DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. FLYNN1
I, Michael J. Flynn, hereby depose and state under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personal knowledge or information and belief as to the following:
1. The purpose of this affidavit is to respond to charges made by the Church of Scientology and its counsel against me and my colleagues in connection with our activities and conduct in Scientology-related litigation. An additional purpose of the affidavit is to place in perspective our role in the commencement, prosecution and defense of Scientology cases, particularly in the context of (1) alleged personal harassment of ourselves and our clients, (2) the alleged tactics of the Church of Scientology to inundate various courts with massive docket filings, (3) the filing of allegedly frivolous and malicious lawsuits, bar complaints, and distribution of defamatory publications on the streets and in the media, (4) allegedly engaging in a systematic pattern to infiltrate our law offices, steal documents therefrom, disrupt our law practice, and (5) generally engaging in an assortment of abusive and unlawful conduct to deprive our clients of their legal rights and access to the courts. The affidavit will demonstrate to the court that in light of the facts, we have acted with professional restraint, diligence and within the bounds of the canons of ethics in seeking to prosecute the claims of our clients in the face of extensive, malicious, personal harassment as well as legal harassment through the filing of frivolous lawsuits, bar complaints, etc. Although Scientology and its counsel have, to some degree, succeeded in creating the impression in various courts throughout the United States that Scientology litigation in general is the product of a personal campaign between the lawyers on both sides to use the judicial system to vindicate personal animosities, it has always been our intention to obtain legal redress for our clients. We submit that the Church of Scientology is engaged in an elaborate and concerted plan to
create that impression by besieging each of the courts with such a massive amount of paperwork together with incessant charges against me that a true and just adjudication of the rights of the victims have become secondary. An examination of the dockets in virtually every case will reveal that we have been required to continually respond to personal attacks which have cluttered the docket entries. These continued personal attacks, such as motions for disqualification, depositions of counsel, lawsuits against counsel, contempt proceedings against counsel, bar complaints against counsel, and personal harassment of counsel, have resulted in a cluttering of the court dockets and the misdirection of the subject cases. The foregoing approach adopted by the Church pursuant to its written policies has been designed to confuse and obfuscate the legitimate factual and legal issues in the subject litigation. The attack by the Church of Scientology has been uncalled for, distorted, and unlawful.
2. In late June or early July, 1979, La Venda Van Schaick engaged me to obtain a refund of funds paid by her to the Church of Scientology in the amount of approximately $12,800.00. At that time, I knew nothing about the Church of Scientology, and was reluctant to undertake Van Schaick’s request because she informed me about the operating practices of the Church towards its so called “enemies”. However, at the request of several individuals and after preliminary investigation, I sent a letter to the Church dated July 17, 1979 requesting a refund of all funds paid by Van Schaick. (Exhibit 1 attached.) After sending Exhibit 1, I received a letter from the Church stating that no refund would be paid. (Exhibit 2 attached.) During the pendency of the aforestated correspondence, an individual holding himself out to be one “Chuck North” contacted me and asked to be engaged as a private investigator/
consultant in connection with “researching and investigating cults.” North specifically asked and requested to have access to any “cult files” in my office for the purpose of assisting
his research and investigation. I became suspicious about the coincidental mailing of the Van Schaick correspondence and the solicitations of North. As it later turned out, North was in
fact an agent of the Church seeking to infiltrate our offices. (Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Warren Friske, attached.)
3. During the period between July to September, 1979 when the correspondence concerning Van Schaick refund was being exchanged, I began to receive telephone calls from clients,
relatives, and friends stating that they had received strange telephone calls from various individuals requesting information about me. During the same period of time, in connection with numerous telephone calls and correspondence involving non-Scientology related clients and cases, many strange and suspicious incidents occurred which suggested that my telephone calls and office affairs were either being monitored, intercepted, or knowledge about them otherwise obtained. For example, an individual called one of my clients and told her that I should be reported to the bar because I had not turned over all of the funds I had received in the trial of a case. In fact, the client was present at the trial, received a trial judgment upon a jury verdict, and was paid in full. During the same period of time, namely between July and September, 1979, Van Schaick alleges that she began to be followed, her apartment kept under surveillance, her employment activities monitored, and numerous strange and suspicious circumstances occurred in connection with her daily life, too numerous for purposes of this affidavit. The only activity of mine involving the Church at that point in time had been to send one letter requesting a refund!
4. After receiving the letter denying the request for a refund, I received a letter dated September 11, 1979 from the “Church of Scientology of Boston”. (Exhibit 4 attached) This letter, together with the other prior strange occurrences, together with the allegations made to me by Van Schaick as to the nature and operating practices of the Church, resulted in the decision by me to initiate an investigation into the entire matter. The September 11 letter stated that the Church would be willing to pay approximately 50% of the funds paid to the Church by Van Schaick and at the same time suggested that Van Schaick should not sue the Church for the balance of the funds because she had an extensive drug history, had “three abortions”, had “attempted suicide”, had severe marital problems, and had signed an agreement never to sue the Church or the Hubbards. I had been informed by Van Schaick that all of the foregoing information came from her confidential, “auditing” or “confessional files” and that it was a regular practice of the Church to send such a letter to any person claiming refunds or to their counsel. Van Schaick stated that the auditing information had been given in strict confidence but that the Church, pursuant to written policy, regularly utilized such information to block legal recourse and for other purposes including blackmail and extortion even though it also had a written policy covering refunds.
5. Shortly after the receipt of the foregoing letter, I received several anonymous telephone calls suggesting that representation of Van Schaick was a dangerous matter, that no one “messes with the Church”, that if I had any doubts about this issue, to contact other people who had sought to “interfere” with the Church. During September and early October, 1979, I, as a result of all of the foregoing, was involved in an active and extensive investigation of the allegations made by Van Schaick in order to determine the propriety of a lawsuit against the Church. Because of the many strange events that occurred during this period of time in connection with this investigation, I concluded that the Church or its agents were monitoring my activities, telephone calls, and my investigation. Among the numerous incidents that confirmed this were several occasions when I observed individuals following me, defamatory calls were made to various clients shortly after I had called these clients on the phone, and an employee at the small airport where I maintained any airplane observed unidentified individuals viewing the airplane and seeking information about it.
6. Between that date and the ensuing several months, Van Schaick, was allegedly subjected to numerous incidents of personal harassment involving the surveillance of her home and her child, being run off the road in her car, numerous telephone calls to her neighbors suggesting that she was an unfit mother, calls to her employer resulting in the loss of her job as a
waitress, attempts to convince her that I was engaging in harassive conduct against her, attempts to separate her from her husband, and other forms of harassment. In one instance, she
states that the Church sent an agent from Los Angeles to convince Van Schaick that the “harassive things” being done to her were initiated by me! (A copy of that agent’s note is attached as Exhibit 5.)
7. In November 1979, nine of the highest officers of the Church of Scientology were convicted of a variety of crimes, and approximately 30,000 documents seized by the F.B.I. from the
Church were released to the general public. I sent an employee to the Federal Court in Washington to copy thousands of these documents. These documents in large part verified the
allegations of Van Schaick and validated my belief that the Church was responsible for the numerous inexplicable and harassive incidents that had occurred in the prior several months.
The documents revealed a 15-year pattern of infiltration, burglary, bugging, harassment, and elaborate policies and operations to commit the foregoing pursuant to specific and detailed training manuals. The documents also contained hundreds of documents pertaining to the use of auditing information by the Church against individuals such as Van Schaick for the purpose of blocking and frustrating their legal rights, even specifying the use of extortion and blackmail. In fact, the specific written operations authorized by Mary Sue Hubbard to conduct this type of operation were among these documents.
8. During the same period of time, I conducted an extensive legal analysis and case research involving the Church of Scientology and learned that the publications of the Church of Scientology had been declared fraudulent in the case of United States v. Article or Device, 333 F.Supp. 357 (D.D.C., 1971) and that the Church had never complied with the decree in said case. Further, I learned that the Church had brought in excess of 100 cases against a variety of individuals and entities for the purposes of frustrating the legal rights of those parties and for the purpose of harassing them pursuant to a specific written policy of the Church which calls for the use of the judicial system to harass and destroy critics.
9. Finally, after approximately six months of research and investigation at a cost in excess of $20,000.00, we decided to bring a class action suit against the Church of Scientology to recover not only for the damages inflicted on Van Schaick, but also to seek relief for the class as a whole, for the failure of the Church to comply with the Article or Device decree. That suit was initiated on December 13, 1979, resulting in unsolicited contact by the news media to Van Schaick and me. After the news relative to the class action suit was disseminated in the press, the floodgates unexpectedly and surprisingly opened. My office was literally swamped in a period of weeks with hundreds of telephone calls by a variety of individuals and organizations including parents whose children had committed suicide while in the Church, individuals who had been hospitalized as a result of Church involvement, authors, reporters, individuals who had been allegedly defrauded by the Church, various law enforcement agencies, and other assorted contacts.
10. After the commencement of the Van Schaick action, the Church immediately attempted to infiltrate the class with an agent posing as a prospective client (see affidavit of Garrity attached as Exhibit 6), intensified its harassment of individuals associated with me, attempted to disrupt non-Scientology cases I was involved in, and generally initiated a campaign of
unrelenting personal and legal harassment. This campaign included the following:
a) Approximately three weeks after the commencement of the Van Schaick case, without filing a counter-claim in that action, and without filing a Motion to Dismiss within the time allowed by the rules, the Church initiated a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in Nevada against Van Schaick, Kevin Flynn, (my brother and an employee of my office), Thomas Hoffman, Esq., (a colleague), and Edward Walters, (a client). That suit alleged a conspiracy by these individuals to deprive the Church of its First Amendment rights. The suit was
dismissed by the Federal Court within 120 days.
b) At the same time as the filing of this action, the Church filed in succession four separate bar complaints against me alleging a variety of things including conspiracy to violate the Church’s First Amendment rights, the unlicensed practice of law by Kevin Flynn, and a variety of other charges. The first three complaints were filed on January 15, 1980, February 7, 1980 and April 3, 1980, all of which were dismissed on April 10, 1980 by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. (See Exhibit 7 attached.) On November 19, 1980, the Church filed yet another complaint which was dismissed on May 4, 1981. (See Exhibit 8 attached.)
c) After the dismissal of the Federal Nevada action, the Church then commenced an action against Van Schaick, Kevin Flynn, Edward Walters, and other clients of mine in the state court in Nevada, which was nearly identical to the federal action. As to Van Schaick and Kevin Flynn, this suit was also dismissed.
d) The Church also filed an action against me and four of my clients in the Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court alleging that the clients had stolen materials from the Church of Scientology of Boston and turned them over to me. These materials primarily included the auditing files of the four clients who had left the Boston Church and taken their auditing files with them because they were aware the Church used them for purposes of blackmail. Also allegedly taken were some financial graphs and some Sea Org organizations. I stipulated in open court to filing the voluminous auditing files under seal with the court, returning the financial graphs, and maintaining possession of the Sea Org communications. The court adopted this offer and issued an injunction based upon it. In subsequent litigation around the United States, particularly in the recent case of the Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, California Superior Court, Los Angeles, C420153, the Church has attempted to use this litigation and the stipulated injunction to misinform and mislead the court into the belief that I had behaved unethically as reflected by the injunction, when in fact, I stipulated to the injunction, and the suit was prosecuted for the purpose of harassing me pursuant to the written policy of the Church.
e) Subsequently, the Church filed an additional action against me in the Las Vegas state court alleging essentially that I was engaged in a conspiracy against the Church and abusing judicial process. Church counsel attempted to procure a false affidavit from an ex-member to support the case. (See Exhibit 6 at page 8.) The court granted my Motion Judgment in that action.
f) Between January and May, 1980, for Summary I was subjected to hundreds of instances of personal harassment, which I believe, based upon the Friske and Garrity affidavits and other information, to have been conducted by the Church. These included inter alia, contacting my insurance agent and informing the agent that I had murdered the husband of one of my clients, making a bomb threat to my building resulting in its evacuation, throwing rocks at my building, sending a post card threatening to poison me, harassive telephone calls at and night to me, my wife, and my children, phone calls to neighbors and suggesting in all hours of the day making obscene telephone calls to neighbours and suggesting in these calls that I was making them, and process servers arriving at my home at all hours disturbing my wife and children. (See generally, Exhibit 9.)
g) Between approximately November, 1979 and up to and including at least May, 1982, the Church allegedly stole approximately 20,000 documents either directly from my office or from a trash dumpster in my private office condominium compound. This theft is established by the following evidence. Kevin Tighe formerly of the Guardian’s Office has testified under oath that he stole documents from my law office garbage. (Exhibit 10.) Warren Friske, former head of B-2 in Boston, admits he sorted the stolen documents and sent the materials to the U.S.G.O. and to CSC’s attorneys. (Exhibit 11.) Joe Lisa, former head of the U.S.G.O., has admitted in a sworn deposition that he ordered the document theft operation. (Exhibit 12.)
11. Between January and May, 1980, hundreds of former Church members contacted my office seeking legal recourse against the Church. One of these individuals, Tonja Burden, had
worked directly for L. Ron Hubbard, who had ultimate and absolute control over all Church activities. Burden, between the ages of 13 and 17, worked for the Church without receiving any education, essentially served for a long period as Hubbard’s personal slave, dressing and undressing him, and was involved in coding and de-coding telexes in double and triple codes regarding operations against the United States government, state agencies, and numerous individuals. She was defrauded of approximately five years of labor, a high school education, was made to sign promissory notes in the thousands cf dollars, she was tendered a bill in the amount of approximately $61,000.00, was subsequently kidnapped, harassed and taken over state lines when she left the Church, and was generally tortiously injured by the Church without receiving the benefits promised to her and based upon false representations made to her. With co-counsel in Tampa, Florida, we commenced an action in the Federal District Court on or about April 25, 1980 on behalf of Ms. Burden. This was only the second suit initiated by my office in connection with Scientology litigation. Yet, most of the items referred to in paragraph 10 against my office were either in process, completed, or being planned. The Church proceeded to literally swamp the court docket with motions, pleadings, and discovery, the great bulk of which motions have been denied,
resulting in a massive amount of paper that stands approximately two feet high to date. Although ex-Scientologists have come forward and acknowledged a consistent pattern of abuses against individuals such as Van Schaick and Burden with regard to the wrongful dissemination of auditing information, fraudulent and deceptive recruitment and sales practices, campaigns of harassment pursuant to the “Fair Game Doctrine” and other such operations, and thousands of documents exist to support such allegations, the Church and its counsel have engaged in a pattern of litigation designed to wear down the plaintiffs, their counsel, and the court system rather than attempt to resolve the injury claims in a judicious and good faith approach based upon specific and extensive evidence. The latter strategy is reflected by the activities of the Church and its correspondence to me prior to the commencement of the Van Schaick action as well as the aforesaid dismissed lawsuits, bar complaints, and harassment techniques.
12. Between May, 1980 and December, 1980, my office continued to be besieged with contacts from former members, parents, state and federal law enforcement agencies, the news media, etc. with regard to the activities of the Church. During that period of time, my office brought several additional actions in the Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of former
members who sought to obtain legal redress against the Church. During the same period of time, the continuous theft of documents from my office and compound took place and the general campaign of harassment continued. The hundreds of instances involved in this harassment are too extensive to set forth in this affidavit but they consisted of a general pattern of what has been previously described including contacts with non-Scientology clients. (See several statements of clients attached hereto as Exhibit 9.) Throughout this period of time
the Church continually attempted to take my deposition and depositions of my employees and colleagues on numerous occasions in different cases.
