PC folder.

Q And is this something you were trained on as a technical person in Scientology?

A Yes.

0266

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I hate to interrupt you, and I feel really bad about it.

This was laying here. I don’t know whether this is something that was previously admitted. It doesn’t have a number on it.

MR. DANDAR: This was. This was 114, which was admitted.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 123 in evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: Is it one exhibit or two exhibits? You handed me —

MR. DANDAR: Did I hand you two?

MR. WEINBERG: You handed me The PC folder and Its Contents, and Mixing Rundowns and Repairs. One was an exhibit dated November 13th, 1997, which was after Mr. Hubbard died. But I don’t have an objection to it, if you want —

THE COURT: It does look like you have two different things here.

MR. DANDAR: I have two. And I meant to do that. It involves the —

THE COURT: Well, then, how about making them A and B?

0267

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: 123-A will be The PC folder and Its Contents; 123-B, if you’re saying it’s related, will be Mixing Rundowns and Repairs —

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: — 123-B?

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure I’m right about that.

MR. WEINBERG: When I say I’m not going to object, I do have an objection to all of this and Mr. Prince testifying, but I don’t object to the authenticity of these.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is the separate document, that apparently is paper clipped to The PC Folder and Its Contents, entitled Mixing Rundowns and Repairs — is that related to The PC folder and Its Contents or is that something different?

A That’s something different.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Then I will withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. So it’s just 123, The PC Folder and Its Content.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

0268

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, is the Church of Scientology allowed to deviate from this bulletin of November 13th, 1987 on what is supposed to be in a person’s PC folder?

A Not at all. The whole purpose of this issue is to clearly define what is expected to be in a preclear folder. It gives the significance of what each item is, in detail, and auditors — any person that audits in Scientology is trained on this as a basic for auditing.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg brought up a good point. Mr. Hubbard died in 1986. How can this policy letter dated November of 1987 bear his stamp of approval with his name on it?

A Well, turning to the last page, it says, “This is a compilation assisted by the LRH Technical Research Compilations.” There are other — there’s another issue type that isn’t a formal issue type within Scientology, which is called advices. And often, from advices, policy letters can be compiled and issued.

Q And that’s what this is? This is a compilation?

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move Exhibit 123 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

0269

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Also Mr. Prince, I’m going to show you Exhibit 124. It’s marked for identification.

MR. DANDAR: Hand one to the court and counsel.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 124?

A Yes. This is a Scientology policy directive. And this was issued from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and authorized by the watchdog committee, adopted as church policy. This concerns confidentiality aspects of preclear folders and what’s expected to be in them.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’d like to move 124 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you started to review Lisa McPherson’s 1995 PC folders, did you find them to be intact?

A No, I did not.

Q Did you create an affidavit which — where you disclosed things that were missing?

A Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Are we now into that part of the testimony that deals with the complaint itself?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

0270

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince — and we’ve already had marked, and I believe it’s in evidence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 108, which is your affidavit dated April 4, 2000, concerning the PC folders, and with a list of things that are missing. Do you
recall creating that affidavit?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you need to see it to refresh your memory?

A Yes, I do.

Q Did anyone help you in creating that affidavit?

THE COURT: What was the number of Plaintiff’s Exhibit again? 108?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

Let’s make sure it’s in evidence. I’m pretty sure it is.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, if he’s going to be referring to it, Madam Clerk, if you could get — let me use the official copy. And I’m sure you filed mine in its appropriate book.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, while she’s looking, I object to all this as to the relevance, as to what was or what was not in the PC folder.

What the hearing is about is whether or not Mr. Dandar made a sham pleading and Mr. Prince

0271

executed in essence a sham affidavit, accusing David Miscavige of murder, and whether or not there’s been various misconduct from the plaintiff’s side regarding various testimony in the case.

What does what was in the PC folder or not have to do with that?

MR. DANDAR: This falls under the second category in Mr. Weinberg’s comments: Various misconduct. They have accused me of lying about the fact that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave Scientology. Somehow I just made that all up and I got people to lie about it.

And that’s part of their terminating sanction motion and disqualification motion.

MR. WEINBERG: So you —

But what’s that got to do with what’s missing?

You going to ask him what was in the PC folders? Is that what you’re saying?

THE COURT: Well, there’s also an allegation as to his complaint and whether or not there’s any basis for it. And part of what I have read, maybe in Mr. Prince’s affidavit, that some of the missing data is data from the workers, which the testimony would be, from some witness — Mr. Prince, perhaps — should have been in the PC folders,

0272

and —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, I — they’ve made that allegation, although the workers all testified what they did, what they saw and all that.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not David Miscavige ordered Lisa McPherson to be killed. Just —

THE COURT: Well, whether it was an intentional death, I think, is at issue here, and I think it does. So your objection’s overruled.

MR. DANDAR: Was 109 not in evidence?

THE COURT: And besides that — I don’t know what his testimony’s going to be, but if this is, in some fashion, what he relied upon for his opinion, then I think it’s got to be relevant for his opinion.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it was inquiring. I mean, it’s —

THE COURT: I think that probably for all those different things it has some relevance, so I’m going to let it in.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, 108’s previously been admitted into evidence.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you reviewed the files of

0273

Lisa McPherson, did you find routing forms?

A I did not.

Q And recently we showed you some routing forms that, within the last few weeks, that the Church of Scientology states they have reproduced to us. And did you review those?

A Yes, I did.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending six to eight weeks at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in the summer of 1995?

A No, they do not.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending 17 days at the Ft. Harrison Hotel from November 18th of ’95 to December 5th of ’95?

A No, they do not.

Q Can a person, a public member like Lisa McPherson, stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel without a routing form?

A No, she could not.

Q What would the routing form tell us?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence. I mean, is Mr. Prince saying that he has knowledge as to what a person that checks into the Ft. Harrison Hotel has to fill out in order to be a guest there?

You have to have a routing form as opposed to registering as a guest? What basis? He never

0274

worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: He is telling us, based on his experience in Scientology, as to what a routing form is used for and what a routing form should have on it.

MR. WEINBERG: But Mr. Dandar asked him whether you needed a routing form to be a guest at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me rephrase the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you need a routing form, Mr. Prince, to be in a program such as the introspection rundown, whether it’s the Ft. Harrison Hotel or any other property of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, you do.

Q And why is that?

A Because the Ft. Harrison —

And I’ll just say this: It’s incorrect that I never worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. I worked at the Ft. Harrison from 1979 to 1982.

The Ft. Harrison has many divisions, many departments, many sections that people come either for training or for auditing. They have different places where people would get auditing.

0275

And the whole purpose of a routing form is when a person comes in for service, they sign in, they get their hotel room, they’re routed to pay for their hotel room, they get what their room is, any questions are answered. When
they’re ready for services, they go down, they’re put on another routing form.

And like, if they’re going to get a service — a training course, a TRs course, it would be on the routing form, and they would go see the registrar; they would go and see the director of processing; maybe they would get an interview.

In other words, the routing form gives you the areas and the people that you need to see and the places you need to go to in order to accomplish what you have come for.

Q And is there any policy that permits a deviation from the requirement to have a routing form?

A No, there is not.

Q As an expert on Scientology tech, what does it mean to you that there is no routing form for Lisa McPherson?

A Well, in and of itself, that is an oddity. But when you take into consideration the fact — many other items that are missing from her preclear folder, I can only opine that this was information that would have not been good to discover for Scientology’s behalf.

0276

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you —

MR. WEINBERG: Competence, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. I’m going to allow it for this hearing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you been involved in the destruction — intentional destruction of PC folders of members, in addition to Mr. Wollersheim’s, that you previously testified about at this hearing —

A Well —

Q — which was ordered to be pulped by Mr. Miscavige?

A Well, at the time that the Wollersheim incident happened, because there were threats from other people such as John Nelson and — well, I don’t know. You know, there was a list of people at the time. The only one that I specifically recall right now is John Nelson. But their folders were destroyed as well.

Q What about Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes. His as well.

Q What about Mr. Franks?

A I believe his was as well.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

0277

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Believe? Or does he know?

THE COURT: Do you know that or —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, as I sit here today, I can’t say for certain —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — but I knew there were certainly more than Mr. Wollersheim’s folders, because there were a list of people. And I can’t sit here and recall today every name —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — that was on that list.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the significance to you — let’s start with the missing — what’s missing from her folder. In the introspection rundown that Mr. Kartuzinski states she was under November 18th through December 5th of ’95, is there supposed to be documentation in a PC folder that Lisa McPherson was indeed under the introspection rundown?

THE COURT: What dates, now? Are we talking about the 17-day dates?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0278

A Yes. There would have been, in the very front of the folder, what’s called a program. It would have been a repair program. It would have been something that’s on a pink piece of paper as opposed to a blue piece of paper.
The color in the paper — the color within the preclear folder also has significance.

But in Lisa’s case, there would have been, if she was on — on the introspection rundown, it would have given a short statement of who she was, what she’s accomplished, what her last auditing activities were, and what the current problem was, what the symptoms were that she was experiencing that would cause her to be on introspection rundown.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection to this whole line. I — I take it where he’s going is to suggest that she wasn’t on the introspection rundown, when he alleged in the complaint that she was on the introspection rundown. It’s not an issue in this case. We answered the complaint. It’s not an issue.

THE COURT: That’s true.

MR. DANDAR: I subsequently discovered that this program was missing, that Mr. Kartuzinski, under oath, said was in her PC folder. Now I’m not sure what she was going through and where she was.

0279

These things — these things are missing, and we would have to conform the pleadings to the evidence as we discover new things that are — go on.

THE COURT: So what are you saying? Are you saying that you — that she was not under the introspection rundown?

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: Or you don’t know?

MR. DANDAR: I’m saying it’s not a confirmed fact that she was on the introspection rundown, because of what’s missing.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let this witness testify at this hearing, because we need to get to where it was that he comes up with his conclusions —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and I assume all this has something to do with it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not sure I have the same assumption, but I understand where you’re —

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in Scientology, were things that were beneficial — papers and documents that were

0280

beneficial to Scientology removed from a member’s PC folder?

A No. You know — and I’ve written a declaration about this before — well, this declaration may be in and of itself — you know, with the Wollersheim, there was the process of, “Okay, well, we’ll turn over something; we’ll go
through and we’ll — we’ll get rid of any kind of incriminating things that would incriminate Scientology.”

Then when the production of all the folders were called for, it — that became too massive of a task and it was decided to destroy them.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I say one more thing, so I don’t lose this train of thought?

I did object, and I understand your ruling, but he already had alleged that — that the introspection rundown happened, and his response to your question and my statement was, “I just recently discovered it.”

Well, Mr. Prince reviewed the PC folders, his expert, in December of 1998, and whatever wasn’t there in December of 1998 certainly isn’t there now. So what’s he talking about?

