I, Vicki J. Aznaran, make the following declarations on personal knowledge except where the context indicates knowledge based upon information and belief.1
My husband Richard Aznaran and I are plaintiffs in the instant action wherein defendants (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Scientology”) have moved to strike our entire complaint and to prevent our attorneys from representing us.
2. As set forth in more detail below, my husband and I were involved with Scientology for approximately 15 years. For much of that time we were members of an organization known as the Sea Organization. This organization is an elite organization within Scientology. The Sea Organization has considerable influence and control over Scientology organizations. Generally, Sea Organization members hold the management posts within Scientology.
3. In 1978, after approximately four years as staff members, my husband and I joined the Sea Organization. From 1978 to early 1987, my husband and I worked most of our waking hours, with very few days off, at our various assignments within Scientology. I eventually became President of Religious Technology Center and, supposedly, the top “ecclesiastical” authority within Scientology. Richard was a high-level security officer. During this period my husband and I became intimately familiar with the structure and activities of various Scientology organizations. Among other things, I was briefed on and sometimes a participant in meetings involving litigation tactics and various
means used to attack and fight “enemies” of Scientology. In numerous instances I was in the chain of command or approval for such activities. The legal strategy of Scientology and the existence of numerous potential legal problems, some of which are set forth below, were known to me when I was a staff member in Scientology. Contrary to, what I understand to be claimed by defendants herein, Mr. Yanny did not reveal to me the legal strategies or secrets of Scientology. Nor did Mr. Yanny invent or open my eyes to the wrongs that I had suffered at the hands of Scientology.
4. I have become an “enemy” of Scientology. This has certain consequences that will influence what Scientology will do in this litigation. For example, it is important to understand that their value system allows dishonesty if done in the name of Scientology.
5. Enemies of Scientology are deemed to be “suppressive persons”(“SPs”). One becomes a “suppressive person” by doing a suppressive act, such as suing Scientology as a litigant or lawyer. In the jargon of Scientology, when one is “declared” this means that one has been declared a “suppressive person” and, therefore, may be, harassed, hurt, damaged or destroyed without regard to truth, honesty or legal rights. It is considered acceptable within Scientology to lie, cheat, steal and commit illegal acts in the name of dealing with a “suppressive person”.
6. This practice or policy is sometimes referred to as the policy of “fair game”. In the jargon of Scientology, a person who is “declared” is understood to be a suppressive person. This means that the person is “fair game”. The fair game policy was
issued in the 1960s. It was, never cancelled. A document was issued for public relations reasons that purportedly cancelled “fair game”; however, that document stated that it did not change the manner of handling persons declared “SP.” In reality, the purported cancellation of fair game is at most a matter of semantics. Enemies of Scientology are treated as “fair game.”
7. It is my understanding, and I have so testified in my deposition, that when my husband and I escaped from Scientology we were not immediately declared suppressive persons or subjected to the fair game policy. Among other things, we were compelled to do certain things and sign various documents to escape and avoid being subjected to fair game treatment. As we have now sued Scientology, we are “fair game”.
8. From 1984 through early 1987, I was President of Religious Technology Center (hereinafter “RTC”). As President of RTC and a Sea Organization member, I attended many meetings concerning the numerous legal actions involving Scientology organizations. During this time period, I had personal access to all legal documents having to do with RTC. I received a report every day on my computer that included a synopsis of each ongoing legal case involving Scientology. I received, or so I was told, copies of every major motion filed in cases involving Scientology. I was on the “approval lines” for legal documents dealing with RTC. During this time period, I had the option of attending legal meetings although some were mandatory. I attended many litigation meetings and became generally aware of Scientology’s dirty tricks and legal maneuvers. On specifics, I frequently deferred to in-house and outside counsel, however, at least in theory, I was
the head of RTC and had access to any business or litigation ” secrets” of Scientology.
9. As President of RTC, I was one of those responsible for retaining the services of Joseph Yanny as counsel for Scientology organizations. I supervised and worked with Mr. Yanny who served as coordinating attorney for RTC in 1985. I am not aware of any legal or corporate information concerning RTC that was available to Mr. Yanny but not available to me.
10. I am informed and believe that various Scientology organizations are contending that Mr. Yanny has somehow improperly educated me on the legal maneuvers, tactics and affairs of Scientology. Although such claims are consistent with litigation tactics of Scientology, which .are not constrained by considerations such as truth and reality, the proposition that I need Mr. Yanny to educate me on the internal affairs of Scientology is simply wrong. I was one of the highest ranking members of Scientology and was involved in upper management. Mr. Yanny was a lawyer hired by management, of which I was a part, to work for it. Further, it was the practice during the time period in question to screen the information given to outside counsel such as Mr Yanny.