13. In January, 1981, after living through a year and a half of the activities and conduct previously described, I flew to Los Angeles, California, together with my colleagues, for the purpose of discussing settlement of the Scientology litigation with Church counsel. During these settlement discussions, the Church agreed to repay all of the monies paid by two claimants, Donald and Peggy Bear, in the amount of approximately $107,000.00. Although releases were signed and the Church represented to numerous courts that it had a policy to
refund monies paid to it, the Church failed to deliver a check for the proceeds, the settlement negotiations fell through, and a suit was later commenced on behalf of the Bears. (See Exhibit 14 attached.) At the time of the preparation for these settlement negotiations, my office prepared an extensive analysis of approximately 50 cases that it was considering filing on behalf of former members, which analysis related to the costs of such litigation for both sides, the factual issues involved in the various cases, peripheral issues such as probate matters, media problems, etc., That analysis was prepared specifically for these settlement negotiations. The analysis was subsequently stolen from our offices and later became the subject of an additional bar complaint and a suit brought by the Church against my colleagues and I in the Los Angeles District Court, discussed infra.
14. After the settlement negotiations failed, and after spending several weeks in Los Angeles, we returned to Boston and prepared to conduct a conference in May 1981, for the purpose of meeting with several lawyers in connection with the proposed commencement of some of the 50 cases included in the settlement analysis. Portions of the settlement analysis were included in a packet of information given to the lawyers who attended the May conference. Those documents were also subsequently stolen by the Church of Scientology from our offices or our trash dumpster. At the conference, attended by approximately eight attorneys, the nature of Scientology litigation was explained, fee relationships were discussed involving the traditional contingent fee type relationship and a sharing of the fees between the attorneys based upon the amount of work done on each case. Other peripheral issues set forth above in the settlement analysis were discussed. This meeting was infiltrated by an agent of the Church posing as a client, Ford Schwartz, on behalf of the Church. (See attached Exhibit 15.) The Church, therefore, was aware of the nature of the meeting, what was discussed, and the fee relationships that existed between the clients and the attorneys.
15. Between May, 1981 and July, 1981, Kevin Flynn, who had ceased being an employee of mine in mid-1980 and who had commenced working as an independent contractor, submitted a proposal to me and my colleagues whereby Kevin Flynn’s corporation, Flynn Associates Management Corporation, would perform services on behalf of the various attorneys as a researcher and investigator in consideration of receiving a percentage of the funds recovered in the cases. After research by me and my colleagues, the proposal was rejected, although ethical opinions of several states indicated that such a proposal was not improper. This proposal was also stolen from the offices of mine and/or the trash dumpster in the private office compound.
16. During the summer of 1981, as a result of the ongoing theft of documents from my office and compound, most of which constituted attorney-client communication and/or work-
product, the Church knew that I and counsel from various other states were considering the commencement of various actions in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles. It also knew that Flynn Associates Management Corporation played no role in connection with these suits, that the May meeting among counsel was ethically proper, and that I was still seeking to resolve the cases without litigation.
17. In June, 1981, Church counsel again initiated settlement discussions, this time with my co-counsel in the Burden case in Tampa, which resulted in a series of correspondence between me and Church counsel. (See attached Exhibit 16.) In fact, the Church offered 1.6 million dollars to resolve all existing and impending litigation, and I accepted their
offer on behalf of the various clients involved, in a good faith effort to resolve the entire matter. My motivation in accepting this settlement offer of the Church on behalf of my clients
involved numerous considerations including: a) the desire of clients and counsel to end the torrent of legal and personal harassment; b) the expense and time consumption inherent in the litigation for all parties; c) the promised efforts of the Church to reform and discontinue many of its unlawful practices; and, d) the financial remuneration of clients and counsel.
18. Between approximately April and June, 1981, I was contacted by the City of Clearwater to prepare a report relative to the Church of Scientology and the tax-exempt aspects of organizations such as the Church. Because of the continued theft of materials from my office, the Church was fully aware of the fact that various City officials had contacted me during that period of time. The Church therefore knew, through the acquisition of illegally obtained information, when it made its 1.6 million dollar offer to settle all Scientology-related litigation matters, that hundreds of individuals had contacted our office, that several counsel in various areas of the U.S. had agreed to undertake litigation on behalf of injured clients, that the City of Clearwater was commencing an investigation into the Church, that it had been engaged in a two-year campaign of legal and personal harassment against me and my office, that it had been engaged in at least a ten-year pattern of burglary, larceny, obstruction of justice, etc., of which its highest leaders had been convicted, and that there were thousands of people across the United States who were seeking refunds from the Church. Because of the close monitoring and surveillance of my office, the Church also knew that my colleagues and I were willing to resolve the litigation primarily because of our desire to terminate the persistent harassment of us and our clients. At this point in connection with the litigation, I had personally expended in excess of $200,000.00.
19. Upon information and belief provided by recently defected members of the Church, in the summer of 1981, when all of these matters were occurring, an internal power struggle took
place within the Church resulting in the purge of several highly-placed members and the resulting take-over of the Church by several young members of the “Commodore’s Messenger Org,” who had served personally for L. Ron Hubbard throughout their teen-age years, who were then approximately 21 or 22 years of age, and who were fanatical adherents of Hubbard. These individuals who took over the Church adopted a plan in the summer of 1981 to conduct an all-out campaign against me and my clients pursuant to the “technology” of the Church doctrine, to wit, the Fair Game Doctrine, to destroy me and all opposition to the Church. Upon information and belief, the foregoing involved a highly secretive written plan adopted by the highest members of the Church to revoke the offer of settlement, revert to “Hubbard technology,” and to attack and destroy me pursuant to the following Hubbard policies:
Don’t ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat against them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person’s repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized. Be very alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from mentioning Scientology. The purpose of this suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.
(Level 0 Checksheet attached as Exhibit 17.)
Pursuant to this plan, the Church then embarked on a campaign beginning in August, 1981, and continuing up to the present date, to “attack”, “sue”, and “destroy” me. This campaign has included the following:
a. In August, 1981, the Church, through its counsel, Harvey Silverglate, filed a bar complaint against me and my colleagues attaching numerous documents that had been stolen from my office and compound. The thrust of this complaint was that I was unlawfully selling shares of Flynn Associates Management Corporation to finance prospective lawsuits against the Church. Although the Church knew that this allegation was false, the Church and its counsel wove together the settlement analysis prepared in January, 1931, the materials assembled for the May conference, and the proposal of Kevin Flynn, then attempted to create a false and deceptive impression with the Board of Bar Overseers and subsequently in the courts. The Church knew at the time of this bar complaint that the allegations of its counsel, Silverglate, were false, because it had agents who had attended the May conference, it had stolen the settlement analysis at the time it was prepared in January, 1981, and the Church had stolen the Kevin Flynn proposal when it had been prepared
and rejected in June, 1981.
b. In addition to this bar complaint, the Church and its counsel then proceeded to file an additional three bar complaints against myself and my colleagues, including, inter alia, the allegation that I improperly attempted to avoid service of process by one of the many process servers in connection with suits and depositions that the Church was attempting to initiate against our office. These bar complaints were filed through-out the period from August to December, 1981. Notwithstanding the foregoing complaints, I have received a letter from the Board stating that it does not consider that I have any “Complaints” presently against me. (See Exhibit 18.)
c. At the same time that the bar complaints were being filed, the Church was engaged in operations to steal documents from the trash of at least one of the members of the Board of Bar Overseers. (See affidavit of Warren Friske attached as Exhibit 3.)
d. In August, 1981, the Church commenced an action in the Los Angeles Federal District Court through one of its members, Steven Miller, against me, my brother, Kevin, a medical doctor, and several others, on the theory that the defendants had “deprogrammed” Miller and violated his civil rights. At the time of the filing of the suit, I had never heard of Steven Miller and had never had any contact with him before. The attorneys’ fees in connection with the defense of that case, upon information and belief, are currently in excess of $200,000.00, which have been paid by the parents of Steven Miller, I have also sustained attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with the defense of that case and other litigation initiated by the Church of Scientology.
e. In August, 1981, the Church commenced an action in the Boston Federal District Court through its members, Ellen and Chris Garrison, on the same theory of deprogramming. This suit was brought against Kevin Flynn and Paulette Cooper after specific planning and meetings were held by the Church to bring this suit against these individuals for the purpose of harassing them and my office. (See Affidavit of Warren Friske attached as Exhibit 3.)
f. During the same period of time, and in the ensuing months, the Church filed motions to disqualify me in the cases of Garrity, et al. v. The Church of Scientology, Los Angeles Federal District Court, Burden v. Church of Scientology, District Court in Tampa, and in the Van Schaick case. These Motions for Disqualification were all part of the plan to personally and legally harass me and my colleagues.
g. Between August, 1981 and December, 1981, the Church literally swamped the court dockets in every case that it was involved in, including both those it had initiated and those that had been brought by claimants, with hundreds of pleadings, motions, discovery requests, etc. An examination of the dockets in almost any of the pending cases will illustrate the intense campaign of legal harassment specifically adopted by the Church during this period of time to destroy me, my office, and my clients.
h. My office utilized a long distance telephone code which unauthorized individuals, allegedly the Church, intercepted and thereafter used to charge in excess of $1,000.00 in telephone calls to our code. In a similar “operation,” it has been alleged that the Church intercepted the code of a third party in California and made telephone calls to our clients charging the calls to the third party’s code. All of these matters and many others have been turned over to the F.B.I.
i. After we spent in excess of one hundred hours defending the Motions to Disqualify filed in the Garrity, Van Schaick, and Burden cases, the Church dropped these Motions and instead undertook a new round of lawsuits against my office. The Church commenced an abuse of process action in the Los Angeles Federal District Court in connection with the Garrity, et al. case and also brought another civil rights action against me and the City of Clearwater in the Tampa Federal District Court.
20. The Church timed commencement of the abuse of process action in the Los Angeles Federal District Court to coincide with certain hearings being conducted by the City of Clearwater involving the Church of Scientology in which our office was involved. In connection with these hearings, the Church adopted a specific operation to harass me as follows:
In the second week in March, 1982, the Clearwater hearings were scheduled to begin on April 21, 1982. On March 25, Church counsel in the case of Cazares v. Church of
Scientology, Circuit Court in Daytona, sent a letter to me scheduling my deposition for April 23, 1982 in Tampa during the middle of the hearings. Although the hearings were
subsequently continued until May 5, 1982, on April 19, 1982, while appearing in the Burden case in Tampa, I was served with a deposition subpoena. I filed a Verified Motion to Quash the Subpoena stating that the demands of my law practice prevented me from remaining in Florida throughout the “time” required for the deposition, 2:00 p.m. on Friday, April 23, to continue from day-to-day over the week-end and the following Monday, as required by the deposition subpoena. I sent a letter on two occasions to Church counsel indicating that I could not appear for the deposition, that I had no personal knowledge of the subject matter of the case in which the deposition was to be taken, but that I would be willing to schedule another date when I would voluntarily appear. Subsequently, after the Church learned that the hearings would be continued to May 5, 1982, it issued a second subpoena, from the Los Angeles Federal Court in the case of Church of Scientology v. F.B.I. I had no personal knowledge relevant to this case but the Church sought to take my deposition, again during the middle of the hearings. I communicated to counsel in that case that I would be unable to appear on that date. Subsequently, during the middle of the Clearwater hearings, the Church filed motions to hold me in contempt in the Los Angeles Federal District Court and in the Daytona Circuit Court because of my failure to appear at the depositions. In connection with the Daytona contempt proceeding, I informed the Court of the foregoing, informed the Court that under Florida law I was immune from service in Florida, under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure my deposition had to be taken in Massachusetts, but that I was still willing to appear without need of going forward with the contempt matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and after the Church counsel specifically misrepresented the facts, without a trial, without any witnesses being called at the contempt matter, and without complying with Florida rules with regard to “indirect criminal contempts,” Church counsel procured a contempt finding against me from the Court. The matter was appealed and the appellate court reversed and vacated the finding of contempt by the trial court. The trial court judge has since left the bench after being implicated in an unrelated bribery scheme.
21. In the face of this harassment and abuse, the intention of our office throughout the subject litigation has been to obtain redress on behalf of our clients for alleged fraud in the taking of their money and labor and for outrageous conduct in blocking their access to judicial relief. We submit that the Church of Scientology operates based on policies such as “Fair Game” and “Attack the Attacker” because it must use such means to perpetuate its fraudulent sales and recruitment practices. These operating policies of the Church carry over to its activities and conduct in dealing with the judicial system and attorneys, such as ourselves who represent clients against the Church. We are among many attorneys and judges who have been attacked by the Church through motions for disqualification, lawsuits, bar complaints, and personal harassment. The Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Washington criminal cases, several federal judges, and the attorney for the F.D.A. are such examples. (See attached Exhibit 19.) While utilizing the operational policies such as Fair Game, the Church presents a religious front to the Court in order to frustrate legitimate claims for tortious injury and to create the appearance of a personal conflict amongst the lawyers in the swamping of the dockets with every conceivable filing. Abuse of the legal system is reflected by the massive litigation instituted by Scientology in courts throughout the United States. (See Lexis scan attached as Exhibit 20.)
22. My colleagues and I have never before been subjected to the legal harassment which has occurred in the subject litigation. Our background is not one of using the judicial system abusively or without just cause. I was ranked first in my class in law school, served as Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, served as a law clerk to a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, have been married for 16 years with 3 children, and I have always endeavored to practice law with discretion, professional restraint and within the bounds of the canons of ethics. In contrast, the highest officials of the Church have served time in Federal Prison, there are literally thousands of individuals and families seeking legal redress, and the fraudulent, tortious, and often times criminal activities and policies of the Church are becoming increasingly evident. These victims have come to us in the hundreds, often with substantial financial claims and evidence of overt physical and mental abuse. As a result of my assistance to these people, I have been “declared” an “enemy” by the Church and appear on its enemies list.” (See Exhibit 21 attached.)
23. It has always been the policy of my office to resolve claims against the Church of Scientology without litigation. The efforts at settlement between January and July, 1981 were such an example. The Church is now using those confidential settlement negotiations to further attack me, although the Church insisted in writing on their confidentiality, and
accepted, but later reneged upon, the settlement.
24. It is the intent of my office and clients to obtain legal redress for legitimate claims in the context of substantial supporting evidence. It is not my intent to use the judicial process to harass the Church. The fact that the Church has a written policy mandating such judicial abuse, together with a 20-year history of employing it, is evidence of the fact that the Church, not myself or my clients, is intent upon creating a distorted and false perception of the nature and purposes of each of the Scientology related cases.
25. I am not collaborating with forces who are trying to destroy freedom of religion and churches in America.
26. I am not collaborating with anyone using brutal “deprogramming” and “depersonalizing” techniques. I have never deprogrammed or depersonalized anyone.
27. I have exercised my First Amendment rights to speak out and oppose an organization whose top leaders have gone to prison. However, I have never sought to manipulate the media or use libel, forgery, or other improper means in connection with any of the litigation.
28. I have made no fraudulent representations of any nature or description but have merely sought to expose the misrepresentations made by the Church of Scientology.
29. Dr. John Clark has never been part of any operations of FAMCO of any nature or description, nor has Kevin Flynn through FAMCO or otherwise, attempted to involuntarily kidnap or brutalize anyone.
30. The charge that I have solicited an individual named “Jim Gray” to enlist him to sell shares in FAMCO is totally false. Gray was never offered any position, no shares were ever offered to him, and I have no idea why he would make such allegations in a so-called “sworn affidavit.”