THE COURT: I don’t know, but I think that this testimony is going to tell us why Mr. Prince concluded what he concluded, which is what Mr. Dandar relied on for his complaint. It is relevant for this hearing.

0281

Please don’t object again.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you — when did you actually sit down and review the 1995 PC folders of Lisa McPherson?

A It was in the fall of 1999.

Q What’s the date of that affidavit?

A The date of this affidavit is April — the 4th of April, 2000.

Q Okay. And concerning this one issue, the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson was satisfied with her Scientology experience, do the PC folders reveal what she had to say about her Scientology experience in 1995?

A Yes, it does. And I think I’ve covered that with as much detail as possible: That she wanted to leave. She actually made plans to leave. And she felt like she was starting to become damaged.

Q And that’s inside the PC folders?

A Correct.

Q Now, within your experience of Scientology, have you used — have you — are you familiar with the term “end cycle”?

A Yes, I am.

Q And what is your understanding or familiarity with that term?

0282

THE COURT: Can I —

I’m sorry. I’m as bad at interrupting chain of thought as anybody.

This — this particular affidavit is the affidavit that was dealing with her wishing to leave that was part of the motion for summary judgment that was ruled on by Judge Quesada, is that right?

MR. DANDAR: Well, that was part of it, but there’s a lot more than just that in there. It talks about things that are missing from her PC folder.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now we’re past the missing items from the PC folder and to —

MR. DANDAR: Trying to get that paragraph 34.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are people who want to leave the Church of Scientology — how are they looked at, within your experience and per policy by the Church of Scientology?

A Well, people who want to leave Scientology and publicly state such are considered criminals, because that’s a high crime in Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A I do have the instant reference on that right now.

0283

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And what is that?

A That PT/SP 5package that was —

MR. WEINBERG: Can we just establish, is he talking about staff members or public members or both?

THE WITNESS: Any member of Scientology, public member of Scientology, it’s a high crime.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’m handing the witness PT/SP course, a booklet that was previously talked about —

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

MR. DANDAR: — by other witnesses.

THE COURT: I think it’s in evidence, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: It’s possible. I mean, I’m not sure.

THE COURT: Maybe it isn’t, but I’ve seen that book.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Search and Discovery is in evidence. That came out of here.

THE WITNESS: Says right here, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.” And this comes from HCO policy letter of 23 December, 1965, RB, Suppressive X, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists.

0284

THE COURT: What page are you reading from, sir, in that book?

THE WITNESS: Where I read that quote from, I am reading from — I just read from 159.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’ll have that entire policy marked.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, my objection to this is it talks about — Mr. Prince read it –publicly — a person publicly announces he’s going to depart Scientology. Well, that’s not what we have in this case. What’s that have to do with this case?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear him say “publicly.”

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he read. That was —

THE WITNESS: It says, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.”

I think Lisa had done that, because she had told her mother and she had told a friend that she was leaving Scientology. And she made it known, in the notes that I made here, that she intended to leave. She wasn’t happy with —

MR. WEINBERG: I object to that statement

0285

because the evidence —

THE COURT: Well, look, you don’t need to object to that, because I know enough about —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — the evidence with the mother and the evidence with the friend and the fact that what would be in her PC folder would hardly be public, where I can determine the validity of that statement.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, within your experience with Scientology, what does that — what does it mean to publicly leave Scientology?

A You could publicly leave Scientology in several ways. You could submit a letter of resignation and make that letter available to other parties beyond a recant, which would — in a normal organization, would be the ethics officer.

I guess in these days and times you could go on the Internet or you could just simply announce to your friends and fellow Scientologists that you have the intention of leaving.

THE COURT: How about if I just don’t go back? I mean, if I’m a member of a church — which I was at one time when I was a child — and I just don’t

0286

go back? I mean, is that — is that leaving?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is considered a form of leaving. And — and in that instance, if you just simply left, you would be contacted and asked to come into the organization so that they could find out what happened. If you —

THE COURT: And what if you just don’t go in?

In other words, I’m a public member, which is what Lisa McPherson was — this is a hypothetical — and I — even — I don’t want to go back and I don’t want to get any more auditing and I don’t want to go to any more services and I just don’t go?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: They say, “Come in,” and I just decline and I don’t go.

THE WITNESS: Then they’ll show up on your door.

THE COURT: Oh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A There’s a process of getting out of Scientology. There is a way to do it. And normally, it involves signing a release agreeing that you will never — that you’ll be ineligible for Scientology services in the future —

Q To —

0287

A — and you would also have to sign a statement saying that you release any claims of any possible damage or upset that you had — in other words, a general release for the different Scientology corporations that you’ve been involved in.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just make it clear that that’s only — that he’s talking about staff members and not public members having to sign a release?

THE WITNESS: I — it’s staff and public. I — that’s the second time I’ve said that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Mr. Prince, you said that she talked to her friend from high school about wanting to leave. Where did you get that information from?

A From her testimony.

Q The friend’s testimony?

A Yes.

Q Kelly Davis?

A Yes.

Q And when you said that Lisa called her mother and said she wanted to leave. Where did you get that from?

A I think — I read — I read it — I read it somewhere in the evidence. I can’t —

Q Okay.

A — put my finger on exactly where —

0288

Q Do you recall —

A — I saw it.

Q — Lisa’s mother, Fannie, having a Hospice worker by the name Sandra Anderson?

A That’s right.

Q Is that what you’re referring to?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is he, like, prompting him now?

THE COURT: I would say so.

Stop leading him.

MR. DANDAR: It’s either — wanted to make sure it wasn’t from me. Because that’s the accusation.

THE COURT: Move on, Counselor.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, end cycle. Can you tell us what — where and when you’ve heard that or seen that term?

A End cycle has a history in Scientology. And it has varied meanings.

One meaning of end cycle is to start, change and stop something. In other words, you start it — you start an activity, you carry through to its intended result or purpose, and then you end it. So ending the cycle, you know, like this hearing is going to have an end of cycle

0289

when the judge decides who’s right and who’s wrong or discovers the issues. That’s one form of end cycle. Another form of end cycle is to die. This — this — this idea of ending cycle to die came into prominence in my mind and in my experience in Scientology after Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986 at a discussion with senior CS Ray Mithoff. Because I was curious. He sat on a deathbed with L. Ron Hubbard.

And I asked him, you know, “When he died –” I asked him, you know, because this was — L. Ron Hubbard was a person that we all looked up to. And I — and I was curious. You know, “Well, how did this man die? What were the exact circumstances? What happened there?”

And he said that he positively started shutting down certain parts of his body; his, you know, certain part of his systems.

And I asked, “Well, how does this happen? I mean, what are you — what are you doing?” And he told me the Scientology process is that you use — you know, you talk about what the — your attention may be stuck on; at what problems do you have with dying? I mean, there’s a whole procedure that you go through to prepare for death so that you have no attention or problems with death and can die.

When Mr. Hubbard passed, at that point I started seeing, you know, more of the concept of ending cycle, as

0290

far as to die.

THE COURT: Is this a little bit like a — what we might think of Hospice and how they prepare someone —

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: — with a terminal disease in your family and —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Hubbard didn’t have a terminal disease, though, did he?

A To my knowledge, no.

Q But he still went through that process of end cycle?

A Yes.

Q So where else did you see that term used in reference to dying?

A Terminally ill people. I’ve also read this up in affidavits.

A friend of mine, Ted Cormack (phonetic), had Hodgkin’s disease. It was apparently fatal. I saw in his folder from Mr. Mithoff the necessary steps that people do in order to, you know, give up the ghost, basically; you know, to die.

0291

THE COURT: Die in peace —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — like in Hospice.

THE WITNESS: Exactly.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do they do that by themselves?

A No. It’s done with an auditor.

Q And did you —

THE COURT: With what, sir?

THE WITNESS: An auditor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And is there ever anything in writing about having an auditor go in and assist someone to die?

A Absolutely. There would be, as in Lisa’s case, a program. That program would —

MR. DANDAR: Can I — can I please have these people stop laughing?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: We apologize.

And I object. “As in Lisa’s case, a program.” I mean, he has just said 10 minutes ago that there was no program, and therefore —

THE COURT: He is trying to tell us what he believes to be missing —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0292

THE COURT: — which is what he’s talking about: Missing things in the PC folder, which is what gave his opinion that he gave to Mr. Dandar, who filed the complaint.

MR. WEINBERG: But the question was, though, was generally about his understanding of end cycle, end of cycle.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

And I’m going to instruct you all back there to stop laughing.

MR. WEINBERG: You’re right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So it’s your belief that an auditor would have been with Lisa McPherson when she died? Is that what you’re suggesting, from this missing — missing documents, or what?

THE WITNESS: Well — well, you know, your Honor, for me that’s kind of mixing apples and oranges. Because the question he asked me was about a specific incident that happened with a fellow named Ted Cormack —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — so.

THE COURT: Did you see his PC folder?

0293

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And what is in there?

THE WITNESS: The process is similar to what you said, in Hospice, when a person dies in peace; you know — you know, as far as they’re concerned everything’s taken care of and they can go.

THE COURT: Okay. And so that you saw that in his PC folder?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You know —

THE COURT: And said an auditor was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So how do you jump from there to something that’s missing in Lisa McPherson’s folder and assume that there was an auditor with her with some end cycle directive?

THE WITNESS: Well, with — and we’ll get to that too.

But in relationship to Lisa McPherson, it is — it is my belief that she was most assuredly on a program; that that program most assuredly was in her file folder at some point, along with other reports that are detailed — that are missing; and those — you know, for whatever reason, those things weren’t turned over or made available.

THE COURT: Let’s assume that — for the sake

0294

of argument, that what she was on was the introspection rundown, and that something went wrong, and she wasn’t taken to the hospital as quickly as she should have been, and she died. And let’s assume further that somehow or another somebody removed part of that from her folder. That would have nothing to do with an end cycle, an auditor being there or anything of the sort. So I guess my main question is, what caused you to leap to the conclusion that the fact that the documents were missing?

And there’s no question of that. So two and a half days, I guess of documents are missing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — toward the end of this — I’ll call it an introspection rundown.

You know, how do you know that that just didn’t have something to do with the fact that either somebody, A, forgot to put them in a folder or, B, if they were destroyed it was because somebody was negligent and they didn’t want somebody to see that? How do you get to the fact that somebody ordered her death and said, “End cycle,” or whatever it is that’s in the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is exactly how I came

0295

to the conclusion —

THE COURT: Do you mind, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: No, no.

THE COURT: That’s what we need to get to.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s get — let’s get to it.

THE WITNESS: Let’s get to it.

THE COURT: Get to it.