11. It is the stated policy and practice of Scientology to use the legal system to abuse and harass its enemies. This crude, fundamental directive of Scientology is no secret. In any event, this information did not come to me from Mr. Yanny. The policy is to do anything and everything possible to harass the opposing litigant without regard to whether any particular motion or maneuver is appropriate or warranted by the facts or applicable law. That policy was followed in every legal case I was involved
with or learned about while a member of the Sea Organization. The management of Scientology consistently expressed and demonstrated a complete disdain for the court system viewing it as nothing more than a method to harass enemies. Some examples of this are set forth below.
12. During litigation between Gerald Armstrong and Scientology, which was before Judge Breckenridge of Superior Court for Los Angeles County, the court ordered the production of Armstrong’s pre-clear (“PC”) folders. These are files maintained by Scientology on those who submit to interrogation sessions in a process called auditing. During the course of that litigation I was ordered to go through Armstrong’s folders and destroy or conceal anything that might be damaging to Scientology or helpful to Armstrong’s case. As ordered, I went through the files and destroyed contents that might support Armstrong’s claims against Scientology. This practice is known within Scientology as “culling PC folders” and is a common litigation tactic employed by Scientology.
13. During other litigation in Los Angeles known to me as the Wollersheim case, I was told that the. judge had ordered the production of Wollersheim’s folders. As ordered, I “culled” these files. In other words, I removed contents that might have been damaging to Scientology or support Wollersheim’s claims against Scientology. For example, I removed evidence of events involving his family, the anguish this caused him, evidence of disconnection from family and evidence of fair game.
14. I was involved in numerous meetings concerning what is known to me as the Christofferson case in Portland, Oregon. This
case was tried twice. In the first case, a Scientology witness by the name of Martin Samuels was coached and drilled for hours on how to lie convincingly or avoid telling the truth. Before or during the second trial he admitted to this course of conduct. In this litigation, a Scientologist by the name of Joan Shriver produced responsive documents that may have been incriminating. This was a serious breach of policy for which she was punished. These documents were ordered produced on such short notice that apparently files were not thoroughly “culled”. In another case, Mr. Yanny was severely criticized and almost fired for failing to properly coach and feed the desired answers to Heber Jentzsch. Mr. Jentzsch was, for public relations reasons, the purported head of the Church of Scientology International. During his deposition, Mr. Jentzsch was unable to answer fundamental questions concerning the management of Church of Scientology International. This may be what certain defendants are referring to when they say that they were dissatisfied with Mr. Yanny’s services and I protected him. There were those, including McShane, who were outraged by the embarrassing testimony of Mr. Jentzsch. This was blamed on Mr. Yanny. I did not wish. to discontinue using Mr. Yanny at RTC for this perceived problem.
15. In November, 1985, I was present at a meeting whereat Earle Cooley, a Scientologist lawyer, Lyman Spurlock and Norman Starkey, all high ranking Scientologists, announced that they were going to contact Judge Mariana Pfaelzer. Earlier that day Judge Pfaelzer had denied a Scientology motion for a temporary restraining order. After losing on the application there was a meeting to determine what to do about the situation. At the
meeting Mr. Cooley had a file, that purportedly contained background and personal information on Judge Pfaelzer. During the meeting Mr. Cooley and the others announced that they were going to attempt to meet with Judge Pfaelzer that evening, at her house if necessary, concerning the litigation in which the temporary restraining order had been sought. Thereafter, Mr. Cooley and two others left with their file on Judge Pfaelzer. They returned several hours later at which time I was told that their attempts to contact Judge Pfaelzer had been unsuccessful.
16. In late 1979 and early 1980, there was a massive document destruction program undertaken to destroy any evidence showing that L. Ron Hubbard (“LRH”) controlled Scientology. I participated in this activity in Clearwater, Florida and am informed that there was also intensive document destruction at facilities in Gilman Hot Springs, California. From at least that point onward there was a continuous effort to hide or destroy any evidence of Hubbard’s control. For example, during an IRS investigation in 1984 and 1985, while in bed with pneumonia, I was ordered out of bed by Norman Starkey who told me that they had received a tip from a Los Angeles Police officer advising them of a pending IRS raid in Los Angeles. Mr. Starkey ordered me to go to a computer facility and insure that all information on the computers in Los Angeles that might show Hubbard’s involvement and control of Scientology’s money was destroyed except for one copy of each document. These copies were to be saved on computer discs which were to be hidden in secure storage places. At the time I was also instructed to destroy anything that would show the control of Mr. Starkey or Mr. Miscavige over Scientology.