31. The charge that I have solicited clients in connection with the Church of Scientology is absurd. Indeed, the reverse is true. There are thousands of Scientologists throughout the United States seeking to obtain legal counsel to obtain redress against the Church. The problem is that it is very difficult to get lawyers to take on such cases. I have been unfortunately refusing clients, not soliciting them. Although my law firm has endeavored to help all of these people, and has never solicited any of them, we are, in fact, incapable of representing the thousands of people who desperately need representation.
32. The Church of Scientology claims that I “resorted to the use of force and coercion in the form of psychiatric…not unlike the insidious, painful brainwashing techniques on American servicemen by Chinese Communists during the Korean War.” First of all, I have never advocated nor would I ever participate in any such activity. Second, “brainwashing” is a technique used and taught by the Church in its G.O. intelligence courses. (Exhibit 22.) Third, as explained above, I never met nor even heard of Steven Miller prior to his filing a Church sponsored lawsuit against me which has since been dismissed.
33. The probate case relating to Ronald DeWolf and the “missing person status” of L. Ron Hubbard was brought for the simple reason that L. Ron Hubbard’s own attorney, Alan Goldfarb, stated that L. Ron Hubbard was missing, and that he could not appear in one of the many suits that had been brought against him because no one knew where he was and no one from the Church of Scientology had communicated with him since February 1980. It was the conduct of Hubbard’s own lawyers and the group that now run the RTC (Religious Technology Center) and the failure of Hubbard to appear and defend himself in Court or even to appear and defend or assist his wife for that matter, which resulted in the
Hubbard filed a to be appointed Ron Hubbard was probate case being brought. It was only after legal declaration, the day before a trustee was in the probate case, that the Court held that L. Ron Hubbard was not a missing person.
34. The finding of contempt against me was one of the numerous legal proceedings brought against me at the same time. The Church of Scientology fails to state that I did not even appear and defend the contempt proceeding because of the onslaught of other harassment brought against me by the Church, and, later when I moved to vacate the order, the judge stated that no bad faith or misconduct was involved, but merely a technical violation of one of the court orders regarding disclosure of information about Hubbard.
35. The allegations contained in Paulette Cooper’s affidavit are perhaps the most absurd portion of the Church of Scientology’s charges. Since I was Ms. Cooper’s attorney, I feel ethically bound to hold inviolate the communications we had regarding L. Ron Hubbard, other than to say that Ms. Cooper’s declaration is totally false. The accompanying declaration of Joseph Flanagan2 explains how Ms. Cooper came to testify for CSC.
36. The idea that Kevin Flynn, Thomas Hoffman, or I, or anyone associated with us, had anything to do with the forgery of one of L. Ron Hubbard’s checks, is simply too fanciful to warrant extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that I brought to the attention of the public and the courts the fact that one of L. Ron Hubbard’s checks, in the possession of individuals controlling the RTC, was forged and an attempt to pass it was made at the time in May-June, 1982 when Hubbard wrote a will and in the will turned over control of Scientology to the RTC. It was at the same time that the RTC began to assert total dictatorial control throughout the Church of Scientology. Any intelligent observer can put two and two together to conclude that I would not participate in the forgery of a two-million dollar check and then do everything in my power to investigate it.
37. Recently, I received a letter and telegram from Mr. Tamimi, whose sworn declaration was procured by Eugene Ingram, an investigator employed by Church of Scientology, who has been removed from the L. A. Police Force for his purported involvement in assisting narcotic dealers, pimping, and other criminal activities. In the note and telegram Tamini states that the declaration procured by Ingram is false and that he is now prepared to tell the truth. Tamini’s declaration, attached to Peterson’s declaration, should be viewed with great scepticism in light of Tamini’s letter and telegram. (A copy of this letter and telegram is attached as Exhibit 23.) This letter has been turned over to law enforcement authorities to permit further investigation. This letter was the first communication of any type which I have ever had with Mr. Tamini.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this ____ day of July, 1985 in Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael J. Flynn
This is a response to the “Declaration” of Heber Jentzsch who holds himself out as being a “Reverend” for the Church of Scientology. It is interesting to note that a “Reverend” is generally considered to be one who is a member of the clergy and is considered to be worthy of honor, respect, and admiration. Such honor and respect has in our society, traditionally been given to men who either individually or as part of a religious group, have demonstrated a high degree of love, kindliness, charitableness and good will toward all men. While Reverend Jentzsch purports to represent “goodness” about which he speaks in his “Declaration,” he proceeds to unleash a false, vitriolic diatribe against myself, psychiatrists, my colleagues, the government, my clients, (many of whom are former Scientologists who attained clear, OT-VIII, NOTS, auditors, and mission holders), as well as any other person or group who seeks to expose the lies, fraudulent conduct, and criminal activity of the RTC, the Church of Scientology, its agents and representatives, all of whom have inflicted wide-spread harm on many individuals and organizations.
At the beginning of his declaration, Reverend Jentzsch states that Scientology is a “symbol of good.” However, any person of reasonable intellect, upon examination of the record, must conclude that the thousands of “Guardian’s Office Operations” against its perceived “enemies” pursuant to the “Fair Game Doctrine” does not constitute “good.” The malevolence inherent in the very concept of the “Fair Game Doctrine” and “Suppressive Person Declares” is such that any man of good will should conclude that the very writing and implementation of such concepts which call for the “destruction” of anyone who opposes Scientology constitute acts of substantial depravity. Such concepts can only have as their purpose to destroy freedom of thought of which the Reverend Jentzsch purports to speak in support of.
The venom which pours forth from the brain and heart of the Reverend Jentzsch in his Declaration is such that most people knowledgeable of the “tech” would conclude that Reverend Jentzsch probably took special delight in doing the Guardian’s Office Hat Packs which train GO staff how to “destroy” people. Reverend Jentzsch appears to be consumed by an unfortunate quantity of anger, hatred, and delusion. Perhaps someone should recommend to the Reverend Jentzsch that he read verse 37, ch. 3 and verse 62, ch. 2 of the Bhagavad-gita, wherein it is stated:
“It is desire, it is anger, born of Arajo-guna, all consuming and most evil. Know this to be the enemy here on Earth.”
“From anger arises delusion: from delusion unsteadiness of memory: from unsteadiness of memory destruction of intellect: through the destruction of intellect, he perishes.”
If the Reverend Jentzsch sincerely believes that Scientology has its origins in Eastern religion, it would behoove him to read the aforecited chapters of the Bhagavad-gita.
On P. 2 of his declaration, the Reverend Jentzsch states that I have entered into a conspiracy with a corporation called “FAMCO,” through which I am selling shares of stock and through which I am in “collaboration with forces trying to destroy freedom of religion in churches in American life.” The Reverend Jentzsch then goes on to state that I am brutally kidnapping and deprogramming people, depriving them of their legal rights, abusing the judicial process, manipulating the media, committing libel, forgery, and a host of other pernicious activities, all of which are designed to destroy the Reverend Jentzsch’s wonderful Church.
The first question any intelligent person should ask is does Jentzsch really believe such absurdity or is he merely acting as a dupe for someone else. If the Reverend
believes that Michael Flynn is trying to destroy freedom of religion and churches in America, then one need inquire no further and simply dismiss Jentzsch as a nut. However, if Reverend Jentzsch is working for L. Ron Hubbard, RTC, Mary Sue Hubbard, or others, then the inquiry should relate to whom he is working for, what vested interests they have, and does the person he is working for really believe that Michael Flynn is trying to destroy freedom of religion and churches in America. If the persons who Jentzsch works for sincerely believe such nonsense, then they should be dismissed as suffering from delusions, anger and hatred for putting someone like the Reverend Jentzsch out on the street disseminating false information to those who are similarly deluded and who are paying the price for such delusion in the form of labor expended without payment, careers lost, millions of dollars paid, and in some cases even death. The sad, simple truth is that there are many who do and undoubtedly will believe Reverend Jentzsch and will thereby perpetuate their own self-deceit which inevitably, can only have extremely destructive consequences to them, to their loved ones, and to their families. Reverend Jentzsch’s efforts to perpetuate the lies, misrepresentations and chicanery for which the Church of Scientology has become famous, and which Michael Flynn has opposed and sought to
expose, brings to mind the verse in Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If,” wherein Kipling states, “If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to set a trap for fools.”
An analysis of what Michael Flynn has done in the four years in which he has engaged in litigation against the Church of Scientology and on behalf of former Scientologists reveals the following:
1. Mr. Flynn sued the Church of Scientology on behalf of La Venda Van Schaick because this so-called Church, pursuant to “Guardian Program Order 121669” as implemented by the “Assistant Guardian’s Full Hat,” sought to blackmail La Venda by using her auditing information illegally culled from her PC files, and then when the Church undertook a “black PR” campaign against La Venda and Attorney Flynn pursuant to a whole host of Guardian’s Office operations, Mr. Flynn sought to expose the Organization in the media. Is this the manipulation of which Reverend Jentzsch speaks? By this time, is there any question in anyone’s mind, after Mary Sue Hubbard and ten of her other cronies have all gone to prison, that the Guardian’s Office did in fact, conduct such operations, did in fact, conspire and plan to infiltrate and steal from nearly every major state and
federal agency in the United States, frame Paulette Cooper, frame Mayor Cazares, harass former members and their families, blackmail people, and engage in a plethora of other illegal, destructive, anti-social, and deluded activities.
2. Michael Flynn brought an action on behalf of Tonja Burden, after she had given five years of her teen-age life to L. Ron Hubbard and the Church, working 18 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, not receiving a high school education, putting on Hubbard’s pants and zipping up his fly, catching his cigarette ashes while following him around, then fleeing from the Organization in a state of total fear, picked up, brought to Los Angeles, “sec checked” on the E-meter (the religious artefact) and then made to sign $61,000 in promissory notes, releases and disclosure bonds, all to protect Reverend Jentzsch’s wonderful Church. If such activity did not take place, one would question the necessity for making a young teen-age girl participate in such activities, sign promissory notes, sign confessions from culled auditing information, and give general releases to the Church so she can merely walk out the door after expending 5 years of her teen-age life providing free
labor to the Reverend Jentzsch and his ilk. Does the Reverend Jentzsch believe that Mr. Flynn sought to destroy religion or religious belief by assisting Tonja Burden, or that he manipulated the media by bringing a lawsuit on her behalf, or that he abused the judicial process by seeking relief on Tonja’s behalf. Indeed, Mr. Flynn has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money representing Ms. Van Schaick, Ms. Burden and others without receiving a cent from them primarily because he believes that the heavy handed tactics utilized by the Guardian’s Office and the Church of Scientology against its own members is reprehensible, should be exposed, and that such people, even if they have no money, should be afforded judicial relief.
3. Mr. Flynn defended four Scientologists who took their auditing files with them when they left the Church of Scientology in criminal actions brought by the Church (which were dismissed), and subsequently defended them in civil actions brought by the Church. Mr. Flynn has also defended numerous other people in legal actions brought by the Church including the 13 legal actions brought against him, of which 11 to date have been
dismissed. Does anyone believe that these 13 legal actions brought against Mr. Flynn and the literally hundreds of frivolous legal actions brought against other former Scientologists and people who have spoken out against the Church of Scientology constitute anything but a campaign of the Reverend Jentzsch’s Church to use the law to harass people? And yet, it is Jentzsch who asserts that it is Mr. Flynn who is abusing the judicial process. This is “Black PR” in its ultimate form. Any knowledgeable observer need only turn to the 1960 copyrighted edition of Level O Checksheet by L. Ron Hubbard on P. 55, wherein it is stated:
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
L. Ron Hubbard wrote the foregoing instruction to his underlings long before Michael Flynn ever heard of the Church of Scientology. Yet now Reverend Jentzsch claims that it is Michael Flynn who is doing what the Church has done for the past 30 years.
4. Mr. Flynn has defended Gerald Armstrong against an onslaught of harassment and litigation brought by the
Church of Scientology for one purpose: to prevent Armstrong from disseminating the truth about L. Ron Hubbard. Any intelligent observer should ask what is the Armstrong case about? The answer is simple. Gerry Armstrong was personally appointed by L. Ron Hubbard to collect documents for a biography of Hubbard to be written by Omar Garrison. During the document collection process, Armstrong and Garrison realized that most of Hubbard’s biographical data had been fraudulently misrepresented for many years and that thousands of people who paid millions of dollars believed those fraudulent representations. Rather than perpetuate such fraud by writing a biography that was false, Armstrong left the Church, was thereafter issued an SP declare, made subject to the Fair Game Doctrine, and sought legal refuge by contacting Michael Flynn. Would any rational person do anything different? And yet the Church has expended millions of dollars and hired an army of attorneys to prevent the documents collected by Gerald Armstrong from ever seeing the light of day. In fact, the documents were intended to be shredded pursuant to a massive destruction of documents campaign undertaken by the Church in order to perpetuate the fraud that L. Ron Hubbard was not connected to the
Church of Scientology. Has any member of the Church ever asked why L. Ron Hubbard does not want to be connected with the Church of Scientology? The answer is simple. Hubbard has been taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the Church of Scientology through a corporation called the Religious Research Foundation, which has bank accounts in Liechtenstein. These funds have been taken over many years, and the association between Hubbard and the Church if proved by a governmental agency, could result in criminal prosecution. Does Reverend Jentzsch sincerely believe that it is Michael Flynn who is engaged in a “money-making scheme” or will he open his eyes long enough to see that he is the one who is acting as a dupe for a monstrous scheme of such pernicious character that it has had to create a “Fair Game Doctrine” to “destroy” anyone who opposes it.
In creating his declaration, the Reverend Jentzsch has dutifully followed HCO Policy Letter of 11 May 1971 entitled “Black PR” by taking a few germs of truthful information and creating a “parade of lies or half-truths or exaggerations.” Although the undersigned, Michael Flynn, seriously questions
the practicality of bothering to refute the absurd allegations in Reverend Jentzsch’s declaration, since there are many who will believe them, and suffer the consequences thereof, I have concluded that there are many people of good intentions who have been affiliated with the Church of Scientology who are honestly trying to ascertain the “TRUTH.” Therefore, for all such individuals of good will and honest intentions, who sincerely seek to find out “who is Michael Flynn” and what if any truth there is in Jentzsch’s charges, I hereby state under the pains and penalties of perjury that the following is true:
1. There is a corporation called Flynn Associates Management Corporation which was initially incorporated by Kevin Flynn as a financial consulting corporation working with a separate electronics firm incorporated by another brother of Michael Flynn, George Flynn, who is an electrical engineer. No shares in FAMCO have ever been sold to anyone, or promised to be sold to anyone, nor has FAMCO ever raised any money to finance litigation against the Church of Scientology or anyone else.
2. Michael Flynn is not collaborating with forces who are trying to destroy freedom of religion and Churches in
3. Michael Flynn is not collaborating with anyone using brutal “deprogramming” techniques. Michael Flynn has never deprogrammed anyone. Those who have come to his office seeking information, assistance, and legal advice have been freely given such information and advice without charge for the sole purpose of helping them.
4. Michael Flynn has never personally or maliciously harassed any individual members of the Church of Scientology. In fact, Mr. Flynn believes that almost all members of the Church of Scientology, including Reverend Jentzsch at one time or another may be potential clients and he believes that such individuals are the the true victims of a monstrous scheme to deprive them of their money, their careers, their labor, and unfortunately, in some instances it has deprived them of their lives. Michael Flynn has never abused the judicial process by inundating any courts with massive docket filings which were frivolous, unfounded or duplicative.
5. Michael Flynn has merely exercised his First Amendment rights to speak out and oppose an organization whose 11
top leaders have gone to prison and he has never sought to manipulate the media or use libel, forgery or other improper means in any of the litigation.