How did you conclude — how did you — I presume that you read the PC folders.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: You answered Mr. Dandar’s questions. He asked you as his consultant, “Can you tell me what you think –”

THE WITNESS: “What happened?”

THE COURT: This is what you told him, and he put it in the complaint.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So now you got to tell me how you came to the conclusion you came to and what it is you told Mr. Dandar —

THE WITNESS: I’ll —

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: — tell you exactly —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — how I did that, your Honor.

0296

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: From reading Lisa McPherson’s preclear folders, reading her ethics folders, seeing, kind of like, what’s missing — and it didn’t make sense for these things to be out of the preclear folder unless they were damaging to the church.

And again, I’ve been in a position where, you know, it was considered documents within a preclear folder were damaging to Scientology so they’re removed for Scientology’s sake.

But even a step back from that, your Honor, you get a person —

And it clearly states on the introspection rundown that once you are assigned to the introspection rundown, you are not allowed to leave introspection rundown until the case supervisor tells you you can leave. You are literally incarcerated until you are told you can leave.

THE COURT: Well, you know, that may be your interpretation. If somebody is — is what I would consider schizophrenic or very, very mentally disturbed, you really wouldn’t want them leaving because they might be — you know —

You handled an introspection rundown, right?

0297

THE WITNESS: Sure. Yes. I’ve done them.

THE COURT: And I’ve read what — what you and Ms. Brooks said about this woman. So apparently there was a time when she was in a situation where you wouldn’t have wanted her just stumbling around the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Correct.

But you know, be that as it may, again, the person is not allowed to leave until they have permission to leave.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So whether or not this person experienced some lucid moment or had a lucid hour and said, “Hey, look, I just want to do something else,” they still could not leave, okay? Now, what happens in that situation, from introspection rundowns that I’ve done — that I have done, participated in myself, and myself seeing and being incarcerated — what happens?

When you’re in a situation you don’t want to be, you say — you tell them, “Look, I don’t want to be here.” “Well, too bad. You have to be here.” “No. It’s not too bad. Now, really, guys, it’s over. I just want to go.” “No. You’re not going.”

Well, what happens? It escalates. The person

0298

says, “Hey, look, if you don’t let me out of here, I’m going to call the police. If you don’t call — let me out of here, I’m going to find a way to contact law enforcement. I’m going to find a way to get out of here. You better let me out of here.” And it escalates like that. And this has happened. And the reason why I say what happened to Lisa happened to Lisa — the reason why I gave that opinion is, number one, what is missing and what would have been there, which happens as a natural consequence, is, when you’re held against your will and people don’t want to let you go, then you complain. You threaten. She threatened. Oh, no.

Now it becomes a huge problem, if Lisa is being held against her will and she wants to leave, and she’s already made it clear, through what I’ve written here, that Scientology procedures are — is not making her spiritually more able; it’s not furthering her ideas of — of, kind of, what she had in mind.

So it is my opinion that Lisa started threatening Scientology at some point. She started threatening to go to the police. She may have threatened that, “I’m going to sue you if you don’t let me go. I’m going to do whatever.” You know,

0299

push the buttons in — in the hope to get out. They didn’t let her out.

I think that Lisa became very sick. I think Lisa did change her mind about what her plans were once she left. And when — and in that horrible situation, for Scientology, it would have been a nightmare for that girl to leave that hospital — to leave Scientology and go to the hospital.

Now, this is, you know, is my opinion and I state it as such.

For them — for her to say, “Look, they locked me in there.” You know, “This happened, that happened.” And —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — boom —

THE COURT: — there was nothing that indicates she wanted to go to the hospital. She left — I mean, she left the hospital because she wanted to leave the hospital, so —

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: — if she’d left, presumably she was going to go home.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know — of course, we know that that didn’t happen.

0300

THE COURT: Well, I know. But you’re saying what a horrible nightmare it would have been. The truth of the matter is, if she had been well and had gone home to her mother and sister and what have you, there would have been no nightmare at all —

THE WITNESS: That’s —

THE COURT: — for Scientology.

THE WITNESS: — right. That’s right. It would have been fine.

But now we’re in a different situation, you see, because now she’s being held against her will. You know, you see — you see in the reports how she becomes violent.

You know, again, in my experience, as a natural progression, when you are being held and you want to be in one place and somebody’s making you stay in one place, it starts to escalate.

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Prince: Have you ever been in a mental hospital?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you know how, in a mental hospital, when somebody is really — I’m going to use the term “crazy,” okay? Very sick. Somebody who’s psychologically extremely disturbed.

0301

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, they want to leave too, right? That’s why they have them behind locked doors and bars and all that sort of stuff, is because they want to leave.

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: And they’re not fit to leave mentally. They would be a danger to themselves, perhaps others, to let them out in the street. So when somebody’s in a mental hospital, very sick, and they say they want to go, well, they’re not allowed to leave.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — you know — now, let’s take a look at this.

You’re talking about a person that’s sick, right?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: That means a medical diagnosis, right?

There is no medical diagnosis here. There is no authority that says this person was crazy. This is just the opinion, based on the beliefs of Scientology, that they gave her this label of being crazy, okay? That’s way different than being in a mental institution where you’ve been diagnosed, or

0302

you’ve committed some crime, or you’ve harmed somebody, or something has caused to you go to an institution —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — which —

THE COURT: — schizophrenic.

THE WITNESS: — is certainly not the case with Lisa.

THE COURT: I mean, you can be in a mental hospital and not have harmed anybody and not be a danger — I mean, you’re talking about a Baker Act, where you’re — you’re kept against your will involuntarily.

But I mean, there are sick people in a hospital, just because they’re sick and they’re crazy and they — and they just aren’t fit to be on the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Right. In a hospital.

There’s a difference between being in a hospital and being locked in a room with people who don’t understand really what’s going on and are just following orders.

THE COURT: Well, they may not.

But the truth of the matter is, that’s the belief of the Church of Scientology. You were a part of it and you participated in it, right?

0303

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You participated in an introspection rundown with somebody who was in the same boat that Lisa McPherson was in; at least in — at times, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Nobody ordered that this lady would end cycle that you were watching, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Well, then, how — you see, I’m just — I’m trying to help you, here, to see if there’s any basis for this.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: How is it that you’ve come to this conclusion, other than just it’s — it’s one of many, many thoughts that you might have as to what might have happened?

THE WITNESS: Because based on Scientology’s own policy, the first thing you do when a person starts demonstrating these symptoms is take them to a medical doctor to ensure that the reason why these symptoms are occurring aren’t based upon some medical reason, okay?

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Now, this is in their own

0304

documents.

Now, why would they not do that? Why would they not do that? If their documents say if a person is demonstrably mentally ill, the first thing you do is, even in introspection rundown, is take them to the hospital.

Well, why wouldn’t you do that?

THE COURT: Because maybe —

THE WITNESS: The reason why you wouldn’t do it is because the person in — they were also telling you, “I’m going to sue you. I’m going to tell about this. I’m threatening you. You got to let me out of here.”

No, you’re not going to the hospital. Because once they go to the hospital, because they are lost.

THE COURT: Okay. But that —

THE WITNESS: They’re not going to go back to Scientology.

THE COURT: Let’s assume — Slow down.

Let’s assume, for the sake of your testimony and for the sake of your beliefs and what you told Mr. Dandar, that you are right. That Lisa was saying, “I want to leave,” and they were saying, “No, you can’t leave,” and she said, “I want to

0305

leave.” And therefore — and therefore, they didn’t take her to a medical doctor. Of course, she just came from a medical doctor where she had been seen and had been released. So that could have been one of the reasons.

However, how do you jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that somebody said, “Let her die,” or — not only, “Let her die,” but proceed to assist this along in some fashion; bring an auditor in and cause her to die?

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll explain to you.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: By their own documents, people that get into this state of mind, all of them do not live. Search and Discovery, it says some don’t make it —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — okay?

You have a person here who, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, and even the missing evidence — because you know, if everything — again, like the one that I did, okay, well, this girl didn’t want to leave. This little girl didn’t
really know what was going on.

THE COURT: Which little girl we talking about

0306

now?

THE WITNESS: Terese, the one —

THE COURT: The one that you watched.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She didn’t know. She —

THE COURT: When you say that, you meant she was really out of it mentally.

THE WITNESS: Completely.

THE COURT: Crazy.

THE WITNESS: Crazy. Barking like a dog, you know, doing —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — wild things.

When she started to come out of it, she certainly wanted to leave. She was certainly demanding to leave. But she was not allowed to leave until she had signed releases that released the Church of Scientology and related  organizations with any liability concerning her condition.

So in other words, she signed away, you know, “what happened to me is an anomaly. It had nothing to do with my studies and training or experience in Scientology, and they have no liability for me getting into this.” This is something that’s

0307

demanded of a person who finishes that rundown, to release any liability.

Here you have a person that isn’t in that position. And it is my belief, because there’s so many —

THE COURT: What position is she in? Tell me how her position differs from —

She’s still crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well — hold on. Because when she was released, they didn’t say she was crazy, from the hospital. That was not a diagnosis that Lisa was given when she left Morton Plant Hospital.

THE COURT: But you have to admit, from the — from the — from the reports that were in there from some of the workers, she started staring at a lightbulb; she started talking about she was L. Ron Hubbard, and she started acting crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, that’s when they brought her in there.

THE COURT: Right. And that’s when she began the introspection rundown perhaps, right?

THE WITNESS: Well, come on, Judge. Let’s back up on this. Because you just said medically she was not diagnosed as being insane. The — the medical

0308

records didn’t say, “Hey, this is a person we got to Baker Act. This is a person that’s mentally ill.”  Didn’t say that, okay? So I think it’s wrong to assume that. And the reason why I think it’s wrong —

THE COURT: Well, what —

THE WITNESS: — to assume that —

THE COURT: — was — let me ask you, Mr. Prince, what’s the difference in the lady that you took care of and how she started barking like a dog — and you say she was crazy —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: — and what you read in the reports of Lisa McPherson, where she was crawling on the floor, humping the floor, carrying on like a crazy person?

THE WITNESS: After she had been in their — incarcerated. And I think by the fact of incarceration, it tipped her over the edge.

THE COURT: Well, you think that same thing happened with the lady you were watching?

THE WITNESS: Huh-uh. No. I mean, she was literally sitting in a chair, you know, fine, one moment, and then the next moment somebody went over to see what she was doing and she peed herself

0309

and — you know, it was a huge difference.

THE COURT: Could that have been like Lisa McPherson, who was all right, released from the hospital, went to the Ft. Harrison, and then just kind of went like this, and all of a sudden she was crazy?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, you could —

THE COURT: Could it be?

THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. And I’ll tell you why.

Because by the fact of incarceration, it already pushes a person further than, maybe, where they were. I mean, she’s locked in a little room.