17. I have been informed and believe that a an improper affidavit was filed in a case brought by L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. in Riverside, California. The circumstances were as follows: The document purported to be an affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard. The signature of Hubbard was purportedly notarized by David Miscavige. It is my understanding that this affidavit caused the case to be dismissed. Subsequently, I was told by Pat Broeker, who had been living with Hubbard at the time, and by Miscavige, that Miscavige had not seen Hubbard between 1980 and Hubbard’s death in 1986. Accordingly, the affidavit was apparently signed, notarized and dated during a time period when Hubbard was in seclusion and not seen by the person who purportedly notarized the signature of Hubbard.
18. In or about 1981, while working in a Scientology organization known as the Guardian’s Office, I had access to and observed various written and oral communications pertaining to illegitimate activities participated in by the Guardian’s Office.
The Guardian’s Office attempted to infiltrate both governmental and private agencies including the IRS, the Department of Justice, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Mental Health. The purpose of this was to steal documents pursuant to Hubbard’s “Snow White” program. The goal of this program was to eliminate any negative reports about Hubbard and Scientology that may have been held by these various agencies.
19. While involved in Scientology I became aware of various operations directed against an author who had written a negative book about Scientology. The author, Paulette Cooper, was subjected to various forms of harassment. One operation included an
attempt to frame her. A false bomb threat was written. A Scientology agent lifted a fingerprint from Cooper’s apartment. These fingerprints were then transferred to the bomb threat letter. Ms. Cooper was subjected to an investigation and was not cleared until an FBI raid resulted in the seizure of Scientology documents that exposed the operation as a frame-up. There was at least one other operation directed against Ms. Cooper. The substance of it was to plant a boyfriend to reinforce and play upon her suicidal tendencies in the hopes that she would commit suicide.
20. In 1976 and 1977, the then Mayor of Clearwater, Florida, Gabe Cazares was involved with litigation against Scientology. Arrangements were made to have an attorney by the name of Merril [sp. Merrill] Vanniere [sp. Veneer?], a Scientologist, represent Mr. Cazares and sabotage his case. This plot was also exposed by documents obtained in an FBI raid of a .Scientology facility. Also, in response to Mr. Cazares’ litigation against Scientology, an attempt was made to implicate Mr. Cazares in a staged hit-and-run accident.
21. During the time period of my involvement with Scientology, I also learned of various. attempts to influence judges or force their removal from cases. For example, a private investigator named Dick Bast obtained a statement from a prostitute concerning involvement with a certain judge in Washington, D.C. who was sitting on a Scientology case. This was then publicized. The judge did not continue on the case. The same investigator, Dick Bast was also hired for the purpose of attempting to force the removal of a judge in Tampa, Florida. This involved what I know as the Burden case, which was civil
litigation brought by Michael Flynn. Dick Bast secured a yacht and attempted to get the judge on board for the purpose of filming him under compromising circumstances. The judge declined to go yachting and the operation was unsuccessful. Approximately $250,000.00 was spent on the operation.
22. I have been informed by Mark (Marty) Rathbun, a high ranking Scientologist, that his private investigator, Gene Ingram, “fed” a confession to Ala Tamimi when visiting him in an Italian prison. This false confession was, in substance, that Tamimi had been involved in a bad check scam involving an account of L. Ron Hubbard. This false confession implicated attorney Michael Flynn in the check scam. Michael Flynn was at the time considered a major enemy of Scientology because he represented numerous clients with claims against Scientology. This purported confession was used to slander and attack Michael Flynn. Michael Flynn has also been sued.by Scientology as part of its “strategy” for handling enemies.
23. During an IRS criminal investigation in the 1984 to 1985 time period, the IRS ordered production of various communications between Hubbard and Author Services, Inc. (ASI). The ASI staff worked literally day and night for several days reviewing documents so that unfavorable documents could be destroyed or otherwise concealed from the IRS. Lyman Spurlock and Marion M. Dendui, Scientologists involved in this operation, informed me of this operation. Also during this IRS investigation, my husband, Rick Aznaran, was ordered to remove and conceal any incriminating documents from certain locations. He was also directed to make the computer network “raid proof”. This involved creating a
system where incriminating documents could be deleted from computer storage rapidly and before the IRS could obtain control over the computers.
24. In 1985, I attended a conference on “squirrels” attended by Miscavige, Starkey, Spurlock, and McShane, members of top management, and others. In Scientology jargon, “squirrels” are people who use or practice some procedures also used by Scientology but who do not submit to the total control of the Scientology organization and, perhaps most importantly, who do not pay a percentage of their auditing or counseling fees to Scientology. At this meeting, David Miscavige ordered that public Scientologists be organized and motivated to physically attack squirrels and disrupt their operations. This was stated to be pursuant to the standard guidelines of Scientology. Pursuant to such directives, efforts were undertaken to intimidate and disrupt these persons and their organizations.