6. Michael Flynn has made no fraudulent representations of any nature or description but has merely sought to expose the representations made by the Church of Scientology.
7. Dr. John Clark has never been part of any operations of FAMCO of any nature or description, nor has Kevin Flynn through FAMCO or otherwise, attempted to involuntarily kidnap or brutalize anyone.
8. The “class action case development program” related to the fact that shortly after the inception of the La Venda Van Schaick suit, literally thousands of former Scientologists over a period of many months contacted the office of Michael Flynn seeking legal redress against the Church of Scientology. The attorneys involved in the litigation realized that most of these individuals had highly personalized lawsuits that were more subject to individual suits than a class action suit. For that reason, during 1981, more than a year after the beginning of the Van Schaick suit, the various
attorneys began to develop a program to enlist the aid of other attorneys throughout the United States to seek legal counsel for the many victims of the Church. This effort has continued to the present day. Any one who knows anything about litigation with the Church of Scientology realizes how difficult it is to convince lawyers to litigate against the Church of Scientology when they know that they are going to have to take the case on a contingent fee basis, suffer through years of obstreperous and vituperative litigation, expend thousands of hours of work and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in the preparation of the case, and then experience vicious harassment at the hands of the Guardian’s Office. It is obvious under such circumstances, that a concerted effort had to be made to encourage attorneys to represent thousands of victims of the Church of Scientology.
9. The charge that Michael Flynn solicited an individual named “Jim Gray” to enlist him to sell shares in FAMCO is totally false. Gray was never offered any position, no shares were ever offered to him, and why he would make such allegations in a so-called “sworn affidavit” warrants further investigation.
10. The charge that Mr. Flynn has solicited clients in connection with the Church of Scientology is absurd. Indeed, the reverse is true. As most knowledgeable observers are aware, there are thousands of Scientologists throughout the United States seeking to obtain legal counsel to obtain redress against the Church. The problem is that it is very difficult to get lawyers to take on such cases. Michael Flynn has been refusing clients not soliciting them. Although the Michael Flynn law firm has endeavored to help these people, and has never solicited any of them, in fact, it is incapable of representing the thousands of people who need representation.
11. Regarding settlement, in January 1981, the Church of Scientology through its lawyers, contacted Michael Flynn’s office and proposed settlement of all existing lawsuits against the Church. Pursuant to his ethical obligation under standard legal procedures, Mr. Flynn communicated the proposed settlement offer to all of his clients. The clients indicated that they wished to pursue the settlement discussions and to seek settlement if the Church was willing to pay reasonable
damages. After a period of approximately 7 months of settlement negotiations, and after the Church had agreed to pay 1.6 million dollars to all of Mr. Flynn’s clients with pending or proposed cases, the Church demanded that all files relating to these individuals be turned over to it. This demand was refused and settlement negotiations terminated. The Church then brought one of its thirteen lawsuits against Michael Flynn and his colleagues claiming as does the Reverend Jentzsch that the settlement negotiations, which were initiated by the Church, constituted extortion! The suit was thrown out by the Los Angeles Federal District Court. It is a total falsehood to state that Mr. Flynn was going to leave any of his clients in the “cold” as suggested by the Reverend Jentzsch.
12. Jentzsch claims that Mr. Flynn is an advocate of “violent depersonalizings and brain-washing techniques” used by Dr. John Clark and the American Family Foundation. First of all, Michael Flynn has never advocated nor would he ever participate in any such activity. Secondly, to his knowledge, neither Dr. John Clark nor the American Family Foundation has ever participated in any such activities. Thirdly, Michael Flynn is not
part of the American Family Foundation. The idea that Dr. John Clark is financing any part of the litigation relating to the Church of Scientology is a total falsehood. Does the Reverend Jentzsch sincerely believe that psychiatry and psychiatrists are as “evil” as he states in his declaration? Does he really believe that men and women who have studied medicine, chemistry, biology, and related disciplines through four years of college, three years of medical school, two years of residency and then generally two more years of residency for a total of eleven years after high school as a group are “evil”? Jentzsch states that “psychiatry seeks to destroy worship, to create evil, to create hate and to destroy religious freedom.” Any person of rational intellect must question how someone in the position of Jentzsch can honestly, under oath, make such an absurd, deluded, hatred-filled statement. Does the Reverend Jentzsch purport to claim that every one of the thousands of members of the medical profession practising psychiatry across the United States are trying to “destroy worship,” “create evil,” “create hate,” and “destroy religious freedom”? If the advancement of the human race through scientific analysis, coupled-with a deep abiding love for humanity
and the care of the mentally and emotionally troubled in our society constitutes “pro-psychiatry loyalties” (P. 19 of the Jentzsch Declaration), then Michael Flynn admits to such.
13. Jentzsch claims that Michael Flynn “kidnapped, held against his … will, subjected to frightening threats and intimidation, and coerced into changing his beliefs,” one Steve Miller. In fact, the Church, through Steve Miller, brought a lawsuit against Michael Flynn and many other individuals who had never even met Steve Miller, knew nothing about him, solely for the purpose of harassment. This is one of the thirteen lawsuits brought harassively by the Church of Scientology against Michael Flynn, which has also been thrown out by the Los Angeles Federal District Court. For Mr. Jentzsch to compare Michael Flynn to “Nazi torturers,” participating in “beatings and rapes” and other such “atrocities,” represents delusion on the border of madness. Any person who has read the Jentzsch declaration and believes that Mr. Flynn would participate in such activities without contacting Mr. Flynn or his colleagues directly and seeking the truth, deserve Jentzsch, the Church of Scientology, and their ilk. Such delusion as set forth in the Bhagavad-gita, aforequoted, brings
about the destruction of the intellect from which a person may ultimately “perish.” The mad ramblings of the Reverend Jentzsch bring to mind the insane and catastrophically destructive beliefs and activities of groups such as the Reverend Jim Jones, which feed on their own self-destructive tendencies. In his declaration, Jentzsch has Michael Flynn involved in “brutal depersonalizing schemes” against Steve Miller, Thomas Ward, Arthur Rozelle, Monty Pelto, Lark Brightman, and “a pregnant woman.” The facts are that prior to the suit brought by Steve Miller against Michael Flynn and others, Mr. Flynn had never even heard of Steve Miller!
Similarly, until Mr. Flynn read the Reverend Jentzsch’s declaration, he had never heard of and knows absolutely nothing about Thomas Ward, Arthur Rozelle, Monty Pelto, Lark Brightman or “a pregnant woman” who have allegedly suffered “atrocities” at the hands of “depersonalizing thugs.” The very suggestion that Michael Flynn had engaged in such activity for the purpose of having “Joey Flanagan,” Dr. John Clark, or Kevin Flynn bring him clients constitutes a falsehood beyond rational belief. Any one of the thousands of Scientologists who have contacted Mr. Flynn in the last four years is
aware that he has continually turned down hundreds of clients because he is simply unable to help them. The suggestion that he is out beating them up and kidnapping them for purposes of solicitation should given anyone of a reasonable intellect a good perspective of the Reverend Jentzsch’s mental aptitudes.
14. The Reverend Jentzsch also has Michael Flynn and Kevin Flynn attempting to deprogram some people called the Garrisons. However, Mr. Jentzsch failed to state in his declaration that Warren Friske, the former head of the B-2 Bureau in Boston has stated under oath and in an affidavit that the Garrisons brought suit against Kevin Flynn and Paulette Cooper for an alleged deprogramming knowing that Kevin Flynn and Paulette Cooper had nothing to do with it, and that the suit was brought solely for the purpose of harassment. Recently, Bill Franks, former Executive Director International, confirmed that these suits such as the Miller suit and the Garrison suit, which are two of the thirteen suits brought against the Flynn office, were brought solely for purposes of harassment and that in fact, the Church knew in advance that Michael Flynn did not know about, nor did he participate in any way in any “meetings”
with the Garrisons or Steven Miller. Significantly, while the Reverend Jentzsch accuses Mr. Flynn of the beatings and punchings set forth in his declaration, Mr. Flynn recommends that any present or former Scientologist interested in ascertaining the truth about such activities, contact John Nelson, Bill Franks, David Mayo and others similarly situated who have been subjected to punching, spitting, and other irrational or abusive behavior of David Miscavige and the RTC. Indeed, the deluded ramblings of the Reverend Jentzsch presumably acting as the mouthpiece for the RTC is analogous to the apocalyptic predictions of St. John in Ch. 13 of the Book of Revelations wherein it is stated that a false prophet bearing the number of the “Beast 666” shall lead astray the inhabitants of the earth requiring everyone to worship “the image of the beast who should both speak and cause that whoever should not worship the image of the beasts shall be killed.” The “Fair Game Doctrine” which calls for “enemies” of Scientology (which is the only salvation for mankind per the words of L. Ron Hubbard) to be “lied to, sued, cheated or destroyed,” bears remarkable similarity to the predictions of St. John. The efforts of the Church of Scientology and the Reverend Jentzsch to destroy Mr. Flynn pursuant to such deluded doctrines solely because
he speaks out and seeks to assist people who have been victimized by the Church and the RTC, suggest that the Reverend Jentzsch would do well to read both the new and the old Testament. The destruction of human beings in the name of religion which the Reverend Jentzsch and his followers claim to be a part of, is something that man has suffered from for hundreds of years. The Reverend Jentzsch’s fervent, maniacal beliefs have led him into a similar trap.
15. Reverend Jentzsch states on P. 24 of his declaration that seven suits have been filed by the Church and that five are still pending. The truth is set forth below with names of the cases and the docket numbers:
I. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, Civil No. 40906, (Suffolk Superior Court, Massachusetts, 1980). Brought against Michael Flynn in February 1980 because 4 members of the Church left, took auditing files with them and gave Mr. Flynn possession of them as their lawyer.
II. Church of Scientology of Nevada, Inc. v. Thomas Hoffman, Kevin Flynn, et al., Civil No. LV-80-10-HEC, (D.Nevada, 1980). Suit dismissed in April 1980, four months after it was brought.
III. Church of Scientology of Nevada, Inc. v. Kevin Flynn and La Venda Van Schaick, Civil No. 196880, Nevada Circuit Court. Case dismissed against Kevin Flynn and Van Schaick.
IV. Church of Scientology of Nevada, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, Civil No. 202573, Nevada Circuit Court. Case dismissed.
V. Steven Miller v. Michael Flynn, et al., Civil No. 81-4275 (C.D.Calif., 1981). Case dismissed against Michael Flynn and others.
VI. Cazares v. Church of Scientology, Civil No. 81-3472-CA-01, Volusia County Circuit Court. Contempt action against Michael Flynn dismissed.
VII. Garrison v. Kevin Flynn, et al., Civil No. 81-2608-T (D.Mass., 1981), Case pending.
VIII. Church of Scientology of California, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, Thomas Hoffman and Thomas Greene, Civil No. CV-83-896-CBM (C.D.Calif., 1983). Case dismissed.
IX. Church of Scientology v. Michael Flynn, Thomas Hoffman, Thomas Greene and Kevin Flynn, CV-81-3259-CMB; CV-81-3260-CMB (C.D.Calif., 1983). Case dismissed.
X. Flag Service Org, Inc. v. Michael Flynn and the City of Clearwater, Civil No. 82-440-Civ-T-WC (Tampa Fla., 1982). Motion to Dismiss pending.
XI. Church of Scientology of California, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, 83-2386-S (S.Mass., 1983). Case dismissed.
XII. Church of Scientology of California, Inc. v. Michael Flynn, CV-83-5202-R (C.D.Calif., 1983). Case dismissed.
XIII. Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Civil No. C 420 153, Los Angeles Superior Court. Contempt action against Michael Flynn dismissed.
16. The Reverend Jentzsch refers to an incident in 1976 wherein Mr. Flynn allegedly “wrote a bad check for $6500.00.” However, Reverend Jentzsch failed to state in his Declaration that the $6500.00 check was written in connection with a divorce proceeding for one of his clients, in which the husband of Mr. Flynn’s client gave Mr. Flynn a check which was deposited into Mr. Flynn’s account and upon which Mr. Flynn was instructed by his clients to issue a $6500.00 check as part of the divorce settlement. The husband however, failed to place sufficient funds in the bank to satisfy the check given to Mr. Flynn, which resulted in the $6500.00
check issued by Mr. Flynn being returned for insufficient funds. Responsibility for the entire episode was the fault of the husband, in the divorce proceeding. Isolating and falsely stating the circumstances surrounding tne $6500.00 check is typical of the thinking and false premises inherent in the Jentzsch Declaration.
As for the quotations from the Attorneys Geller and Katz, who represent the Church of Scientology, both of whom have been involved in actions against Michael Flynn and his office for which they have received thousands of dollars in legal fees to bring such harassive suits, financed by the “donations” of Church members, the motives of such attorneys is self-evident. The allegations that Mr. Flynn has been disruptive in depositions and engaged in “evasive and dilatory tactics” is ridiculous. It is Mr. Flynn who is seeking to obtain trials of all of these cases and it is the Church of Scientology which has paid millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees to prevent the cases from being heard. Any knowledgeable observer is aware that Church “donations” have been flowing out of the Church in a rapidly increasing rate to fill the coffers of the many Church
lawyers who are representing the Church as a result of the surge of legal proceedings against it.
13. The Probate case relating to Ronald DeWolf and the “missing person status” of L. Ron Hubbard was brought for the simple reason that L. Ron Hubbard’s own attorney, Alan Goldfarb, stated that L. Ron Hubbard was missing, and that he could not appear in one of the many suits that had been brought against him because no one knew where he was and no one from the Church of Scientology had communicated with him since February 1980. It was the conduct of Hubbard’s own lawyers and the group that now run the RTC and the failure of Hubbard to appear and defend himself in Court or even to appear and defend or assist his wife for that matter, which resulted in the probate case being brought. It was only after Hubbard filed a legal declaration, the day before a trustee was to be appointed in the probate case, that the Court held that L. Ron Hubbard was not a missing person. The finding of contempt against Mr. Flynn was one of the numerous legal proceedings brought against him. However, the Reverend Jentzsch failed to state that Mr. Flynn did not even appear and defend the contempt proceeding
because of the onslaught of other harassment brought against him by the Church, but that the judge stated that no bad faith or misconduct was involved, but merely a technical violation of one of the court orders regarding disclosure of information about Hubbard.
19. The allegations that the Church of Scientology is beginning to win on the legal front are ridiculous. Every suit brought on behalf of former Scientologists or victims of the Church of Scientology in which Michael Flynn has participated is proceeding toward trial. Extensive legal obstacles interposed by the Church have been overcome, and judgment day is at hand. At the same time, the Church of Scientology is on the verge of losing its tax-exempt status, the Canadian government is investigating numerous fraudulent and criminal activities of the Church which may result in the indictment of high-level Church officials including L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology is disintegrating across the world, L. Ron Hubbard is in hiding, and the Reverend Jentzsch, on behalf of the RTC is now engaging in deluded and vitriolic diatribes that have no basis in reality.
20. The idea that Kevin Flynn, Thomas Hoffman or Michael Flynn or anyone associated with them had anything to do with the forgery of one of L. Ron Hubbard’s checks is simply too fanciful to warrant extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that it was Michael Flynn who brought to the attention of the public and the courts the fact that one of L. Ron Hubbard’s checks, in the possession of individuals controlling the RTC was forged and an attempt to pass it was made right at the time in May-June 1982, when Hubbard wrote a will and in the will turned over control of Scientology to the RTC. It was at the same time that the RTC began to assert total dictatorial control throughout the Church of Scientology. Any intelligent observer can put two and two together to conclude that Mr. Flynn would not participate in the forgery of a two-million dollar check and then do everything in his power to investigate it.