No one’s talking to her. She’s feeling horrible. She’s already wanting to go home —

THE COURT: She’s a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: You were a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no. See, that’s another myth, now. Because you’re a Scientologist it does not mean that one day you are going to know, when they lock you in a room, because you studied it, this is what they — what’s going to happen to

0310

people that do this. There is no place, no — absolutely no place that gives clear instructions on what happens to a person should they experience this and Scientology decides to take them in and put them through this routine.

You find that out after the fact, after the fact it’s been determined that you have a mental problem.

You see —

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question: If the church doesn’t believe in psychiatrists and psychologists and they don’t believe in mental health treatment in the — in the traditional form —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: Everybody knows that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: That’s a very basic tenet of the church.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. It would be like a Christian Scientist. They would know that they don’t believe in medical treatment, at least in part. So if you’re a member of the Christian Scientists, you know that you believe that.

THE WITNESS: Right.

0311

THE COURT: Okay. Well, there has to be some folks that become mentally deranged, who are Scientologists, so they know that there’s some other treatment, just like you would know, if you were in the — in the Christian Scientists, if there’s a belief of laying on of hands and God will heal you — So they’ve got to be told there’s some substitute for somebody —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor —

THE COURT: — that has a mental lapse.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, they’re not. They are not told that. It’s just simply not true. You don’t find it out until after the fact. There’s no course —

Say I’m a public member of Scientology, wants to do auditor training up to class 4. They go and they train and they — they get their certificates and stuff like that. There is no class that says, “Okay. If this happens to you, this is the exact procedure.”

That was something that was developed during the time when the introspection first came out. But then this is something that moved totally off and away from anything that public people could see or

0312

even staff would know. They were isolated and hidden from view.

And then normally, the person doesn’t do any more Scientology after introspection rundown. And I know several cases after that — of that.

Because they make you sign waivers and releases which say, “The church did not cause your condition. The church did not contribute to your condition. The church is not liable or responsible for what happened to you.”

And you agree to that, and you sign it, and then you’re on your way.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, like the lady did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But she is a Scientologist.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so — Okay. I understand what you’re saying; that — that perhaps Lisa McPherson didn’t know what was going to happen to her, is what you’re basically saying.

THE WITNESS: None of them do.

THE COURT: Okay. Now — okay. I’ll take your word for that for the sake of your testimony. How do you get from that — okay. Let’s assume

0313

there was some gross negligence going on here. She wanted to leave.

THE WITNESS: You —

THE COURT: Which there’s already been a judge that says there’s none of this. But let’s assume that she says, “I want to leave.” They say, “You’re not going to leave.” “I want to leave.” “You’re not going to leave.”

One of two things happened to Lisa McPherson, based on her doctors and her experts and the experts for the church: Either she became severely dehydrated and that caused this embolism to break loose and it damaged her lungs and she became unable to breath, I guess, and she died; or there was no real dehydration connected with it, except perhaps slight, and the same embolism broke loose and lodged in her lung in some fashion and she died.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So it’s one or the other. One or the other things happened to her, medically —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Now — so that’s a given, okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0314

THE COURT: So how do you leap from the fact, in your mind, she wanted to leave and they said, “No,” to the fact that she died from one of those causes, through anything other than either no negligence, slight negligence, or really gross, flagrant negligence? How do you jump from point A to point B by saying that David Miscavige said, “Kill this woman”?

THE WITNESS: Or, “Let her die.”

THE COURT: Or, “Let her die”?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Now, you got to listen.

I’m going to explain this to you, okay?

THE COURT: Okay. I’m listening.

THE WITNESS: Now, again by their own policy, this woman first should have been examined by a medical doctor to see if the insanity itself was coming as a result of some medical condition.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That was not determined when she went to the hospital because it was determined she was not insane.

So if she did get worse when she was at the Ft. Harrison, then the next thing that they should have done was to take her to get her medically examined to see if there was a medical reason for this

0315

behavior.

THE COURT: And you did that in your case? In the case where you handled the introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: No.

Oh, yeah. They had a doctor come out. Sure. They had a doctor come out. Dr. Gene Dink came out to be with her. He examined her.

THE COURT: Was this a real doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I mean — by that I mean a licensed doctor? ‘Cause they had doctors with Lisa McPherson too, except they weren’t —

THE WITNESS: This was —

THE COURT: — licensed.

THE WITNESS: — L. Ron Hubbard’s doctor, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, was this a licensed doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Dr. Gene Dink, Los Angeles, California.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Worked with the one that we have.

THE COURT: So — so as I recall, Ms. Arundo (sic) — and I may be wrong on this, but as I recall

0316

she was a doctor licensed somewhere else. There was another doctor, one — the head of the medical liaison, who had been a doctor.

MR. DANDAR: And lost her license.

THE COURT: And lost her license.

MR. DANDAR: Arrunada’s from Mexico and was never licensed.

THE COURT: Okay. But Ms. — but what’s Ms. — please give me the name.

MR. DANDAR: Johnson.

THE COURT: Ms. Johnson was a physician who had lost her license, who presumably was in charge. But — okay. You say they should have taken her to a doctor.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. They —

THE COURT: Or had a doctor come in.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Like they did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Your case, meaning the case where you were directly involved.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: And they didn’t do that. Okay. What else?

THE WITNESS: Well, we have to wonder why they

0317

didn’t do that.

Now, I hate to be — your Honor, you know, irrespective of what the defendants believe in this case, it brings me no great joy to — to malign them or say horrible things about them.

But because I’ve been there and because I’ve seen what happens and because I’ve seen what they do, it is my belief because when they brought this girl back from the hospital, she was not insane. She wasn’t diagnosed as that. She went insane there. She wanted to leave. She said, “I want to go.” They said, “No, you can’t go. You got a problem. We’re diagnosing you. Forget what the doctor said. We’re going to do it.”

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She began to struggle. She began to fight. At that point, it becomes a OSA matter. It was already an OSA matter.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. A what matter?

THE WITNESS: O-S-A. OSA. Office of —

THE COURT: OSA.

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs matter.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: For several reasons now: One, because she apparently left the hotel,

0318

drove around and had a minor accident, took her clothes off, told people that she needed help.

Okay. That in and of itself was something that drew attention to Scientology that was non-optimum. And in Scientology, that is called a flap. An unpredicted activity that now involves Scientology’s reputation somehow.

Now, here is a person, Lisa McPherson, who just two months earlier attested to the state of clear. She stood in front of every Scientologist at the mecca of technical perfection, their highest level, their highest office of — of tech, and told everyone that, “I no longer have a reactive mind. I no longer have,” you know, “have problems with the past that now come up. I’m totally free from the past and I’m ready to move on.”

In other words, she was what they call in Scientologist (sic) — not a Homo sapien, but they call it a Homo novis. Homo novis in Scientology is a step above Homo sapiens.

So now this person is literally a demigod two months ago. Now she’s screaming in a room, insane, crazy.

This is a problem. This is a problem that this woman took her clothes off, walking down the street, and — and OSA had to get involved and, you know, they rushed down there, “Oh, my God.” They bring

0319

her back. She’s not diagnosed as being crazy. They just give her — she wants to get some help. She’s got something on her mind. Okay. So she comes back.

It is my contention that she wanted to leave, just like she had been saying. And they said, “No.” And they put her on the introspection rundown and she went over the edge and she got crazy. Well, before that she made many threats.

Now, it is Scientology’s belief that once you start these processes — once you start any process  in Scientology, you take it to the end. It’s called processing. The way out is the way through. What turns it on or turn it off. Get the preclear through it. Whatever. In other words, keep that auditing going until the end result happens.

THE COURT: Or get the person in the introspection rundown fit for auditing. That is part of the preliminary process.

THE WITNESS: Well, the person is fit for auditing after they’ve had one eight-hour period of sleep. Okay? You got — you know, you got that step 0, step 00.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: The first thing that normally

0320

happens with a person that gets into that state of mind, they don’t sleep for days, they can’t sleep, they’re up — a part of auditing in Scientology is, you have to have had sufficient rest to get audited.

So —

And again, in the instance where I did introspection rundown with the person, the first time that woman — after she was given Valium or whatever they gave her to put her to sleep, the first time she had an 8-hour period of time to sleep —

(The reporter interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: Slow down.

THE REPORTER: After they gave her —

THE WITNESS: — or chloral hydrate or whatever they give them to go to sleep, the first time eight hours pass and that person wakes up, the auditor is there immediately to start.

THE COURT: I think they tried to bring an auditor into Lisa McPherson and she wasn’t capable.

THE WITNESS: Well, I heard —

THE COURT: I mean, I think I remember that.

THE WITNESS: — I heard the story that, you know, she licked the cans and — you know, that

0321

means nothing.

An auditor is trained — I don’t care if you take the cans and throw them across the room. An auditor is trained to stand up, take those cans, put them back in the person’s hands and get them to do what you want them to do. It’s called model session. You know, that’s part of the same —

THE REPORTER: Slow down, please.

THE WITNESS: — auditor series you have. Model session. Which talks about how to conduct a session.

THE COURT: That’s tough to do if the person is still in a psychological state, that’s crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — and you’re assuming that that’s the case. But the doctor didn’t assume that when she was let out.

THE COURT: Well, I’m assuming that’s the case because of the reports I read.

THE WITNESS: You know — well, you know, after —

THE COURT: Just like I’m assuming the lady that you watched after, when she barked like a dog and carried on, was crazy; like Stacy Brooks said she was crazy and like I think you said she was crazy.

0322

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Crazy in the sense that I know — would think someone was crazy; not medically.

THE WITNESS: A danger to themselves or other people.

THE COURT: Not somebody you would want out on the street.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Okay. So again, she is in a situation now where she’s drawn into the local public attention. They’ve been promised by the doctors that she’ll be okay. Turn her over to Judy Fontana. They don’t turn her over to Judy. Because I think these things all mean in some way she was not agreeing with what was happening to her. And because she wasn’t agreeing and she wanted to leave, it got wild. It intensified.

Now, Scientology’s belief is, you know —

THE COURT: I think I can go along with you there. I mean, I think that there’s enough in that folder to realize she was not thinking clearly. She may have wanted to leave. You know, the lady you took care of may have wanted to leave. I mean, they — they act irrational, right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0323

THE COURT: And the idea is they can’t leave.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. So let’s say I accept that —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay? She wants to leave, they’re saying, “No, you’re not able to leave yet.”

She’s getting more and more upset.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: She wants to leave.

How do we know they’re still not trying the introspection rundown to make her well?

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: What —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it.

THE COURT: Sure.

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: So —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it. But I think that she had decided she had had enough. You see — and the reason why I say that is because, if you look at this affidavit, she keeps telling them, “I had enough. I don’t want any more auditing. This is aggravating my condition. It’s making me worse.”