25. In 1981, operation “Juggernaut” was commenced. The purpose of this was to destroy Michael Flynn who, as stated above, was representing various plaintiffs with litigation against Scientology. This operation contemplated the use of infiltration, propaganda and attempts to persuade clients to turn against him.
26. The Guardians’ Office got into so much trouble, and worse yet got caught, that it was decided in the early 1980’s that the Guardians’ Office should be disbanded. This was purely a public relations gimmick. In short, it was decided that the Guardians’ Office and Mary Sue Hubbard, its then leader, were to take the rap for all criticism and improper conduct. This scheme was laid out in various written communications I observed in 1981
and 1982. (Of course, I was not allowed to keep or escape from Scientology with any such incriminating documents.)
27. Since the early 1970’s, Scientology has operated a forced labor camp known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”). Staff members are incarcerated in the RPF for various real or imagined offense. People confined at this camp are forced to perform hard physical labor every day. They eat rice and beans, or left-overs, and wear rags. They are deprived of sufficient sleep. In 1987, I was confined in such a camp at Happy Valley for approximately six weeks. I worked all day and was confined in a room at night. To the best of my knowledge I was guarded 24 hours a day. They would not even let me shower alone. I had to obtain permission to use a bathroom. I was ill and not allowed to obtain medical treatment. I was not allowed to communicate with my husband nor was I allowed to obtain adequate sleep. I was told that I had gone insane and that my husband did not want to communicate with me. I was physically and psychologically abused both at Happy Valley and for numerous days thereafter in a process called “security checking”. Much oversimplified, I was grilled on a primitive lie detector called an E-Meter and made to understand that I would not be released, have my property returned, or escape fair game policy unless I eventually gave all of the “right” answers. Examples of ” right” answers were responses that I would not talk to a lawyer or consider suing Scientology. I had to give such answers before being released.
28. Recovering from the years of brainwashing, thought control and propaganda to which Scientology subjected me is a
gradual process that I do not fully understand. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist and do not fully understand the ramifications of what I have been through although I can observe and experience many symptoms. I have many nightmares and a fear of Scientology.
29. The suit brought by Richard Aznaran and myself is based upon real events that happened to real people, namely us. Just as my husband and I do not need Mr. Yanny to educate us on any secrets of Scientology, it is simply untrue that our claims were somehow invented or manufactured by Mr. Yanny. The whimsical notion that Mr. Yanny invented this litigation through my husband and me is simply false.
30. My husband and I consider Mr. Yanny to be a friend. Further, it might be noted that Mr. Yanny was to serve as my personal counsel in a class action against Scientology and numerous individuals including myself. Recent events have changed this, however, .there was a period of time when Mr. Yanny was purportedly designated as my personal counsel with the approval of Scientology.
31. My husband and I feel quite strongly that we want Barry Van Sickle and the firm of Cummins & White to represent us in this case. Our reasons are both subjective and objective. We do not wish to list our subjective reasons, although we will do so if the Court requests it. Objectively, it might be noted that we had considerable difficulty finding counsel willing and in a position to undertake this extremely volatile, time consuming and expensive litigation. We are unable to pay hourly rates to pursue our claims and need a firm willing to work with us on a contingency
fee basis. I anticipate great difficulty, delay and prejudice if forced to find other counsel.
32. Based upon my experience within Scientology and as a litigant against it, I understand that this is not routine litigation. If I am forced to find other counsel, prospective counsel will be presented with the following situation:
(a) A complex case that must be handled on a contingency fee and cost-advanced basis;
(b) A case that requires a litigation team and substantial financial resources;
(c) A case involving an opponent who has a practice and history of suing opposing lawyers as a tactic in addition to subjecting opposing lawyers to surveillance, depositions, infiltration, bad publicity and the full ramifications of the fair game policy;
(d) A case where the opponent is not constrained by a need to be cost effective, truthful, honest or reasonable; and
(e) A case that requires extraordinary security precautions.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 9th day of August, 1988, in Dallas, Texas.
VICKI J. AZNARAN
I, Gerald Armstrong state and declare under the pains and penalties of perjury as follows1:
1. I was in Scientology from 1969 to 1981. I worked personally for L. Ron Hubbard during much of that time, and was personally appointed by Hubbard to be the researcher on a proposed biography of his life. During my work on that biography I assembled many documents concerning almost all of Hubbard’s life, and discovered that he had extensively lied about his education, credentials, past accomplishments, his role in Scientology, and Scientology itself. When I tried to work within the organization to make the truth known in a manner which would least damage Scientology and Hubbard, organization officials claimed I was an enemy trying to destroy the founder.