21. The Reverend Jentzsch states that the Church does not violate the priest/penitent privilege. Anyone who is knowledgeable about Guardian’s Office B-l files collected from culled PC files knows that Reverend Jentzsch speaks falsely.
In sum, there are certain inescapable conclusions, which even the Reverend Jentzsch would be unable to deny. These are that Michael Flynn has for four years assisted hundreds of former members of the Church of Scientology without receiving a penny from them. Michael Flynn has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars from his own money to help these people. These same people expended years of their lives and millions of dollars in a fanatical effort by the Church of Scientology to take labor and money from its victims with little or no return. How many former staff members of the Church of Scientology after years of labor at $17.50 a week are now confronted with lost educations, lost career opportunities, no pension or profit sharing plan, no health insurance benefits, disrupted or disconnected family situations, or failed or destroyed marriages. It is the Church of Scientology which has continued to drain the life blood out of its victims like a parasite sucking on a sore wound. Mr. Flynn has sought to heal these wounds. It is earnestly recommended that any present or former Scientologist who objectively investigates the “data” relating to the activities, conduct, believes and character of Michael Flynn, as opposed to the activities, beliefs, conduct and character of the RTC and its mouthpiece, the Reverend
Jentzsch, will come to the inescapable conclusion that it is the RTC who deals in lies and it is Mr. Flynn who seeks justice. Indeed, any person of good intention who is or has been associated with the Church of Scientology and who has been subject to PTS declarations, SP declares, or any other of the insane activities that is characteristic of the RTC should seek justice and in doing so should heed the words in the Book of Isaias, Ch. 40 Verse 29-31, wherein it is stated that the seekers of truth and justice shall be given strength and increase in force and that “they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not be faint, and that they shall renew their strength and take up wings as eagles.” How many of you of you have been subjected to a “suppressive person declare” after giving years of your life and labor and thousands of dollars to the Church of Scientology? Where could the justification for such malicious conduct come from? One need look no further than the writings of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject of “the criminal mind.” Mr. Hubbard states that a criminal is one who hides and who cannot confront truth or reality. If such is true, and it is true that Mary Sue Hubbard and other Church leaders have gone to prison for “crimes,” and it is true that the
Guardian’s Office as the controlling agency of the Church has engaged in hundreds of criminal acts over many years and it is true that L. Ron Hubbard was the “Founder” and creative force behind the Church, then one should ask, Where is L. Ron Hubbard? Is he in hiding and if so, Why? In order to answer this question, I recommend that you read L. Ron Hubbard’s, “The Criminal Mind.” After reading it, ask yourself, Who is hiding? Michael Flynn or L. Ron Hubbard, Pat Broeker, David Miscavige.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 4th day of April, 1984.
[Signed] Michael Flynn
Declaration of Heber Jentzsch1
In writing the attached affidavit I wish to make a brief statement about the religion to which I belong. The Church of Scientology has a long history of creating freedom of thought. It has created a great deal of good in the society for a number of years. It has fought against the depersonalizers (psychiatrists) that have tried to destroy minds. It must be realized that Scientology tries to create good and has no interest in destroying others. The psychiatrists (depersonalizers) who work against the good of Man have no right to create obstacles to efforts to explore the dark places in men’s minds. They have no right to destroy freedom of thought just because they wish to dominate.
Scientology has worked ambitiously over the years and has achieved splendid things in the fields of education and drug rehabilitation. It has wisely used its resources in order to bring good to the society. The energy of the church used in bringing about good conditions is well known to all of the parishioners and to many opinion leaders outside the church. The church will expend the time and the effort to bring about a goal of “a world without insanity, without war, without criminals and where honest men will have rights.”
As a religion, Scientology has brought reason into philosophy, health into peoples’ lives and taught people how to survive. It is our intent to help religion and to help people. Therefore it is necessary that the following piece be written to describe the protracted conflict against the good that Scientology represents so that courts can understand the actual issues at hand. Whatever the outcome, Scientology will continue to be a symbol of good.
I, Heber Jentzsch, hereby declare and state as follows:
This declaration reviews in detail information contained in sworn deposition testimony, documents authored by or for Michael Flynn himself, his brother Kevin, or other FAMCO (Flynn Associates Management Corporation) employees, court proceedings, newspaper reports and other sources which shed a different light on Flynn’s and FAMCO’s intentions than they would have the public believe is true. Many of these materials are set forth as exhibits and explained or examined below. It is submitted that this material shows that the Flynn brothers used and intended to use FAMCO in a manner which one could conclude was definitely manipulative and self-serving, and even illegal.
1. The purpose of this declaration is to delineate for the courts the pattern of harassment and abusive conduct instigated and executed against the Churches of Scientology by Boston lawyer Michael J. Flynn and a number of co-conspirators operating as a front group called the Flynn Associates Management Corporation (FAMCO). Said harassment and abusive conduct included, inter alia: 1) conspiracy in the form of a moneymaking scheme in which Flynn and FAMCO promised investors up to a 400 per cent quick return on their dollars; 2) intention to abuse the law by the building of FAMCO, a front group, in order to sell shares to finance litigation; 3) collaboration with forces trying to destroy freedom of Religion and Churches in American life and close work with others engaged in the destruction of belief in America; 4) collaboration with and funding of agents and operatives using brutal “deprogramming” techniques; 5) extensive, personal and malicious harassment of
individual members of the Church of Scientology and of members of the Church in general in order to deprive them of their legal rights; 6) abuse of the judicial process by inundating the courts with massive docket filings as well as apparently frivolous, unfounded and duplicative lawsuits; 7) use of lies in order to manipulate media and government and thus influence pending litigation; 8) use of libel, forgery and other improper means in order to influence pending litigation; 9) repeated and frequent fraudulent representations of activities of himself and associates.
2. Having worked in the office which coordinates legal affairs for the Church of Scientology International for approximately the last two years, I am familiar with Michael Flynn and FAMCO and their activities and have personal knowledge or information and belief as to all charges and allegations as contained herein and Mr. Flynn’s opposition to Scientology’s creation of Religious Freedom.
3. On August 28, 1980, FAMCO’s incorporation papers were filed with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.2 The incorporators, as listed on the Articles of Organization3, were Kevin Mark Flynn, Cheryl Flynn, wife of Kevin, and Michael J. Flynn. FAMCO’s stated purposes 3 were as follows:
“1. To carry on and entertain any business, undertaking, transaction, or operation commonly carried on or undertaken by capitalists, promoters, financiers, contractors, merchants, commission men, and agents, and in the course of such business to draw, accept, indorse, acquire, and sell all or any negotiable or transferable instruments and securities, debentures, bonds, notes and bills of exchange.
“2. To issue on commission, subscribe for, acquire, hold, sell, exchange, and deal in shares, stocks, bonds, obligations, or securities …
“3. To form, promote, and assist financially or otherwise, companies, syndicates, partnerships, and associations of all kinds, and to give any guaranty in connection therewith or otherwise for the payment of money, or for the performance of any obligations or undertaking.
“4. To acquire, improve, manage, work, develop, exercise all rights in respect of, lease, mortgage, sell, dispose of, turn to account, and otherwise deal with property of all kinds, and in particular business concerns and undertakings.”
4. An analysis of documents and sworn depositions from numerous persons reveals that the actual intent of FAMCO was utterly different from its stated purpose. The Flynn brothers instead used FAMCO as a vehicle to destroy. In addition to:
1. Sell shares in hopes of rapidly raising $180,000 to finance litigation against the Church. A “get rich quick” scheme promising $4 for for every $1 invested was designed to lure investors.
2. Solicit clients in hopes of having 1,000 lawsuits in progress against the Church by the end of 1981.
3. Solicit co-counsel based on a fee-splitting system.
4. Arrange for new clients through oppressive, forcible “depersonalizations” designed to make Church members betray their religion and then bring suit for ostensible “damages.”
5. Manipulate the news media in order to attempt to create poisonous publicity problems so that the Church would be forced into a settlement.
6. Instigate prejudicial government attacks on the Church’s Religion by means of lies and false reports.
7. Destroy the future of the Church financially by creating a large number of individual lawsuits to victimize the Church in inconvenient jurisdictions, solicited illegally using a single person “class action” suit as a front.
5. Flynn has repeatedly sought court orders in federal and state court which would prevent the church from using these documents. These efforts have failed time and again. Indeed, in April 1982, Flynn sought a preliminary injunction against use of these documents. His request was denied by the court less that one week later. The Church been using the documents in order to show Flynn’s campaign against First Amendment and the Church of Scientology5 shows that three separate courts have upheld the Church’s use of the documents.
6. The numerous acts against the Religion of the Church of Scientology undertaken by Flynn and his brother, Kevin, via the FAMCO front group, are described in this declaration and are based in part on the poisonous FAMCO documents. The FAMCO documents show that Michael and Kevin Flynn’s attempts to perpetrate one of the greatest abuses upon the courts in the history of modern jurisprudence have destroyed countless thousands of hours of court and lawyer time. Their numerous misrepresentations are described in detail in this declaration. Psychiatrist John Clark was part of FAMCO’s operation. Clark, who has published poisonous articles against religion in The American Atheist
and elsewhere, was used as FAMCO’s propagandist. Michael Flynn’s role was summoning up lies, hatred and invective and targetting them to destroy a religion. Michael and Kevin Flynn and psychiatrist Clark worked together to destroy freedom of religion and to bring a First Amendment institution to its knees and to plunder its assets in order to greedily line the Flynns’ own pockets.
7. In viewing many pages of documents dealing with FAMCO’s and the Flynns’ work against the Religion of the Church of Scientology, one overriding theme emerges: moneymaking; the FAMCO front group was to be used in an “all out” effort against the Church of Scientology in order to rip off upwards of $200 million. As described in “Scientology – Review and Planning” 6 and other FAMCO documents, FAMCO was started as a chaos machine to sell shares in the litigation and to solicit and exploit gullible and money-motivated co-counsel.
8. Although Michael Flynn has tried to escape blame for FAMCO by laying it at his brother’s doorstep, the facts remain that 1) Michael Flynn was listed as an incorporator on FAMCO’s Articles of Organization7; 2) Michael Flynn has pursued to the letter the basic FAMCO strategy as outlined in the FAMCO documents. There were four basic goals in this strategy, all aimed to create unhappiness and destroy religious freedom. As shown in “Scientology – Review and Planning”8, these four basic goals were:
1. Closing Scientology organizations
2. Adverse media
3. Adverse public reaction
4. Federal and state attacks.
The FAMCO plan had as its “primary purpose … to position ourselves
such that to fight us would be cost ineffective.” Attacks against the religion would come from “feeding” media and governments with false and misleading information about the Church and thus influencing them to undertake investigations of the Church. Although Michael Flynn has vigorously denied the implementation of the FAMCO plan as described in “Scientology – Review and Planning,” his actions belie this. As is clearly demonstrated in this declaration and attached exhibits, Flynn has been caught pressing an all-out assault to destroy the existence of Religion the Church of Scientology in the four areas listed above. Flynn’s associates Thomas Hoffman and Thomas Greene have been in the thick of the litigation with him through the years; they knew of FAMCO and its plans yet apparently did nothing to steer away from the course set by Michael and Kevin Flynn.
9. Michael and Kevin Flynn created in FAMCO perhaps the only business venture in the history of the United States openly dedicated to the destruction of a First Amendment institution. The attached proposal, called the “Class Action Case Development Program,”9 was sent by Michael Flynn with a cover letter to numerous attorneys around the country in hopes of getting them to join his anti-religious extortionistic war. The proposal forecast “one thousand lawsuits [against the Church of Scientology] … by the end of 1981.”9
10. Solicitation took various forms, including personal sales pressure by Michael Flynn. Clearwater, Fla. businessman Jim Grey has stated in a sworn affidavit that Michael Flynn visited him in his office and endeavored to enlist him to sell shares in litigation. Flynn offered Grey the position of “Trustee of … FAMCO in the Clearwater area.” As described in his affidavit11, Grey was told by
Flynn that his duties as trustee would be to “receive, raise and disburse monies which would be used to file suits against the Church of Scientology around the country and therefore break the Church financially.” (Emphasis added.)
11. Another example of FAMCO’s outrageous activities is shown in Exhibit 712, a memorandum from an attorney, Chuck Diamond. The memorandum from Mr. Diamond illustrates what Flynn represents FAMCO to be all about. The memo asserts that Diamond’s old schoolmate, Flynn, “has made a substantial living suing the Church of Scientology.” The memorandum indicates that there would be openings for “lawyers in the Los Angeles area who would be willing to undertake the joint prosecution of some of these claims [Flynn’s clients’] on a contingent fee basis.” It was apparently not mentioned to Mr. Diamond that neither Flynn nor FAMCO ever won a cent from the Church in nearly four years of litigation, and thus Flynn’s “prior successes” alluded to in the memo are nonexistent; they are in fact complete and utter delusions. An attorney beguiled into “joining forces” with Flynn because of these “prior successes” and the lure of “a substantial living” as mentioned in the Diamond memo would have linked up based on totally false information and promises. The term “church-busters” as used in the memorandum is appropriate to the context; FAMCO’s campaign against the Church comes across as a vigorous attempt to harm and destroy a religion.
12. Flynn’s operation against the Church of Scientology was also broadly implemented in the Clearwater, Fla. area, where he actively spread malicious lies and false reports. As stated in the attached declaration13, Virginia Snyder met with a Clearwater city official and was informed that Michael Flynn had said he hoped and
expected “to get 10 or 12 lawsuits ‘going’ against the Church [in the Clearwater area] as soon as possible.” The official explained that “Flynn’s strategy was that if there were enough lawsuits brought against the Church with accompanying expenses that would exceed the Church’s income, this would result in achieving the goal of breaking the Church financially.” (Emphasis added.)
13. Michael Flynn made bold and sweeping promises to those who might possibly work for or invest in FAMCO. An April 22, 1981 letter14 dangled “the opportunity to earn substantial monies” as a lure to potential co-counsel in Flynn’s cases against the Church. Another FAMCO document15 promised FAMCO “investors” between $2 and $4 for every $1 invested in FAMCO shares.
14. Up to Dec. 13, 1979, Flynn’s law practice had centered on medical malpractice. This changed when Flynn filed a so-called “class action” suit against the Church of Scientology of California. Strangely, this “class action” suit had just one party, a disgruntled former Scientologist by the name of Lavenda Van Schaick.
15. While the “class action” suit was pending, Flynn initiated a series of virtually identical individual lawsuits. Using the Lavenda Van Schaick “class action” suit as a front, Flynn solicited clients who ultimately filed separate lawsuits in remote, inconvenient jurisdictions rather than joining the single member “class.” These suits were brought by 27 different persons even though, as stated in the attached affidavit by attorney Nancy Gertner16, the claims “involve virtually identical complaints, causes of actions, and indeed, verbatim pleadings” as the original, one-person “class action” suit. It is in keeping with Michael Flynn’s misleading tactics that he has not filed the motion in
the Van Schaick suit which would legally establish the existence of the “class” claimed to require the “class action” suit. Any good attorney can tell you that filing such a motion is not a difficult process, but winning the motion requires that Flynn satisfy very particular rules. It certainly seems likely that Flynn is afraid to file the motion because he will lose it. Then FAMCO will be unable to hustle more lawsuits using the “class action” suit as bait.