This is what she’s saying in her

0324

own words, the only thing she was able to say before she died. And in which whole thing, if you read this line by line in the preclear folder, “This is making me worse. I’m not getting better.”

So what do they do? Give her more auditing. Well, she doesn’t want that.

THE COURT: I will say, for the sake of this hearing, that I — I can accept that.

THE WITNESS: So because she doesn’t want it, and because she has no way to leave, because she’s actually under guard — I mean, we have a statement by Paul Kellerhals where he actually jumps on top of her and holds her down. You know, you have people not speaking to a person, keeping her in a room — I mean, that, to me, in retrospect, after my Scientology experience, is something that would make a person, if they weren’t over the edge, would certainly push them over the edge.

THE COURT: But you did that when you took care of the lady you took care of.

THE WITNESS: No. I talked to her. I did not not talk to her.

THE COURT: Was that — were you breaking the rules?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was breaking the rules.

0325

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know that somebody else might not have broken the rules.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t know that either.

THE COURT: All right. So let’s take — we really need to break for lunch.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. She wants to leave. They say, “No.” She wants to leave, they say, “No.” And let’s assume that they’re saying “no” because they believe that she’s not finished the introspection rundown, and they’re going to get her finished.

Just like —

THE WITNESS: Yeah. And they do believe that.

Right.

THE COURT: All right. So now, one of two things happens at some point in time: Either she’s not getting enough water, right; and so she’s not getting enough water or whatever, and they should have known better, and they should have given her more water, and she reaches this miserable state and dies.

Or she is getting enough water and a pulmonary — you know, an embolus in her leg breaks loose, goes to her lungs and kills her. One of those two things happened at the end of this. And it was — it was from the embolism, right?

0326

And you wouldn’t have known that. They wouldn’t have known that. There wasn’t a worker there that would have known that. Nobody. These are the silent — silent killers —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

So one of those two things happened, and that’s a fact.

How do you reach the conclusion that anywhere along the line it was, “We’re going to keep her here until the embolism we don’t even know about breaks loose”?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, that’s ridiculous, your Honor.

THE COURT: Of course it is.

THE WITNESS: Let me — you got to let me finish —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — the whole thing.

THE COURT: I’m going to do that, but we’re going to take a lunch break first —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — all right?

All right. It’s 12:20. Let’s be in recess until 1:30.

0327

(A recess was taken at 12:23 p.m.)

0328

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

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

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

  1. Document source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/A-007-070802-Prince-V2.html
  2. Caroline Letkeman; Nancy Many.
  3. Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer
  4. Elliot J. Abelson
  5. Should be “PTS/SP.” Key documents: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/documents/key-documents-sp-doctrine

Declaration of Jesse Prince (December, 1999)

Daniel A. Leipold, State Bar No. 77159
LEIPOLD, DONOHUE & SHIPE, LLP
960-A West Seventeenth Street
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Telephone: (714) 796-1555
Facsimile: (714) 796-1550

Craig J. Stein, State Bar No. 98041
GARTENBERG JAFFE GELFAND & STEIN LLP
11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 1230
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1518
Telephone: (310) 479-0044

Ford Greene, State Bar No. 107601
HUB LAW OFFICES
711 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

Attorney for Plaintiff,
LAWRENCE DOMINICK WOLLERSHEIM

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LAWRENCE DOMINICK WOLLERSHEIM

Plaintiff,
vs.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
Defendant
Case No.: C 332 027

Honorable Charles W. McCoy
Department 24

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JESSE PRINCE1

I, Jesse Prince declare as follows:

1. I am over 18 years of age and currently reside in the State of Illinois, County of Cook. This declaration is of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the facts herein I could and would be competently able to testify thereto.

MY PARTICIPATION IN SCIENTOLOGY
THE SEA ORGANIZATION

2. I joined the Sea Organization, commonly referred to as the Sea Org, in September of 1976. The Sea Org is a para-military organization that manages and controls all of the Scientology Organizations and related entities that exist in the world. I was also required to sign a billion year contract at the time I was recruited. Within a week, I entered the first Sea Org indoctrination program named the Estates Project Force. The Estates Project Force consists of several levels of indoctrination named “Product Levels.” On these “Product Levels,” I was indoctrinated in Scientology ethics and justice procedures and the history of the Sea Organization. I was invasively interrogated (called confessional in Scientology) and took a mission school-training course, among other indoctrination courses. Flag Order 3155RC, entitled “The Basic Sea Org Training Program,” details the training required for persons newly recruited to the Sea Org. A true and correct copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit “HHH-99.” From the very beginning, through indoctrination from these courses, I learned that the Sea Org managed all Scientology Organizations and related entities such as Scientology Missions International (SMI), World Institute of Scientology Enterprise (WISE) and Narconon, to name a few. The length and breadth of the doctrine of the Sea Org is detailed and codified in issues named “Flag Orders.” The primary business of the Sea Org is missions. One definition of “mission” in Sea Org terms describes an activity whereby two or more Sea Org members go to a remote Scientology organization or enterprise and take over the activity for the purpose of getting the activity to make more money which, in turn, benefits the Sea Org financially. The governing policy of the type of mission referred to above, is to cause the activity (Organization) to make money, then make more money, then make other people produce so as to make money. See HCO Policy Letter 9 March 1972 “Income Flows and Pools,” a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “QQ-99.” These same missions are authorized by the Sea Org to use Scientology ethics and justice procedures. This authority gives these types of missions total authority to remove and demote personnel, including corporate officers and executives in any Scientology Organization, corporation or Scientology-related entity as it sees fit. See Exhibits: “M-99,” “Y-99” and “FF-99,” which are true copies of the original documents. See also, Sea Organization Central Bureaux Order 621 29 November 1979 “By Pass of Management Sector Handling of,” a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “RR-99.”

3. The success of the Sea Org is primarily measured by its income. Sea Org income is defined as “the amount of money received by the corporation (Sea Org) after the allocation to Sea Org and Scientology Organizations” [translated, this means each and every Sea Org organization as well as each and every Scientology organization world wide sends to the Sea Org all monies remaining after the basic necessities (bills and payroll for staff) of the individual organization are paid and before management expenses are taken out; this is the classic double bite which normally reduced the Sea Org and Scientology Organization staff payroll allocation]. This is according to Hubbard policy letter of 9 March 1972, called “Income Flows and Pools, Principles of money management,” a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit “QQ-99.” This “policy” was written by L Ron Hubbard. During my tenure in the Sea Org, I executed many of these missions within the United States and other countries of the world.

COMMAND STRUCTURE AND HIERARCHY OF THE COMMODORE’S MESSENGER ORGANIZATION AND THE SEA ORGANIZATION

4. Until his death in 1986, L. Ron Hubbard was the unchallenged dictator of the entire Scientology enterprise. L. Ron Hubbard designated himself “Commodore”. In the hierarchy of the Sea Org, “Commodore” is the highest rank. L. Ron Hubbard created a “statistic system” for every function and activity of Sea Org and Scientology organizations and micro-managed this created “statistic system.” According to his many written policies, the best thing a Sea Org member or Scientologist could do was to always have “statistics” going up. Hubbard authored, or had others author, many thousands of detailed instructions and directives intended to teach his flock how to keep the “statistics” going up. He wrote or had written Polices, Flag Orders, Bulletins and Executive Directives concerning every aspect of the operation of the Sea Org and Scientology organizations. Sea Org members and Scientologists are required to follow these instructions and orders of Hubbard to the letter. This is documented and made very clear in a policy letter written by Hubbard, entitled “Keeping Scientology Working.” This policy letter declares that it is a “criminal offense” not to follow any L. Ron Hubbard instruction to the letter. These crimes are punishable through Scientology ethics and justice procedures.

5. Next in authority in the Sea Org hierarchy are the “Commodore’s Messengers.” L. Ron Hubbard authored Flag Order 3729, also known as Executive Directive 106 Commodore’s Messenger Organization (CMO), entitled “Commodore’s Messengers.” This issue is one of many directives and instructions on how to be a “good” Commodore’s Messenger. In the above issue, Hubbard shares his total authority over his Sea Org and Scientology Empire with others who have been trained to think and act in the same way as Hubbard himself. He designated his “messengers” as emissaries of himself. This same issue was issued to all Sea Org members with the instruction that all were to recognize his messengers as an extension of himself. All were instructed to show his messengers the same respect and courtesy as his flock of Sea Org members and Scientologists were required to show Hubbard, the single highest authority of the Sea Org and Scientology empire he created. Messengers had complete authority to go within any Sea Org, Scientology, or Scientology-related entity. A true and correct copy of Flag Order 3729 is attached hereto as Exhibit “UU-99.” As a note, only Sea Org members are ever eligible to become Commodore’s Messengers.

6. There is a hierarchy within the Commodore’s Messengers Organization. The top messenger, also known as the “Commanding Officer,” commands and orders all other messengers within the organization of messengers. The top Commodore’s Messenger in Scientology is David Miscavige. There are also subordinate “In Charge” positions within the messenger organization. An In Charge would have the authority to command and order lesser messengers, Sea Org Members and any Scientologist if it meant complying with an order from a higher messenger or L. Ron Hubbard himself. Two issues written or ordered by L. Ron Hubbard, entitled CMO Command Channels, issued 15 June 1976 and issue CMO Regulations, issued 11 Jan 1976 are among the many directives that define the authority of the Commodore’s Messenger Organization. A true and correct copy of CMO Command Channels is attached hereto as Exhibit “TT-99;” a true and correct copy of CMO Regulations is attached hereto as Exhibit “SS-99.”

7. There is also a hierarchy among the different messenger organizations. The most senior messenger organization in all of the different messenger organizations is “The Religious Technology Center” (RTC). This is documented in the many different “Command Channels” booklets issued and authored, and/or authorized by RTC since the early 80s. See Exhibit “X-99.”

8. The next command level below RTC is called “The International Watchdog Committee.” The Watchdog Committee was created with the purpose of overseeing the activities of the Guardian’s Office and Scientology management bodies in order to “keep Scientology working.” It is a senior management committee that manages all sectors of Scientology, i.e., all Sea Organizations, all Scientology Organizations International, and related Scientology entities such as Scientology Missions International (SMI), and World Institute of Scientology Enterprise, International (WISE). See HCO PL 22 December 1981, “International Watchdog Committee,” a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “VV-99.”

9. The next level of hierarchical authority within the messenger organizations and Scientology Enterprise is the “Commodore’s Messengers Organization International” (COMINT). This body executes the orders and commands of the Watchdog Committee, and manages and supervises the many other Commodore’s Messenger Organizations within the United States and abroad. (See Exhibit “VV-99.”)