2. After I left the organization I was declared a “suppressive person” and subjected to the “Fair Game” doctrine. The organization began a “Black Propaganda Campaign” aimed at destroying my reputation. They initiated a covert intelligence operation against me, stole photos I had, and when I demanded their return told me to get an attorney. Fearing I would become the target of costly and harassive lawsuits, and believing my life and my wife’s life were in danger, and needing to defend myself, I contacted attorney Michael Flynn. I obtained from the author for whom I had done the biography research, copies of some of the documents I had seen while working on the biography project and I sent these documents to Mr. Flynn. The documents proved that what I had been saying about Hubbard was true and they showed a massive fraud on his part.
3. Scientology sued me, and after a five week trial in the California Superior Court it was ultimately determined that I was justified in sending the subject documents to my attorney. The Court stated in its decision, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D to this opposition:
“…just as the plaintiffs have First Amendment rights, the defendant has a constitutional right to an attorney of his own choosing. In legal contemplation the fact that defendant selected Mr. Flynn rather than some other lawyer cannot by itself be tortious. In determining whether the defendant unreasonably invaded Mrs. Hubbard’s privacy, the court is satisfied the invasion was slight, and the reasons and justification for defendant’s conduct manifest. Defendant was told by Scientology to get an attorney. He was declared an enemy by the Church. He believed, reasonably, that he was subject to “fair game.” The only way he could defend himself, his integrity, and his wife was to take that which was available to him and place it in a safe harbor, to wit, his lawyer’s custody.” 2
4. The knowledge that I have and the documents that I have seen are particularly damning to Hubbard and Scientology. Based on them, in part, Judge Breckenridge in his opinion in Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, C420 153, found that “the Church or its minions is fully capable of intimidation or other physical or psychological abuse”, it “abuses its own members civil rights”, “the organization over the years with its ‘Fair Game’ doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies”, L. Ron Hubbard is “a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements” and Scientology’s “practice of culling supposedly confidential ‘PC folders or files’ to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and/or harassment is repugnant and outrageous.” All of these findings were made by Judge Breckenridge in the case Scientology brought against me.
5. In order to compromise my effectiveness as a witness and undo the Breckenridge judgment, Scientology created the “Armstrong Operation”. It was a Scientology setup from the start. I was contacted in June of 1984 by an old friend of mine who told me that a group of individuals called the “Loyalists” were seeking to reform the organization, and end the criminal and tortious activities and the Fair Game doctrine. My friend said the “Loyalists” had existed for two years, they had people on staff in the organization and many others who supported their cause. The “Loyalists” wanted my help because I had contacts among other individuals who opposed the organization’s practices, and because I had been successful in litigating against the organization. They wanted me to act as their consultant.
6. I had several meetings with representatives of the “Loyalists” and was even taken to meet an attorney whom they said was going to file a lawsuit on their behalf to oust what they called the “criminal management’ of Scientology. Unknown to me, these meetings were covertly and illegally videotaped. The entire operation was a setup. The “Loyalists” had no intention of ending the organization’s illegal activities and were not planning to file a lawsuit. They were a fictional creation to make it look like I was conspiring to overthrow Scientology.
7. The videotapes do not reveal all of my conversations with the “Loyalists”. Scientology has chosen those parts which it feels are most beneficial to them. Even the videotapes they do use do not show what Scientology claims. They simply reveal conversations about ideas proposed by the “Loyalists” for their use in their struggle. Of course, since the “Loyalists” never really existed, nothing was ever carried out. In any event, the wild claims Scientology makes, that I conspired to plant false documents, steal privileged information, and set up some sort of sexual blackmail situation, are ridiculous. Judge Lander, in the case of Christofferson v. Scientology, et al, in Portland, Oregon recognized that the tapes do not say what the organization says they say. He stated, immediately after viewing the tapes on April 4, 1985:
“I think they are devastating. I think they are devastating against the Church. We certainly view them in a different way, Mr. Cooley, you and I.”
…”it borders more on entrapment than it does on anything else. How a sophisticated person, which Mr. Armstrong purports to be, could go for such an amateurish performance as I heard on these tapes is beyond me. The questions were being fed to him obviously; anytime he wanted to make an explanation, it was promptly cut off. There was no evidence of any attempt to commit a crime that I saw.” 3
In fact, on the tapes themselves, in response to a suggestion by one of the “Loyalists”, an operative named Mike Rinder, that false documents be created, I reply, “I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.”4
8. Despite Scientology allegations to the contrary, I was not acting as an agent of Michael Flynn, or various government agencies when I met with the “Loyalists”. I simply was responding to the “Loyalists” request for help from me, and I accepted their offer to help me out. They actively encouraged me to request all sorts of things, claiming they could get whatever I needed. Any requests I sent them I originated on my own. Neither Michael Flynn nor the federal government asked me to obtain any documents or information for them from the “Loyalists”. In fact, Michael Flynn cautioned me that the “Loyalists” might be an operation created by Hubbard.