16. The Gertner affidavit also pointed out how Flynn’s suits were “designed to tax the Church of Scientology to the breaking point, to inconvenience and harass that institution so that it will be forced to settle with counsel for the plaintiffs [i.e., Flynn and his associates] and to maximize the profits that will accrue to the lawyers.” (Emphasis added.)
18. In the United States, Flynn planned an enormous volume of litigation in the form of what he called “turnkey” or pre-packaged lawsuits. Via FAMCO, aggressive, far-reaching solicitations were made to attract attorneys to join Flynn’s anti-Scientology campaign. “We provide the clients, the damages, the pleadings, the memoranda, the documents, the witnesses and virtually everything required for an instantaneous trial with little or no necessity for discovery,” boasted a FAMCO promotion proposal to attorneys19. “This preparation has taken thousands and thousands of man hours of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars,” the proposal claimed.
19. These ostensibly valuable fruits of FAMCO’s labors were promised to a handful of lawyers who would choose to link up with Michael Flynn in his aggressive attacks against the Church and its religion. Wayne B. Hollingsworth is an example of an attorney that has sought to work with Michael Flynn. As alleged in the attached affidavits and complaints, Hollingsworth repeatedly reneged on agreements with his former partner, attorney Gary A. Pappas. According to Pappas’ affidavits, Hollingsworth made off with key assets of their firm and also wrongly appropriated approximately $750,000 from collections and accounts receivable. Pappas is suing Hollingsworth for an accounting of the assets of their partnership; Pappas claims a 50 per cent interest in the partnership, which he estimates had assets totalling $980,000. Pappas succeeded in getting attachments placed on at least $200,000 worth of Hollingsworth’s property.20 Hollingsworth is also being sued by attorney Philip F. Mulvey, Jr. for activities that sound very similar. According to Mulvey’s affidavit21, Hollingsworth violated their employment agreement, taking for himself in July 1982 monies Mulvey had won in one of his personal cases. Mulvey protested Hollingsworth’s action, and when Hollingsworth insisted on keeping the substantial sum Mulvey was due, Mulvey indicated he would not continue their association. He began packing his files and personal items, left the office briefly and came back to find his personal belongings in a pile outside the office and his files “missing.” Mulvey is suing to recover his files, his money and for other damages as described in22.
20. “Turnkey publicity” was another documented abuse of FAMCO. FAMCO was to provide a “press package” of poisonous material to
lawyers who agreed to participate in “turnkey” lawsuits. FAMCO documents23 show that manipulation of the media was vital to the success of the litigation; “Future Adverse Publicity” was to coincide with the “Filing of future cases by city and state,” and consultations were promised on “effective handling of media.”
21. Adverse publicity was a major weapon in Flynn’s attack on the Church as graphically demonstrated by the five-page summary attached as Exhibit 14.24 The multi-pronged anti-Scientology media thrust planned and implemented by Flynn and FAMCO included newspapers, national magazines, wire services, local and national television programs — even provisions for “Book and Film Rights” — all aimed at “Loss of Income and Business” for the religion of the Church of Scientology, as stated on the document.
22. In effect bragging that he had the media in his pocket, Flynn claimed responsibility for an incredible amount of publicity adverse to the Church. FAMCO documents listed fifteen separate detailed examples under a section entitled “National Media attention attributable to our office.”23, (Emphasis added.) These include a highly defamatory segment on “60 Minutes,” an article in Reader’s Digest in which Flynn’s name appeared as an advertisement for future suits, wire stories on both Associated Press and United Press International and a sensationalized article in the National Enquirer.
23. The FAMCO documents show beyond the shadow of any doubts that Flynn’s motives went beyond merely pressuring the Church of Scientology to settle his client’s alleged claims against it. Thus, in a section captioned “Loss of Business to Scientology” in24, Flynn called for an “increased rate of defection” among existing members
of the Religion of Scientology, and described how he proposed to bring that about, including efforts to “influence” Church members “by [a] continual onslaught of bad publicity.” It was also hoped to create a deterioration in the Church’s image so that “new membership prospects are impaired.”23
24. The campaign has gotten down to specific tactical targets; as described in Paragraph 8 of this declaration, Michael Flynn has called for specific destructive actions against the rapidly growing Church, including loss of income and closing down five separate Scientology organizations in the United States. One of these so targetted is the Church’s splendidly large international training center in Clearwater, Fla. 23
25. The strategy of endeavoring to bring on prejudiced governmental attacks, spelled out in the “Scientology – Review and Planning” document29, surfaced again in a FAMCO document describing the “March  Conference.”30 From this document, Flynn’s plans to coordinate and promote government and media attacks are obvious. Listed under the heading of “Lead Counsel” are “representatives of Internal Revenue Service and United States Attorney’s Office.” These “Lead Counsel” are described in the conference notes as “attornies [sic] experienced in handling Scientology litigation.”
26. In an overt display suggesting utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, Michael and Kevin Flynn plotted how the power of government could be used prejudicially against the Church. Kevin Flynn wrote in the March Conference notes30 that “issues [at the planned March conference] include … integration
of government and private sources” for data collection and exchange. He proposed “development of routine litigation support and consultation service between private and government attornies [sic] engaged in Scientology litigation.” In the same seminar, he included a segment on “integration of organizational file data” — this data to come from not only the IRS, but from several other U.S. governmental departments as well. Of note is that Michael Flynn had worked in an IRS office just a few short years earlier.
27. “First Amendment” is listed as a seminar issue on the “March Conference” document: another issue listed in the same section is “state court jurisdiction over Church of Scientology of California.” Flynn’s attitude over the years has been to view the First Amendment as a mighty barrier to be surmounted in his campaign against the Church, so it is not surprising to see these seminar issues tied together. Nor is it surprising to see that the chief purpose of the “March Conference,” as stated on the document, was to “establish efficient communications, data collection and data exchange among government and private attorneys presently engaged in litigation with Scientology organizations and investigation of Scientology activities.” (Emphasis added.) These documents make clear that the Flynn brothers’ FAMCO, set up as a profit-making corporation, was proposing and seeking direct government collusion to destroy the existence of a recognized religious group.
28. The “Class Action Case Development Program,”9, enumerates the prejudicial government agencies and “numerous media” Flynn and FAMCO nave been in contact with regarding the Religion of Scientology, and he boasts that in a certain IRS case involving the Church of Scientology “most of the individuals
testifying are our clients.” It seems obvious that the “all out,” the anything goes strategy as described in “Scientology – Planning and Review,” was put into effect, despite Flynn’s vehement denials.
29. The same sleazy document boasts that “Since the initiation of the [Lavenda van Schaick] class action suit, our group has generated extensive media attention about Scientology including publication of an extremely cogent Reader’s Digest article, programs on ’60 Minutes,’ ‘Prime Time,’ forthcoming programs on ABC, as well as various local television programs throughout the country and thousands of newspaper articles.” Flynn’s own words defeat him here, as once again it is seen that the “all out” destructive FAMCO strategy against the Scientology Religion was put into effect.
30. Part of FAMCO’s “all out” strategy is demonstrated by the effort to incite federal and state governmental attacks against the Church. Attorney Stephen P. Delinsky, former head of the criminal division of the Massachusetts State Attorney General’s Office, was recently quoted in the May 31, 1963 Boston Globe as being sharply critical of Flynn for “trying to use a possible prosecution of Scientologists to assist his own civil litigation.”33 Such efforts by Flynn were candidly described by attorney Delinsky: “I felt that was not the proper use of the criminal justice system, and I felt uncomfortable.” Flynn has tried the same technique of lighting legal brush fires elsewhere. In Arizona, it recently came to light that Flynn had spread the rumor that an investigation was underway in the state, and that indictments would be handed down on faithful Scientologists by the
Attorney General’s Office there. It appears that Flynn, through his favorite client, Ronald DeWolf, was the source of this fictional information. In lieu of having proper cases, and pursuing them according to established legal procedures, it appears that Flynn prefers to launch a whisper campaign that an investigation of the Scientology religion is occurring and that indictments will be handed down soon and arrests will be made. This occurred in Arizona, in Boston, in Florida, in Los Angeles and even in open court in Riverside, Calif,34. Once the poisonous rumor has been launched, his clients or others are induced to call a key government office in the area where the investigation is supposedly underway, and make unfounded complaints about the Scientology Religion. Repeated efforts to stir up investigations of the hugely successful Scientology Religion and to deliberately inflame public opinion against it have occurred in several areas. Such endeavors enhance Flynn’s chances in whatever litigation might be underway by poisoning the public’s understanding and opinions. Once the rumor of “governmental investigation” gets going, the next step is the tactic of telling faithful members of the Church that indictments will be handed down and that arrests will be made.
31. A document prepared in early 1981 showed that Flynn’s plans were such that he looked to get more than $200 million from the various suits he had filed against the Church.35
32. Progress in his various cases did not go as Flynn expected. On June 2, 1981, he wrote to one of the Church’s counsel, Jay D. Roth, and proposed to settle “all existing cases” for $1.6 million. Included in Flynn’s offer was a threat. Unless the Church
made a proposal to him “within the next 14 days,” it could expect an “additional 8-10 cases … commenced in Washington, New York and Los Angeles.”36 Fifteen days later, he wrote again to Jay Roth, this time saying that he was planning “20 additional law suits” and that unless a settlement were made quickly, “we will be left with the sole option of increasing the litigation as rapidly and in as great a number as possible.”37 Such a demand, coupled with consequent filings, suggested both a serious abuse of the judicial process and an apparent proposal to sell his clients down the river. Having ostensibly obtained the trust of 20 additional “clients” and convinced them that it was in their best interests to file suit against the Church, he was nonetheless proposing to drop them cold in order to get money by settling cases already pending, in effect using the existence of these future claims to settle pending claims. It might be readily deduced that Flynn’s real aims were not in line with the best interests of his clients, whatever he might be telling them.
33. The Church’s legal department discovered something that could account for Flynn’s strange behavior in working against his clients’ best interests as well as against the Church. In 1979, prior to the filing of the first suit against the Church — the Lavenda Van Schaick single claimant “class action” suit — Flynn had been in touch with psychiatrist John Clark. Clark heads a psychiatric front group called the American Family Foundation (AFF), a group whose name belies the fact that it has supported violent depersonalizings and brainwashing techniques to destroy freedom of thought in order to bring about enforced religious “conversions.”
Clark’s anti-religious stance is well known, in 1981, Clark’s attacks on new religions appeared in a Massachusetts newspaper article38 which quoted him as saying that “Born Again Christians are playing with fire.” More recently, in 1982, Clark described some activities of certain Roman Catholic orders as “culty.”39 Clark’s intention to destroy religious freedom and create hate appears quite clear from these and other statements.
34. Investigation revealed that the Clark-Flynn relationship began as early as mid-1979 and that the two men had met “many times,” according to Flynn himself.40 In early November 1979, Church attorney Ralph Sullivan reported that Michael Flynn had implied to him that John Clark was planning on financing LaVenda Van Schaick’s suit in whole or in part. In the same conversation, Flynn told Sullivan that Van Schaick was “debriefing” to a psychiatrist, and he implied that Clark was the one.
35. The covert extent of the Clark-Flynn collaboration was demonstrated a short while later when the Lavenda Van Schaick “class action” suit was filed, when Flynn filed the suit, he quoted Clark’s “dissociation” theory virtually verbatim within the complaint. Curiously, while entire passages were taken from Clark’s work, no mention was made of Clark in the pleading, possibly in an effort to conceal Clark’s influence and his depersonalizing techniques.41
36. The significance of the Clark-Flynn connection looms even larger when one considers that the Church of Scientology has for years sought to expose the evils of psychiatry — that
psychiatry seeks to destroy worship, to create evil, to create hate and to destroy religious freedom. Indeed, in his 1950 epochal bestselling book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, specifically decries brutal psychiatric depersonalizing treatments and describes a humane yet effective method of showing people how they can help themselves and others. Given the historical context of previous attacks on the Church, it is reasonable to suspect that the animus behind the Flynns’ and FAMCO’s attacks on the Church of Scientology is motivated by pro-psychiatry loyalties.
37. The Clark-Flynn connection turns up again in the “depersonalizations” paid for and carried out by FAMCO. “Deprogramming” is the euphemistic word used to describe a forcible attempt to depersonalize a person and change his or her religious beliefs. John Clark, a vociferous advocate of depersonalizing, was a key factor in by FAMCO’s depersonalizing efforts. He delivered psychiatric counselling to many of the former Scientologists connected with Michael Flynn, including Lavenda Van Schaick. The FAMCO-supported depersonalizations played an important role in the entire moneymaking scheme. A person would be kidnapped, held against his or her will, subjected to frightening threats and intimidation and — if the person was coerced into changing his beliefs — then brought in to meet Michael Flynn to discuss litigation. One of the persons victimized by Flynn and FAMCO in the depersonalizing scheme was a Scientologist named Steve Miller. As graphically described in his affidavit and his lawsuit against the Flynn brothers, FAMCO and others42, Miller
was held against his will and harassed, badgered and threatened relentlessly for three days by three men in a vain attempt to get him to destroy the existence of his religious beliefs. The three depersonalizers allowed Miller no privacy, going so far as to remove the bathroom door from its hinges so that, in Miller’s words, there was “a clear and unobstructed view of all portions of the bathroom.”43 Kevin Flynn, president of FAMCO, who simultaneously acted as private investigator for his brother, candidly admitted in deposition testimony that the unsuccessful depersonalizing of Miller cost Miller’s parents approximately $10,000, FAMCO’s “fee” for its “services” in arranging to have Steve Miller “confronted” by depersonalizers,44.
38. In depersonalizing, the violent tools of psychiatry have been turned loose against all religions. Religious leaders of all faiths have decried the brainwashing, mind control attempts to destroy freedom to believe that has occurred during the process cleverly mis-named “deprogramming.” Like Nazi torturers, depersonalizers wage a constant assault to destroy the mind of their victims by as many channels as possible. This all-out assault includes forbidding their victims to eliminate their waste without permission, not addressing the victim by his or her proper name, stripping the victim of his or her clothing and placing the victim where he or she cannot clean himself or herself. This “re-education” process also frequently has included violence. Beatings and rapes are common, as indicated by articles and affidavits attached as Exhibit 2845. Thomas Ward, for example, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Notre Dame, stated that depersonalizers
“punched and beat me until my face was swollen and bloody.” Arthur Roselle was jumped by a depersonalizing party of 12 men who smashed him to the floor, cutting and bruising his face. His hands were bound tightly behind his back for three days, and he was beaten in the face. Monte Pelto was taped to a bed so tightly that his feet literally turned blue. He was kept motionless on the bed for seven days, his captors loosening his bonds only long enough for him to roll over and urinate into a cup. Lark Brightman suffered a broken leg and a severely sprained ankle in the course of her violent abduction. A pregnant woman in California was assaulted, stripped to her underwear, thrown against walls, and when she tried to escape, dragged on her back by four depersonalizing thugs — each of whom pulled on one of her limbs. The atrocities of depersonalizing have been condemned by innumerable groups such as the National Council of Churches and the American Civil Liberties union, and by such prominent individuals as Billy Graham and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who described it as “brainwashing, often done for huge profit and … sinister and violent.”46
39. The man known as “the father of deprogramming” is Ted Patrick, a thrice-convicted felon who views virtually every group, from the U.S. Marine Corps to the Roman Catholic Church, as a “cult.” Patrick has worked closely with John Clark, the FAMCO psychiatrist. Patrick also personally deprogrammed Joey Flanagan, who subsequently took up the same venal practice for FAMCO. Flanagan was paid by FAMCO to perform depersonalizations, and was one of the three men involved in the failed depersonalizing of Steve Miller described in Paragraph 37. Flanagan has admitted in sworn
deposition that he personally brought at least five persons to Michael Flynn after they had been deprogrammed.47 At least two of these were influenced to bring suit against the Church of Scientology after being put into a suggestible state following days of torturous depersonalizing not unlike the insidious, painful “brainwashing” techniques used on American servicemen by Chinese Communists during the Korean War.