10. Next in the chain of hierarchy is the Office of the Executive Director International (EDINT). The Executive Director International orders and commands the senior-most Sea Org executives over all the different management sections of the Sea Org, Scientology Organizations International, and every other Scientology related entity. These executives in turn order and command all areas of the Scientology empire. This office is not a Commodore’s Messenger Organization, but it is a Sea Org organization.

11. There are descending levels of the hierarchical chain of command from this point, as described in Scientology’s Command Channel booklets. From early 1983 until January 1987, I was the second in command of the Religious Technology Center. I was identified by RTC attorney Samuel Rosen as such in Federal Court in Denver on August 20, 1998. See Exhibit “C-99,” attached hereto.

A CLASSIC EXMAPLE OF THE APPLICATION OF “MISSION TECH” TO BYPASS CORPORATE LINES OF AUTHORTIY

12. In October of 1982, I was part of a Sea Org Mission that was sent to San Francisco to “handle” the Mission Holders of the Church of Scientology. The Mission Holders were Franchisees of Scientology who offered introductory
courses in Scientology to the public.

13. L. Ron Hubbard was upset with the Mission Holders because he felt that the Mission Holders in general were withholding tithes owed to Sea Org International Management. L. Ron Hubbard had also sent down orders stating that several Sea Org members in high leadership positions within the Commodor’s Messenger Organization International (“CMO Int.”) and the Office of the Executive Director International (“ED Int.”) were dissatisfied with Scientology management and were siding with the Mission Holders. L.Ron Hubbard’s orders went to David Miscavige and they were clear: Handle this insurrection and crush anyone who protested.

14. The missionaire in charge of the San Francisco Mission Holder’s Mission was David Miscavige. Mr. Miscavige is flat out attempting to deceive this court in his declaration when he characterizes his presence at this conference as that of an “invited” master of ceremonies. Mr. Miscavige was the Missionaire I/C (In Charge) and was running the entire operation. Further, his “invitation” certainly did not come from the Mission Holders, it came in the form of Mission orders from the Commodore himself, L. Ron Hubbard. Lest there be any doubt whatsoever about the truth of what I am saying, I invite the court to examine Exhibit “L-99,” a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto.

15. Exhibit “L-99,” paints a far different picture of the San Francisco Mission Holder’s Conference than the “Shore Story” Scientology is telling. Exhibit “L-99,” THE SEA ORG MOVES IN, is a newsletter that shows clearly how Miscavige and the Sea Org characterized the San Francisco Mission Holder’s conference for the purpose of letting the staff and paying public of Scientology know who had won the power struggle between the Sea Org and the Mission Holders. It gives a far truer picture of what was going on at this conference than even the published “transcript” of the conference, because the transcript was heavily edited before Miscavige approved it for publication.

16. I was part of the mission headed up by David Miscavige that was ordered to handle the San Francisco Mission Holder’s Conference. The first thing the mission did upon its arrival in San Francisco was to visit the local Scientology Organization. Missionaire I/C, David Miscavige immediately bypassed all corporate lines of authority and started an inspection of the organization. He decided that the Executive Director of the organization was incompetent and he viciously interrogated him with an e-meter, (a form of lie detector), physically abused him, and removed him from his position on the spot.

17. From the local Org, we proceeded to the Mission Holder’s Conference. By this time, David Miscavige had really worked himself into a lather, and he declared two Mission Holders “Suppressive Persons” and expelled them on the spot. This is brazenly bragged about in the issue “The Sea Org Moves In.” The doors to the conference room were locked and guarded. Miscavige then lined up approximately 20 other Mission Holders, most of whom were crying and terrified, and told them to get their checkbooks ready as they had been “ripping off” Scientology Organizations of their “rightful income” for too long. In reality, Miscavige and several others just took whatever amount of money they wanted out of the Mission Holder’s corporate accounts.

18. Miscavige introduced Larry Heller, attorney for Scientology who was personally hired by Miscavige, who informed the Mission Holders that the “New Tough Management” intended to prosecute and jail anyone who did not comply with the orders and directions of the new management.

19. Lyman Spurlock, a senior Sea Org executive who was one of Miscavige’s inner circle, threatened the Mission Holders with prosecution and explained that the Sea Org now had the power to do this to the Mission Holders because of all the new corporate changes that were designed to exert more control over the Mission Holders.

20. The “new management” is pictured in their Sea Org uniforms at the speaker’s table in Exhibit “L-99.” These are the same people who manage Scientology today, and they do it in the same manner, through their positions of power in the Sea Org.

21. When all of the speakers were done, each and every Mission Holder was viciously interrogated by multiple missionaires using the e-meter. Then each mission holder was required to have a mug shot taken, one from the front and one from the side, in the same way police commonly do. After the mug shots were taken, the Mission Holders were required to write checks from their corporate accounts for the maximum amount of money possible.

22. When all the Sea Org Missionaires returned to Gilman Hot Springs, which is the true home of Scientology’s International Management, the results of the mission were sent directly to L. Ron Hubbard. The Commodore was very pleased with the report he got from David Miscavige and decided to make it a policy to run this mission in European countries where Scientology existed. I was sent on this mission along with others to do the same activity to Mission Holders in Copenhagen, Denmark.

23. This activity continued in other locations, executed by the International Finance Police under the direction of the International Finance Dictator located in the Commodore’s Messenger Organization International. All of this was under the dictatorship of Miscavige.

ATTACK THE ATTACKER

24. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A-99,” is a true and correct copy of a Scientology directive titled “Attacks on Scientology, Additional Policy Letter,” which states, in part: “This is the correct procedure:

“(1) Spot who is attacking us.

“(2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.

“(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

“(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

“Don’t ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way…

“Never talk about us – only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don’t use us…

“Shift the spotlight to them. No matter how. Do it!”

25. Attached as Exhibit “AAA-99,” is A true and correct copy of the Committee of Evidence and “Declare” statement of Alex Sibersky, and attached as Exhibit “BBB-99,” is a true and correct copy of the Committee of Evidence and “Declare” statement of David Mayo.

26. I was a member of the committees of evidence documented in Exhibits “AAA-99” and “BBB-99.” There was no fairness involved in these supposed “justice” actions. Hubbard considered that these people were “disaffected with management,” and disloyalty (meaning questioning anything at all) is the worst crime a Sea Org member can commit. What was going to happen to these people was already pre-determined by Hubbard and executed by Miscavige. We were required to sign our names to a document that had already been prepared. I have personal knowledge that such actions are
based on long-standing policies.

27. Attached hereto, as Exhibit LL-99 is a true and correct copy of Flag conditions Order 7068, 27 December 1982, SURPPRESSIVE PERSONS DECLARE pertaining to eight separate individuals.

28. With regard to my former position as a high-ranking executive in the Sea Org, even Scientology attorney Samuel Rosen told the judge in the FACTNet hearing in Denver that I had been second in command of all of Scientology (See Exhibit “C-99”). I was an expert witness on the subject of Scientology on behalf of RTC in the Robin Scott/David Mayo litigation. In addition, on December 31, 1986, Miscavige himself introduced me as “Deputy Inspector General” at a New Year’s Eve event at the Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida. I gave a briefing at that event about how RTC was going about crushing people who tried to apply any part of Scientology technology without paying for it, an issue which was part of the Scott/Wollersheim II litigation. (A true and correct copy of a audio tape of the Scientology New Years Event of 86/87 is contained on Exhibit “XX-99,” attached to this motion.)

29. I did give two taped interviews, which contradict my statements in this declaration concerning Miscavige’s control of Scientology. The first interview occurred shortly before Halloween in 1992. With my wife, I was trying to get permission to leave the secret compound in Gilman Hot Springs, and they would not allow us to leave unless I agreed to state on audiotape that I was leaving on my own free will, that I was happy and pleased with being incarcerated against my will on the Rehabilitation Project Force, that I had committed many crimes in Scientology and Scientology had helped me overcome these criminal tendencies, that Miscavige was not the dictator of Scientology, and that I had never witnessed any illegal activities being committed within Scientology. I was also required to make self-denigrating statements on this tape which were not true. I was threatened by Marty Rathbun and Mike Sutter that if I did not agree to make this taped statement, I would become the target of Fair Game. The giving of “interviews” such as I went through are part of the policy of Scientology and anyone leaving the Sea Org is required to “route out” pursuant to policy or be declared.

30. The second interview happened in Boston in 1994. Mike Sutter called me and said that he wanted to see me to find out how I was doing. He made it sound like a friendly chat that we were going to have. At that time I was still afraid of the imagined power these people had over me. I agreed to meet with Mike Sutter and Scientology attorney Earl Cooley at Cooley’s office in Boston. Instead of a friendly chat, it turned into an interrogation in which they told me they were doing poorly in some of their legal cases and demanded to know if I was assisting “the enemy.” Before I was allowed to go, they drilled me on what to say and then put it all on tape. They took information from my auditing folders and kept “reminding” me of things I had said in sessions.

31. These taped statements are Scientology’s way of attempting to destroy the credibility of a former Scientologist who has knowledge that can harm the organization in case that individual later decides to come forward to expose the truth.

32. Until the reorganization of 1982, in which RTC was formed, it had been CSC that registered the trademarks for Scientology. RTC was specifically created to take over that function from CSC. As far as I know, ASI took over the function of overseeing the copyrights.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct under the laws of the State of California executed this __ day of December 1999, at Tampa, Florida

_____________________________
JESSE PRINCE

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

Declaration of Vicki J. Aznaran (August 9, 1988)

I, Vicki J. Aznaran, make the following declarations on personal knowledge except where the context indicates knowledge based upon information and belief.1

My husband Richard Aznaran and I are plaintiffs in the instant action wherein defendants (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Scientology”) have moved to strike our entire complaint and to prevent our attorneys from representing us.

2. As set forth in more detail below, my husband and I were involved with Scientology for approximately 15 years. For much of that time we were members of an organization known as the Sea Organization. This organization is an elite organization within Scientology. The Sea Organization has considerable influence and control over Scientology organizations. Generally, Sea Organization members hold the management posts within Scientology.

3. In 1978, after approximately four years as staff members, my husband and I joined the Sea Organization. From 1978 to early 1987, my husband and I worked most of our waking hours, with very few days off, at our various assignments within Scientology. I eventually became President of Religious Technology Center and, supposedly, the top “ecclesiastical” authority within Scientology. Richard was a high-level security officer. During this period my husband and I became intimately familiar with the structure and activities of various Scientology organizations. Among other things, I was briefed on and sometimes a participant in meetings involving litigation tactics and various

1

means used to attack and fight “enemies” of Scientology. In numerous instances I was in the chain of command or approval for such activities. The legal strategy of Scientology and the existence of numerous potential legal problems, some of which are set forth below, were known to me when I was a staff member in Scientology. Contrary to, what I understand to be claimed by defendants herein, Mr. Yanny did not reveal to me the legal strategies or secrets of Scientology. Nor did Mr. Yanny invent or open my eyes to the wrongs that I had suffered at the hands of Scientology.