9. Under California law, an individual cannot be videotaped without his consent. Scientology, at the Christofferson trial, claimed that a private investigator hired by them, Eugene Ingram, (who had been kicked off the Los Angeles police force for various offenses) obtained an authorization to secretly tape me from a police officer. In an official statement released by the Los Angeles Police Department, however, LAPD Chief Daryl Gates stated that the officer had no authorization, and that it would be “a cold day in hell” before the Los Angeles Police Department cooperated with Eugene Ingram. A copy of this announcement is attached hereto as Exhibit A5 I have learned from Commander Booth of the LAPD that the officer involved, Phillip Rodriguez, was suspended for six months due to his improper “authorization”.
10. If this court has any doubts about this entire illegal affair, I urge it to view the tapes themselves. They will plainly show that the Scientology charges are ridiculous and grossly inflated. It will also prove to the court that Scientology engages in precisely the types of covert criminal and tortious operations in violation of individuals’ rights which its critics have alleged it has committed for years.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 1st day of November, 1985, in Boston, Massachusetts.
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
THE RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
“Safeguarding man’s only route to total freedom — The Scientology Religion.”
28 April 1985
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20224
Attn: Mr. Richard Darling
OP:E:EO:T:R:3-RHD, Room 6047
This responds to your letters dated July 30, 1984, October 5, 1984 and January 18, 1985, regarding the application of the above named organization for recognition of its status as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Advanced Technology which you ask about in paragraph 2 on page one of your letter dated July 30, 1984, consists of purely religious material relating to advanced levels of spiritual attainment. Religious tenets of Scientology preclude the disclosure of this material to anyone other than bona fide Scientologists who are in good standing with the Mother Church and who have already reached a high level of spiritual attainment through participation in Scientology religious services. Disclosure of these materials would therefore violate our religious
doctrines, which we are unwilling to do, and we decline your request.
The following responds to paragraph 3 on pages one and two of the July 30 letter:
This organization owns the religious trademarks and advanced materials which were assigned to it by Mr. Hubbard, by the instruments which we have furnished to you. The fee arrangements in respect of these materials are as set forth in those instruments — no fees are required to be paid, have been paid or will be paid to Mr. Hubbard an account of the transfers — and in the agreements by which this organization has licensed other churches to use the marks and materials — there are no fees with respect to the marks, but are with respect to the advanced materials.
This organization has no ownership interest in Mr. Hubbard’s copyrights or patents, and has no arrangements with him with respect to them or the copyrighted works and patented items. This organization pays no royalties with respect to such property. It is our understanding that Mr. Hubbard has licensed New Era Publications and that it has sub-licensed Bridge Publications. This organization purchases copyrighted and patented materials from Bridge, and pays for them. Further:
a. We purchase E-Meters from Bridge Publications. The E-Meter is patented by Mr. Hubbard.
b. The Advanced Technology is not copyrighted.
c. Items of commerce such as a Class II Auditor’s Badge and other jewelry, insofar as we are aware, are manufactured under licenses from New Era Publications. This is pursuant to the reservation by Mr. Hubbard of commercial rights with respect to the marks, as set forth in the assignment by him to us. We neither pay nor receive royalties with respect to such goods.
In paragraph 4 on pages two, three and four of the July letter, you quote two portions from the agreements respecting the Advanced Technology. One is a recital to the effect that revelation of the Advanced Technology to one who has not achieved the prerequisite spiritual levels may harm him or her. The other is a provision of the agreement as to steps to be taken to safeguard the material from improper disclosure. You assert that these suggest that we would condone acts of
violence and non-compliance with civil authority, — ask whether we would be compelled to refuse to comply with a valid court order to produce the materials. The harm referred to in the recital is the harm resulting to the unqualified person who studies these materials, by reason of studying and attempting to apply the material when he or she has not been spiritually prepared in accordance with the tenets of the religion. We do not condone the use of violence. This organization has no intention of defying any court order to produce anything, does not construe the agreement as requiring us to do so and has no expectation that any court will order us to disclose these religious materials in violation of our sincerely held religious beliefs.
In paragraph 5 on page four, you ask about the provision of our Bylaws respecting “a proven Scientology executive, as evidenced by statistics.” Scientologists believe that the job performance of an individual should be measured by his production rather than by the opinions of his superiors, and that the production associated with any particular job can and should be quantified as a measureable statistic. This organization follows that precept, and that is what is intended by the quoted provision.