40. Considerable pressure was brought to bear by the FAMCO depersonalizers to get persons to renounce their religious beliefs. Christopher Lloyd Garrison and Ellen Lee Garrison were two such persons victimized by FAMCO, the Flynn brothers and Joey Flanagan in a deprogramming attempt. On August 9, 1980, upon entering the home of relatives, the Garrisons were surrounded by 10 persons, including strong-armed goons, one of whom hovered over Mr. Garrison “menacingly, in a fixed karate stance.”48 The goons and depersonalizers were led by Joey Flanagan, who was working directly for Kevin Flynn, president of FAMCO. All were being paid by FAMCO. What followed for the Garrisons was a nightmare in which they were kidnapped, held against their will, threatened and terrorized continually for nearly two days. After being forcibly imprisoned by Flanagan and his henchmen, they were taken away in the back of a truck against their will to a remote cottage where they were held under close guard. Throughout this time, their beliefs were ridiculed, the founder of their religion vilified. The deprogramming was unsuccessful, yet both Flanagan and Kevin Flynn continued to abuse the Garrisons over the next month. According to the suit the Garrisons filed against Kevin Flynn, Joey Flanagan and
others, Kevin Flynn repeatedly threatened that they would be arrested “unless they agreed to join as plaintiffs” in Michael Flynn’s class action suit against the Church.48
41. The magnitude of the FAMCO effort to procure persons that would sue the Religion of the Church of Scientology is also shown in the April 13, 1982 deposition of Kevin Flynn, wherein he admits that each week he talked with “as many as five or ten parents or spouses or whatever” who had relatives in the Church. The obvious object of such conversations was to sell the relatives on the idea that something should be done about getting their relative to leave the Church, at which point Michael Flynn would potentially have another depersonalized client.50
42. Attempts to unravel the bizarre FAMCO scene have been met with a barrage of lies and obfuscation on the part of Michael [Fly]nn. Faced with a mountain of evidence on the subject of FAMCO’s [impr]oper and disgraceful activities, Flynn has sought to crawl away from any connection with FAMCO, stating in the June 1, 1983 Boston Globe, for example, that he “rejected” the FAMCO scheme because to have done otherwise would have given “the appearance of impropriety.”51 It is understandable that Flynn was so concerned with the appearance of FAMCO. The reality of the matter of course is that FAMCO was implemented, as additionally evidenced by sworn testimony of Kevin Flynn,52. Kevin Flynn admitted that FAMCO paid depersonalizers for “the services provided to Mr. Miller” from its own bank account. Joey Flanagan admitted that he was paid by FAMCO’s check for “the Steve Miller deprogramming” and for other depersonalizations; Kevin Flynn
“handl[ed] the money,”53. In fact, Kevin Flynn admitted54 that others besides Flanagan were paid by FAMCO for the depersonalizations. Just as Michael Flynn cannot change the fact that the FAMCO “all out” effort to destroy the future of religion was implemented, he cannot hide the FAMCO checks written for depersonalizations.
43. The Boston Globe article cited in Paragraph 42 also mentions Flynn’s claims that he “rejected” the FAMCO idea in June 1981. This is another Flynn misstatement, as demonstrated by Exhibit 3655, Kevin Flynn’s admission that at the time of his sworn deposition on April 13, 1982 — 10 months after Michael Flynn asserted the idea had been rejected — FAMCO was still in existence. By June 1981, moreover, FAMCO’s dirty hand had been hard at work for more than a year, engaging in depersonalizations and other goals to destroy.
44. Michael Flynn’s misrepresentations to the media and to the courts have served to distract attention from his own and FAMCO’s misdeeds. Recently, for example, in seeking to portray himself as being “harassed” by the Church, he claimed that 12 lawsuits have been filed against him by the Church56 and stated that he has succeeded in getting nine of these dismissed. He does not enumerate any of the 12, and not surprisingly, considering that only seven have been filed by the Church, and that five of the seven are still pending: two for libel, one for theft, one for conspiracy to violate civil rights and one for abuse of judicial process. Flynn misrepresents the number of suits in order to cover up the fact that it is he who is abusing the judicial process, as
evidenced by the “all out” FAMCO strategy aimed at destroying the courts’ time with 1,000 frivolous and malicious lawsuits.57
45. The first libel suit against Flynn was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Calif. on Aug. 4, 1983. It charged that he had “intentionally and recklessly” poisoned the good name of the Church by telling a group of persons that the Church had attempted to tamper with his airplane before an October, 1979 flight to South Bend, Ind. Flynn never mentioned the incident until nearly three years after it supposedly occurred. No report of the incident was ever filed with the proper authorities. This failure to report such an incident is a curious anomaly when one considers how litigation-prone Flynn appears to be and how this imaginary incident, if it were real, would have lent itself to a large personal injury claim. Flynn made the statement and “knew it to be false,” the complaint states, and the Church is seeking $2 million in damages.58
46. On Aug. 15, 1983, the Church filed a second libel suit against Flynn in U.S. District Court in Boston. The suit charged that Flynn knew he was making a false statement when he told a newspaper reporter from the Clearwater Times that the Church of Scientology had “infiltrated the offices of the Volusia County, Florida court system, interfered with the United States mail and intercepted and stole checks he had mailed to the Court in Volusia.”59 These outrageous statements by Flynn were not substantiated with a scintilla of evidence or documentation. Flynn apparently filed no complaint with the U.S. Postal Service or
with any law enforcement agency concerning the alleged infiltration or missing checks — a marked inconsistency for a man engaged in such massive litigation against the Church and its work. Scientology tries to create good and has no interest in destroying others.
47. Flynn had originally written a check to the Volusia County court system following his being slapped with criminal contempt by Judge J. Robert Durden. This check was reported as being “dishonored,” i.e., bounced, in the Nov. 20, 1982 Clearwater Times.60 In the Times article, Flynn went to great lengths to try to distract attention from his bounced check — seeking to instead turn the public eye on the religion of Scientology. Yet Flynn’s financial history reveals that this bounced check was not an isolated episode. In 1976, as the attached affidavit61 shows, Flynn wrote a bad check for $6,500 from his personal account, even though he knew he did not have enough funds in the account to cover the check.
48. The Volusia County episode exemplifies the tactic of “misdirection” frequently used by Flynn in order to evade questions regarding his personal and professional conduct, other questionable tactics — adopted by Flynn both inside and outside the courtroom — are described in detail by attorneys that have had to deal with those tactics.
49. Attorney Roger Geller noted in an affidavit how, as Flynn’s cases have lost ground, Flynn’s behavior in the courtroom has become increasingly rude and desperate. Instead of relying on the forces of reasoned arguments and legal precedent, Flynn has
followed this procedure: “insult defendants, verbally attack their attorneys, and engage in haranguing diatribes against the defendants’ religious beliefs and practices …”62
50. Attorney Sanford M. Katz has likewise noted that Flynn’s tactics have become geared towards destroying time in the justice system as he sees that legal motions have increasingly been in the favor of the Church. The Katz affidavit63 states that Flynn’s “evasive and dilatory tactics have succeeded thus far in bringing the action at bar to a complete halt.”
51. Flynn’s conduct during depositions taken in the Lavenda Van Schaick case finally became so outrageously insulting and objectionable (destroying the time of all concerned) that the U.S District Court in Boston granted a Church motion to appoint a Master — an officer of the court specifically authorized to take testimony or to perform other functions — for all depositions and discovery in that case. As the document submitted in support of the Church’s motion64 noted: “all of the depositions taken … in this case to date in which attorney Michael J. Flynn has participated have been characterized by improper and obstructive tactics by said attorney.” Deposition transcripts were “rife with instances of Mr. Flynn’s answering questions for the witness, coaching the witness, rephrasing defendant’s questions to his liking, and insulting both the defendant and its counsel.” Similar obstructive and unprofessional behavior on the part of Michael Flynn in at least three other cases made it necessary to seek the appointment of Masters to supervise depositions in those cases as well.65 Flynn’s conduct in depositions has time and
time again been rude, obstructive and harassing. Apparently, there is no limit to the destructive conduct of Flynn when depositions are being taken, even though this is a legal arena normally governed by certain closely prescribed rules of behavior. During the July 21, 1980 deposition of Tonya Burden, for example, Flynn interrupted the deposition to leap across the table in front of Tonya and rip from her hands the diagram she had just drawn of the crucial area in which she claimed she had “crawled” and “hid” before leaving the main building of the Church of Scientology’s international Retreat Center in Clearwater, Fla. Flynn crumpled up the diagram, shoved it into his pocket and refused to allow it into the record. This was an important piece of evidence on a matter in which her testimony had been directly contradicted and refuted by her own uncle, as described further in Paragraph 57. Given this repeated conduct, one could conclude that it is Flynn who has structured his clients’ stories and will go to virtually any length to prevent the true facts from emerging, even from the mouths of his own clients.
52. Flynn’s questionable behavior has been recognized by the courts. One criminal contempt finding against Flynn was mentioned in Paragraph 47 of this declaration. Another contempt finding came recently in the Riverside, California probate case, where Flynn was fined by Superior Court Judge J. David Hennigan for releasing documents the court had sealed. That contempt ruling was upheld, despite Flynn’s request for reconsideration, on August 19, 1983 and on that same date, Flynn’s client, Ronald DeWolf, was found liable to pay court costs in the probate case. Flynn had prepared the original pleading in that case, and naturally pushed it for
maximum media attention by including an incredible volume of false, scurrilous allegations regarding the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Church itself. The invective and poison contained in Flynn’s legal papers were spewn out to the news media primarily via DeWolf. The allegations included the vicious lie that L. Ron Hubbard was either dead or mentally incompetent. This lie was exposed when the case was thrown out of court in June66 and L. Ron Hubbard found to be alive and entitled to his privacy. After Flynn and DeWolf lost the case, their ulterior motives for filing the case were revealed: they wanted to attack L. Ron Hubbard personally and subject him to further litigation. Such an abuse of the judicial process had apparently been organized into two phases or steps long before the original motion came close to a decision. Thus, DeWolf stated in a radio interview on July 14 , 1983: “that particular decision really opened up a terrible Pandora’s box for [L. Ron Hubbard] in that it now, in the legal sense, makes him quite reachable …Step One was to achieve a decision of whether he was missing or not and then now we’re involved in preparing Step Two which is further litigation.”67 This transparent plan was recognized by the Court when it disqualified Flynn from acting as counsel. The Court found that Flynn purported to be representing Mr. Hubbard’s interest in the probate case in order to “protect his estate,” yet at the same time was suing Mr. Hubbard in various courts across the land — an obvious conflict of interest.68 Michael Flynn has already embarked upon Step Two; his most recent spurious suit is described in Paragraph 60.
53. DeWolf, L. Ron Hubbard’s long estranged, disinherited
eldest son, had signed his name last November to a declaration written by Flynn containing gross, absurd lies in an attempt to destroy people and life, Scientology and Mr. Hubbard. This declaration ostensibly formed the basis of the probate action seeking control of Mr. Hubbard’s assets, while Flynn was able to attract some media attention to the sensational misstatements which were woven into the pleading and the declaration, the light of the legal process disclosed the truth and the case fell to pieces.
54. The departure from the facts exhibited in Michael Flynn’s probate motion is shown by the document attached as Exhibit 5069 where DeWolf frankly admitted that he had no direct knowledge regarding Scientology or his father since 1959, and that anything after 1959 DeWolf learned through Michael Flynn. Yet the declaration — prepared and written by his lawyers — failed to disclose this crucial fact and left readers with the false impression that it was based on firsthand knowledge and observation.
55. By about mid-1982 the Church had turned around a great deal of the litigation that Flynn had brought and it was beginning to win on the legal front. It was around this time that Flynn drew up his plans for the probate motion discussed above. Around this time also, a personal check of L. Ron Hubbard’s drawn on a cash reserve management account handled by the Bank of New England in Boston was stolen and a duplicate was made by an offset photolithography technique. The amount of the check and the check number were changed, and the signature was traced in ink. An individual presented the counterfeit check for deposit at a New York City bank. The individual tried to open an account with the check, but was refused because he didn’t have proper identification. He
strangely left the bank and never returned. The bank in New York City reported the incident to the Bank of New England. After L. Ron Hubbard’s personal business managers stopped payment on the check, the Bank of New England immediately started an internal investigation to find out how its security could have broken down. Investigators from Security Management Services, Inc. of Boston found the bank’s security to be outrageously weak and reported this to the vice president in charge of the cash reserves management section of the bank. The next day, the investigators were fired. Flynn learned of the events regarding the check and, after omitting vital information and adding sensationalized items with no basis in fact, he wove the tale of the “forged check” into the probate petition and declaration for Ronald DeWolf, as described above in Paragraphs 53 and 54. Among the wildly poisonous claims was the assertion, since proven false, that L. Ron Hubbard’s own close associates and the Church of Scientology were responsible for the forgery. Because there had actually been an incident involving a forged check for a large amount of money, the false and distorted statements contained in DeWolf’s declaration took some time to be exposed, keeping the petition in court for so long. As with other flamboyant Flynn allegations and accusations, this wild charge was geared to attract publicity and served to give the probate filing national media attention. Subsequent inquiry revealed that the initial investigator on the forged check case was a neighbor of Michael Flynn and had dealt with Flynn previously on a disrelated matter. The investigator, Joseph Snyder of Security Managment Services, Inc., was misdirected on his investigation by Flynn, whose “speculations”: and suggestions to Snyder on the matter were designed to support Flynn’s “theory” as described above. Such speculation ended up
being transmitted to the Bank of New England as factual information. Further investigation also revealed that Security Management Services, Inc. had an informant in the bank who sometimes worked in the cash reserves management section and who had access to cancelled checks, including those of L. Ron Hubbard, during the time that the check in question would have been lifted out of the cash reserves management section for counterfeiting. Careful investigation furthermore turned up someone who had worked in the bank at the time of the forgery who swore that he had seen Kevin Flynn, president of FAMCO, in the cash reserves management section earlier. Kevin Flynn, for his part, left town and in fact left Massachusetts about the time the investigators came to question him on the episode. Thomas Hoffman, one of Michael Flynn’s associates in anti-Scientology litigation, “warned” the investigators that they should stay away from Kevin Flynn, stating that Kevin wanted nothing to do with Scientology anymore. Thus, Kevin Flynn has so far been able to avoid being questioned in the matter. The entire matter of the forged check suggests that efforts to manufacture allegations against the Church and L. Ron Hubbard know no ethical bounds.
56. Michael Flynn’s misrepresentations occur so frequently that it is difficult to keep tabs on them. For example, although it is well documented that Flynn has yet to win so much as a penny from the Church, and he himself has admitted that his cases against the Church have been “an unending continuous loss”70, he frequently will present information to the media or to others claiming that he has won a motion or that his cases are doing well. An example, curiously, is from the very same speech where he claimed that his record had been “an unending continuous loss” against Scientology. Later in that same speech
he claimed “Every major motion we have won … no suit has been dismissed.” Exhibit 5271 contains a sampling of the many motions Flynn has lost, once again demonstrating his inability to face and handle reality.