4. I have become an “enemy” of Scientology. This has certain consequences that will influence what Scientology will do in this litigation. For example, it is important to understand that their value system allows dishonesty if done in the name of Scientology.

5. Enemies of Scientology are deemed to be “suppressive persons”(“SPs”). One becomes a “suppressive person” by doing a suppressive act, such as suing Scientology as a litigant or lawyer. In the jargon of Scientology, when one is “declared” this means that one has been declared a “suppressive person” and, therefore, may be, harassed, hurt, damaged or destroyed without regard to truth, honesty or legal rights. It is considered acceptable within Scientology to lie, cheat, steal and commit illegal acts in the name of dealing with a “suppressive person”.

6. This practice or policy is sometimes referred to as the policy of “fair game”. In the jargon of Scientology, a person who is “declared” is understood to be a suppressive person. This means that the person is “fair game”. The fair game policy was

2

issued in the 1960s. It was, never cancelled. A document was issued for public relations reasons that purportedly cancelled “fair game”; however, that document stated that it did not change the manner of handling persons declared “SP.” In reality, the purported cancellation of fair game is at most a matter of semantics. Enemies of Scientology are treated as “fair game.”

7. It is my understanding, and I have so testified in my deposition, that when my husband and I escaped from Scientology we were not immediately declared suppressive persons or subjected to the fair game policy. Among other things, we were compelled to do certain things and sign various documents to escape and avoid being subjected to fair game treatment. As we have now sued Scientology, we are “fair game”.

8. From 1984 through early 1987, I was President of Religious Technology Center (hereinafter “RTC”). As President of RTC and a Sea Organization member, I attended many meetings concerning the numerous legal actions involving Scientology organizations. During this time period, I had personal access to all legal documents having to do with RTC. I received a report every day on my computer that included a synopsis of each ongoing legal case involving Scientology. I received, or so I was told, copies of every major motion filed in cases involving Scientology. I was on the “approval lines” for legal documents dealing with RTC. During this time period, I had the option of attending legal meetings although some were mandatory. I attended many litigation meetings and became generally aware of Scientology’s dirty tricks and legal maneuvers. On specifics, I frequently deferred to in-house and outside counsel, however, at least in theory, I was

3

the head of RTC and had access to any business or litigation ” secrets” of Scientology.

9. As President of RTC, I was one of those responsible for retaining the services of Joseph Yanny as counsel for Scientology organizations. I supervised and worked with Mr. Yanny who served as coordinating attorney for RTC in 1985. I am not aware of any legal or corporate information concerning RTC that was available to Mr. Yanny but not available to me.

10. I am informed and believe that various Scientology organizations are contending that Mr. Yanny has somehow improperly educated me on the legal maneuvers, tactics and affairs of Scientology. Although such claims are consistent with litigation tactics of Scientology, which .are not constrained by considerations such as truth and reality, the proposition that I need Mr. Yanny to educate me on the internal affairs of Scientology is simply wrong. I was one of the highest ranking members of Scientology and was involved in upper management. Mr. Yanny was a lawyer hired by management, of which I was a part, to work for it. Further, it was the practice during the time period in question to screen the information given to outside counsel such as Mr Yanny.

11. It is the stated policy and practice of Scientology to use the legal system to abuse and harass its enemies. This crude, fundamental directive of Scientology is no secret. In any event, this information did not come to me from Mr. Yanny. The policy is to do anything and everything possible to harass the opposing litigant without regard to whether any particular motion or maneuver is appropriate or warranted by the facts or applicable law. That policy was followed in every legal case I was involved

4

with or learned about while a member of the Sea Organization. The management of Scientology consistently expressed and demonstrated a complete disdain for the court system viewing it as nothing more than a method to harass enemies. Some examples of this are set forth below.

12. During litigation between Gerald Armstrong and Scientology, which was before Judge Breckenridge of Superior Court for Los Angeles County, the court ordered the production of Armstrong’s pre-clear (“PC”) folders. These are files maintained by Scientology on those who submit to interrogation sessions in a process called auditing. During the course of that litigation I was ordered to go through Armstrong’s folders and destroy or conceal anything that might be damaging to Scientology or helpful to Armstrong’s case. As ordered, I went through the files and destroyed contents that might support Armstrong’s claims against Scientology. This practice is known within Scientology as “culling PC folders” and is a common litigation tactic employed by Scientology.

13. During other litigation in Los Angeles known to me as the Wollersheim case, I was told that the. judge had ordered the production of Wollersheim’s folders. As ordered, I “culled” these files. In other words, I removed contents that might have been damaging to Scientology or support Wollersheim’s claims against Scientology. For example, I removed evidence of events involving his family, the anguish this caused him, evidence of disconnection from family and evidence of fair game.

14. I was involved in numerous meetings concerning what is known to me as the Christofferson case in Portland, Oregon. This

5

case was tried twice. In the first case, a Scientology witness by the name of Martin Samuels was coached and drilled for hours on how to lie convincingly or avoid telling the truth. Before or during the second trial he admitted to this course of conduct. In this litigation, a Scientologist by the name of Joan Shriver produced responsive documents that may have been incriminating. This was a serious breach of policy for which she was punished. These documents were ordered produced on such short notice that apparently files were not thoroughly “culled”. In another case, Mr. Yanny was severely criticized and almost fired for failing to properly coach and feed the desired answers to Heber Jentzsch. Mr. Jentzsch was, for public relations reasons, the purported head of the Church of Scientology International. During his deposition, Mr. Jentzsch was unable to answer fundamental questions concerning the management of Church of Scientology International. This may be what certain defendants are referring to when they say that they were dissatisfied with Mr. Yanny’s services and I protected him. There were those, including McShane, who were outraged by the embarrassing testimony of Mr. Jentzsch. This was blamed on Mr. Yanny. I did not wish. to discontinue using Mr. Yanny at RTC for this perceived problem.

15. In November, 1985, I was present at a meeting whereat Earle Cooley, a Scientologist lawyer, Lyman Spurlock and Norman Starkey, all high ranking Scientologists, announced that they were going to contact Judge Mariana Pfaelzer. Earlier that day Judge Pfaelzer had denied a Scientology motion for a temporary restraining order. After losing on the application there was a meeting to determine what to do about the situation. At the

6

meeting Mr. Cooley had a file, that purportedly contained background and personal information on Judge Pfaelzer. During the meeting Mr. Cooley and the others announced that they were going to attempt to meet with Judge Pfaelzer that evening, at her house if necessary, concerning the litigation in which the temporary restraining order had been sought. Thereafter, Mr. Cooley and two others left with their file on Judge Pfaelzer. They returned several hours later at which time I was told that their attempts to contact Judge Pfaelzer had been unsuccessful.

16. In late 1979 and early 1980, there was a massive document destruction program undertaken to destroy any evidence showing that L. Ron Hubbard (“LRH”) controlled Scientology. I participated in this activity in Clearwater, Florida and am informed that there was also intensive document destruction at facilities in Gilman Hot Springs, California. From at least that point onward there was a continuous effort to hide or destroy any evidence of Hubbard’s control. For example, during an IRS investigation in 1984 and 1985, while in bed with pneumonia, I was ordered out of bed by Norman Starkey who told me that they had received a tip from a Los Angeles Police officer advising them of a pending IRS raid in Los Angeles. Mr. Starkey ordered me to go to a computer facility and insure that all information on the computers in Los Angeles that might show Hubbard’s involvement and control of Scientology’s money was destroyed except for one copy of each document. These copies were to be saved on computer discs which were to be hidden in secure storage places. At the time I was also instructed to destroy anything that would show the control of Mr. Starkey or Mr. Miscavige over Scientology.

7

17. I have been informed and believe that a an improper affidavit was filed in a case brought by L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. in Riverside, California. The circumstances were as follows: The document purported to be an affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard. The signature of Hubbard was purportedly notarized by David Miscavige. It is my understanding that this affidavit caused the case to be dismissed. Subsequently, I was told by Pat Broeker, who had been living with Hubbard at the time, and by Miscavige, that Miscavige had not seen Hubbard between 1980 and Hubbard’s death in 1986. Accordingly, the affidavit was apparently signed, notarized and dated during a time period when Hubbard was in seclusion and not seen by the person who purportedly notarized the signature of Hubbard.

18. In or about 1981, while working in a Scientology organization known as the Guardian’s Office, I had access to and observed various written and oral communications pertaining to illegitimate activities participated in by the Guardian’s Office.

The Guardian’s Office attempted to infiltrate both governmental and private agencies including the IRS, the Department of Justice, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Mental Health. The purpose of this was to steal documents pursuant to Hubbard’s “Snow White” program. The goal of this program was to eliminate any negative reports about Hubbard and Scientology that may have been held by these various agencies.

19. While involved in Scientology I became aware of various operations directed against an author who had written a negative book about Scientology. The author, Paulette Cooper, was subjected to various forms of harassment. One operation included an

8

attempt to frame her. A false bomb threat was written. A Scientology agent lifted a fingerprint from Cooper’s apartment. These fingerprints were then transferred to the bomb threat letter. Ms. Cooper was subjected to an investigation and was not cleared until an FBI raid resulted in the seizure of Scientology documents that exposed the operation as a frame-up. There was at least one other operation directed against Ms. Cooper. The substance of it was to plant a boyfriend to reinforce and play upon her suicidal tendencies in the hopes that she would commit suicide.

20. In 1976 and 1977, the then Mayor of Clearwater, Florida, Gabe Cazares was involved with litigation against Scientology. Arrangements were made to have an attorney by the name of Merril [sp. Merrill] Vanniere [sp. Veneer?], a Scientologist, represent Mr. Cazares and sabotage his case. This plot was also exposed by documents obtained in an FBI raid of a .Scientology facility. Also, in response to Mr. Cazares’ litigation against Scientology, an attempt was made to implicate Mr. Cazares in a staged hit-and-run accident.

21. During the time period of my involvement with Scientology, I also learned of various. attempts to influence judges or force their removal from cases. For example, a private investigator named Dick Bast obtained a statement from a prostitute concerning involvement with a certain judge in Washington, D.C. who was sitting on a Scientology case. This was then publicized. The judge did not continue on the case. The same investigator, Dick Bast was also hired for the purpose of attempting to force the removal of a judge in Tampa, Florida. This involved what I know as the Burden case, which was civil

9

litigation brought by Michael Flynn. Dick Bast secured a yacht and attempted to get the judge on board for the purpose of filming him under compromising circumstances. The judge declined to go yachting and the operation was unsuccessful. Approximately $250,000.00 was spent on the operation.