In paragraph 6 on page four of your July 30 letter you state that there was a “major reorganization of the hierarchy of Scientology organizations” and ask a number of related questions. You refer to 1982, but most of the changes occurred in 1981 and so we include them. The changes were these:
(1) The incorporation of church of Scientology International, church of Scientology of Los Angeles, Church of Scientology of San Francisco and Church of Scientology Flag Service org, Inc., and transfers of property by Church of Scientology of California to them. Those organizations thereafter carried on activities which had formerly been
conducted by the California Church:
The Los Angeles and San Francisco Churches are Class IV churches and conduct the normal activities of such churches.
Church of Scientology Flag Service Org exists in Florida and engages in the activities of a high level church — the conduct of advanced religious services for upper level Scientologists. That church also conducts religious services at lower levels.
Church of Scientology International conducts the activities of the Mother Church.
The property transferred to each corporation was the property used in the conduct of the activities which the corporation would engage in. This included real property in Florida (conveyed to Church of Scientology Flag Service Org) and San Francisco (conveyed to the San Francisco church). The transfers were sales at fair market value.
(2) The incorporation of this corporation, and the assignment to it by Mr. Hubbard of the religious marks and advanced religious materials.
The primary effects and purposes of the changes mentioned in (1) were:
(a) To separately incorporate the two Class IV churches (San Franciso and Los Angeles) and the Flag Service Org Church. The functions of these churches within the hierarchy were and are the delivery to their individual parishioners of religious services at specific locations — in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Clearwater, Florida, respectively. This had the purpose and effect of placing the activities and property of each in a separate corporation formed under the laws of the, appropriate state, with separate governing boards and corporate officers.
(b) To remove the higher level ecclesiastical functions of the Mother church from Church of Scientology of California to a separate corporation (the Mother Church) which did not (and does not) include any of the lower churches of the hierarchy. Church of Scientology of California retained the Advanced Organization Los Angeles and the American Saint Hill Organization, which are intermediate level churches.
The basic intent of these changes was to align corporate organization
with ecclesiastical function and geographical location, under separate corporations.
The primary effects and purposes of the change in category (2) were:
(a) The creation of an organization to which Mr. Hubbard would transfer the marks and the advanced materials, in order that the purity of the religion would be perpetually maintained.
(b) To place the marks and advanced materials in a separate corporation under its own directors and officers, and with its own staff, to the end that it would be in a position to enforce compliance through contractual relationships with the corporations housing the other churches of the hierarchy as an aid to its ecclesiastical authority.
(c) To be able to carry out its function of protecting the purity of the religion with the assistance of enforceable contracts with separate corporations, under the auspices of a corporation which did not also house a church with the same primary activities and functions as those it would supervise. I.e., to avoid the possibility of any conflict within one corporation between the duty to supervise the purity of the religion (on the one hand) and the functions of the delivery of religious services to parishioners and the dissemination and expansion of the church (on the other).
In short, and generally speaking, the purpose, intent and effect of the changes described above were to align corporate organizations with the functions, activities and particular purposes of the several elements of the hierarchical church (and geographically to the extent possible); to transfer the marks and advanced materials to a church (this church) in order to assure purity perpetually; and to place distinct ecclesiastical functions in separate corporations.
These changes were initiated and overseen by church officials and by attorneys consulted by them. Additionally, representatives of Mr. Hubbard and his attorneys were involved in respect of matters relating to the religious marks.
In this paragraph 6 you also ask generally how the ecclesiastical structure works, and about the chain of command. We have enclosed as Exhibit A a recent church publication which describes the present hierarchical structure with specific reference to the chain of command. Please note that this describes the ecclesiastical structure and chain of command, rather than corporate structure and control (which is held and exercised by the governing bodies of the many separate corporations, each in accordance with its articles of organization).
In paragraph 7 on pages four and five, you ask about our payments to Church of Spiritual Technology. This organization has contributed to Church of Spiritual Technology to provide to it the funds it will need to accomplish its purpose of’ the preservation and protection of the scriptures of the religion. These contributions satisfied an obligation of this organization to expend part of its receipts for religious purposes which are specified in the instrument by which Mr. Hubbard assigned the advanced materials to us.