57. The factual shadings which have come to characterize Flynn’s work both in and out of the courtroom are also characteristic of statements from his clients. For example, Tonja Burden, a Flynn client, described in a detailed affidavit how she had “escaped” from the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, Fla. by crawling through an air conditioning duct.72 The truth of the circumstances of Burden’s departure was dramatically different: she was free to go, and simply walked away when she wanted to. The truth was detailed in a sworn deposition by her uncle, Donald G. Burden, who met her at the Fort Harrison Hotel, (the Church-owned building from which Tonja supposedly escaped), waited for her in the lobby, and walked out with her, later returning together to pick up her personal items.73
58. Tonja Burden’s unreliability as a witness can be seen in her original affidavit and subsequent depositions, which are riddled with inconsistencies. Not surprisingly, her affidavit, like that of Ronald DeWolf, was not written by herself. In a deposition on April 22, 1982, Tonja stated that “I don’t write any of this stuff up. My attorneys do that because I’m not — what’s the word? Literate enough to do it.”74 The author of the such documents, Michael Flynn, has apparently forgotten that the substance of those complaints should conform to reality; But it should be remembered that FAMCO’s “turnkey” lawsuits (see Paragraph 18) were ostensibly set up so that “everything required for an
instantaneous trial” was provided by FAMCO. This included “pre-packaged” claims for damages which — as can be seen in case after case — did not hold up once the Flynn FAMCO client was questioned at a deposition. Richard Peterson, for example, had alleged fraudulent misrepresentations in his original complaint, prepared by Michael Flynn. However, in deposition, he directly contradicted what had been charged in the complaint, stating that he felt the Scientologists he had dealt with had been very sincere. He described the people on the staff at the Church of Scientology as “honest, ethical people. They think they are doing the right thing. Most of them are the most wonderful people I have met. They are very nice, polite. They don’t commit crimes. They don’t harm you. It is a very ethical group.”75 In fact, all the other plaintiffs in that “turnkey” lawsuit — Jane Lee Peterson, Carol Garrity, Paul Garrity, Thomas Jefferson and Dana Lockwood — making the identical charge, nonetheless admitted to believing that the representations made to them had been sincere, leaving one with the firm opinion that Michael Flynn weaves his complaints from whole cloth.
59. One of Flynn’s favorite venomous charges against the Church is that the Church allegedly has as a matter of policy violated the priest-penitent privilege by disseminating information obtained from parishioners in the confessional process. However, just as Flynn accuses the Church of numerous wrongful activities which he commits himself, the alleged violation of privileged communications is yet another routine procedure of Flynn’s. Thus, as recently as June 25, 1983, Flynn addressed a gathering of persons
and brazenly sought to create negativeness and hostility towards the Church. During this speech, Flynn freely discussed the personal lives of several of his clients and in the process revealed intimate details regarding their personal and sexual lives. Ironically, three of these people — Lavenda Van Schaick, Janet Troy and Marjorie Hansen — were the very persons he was claiming to be representing to protect them from these very disclosures. Such conduct is worse than hypocritical — it causes pain for his clients. The group he was addressing was not in any way connected to or involved with litigation regarding these clients, revealing this information to them was a glaring violation of the confidentiality such clients should have enjoyed. Once again it appeared that his clients’ best interests took a back seat to Flynn’s frenzied efforts to generate adverse public attitudes [reg]ards the Religion of Scientology by any means at hand. Although [the] Church retains a copy of a transcript of this event, in the interest of protecting the privacy of Flynn’s clients which he so cavalierly ignores and preventing them further pain, I will refrain from re-issuing it as an exhibit to this declaration.
60. It was not enough for Michael Flynn to launch his “all out” assault against the Church using former Scientologists as pawns. On September 7, 1983, he went into direct competition with his clients, suing on his own behalf using old familiar charges from FAMCO suits. This latest frivolous and malicious lawsuit directly parrots suits he filed earlier on behalf of his clients and appears to be motivated by pure greed. Until Flynn’s meritless suit is thrown out by the court, the Flynn and FAMCO “all out” strategy
of attempting to destroy the future of religion for people by any and all means is still fully operational. Michael Flynn is currently pushing this new case for his own personal gain, and drumming up media publicity for his wild claims. This suit names only the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, whom Flynn knows A) has nothing to do with the charges being made and B) is not likely to respond to the outrageous allegations. It is likely that Flynn has named only Mr. Hubbard in hopes of obtaining a quick default judgment rather than be exposed as unable to prove his imaginative allegations. In papers filed in this suit Flynn already has conceded his purpose in the California probate petition to locate Mr. Hubbard so that he could serve him with a subpoena, Exhibit 5776. Again Flynn’s collateral purposes for initiating litigation are revealed in his own documents.
61. The cumulative effects of Flynn’s attacks on the Religion of the Church of Scientology as well as his activities in handling of his own clients have rebounded to his detriment, as witnessed by the contempt rulings in Florida and California77, and by the judgment against his principal client, Ronald DeWolf, in Riverside, ordering him to pay court costs in that much-publicized probate case.
62. Michael Flynn’s efforts to marshall forces to destroy the existence of a religion are unique not simply because he attacked the Church for money, but because his fundamental goal was to go beyond moneymaking and seek to drive a religious group out of existence. Nearly four years of costly and abusive attacks based on Flynn’s scurrilous, venomous and underhanded efforts to prejudice
public opinion and get media and governmental organizations working against the Church have not daunted the Church’s determination to create a brighter future and to continue helping people around the world. The Church at this writing is doing so.78 While it is beyond the scope of this declaration to chronicle the grievous damage caused by Michael Flynn’s and FAMCO’s poisonous activities, destruction of Belief and vituperations, it is sadly true that the distractions and commotion they have created have interfered with the Church’s efforts to create good conditions of benefit to all people by devoting all its energies to that objective. Our religion remains dedicated, however, to that end.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Los Angeles, California this day of , 1983.
Exhibits to Declaration (pdf format)
- Articles of Organization General Laws, Chapter 156B, Section 12 (08-28-1980)
- Articles of Organization (Under G.L. Ch. 156B)
- La Venda Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Memorandum and Draft Conditional Order (03-30-1982)
- Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology of California: Verified Complaint Seeking Injunctive Relief (Face page) (04-09-1982)
- Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology of California: Order (04-16-1982)
- Scientology – Review and Planning (01-1981)
- Class Action Case Development Program (n.d.)
- Affidavit of Jim Grey (10-13-1981)
- Memorandum To All Attorneys (02-26-1981)
- Declaration of Virginia Snyder (04-14-1982)
- Letter from Kevin Sullivan (Law Offices of Michael Flynn) to Daniel Barbakow (04-22-1981)
- About this Proposal (n.d.)
- La Venda Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Affidavit of Nancy Gertner (excerpt)
- Gary A. Pappas v. Wayne B. Hollingsworth: Affidavit of Gary A. Pappas (07-06-1983)
- Supplemental Affidavit of Gary A. Pappas (07-06-1983)
- Verified Complaint (07-06-1983)
- Summons (07-27-1983)
- Certificate Concerning Insurance (07-06-1983)
- Findings and Ex Parte Order of Approval of Attachment on Trustee Process (07-06-1983)
- Philip F. Mulvey Jr. v. Wayne B. Hollingsworth and Gary A. Pappas: Affidavit of Philip F. Mulvey Jr.
- Loss of Income and Business (01-1981)
- March Conference (Handwritten) (n.d.)
- The Globe: “Ex-Scientologists charge Hub tricks”
- In re the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Reporter’s Transcript (excerpt) (03-17-1983)
- Summary of Damages (Handwritten)
- Letter from Michael J. Flynn to Jay Roth (06-02-1981)
- Letter from Michael J. Flynn to Jay Roth (06-17-1981)
- Middlesex News: Cults called growing threat (01-14-1981)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of John G. Clark, Jr. (face page) (04-16-1982)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn: Deposition of Michael J. Flynn (excerpt) (04-15-1982)
- Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-14-1982)
- La Venda Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Statement of Silvana Garritano (excerpt) (02-19-1982)
- “Flynn/Walters/Clark Collusion” (Timeline) (n.d.)
- Continued Deposition of Tonja Catherine Burden (excerpt) (11-21-1981)
- Affidavit of Don Cooper (01-09-1981)
- Statement of Don Cooper (excerpt) (07-24-1980)
- Letter from John Varley to Raymond Banoun, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Handwritten) (01-18-1980)
- Letter from John Burgen to Ron (Handwritten) (01-29-1980)
- Information Report re: Flynn/Clark (08-28-1980)
- Affidavit of Steve Miller (03-27-1981)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Complaint For Damages (excerpt) (08-20-1981)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- The El Paso Journal: Texas Endangered by Religious Inquisition Bill (01-1977)
- The News World: Ted Patrick, starter of deprogramming, faces sex charges (10-31-1981)
- Affidavit of Arthur Roselle (7-17-1979)
- Affidavit of Debbie Morgan (excerpts)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Joseph M. Flanagan (excerpt) (04-22-1982)
- Continued deposition of Joseph M. Flanagan (excerpt) (04-23-1982)
- Christopher Lloyd Garrison v. Joseph Flanagan: Complaint (excerpt) (10-14-1981)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- Boston Globe: Boston lawyer, Scientology locked in battle since 1979 (06-01-1983)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Joseph M. Flanagan (excerpt) (04-22-1982)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- Steve Miller v. Kevin M. Flynn et al.: Deposition of Kevin M. Flynn (excerpt) (04-13-1982)
- The Times: Waging war with Scientology (08-24-1983)
- Handwritten notes (02-15-1981)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Michael J. Flynn: Complaint, Verification, Civil Cover sheet (08-04-1983)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Michael J. Flynn: Complaint
- Clearwater Times: Volusia court infiltrated, Flynn contends (11-20-1982)
- Silawmut County Bank v. Mordechai Ben-Harusch and Michael Flynn: Affidavit of Charles W. Craven (09-10-1976)
- Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston: Affidavit of Roger Geller (04-22-1982)
- Christopher Lloyd Garrison v. Joseph Flanigan et al.: Affidavit of Sanford M. Katz (04-13-1982)
- La Venda van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Defendant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Assignment of Master to Supervise Depositions (02-11-1983)
- La Venda van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California: Defendant’s Motion for Assignment of Master to Supervise Depositions (01-19-1983)
- Proposed Order (01-1983)
- Affidavit of Counsel in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Assignment of Master to Supervise Depositions (01-19-1983)
- Motion for Assignment of a Master (08-21-1981)
- Affidavit of Eric D. Blumenson in Support of the Motion to Assign a Master to Supervise Depositions and the Motion to Compel Discovery (08-21-1981)
- Order of Reference to Master (Jury Action) (09-14-1981)
- Deposition of Robert Dardano (cover sheet) (12-08-1982)
- Certificate of Service (01-19-1983)
- Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Assign a Master to Supervise Depositions (01-19-1983)
- In re Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Statement of Decision (06-27-1983)
- Los Angeles Times: Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Over Scientology Dispute (06-14-1983)
- Los Angeles Herald: Judge bards son’s claim to estate of Hubbard (06-14-1983)
- The New York Times: Around the Nation ( 06-14-1983)
- Chicago Tribune: Church founder ruled alive in probate action (06-14-1983)
- KPS7, Palm Springs, CA: Interview of Ron De Wolfe (07-14-1983)
- In re Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Order Denying Pro Hac Vice Application of Michael J. Flynn (03-22-1983)
- Letter from Barrett S. Litt to Judge David J. Hennigan (03-22-1983)
- Jane Lee Peterson et al v. Church of Scientology of California et al.: Deposition of Ronald De Wolfe (excerpt) (05-26-1983)
- Tape One Side One Phoenix Meeting June 25 1983 Los Angeles (excerpt) (06-25-1983)
- Jane Lee Peterson et al. v. Church of Scientology et al.: Order
- In re Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Notice of Ruling on Submitted Matters (12-15-1982)
- Petition for Appointment of Trustee and for Order for Filing of Petition and Fixing Date of Hearing (11-10-1982)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Paulette Cooper: Order Granting Extension of Discovery Cut-off Date and Sanctions (04-26-1983)
- Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., et al.: Order re Motion of Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. (08-20-1982)
- Jane Lee Peterson v. Church of Scientology of California: Order
- Statement of Tonja Burden (excerpt) (11-20-1981)
- Tonja C. Burden v. Church of Scientology of California: Deposition of Donald Gabriel Burden (04-21-1981)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Paulette Cooper: Deposition of Tonja Catherine Burden (excerpt) 04-22-1982)
- Jane Lee Peterson v. Church of Scientology of California: Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (excerpt) (02-07-1983)
- Michael J. Flynn v. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard: Motion to Approve Substituted Service of Process on L. Ron Hubbard (excerpt)
- In re the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, A Missing Person: Order of Contempt (07-19-1983)
- Letter from Noel E. Manoukian to Rita Thompson (10-24-1983)
- Letter from Rev. M. M. Merriweather to Church of Scientology (09-23-1982)
- Daily Globe News: Scientologists promote ‘drug-free’ life (08-09-1982)
- Las Vegas Sun: Church hosts drug education week (07-23-1982)
- St. Louis Globe-Democrat: She keeps singing by aiding youth (02-28-1983)
- Letter from Bill Welsh, President, Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to L. Ron Hubbard (07-14-1983)
- This document in PDF format. ↩
- See (Exhibit 1) ↩
- See (Exhibit 2) ↩
- See (Exhibit 2) ↩
- See Exhibit 3 ↩
- Aattached as Exhibit 4 ↩
- (See Exhibit 2) ↩
- See (Exhibit 4) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 6) ↩
- (Exhibit 7 ↩
- (Exhibit 8) ↩
- (Exhibit 9) ↩
- (Exhibit 10) ↩
- (Exhibit 11) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 5, p. 13) ↩
- (Exhibit 12) ↩
- (Exhibit 13) ↩
- Exhibit 13 ↩
- (Exhibit 14) ↩
- Exhibit 14 ↩
- (Exhibit 14) ↩
- Exhibit 14 ↩
- (Exhibit 14) ↩
- (Exhibit 14) ↩
- (Exhibit 4) ↩
- (Exhibit 15) ↩
- (Exhibit 15) ↩
- (Exhibit 5) ↩
- (Exhibit 16) ↩
- (see Exhibit 17) ↩
- (Exhibit 18) ↩
- (Exhibit 19) ↩
- (Exhibit 20) ↩
- (Exhibit 21) ↩
- (Exhibit 22) ↩
- (Exhibit 23) ↩
- (Exhibit 24) ↩
- (Exhibit 25) ↩
- (Exhibit 26) ↩
- (Exhibit 27) ↩
- Exhibit 28 ↩
- (Exhibit 28) ↩
- (Exhibit 29) ↩
- (Exhibit 30) ↩
- (Exhibit 30) ↩
- (Exhibit 31) ↩
- (Exhibit 32) ↩
- (Exhibit 33) ↩
- (Exhibit 34) ↩
- (Exhibit 35) ↩
- Exhibit 36 ↩
- (Exhibit 37) ↩
- (Exhibit 38) ↩
- (Exhibit 39) ↩
- (Exhibit 40) ↩
- (Exhibit 41) ↩
- (Exhibit 42) ↩
- (Exhibit 43) ↩
- (Exhibit 44) ↩
- (Exhibit 45) ↩
- (Exhibit 46) ↩
- (Exhibit 47) ↩
- (Exhibit 48) ↩
- (Exhibit 49) ↩
- See Exhibit 50 ↩
- (Exhibit 51) ↩
- See Exhibit 52 ↩
- (Exhibit 53) ↩
- (Exhibit 54) ↩
- (Exhibit 55) ↩
- (Exhibit 56) ↩
- (Exhibit 57) ↩
- (Exhibit 58) ↩
- (See Exhibit 59) ↩