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

23. During an IRS criminal investigation in the 1984 to 1985 time period, the IRS ordered production of various communications between Hubbard and Author Services, Inc. (ASI). The ASI staff worked literally day and night for several days reviewing documents so that unfavorable documents could be destroyed or otherwise concealed from the IRS. Lyman Spurlock and Marion M. Dendui, Scientologists involved in this operation, informed me of this operation. Also during this IRS investigation, my husband, Rick Aznaran, was ordered to remove and conceal any incriminating documents from certain locations. He was also directed to make the computer network “raid proof”. This involved creating a

10

system where incriminating documents could be deleted from computer storage rapidly and before the IRS could obtain control over the computers.

24. In 1985, I attended a conference on “squirrels” attended by Miscavige, Starkey, Spurlock, and McShane, members of top management, and others. In Scientology jargon, “squirrels” are people who use or practice some procedures also used by Scientology but who do not submit to the total control of the Scientology organization and, perhaps most importantly, who do not pay a percentage of their auditing or counseling fees to Scientology. At this meeting, David Miscavige ordered that public Scientologists be organized and motivated to physically attack squirrels and disrupt their operations. This was stated to be pursuant to the standard guidelines of Scientology. Pursuant to such directives, efforts were undertaken to intimidate and disrupt these persons and their organizations.

25. In 1981, operation “Juggernaut” was commenced. The purpose of this was to destroy Michael Flynn who, as stated above, was representing various plaintiffs with litigation against Scientology. This operation contemplated the use of infiltration, propaganda and attempts to persuade clients to turn against him.

26. The Guardians’ Office got into so much trouble, and worse yet got caught, that it was decided in the early 1980’s that the Guardians’ Office should be disbanded. This was purely a public relations gimmick. In short, it was decided that the Guardians’ Office and Mary Sue Hubbard, its then leader, were to take the rap for all criticism and improper conduct. This scheme was laid out in various written communications I observed in 1981

11

and 1982. (Of course, I was not allowed to keep or escape from Scientology with any such incriminating documents.)

27. Since the early 1970’s, Scientology has operated a forced labor camp known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”). Staff members are incarcerated in the RPF for various real or imagined offense. People confined at this camp are forced to perform hard physical labor every day. They eat rice and beans, or left-overs, and wear rags. They are deprived of sufficient sleep. In 1987, I was confined in such a camp at Happy Valley for approximately six weeks. I worked all day and was confined in a room at night. To the best of my knowledge I was guarded 24 hours a day. They would not even let me shower alone. I had to obtain permission to use a bathroom. I was ill and not allowed to obtain medical treatment. I was not allowed to communicate with my husband nor was I allowed to obtain adequate sleep. I was told that I had gone insane and that my husband did not want to communicate with me. I was physically and psychologically abused both at Happy Valley and for numerous days thereafter in a process called “security checking”. Much oversimplified, I was grilled on a primitive lie detector called an E-Meter and made to understand that I would not be released, have my property returned, or escape fair game policy unless I eventually gave all of the “right” answers. Examples of ” right” answers were responses that I would not talk to a lawyer or consider suing Scientology. I had to give such answers before being released.

28. Recovering from the years of brainwashing, thought control and propaganda to which Scientology subjected me is a

12

gradual process that I do not fully understand. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist and do not fully understand the ramifications of what I have been through although I can observe and experience many symptoms. I have many nightmares and a fear of Scientology.

29. The suit brought by Richard Aznaran and myself is based upon real events that happened to real people, namely us. Just as my husband and I do not need Mr. Yanny to educate us on any secrets of Scientology, it is simply untrue that our claims were somehow invented or manufactured by Mr. Yanny. The whimsical notion that Mr. Yanny invented this litigation through my husband and me is simply false.

30. My husband and I consider Mr. Yanny to be a friend. Further, it might be noted that Mr. Yanny was to serve as my personal counsel in a class action against Scientology and numerous individuals including myself. Recent events have changed this, however, .there was a period of time when Mr. Yanny was purportedly designated as my personal counsel with the approval of Scientology.

31. My husband and I feel quite strongly that we want Barry Van Sickle and the firm of Cummins & White to represent us in this case. Our reasons are both subjective and objective. We do not wish to list our subjective reasons, although we will do so if the Court requests it. Objectively, it might be noted that we had considerable difficulty finding counsel willing and in a position to undertake this extremely volatile, time consuming and expensive litigation. We are unable to pay hourly rates to pursue our claims and need a firm willing to work with us on a contingency

13

fee basis. I anticipate great difficulty, delay and prejudice if forced to find other counsel.

32. Based upon my experience within Scientology and as a litigant against it, I understand that this is not routine litigation. If I am forced to find other counsel, prospective counsel will be presented with the following situation:

(a) A complex case that must be handled on a contingency fee and cost-advanced basis;

(b) A case that requires a litigation team and substantial financial resources;

(c) A case involving an opponent who has a practice and history of suing opposing lawyers as a tactic in addition to subjecting opposing lawyers to surveillance, depositions, infiltration, bad publicity and the full ramifications of the fair game policy;

(d) A case where the opponent is not constrained by a need to be cost effective, truthful, honest or reasonable; and

(e) A case that requires extraordinary security precautions.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 9th day of August, 1988, in Dallas, Texas.

[signed]
VICKI J. AZNARAN

14

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

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.

Impact: The Lawyer’s View (Harry Manion) (1985)

Harry Manion

Harry Manion, Lawyer for the Church of Scientology: One of the Attorneys on the Portland case and largely responsible for the legal victory. Lifetime member of the International Association of Scientologists.

 The Lawyer’s View1

I had a cognition that these SPs2 have to be stopped once and for all. And I don’t think legal is the answer. Because the courts are only a stage. They’ll move on to other stages after we exterminate them there. They’ll move on and on. The only answer is the International Association of Scientologists. So I became a Lifetime Member and I proudly wear my pin! — Harry Manion

Notes

  1. IASA (1985) The Lawyer’s View Impact 4, 26,51. This document in PDF format.
  2. SPs: Suppressive Persons. Key documents to Scientology’s SP doctrine.

Suppressive Person Declare: Gerry Armstrong (revised April 22, 1982)

SEA ORGANIZATION1

FLAG CONDITIONS ORDER 6664R

18 February 1982
Revised 22.4.82

SUPPRESSIVE PERSON DECLARE

GERRY ARMSTRONG

     GERRY ARMSTRONG, now of Costa Mesa, California, is hereby DECLARED A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON according to HCO PL 7 Dec 76 LEAVING AND LEAVES:

“Where a person is secretly planning to leave and making private preparations to do so without informing the proper terminals in an org and does leave (blow) and does not return within a reasonable length of time an automatic Declare is to be issued.”

Gerry took an unauthorized leave in December 1981 and has refused to return and route out properly although he has been contacted and repeatedly requested to do so.

Since Gerry was declared on 18 Feb 1982, reports have been made that also bring the following charges against him for Crimes and High Crimes and Suppressive Acts against the Church:

1.      THEFT.

2.      ILLEGALLY TAKING OR POSSESSING CHURCH PROPERTY.

3.      RESELLING ORG MATERIEL FOR PRIVATE GAIN.

4.      IMPERSONATING A SCIENTOLOGIST OR STAFF MEMBER WHEN NOT AUTHORIZED.

5.      FALSIFYING REPORTS.

6.      MAKING OUT OR SUBMITTING OR ACCEPTING FALSE PURCHASE ORDERS.

7.      JUGGLING ACCOUNTS.

8.      OBTAINING LOANS OR MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

9.      ISSUING THE DATA OR INFORMATION OR INSTRUCTIONAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WITHOUT CREDIT OR FALSELY ASSIGNING CREDIT FOR THEM TO ANOTHER.

10.      ENGAGING IN MALICIOUS RUMOUR-MONGERING TO DESTROY THE AUTHORITY OR REPUTE OF HIGHER OFFICERS OR THE LEADING NAMES OF SCIENTOLOGY OR TO “SAFEGUARD” A POSITION.

11.      SEEKING TO SPLINTER OFF AN AREA OF SCIENTOLOGY AND DENY IT PROPERLY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY FOR PERSONAL PROFIT, PERSONAL POWER OR “TO SAVE THE ORGANIZATION FROM THE HIGHER OFFICERS OF SCIENTOLOGY.”

12.      PRONOUNCING SCIENTOLOGISTS GUILTY OF THE PRACTICE OF STANDARD SCIENTOLOGY.

13.      WILLFUL LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF CHURCH PROPERTY.

14.      HOLDING SCIENTOLOGY MATERIALS OR POLICIES UP TO RIDICULE, CONTEMPT OR SCORN.

15.      SPREADING DESTRUCTIVE RUMOURS ABOUT SENIOR SCIENTOLOGISTS.

16.      PRETENDING TO EXPRESS A MULTIPLE OPINION (USE OF “EVERYBODY”) IN VITAL REPORTS.

17.      BEING A KNOWING ACCESSORY TO A SUPPRESSIVE ACT.

18.      FAILURE TO HANDLE OR DISAVOW AND DISCONNECT FROM A PERSON DEMONSTRABLY GUILTY OF SUPPRESSIVE ACTS.

Since Gerry Armstrong left the Church, he has falsely represented himself to others and said he was on a “secret mission.” Representing himself then as a staff member, he then misrepesented the actions of the Church and its members to others. Gerry has chronically misrepre- sented himself and others.

FCO 6664R – 2 –

He has spoken out for LSD and LSD-proponent Timothy Leary knowing full well that such illicit drugs are strictly prohibited by the Church and that Church Founder L. Ron Hubbard has written against their usage or promotion due to their destructive nature. Knowing that LRH also has researched and written how to combat the effects of these illicit drugs, Gerry Armstrong has degraded LRH’s research and prefers to promote the research of Timothy Leary.

Gerry has taken and sought to sell Church property. He has also failed to return Church property he obtained. He also falsified his Church financial records by failing to state the nature of the intended purchases and failing to spend the money for the approved items. Records by him show purchases for personal items as well as covering the expenses of non-Church companies.

Gerry was also found to be promulgating false information about the Church, its Founder and members. He used his position to create and transmit erroneous information under the guise of “documentation.” Altered documents have been found in his area.

Should Gerry Armstrong come to his senses and wish to recant, he should apply steps A-E of HCO PL 16 May 80 III ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS. Should he fail to apply these steps he will be expelled from the Church and be debarred. Should he claim the label or the charges to be false, he may request a Committee of Evidence per the above referenced policy.

His only terminal is the Continental Justice Chief PAC.

PO1 Paul Laquerre
Int Justice Chief

Authorized by AVC

for the

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

CSI:AVC:PL:bk

Notes

  1. This document in .pdf format.