The Boston Herald: Hub Lawyer: I’m A Victim of Sect Smear (January 26, 1984)

Bizarre tale unfolds with check scam investigation
By Beverly Ford

boston-herald-1984-01-26

A BOSTON lawyer who has filed more than 20 lawsuits against the Church of Scientology has sent letters to the FBI, the federal court and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office charging the sect with conducting a smear campaign against him.

Atty Michael Flynn claims the sect is trying to discredit him for uncovering an alleged 1982 church plot to entrap a federal judge in Florida who presided over a lawsuit against the organization.

In a letter to state and federal authorities, Flynn said the church’s latest tactic involves the placement of a full-page ad in the Boston Globe offering a $100,000 reward for information on a $2 million check fraud scheme.

Flynn contends in the letter that at least 10 people who answered the ad have been told he is the “prime suspect” in the case by private investigator Eugene Ingram.

Ingram, who placed the $14,000 ad at the request of a law firm which represents both the church and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, denied Flynn’s allegation, calling it an “absolute bald-faced lie.

“That’s a complete fabrication by Flynn” said the Los Angeles private eye, adding that he never mentioned the attorney’s name first to any caller. When contacted by The Herald, Ingram confirmed that Flynn was a “suspect” in his investigation.

Flynn contends that Ingram is trying to frame him by informing both the news media and peole answering the ad that he is a “suspect” in the counterfeiting of a $2 million check belonging to L. Ron Hubbard.

“They have a policy called attack the attacker,” said Flynn, who in September filed a $30 million lawsuit against Hubbard in federal court.

“What they do is attack the people involved in the investigation.”

Sources close to federal and state investigations into the check-writing scam said Flynn is not a suspect in their probes.

Ingram also denied that the ad was intended to smear or slander the attorney.

“How can it be a smear campaign when his name is not in the ad,” said the private eye. “We’re preparing this case for prosecution. You don’t do that by smearing people.”

Notes