We object to the inclusion in the administrative record of the newspaper article to which you refer in paragraph 8 on page five of your letter. We nevertheless respond to your specific factual inquiries, as follows:
a. We have and have had no connection with Mr. Litt.
b. There is no validity whatever to the statement attributed to Laurel Sullivan that this organization was a part of a plan to pay Mr. Hubbard $85,000,000 for trademark and copyright interests. Mr. Hubbard gave the trademarks to us and retained his copyrights, and has been paid and will be paid nothing by this organization with respect to either.
c. There is no validity whatever to the statement attributed to former Church officials that Mr. Hubbard
still controls the Church and has turned over daily operations to David Miscavige and Pat and Ann Broeker, two of whom are trustees of this corporation. Only one of them is such a trustee, and the function of the trustees is in respect of the election and removal of Directors — they have no authority with respect to governance of the organization, which is entrusted to its Board of Directors.
Our Form 990 for 1983, prepared by Alexander Grant & Company, is enclosed as Exhibit B.
In paragraph 10 on page five you ask about ‘Fair Game.’ Exhibit C enclosed herewith includes issues respecting this matter. The matter is discussed further below in response to your letter of October 5, 1984.
We turn now to your letter dated October 5, 1985.
The first page and the first paragraph on page two include no request for information of this organization.
The remainder of page two is devoted to your interpretations and statements about cases which are pending in court. The cases to which you refer are:
A. Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., et. al. v. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et. al., Civil No. 78-0107 in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
B. Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. No. 25 (September 24, 1984),
C. Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong , No. C 420153 (California Superior Court, July 20, 1984).
In the second paragraph on page two you state that the Tax Court found that L. Ron Hubbard controlled the Church of Scientology of California during the years 1970 through 1972, those being the years in
issue in the case referred to in paragraph b above. We note, and call to your attention, that the last year in issue in that case preceded the incorporation of this corporation by nine years. Assuming arguendo that the findings of the Tax Court were correct, they clearly are irrelevant to this corporation. In any event, the relevant facts have changed since those years. See the declarations which are enclosed herewith as Exhibits D, E, F and G.
In the second paragraph on page two of your letter, you assert that “[D]ocuments contained in the District Court case [i.e., the case referred to in paragraph B above) are replete with information that the applicants (the reorganized Scientology hierarchical organizations) including you, are part of a plan to develop corporate integrity for each but to retain overall control by L. Ron Hubbard . . . “. This organization is not and never was part of any such alleged plan; it was not formed as a part of any such alleged plan; it is operated and contolled by its officers, directors and staff members; and it is not, controlled by Mr. Hubbard.
In the last paragraph on page two of your letter, you ask for our comments upon specific documents, all of which are included in the record of the District Court case referred to in paragraph A above. These are the documents, followed by our comments:
1. Memorandum In Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
This memorandum was filed by the defendants (including your organization) in the District Court case referred to in paragraph A above. In the first paragraph on page 3 of your letter (following the list of referenced documents), you characterize the arguments in the memorandum and draw conclusions of fact based thereon. The gist of what you say is that Mr. Hubbard controls the “Church” through Mr. Miscavige, Author Services, Inc., the Commodore’s
Messengers and Sea Organization. Please refer to the declarations enclosed herewith as Exhibits E, F, G and H which, as you will note, are declarations by individuals who were and are in positions which make them competent to assert the facts they have asserted.
2. Declaration of Laurel Sullivan.
As you note in the last paragraph on page three of your letter, this declaration relates to matters prior to 1982. It in fact relates to matters prior to the organization of this applicant, and does not mention this applicant.
3. Declaration of Kima Douglas.
As you note in the first full paragraph an page four of your letter, this declaration asserts matters prior to the end of 1950, and therefore prior to the incorporation of this organization. It does not mention this organization.
4. Declaration of Gerald Armstrong
The matters in this declaration to which you refer in the paragraph of your letter which begins on page four and ends on page five all relate to organizations other than this organization, and to events occurring prior to the incorporation of this organization. The declaration does not mention this organization or any of its activities, directly or indirectly.
5. Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong.
Our comments follow:
The trial court decision in this case (which you furnished to us with your letter) refers to the plaintiff (Church of Scientology of California) and to other organizations of the hierarchical Church. This organization was not a party to the case. Neither your comments nor the evidence cited by you relate specifically to this church. However, we wish to comment as follows:
You cite the issuance of a suppressive person declare “. . . designed to make Defendant Armstrong an appropriate subject of the Scientology ‘Fair Game Doctrine.’ Said Doctrine allows any suppressive person to be ‘tricked, cheated, lied to, sued or destroyed.'”
You cite matters relating to the assertion that Mr. Hubbard controls the church through the Sea Org and the Commodore’s Messengers Organization.
The issuance of a suppressive person declare by a Church of
Scientology reflects and documents a Decision by which officials that the declared individual falls within the class of individuals known in Scientology terminology as “suppressive persons.” These are anti-social individuals bent upon actions which suppress others and society, and who especially seek to suppress individuals who and organizations which attempt to better the lot of mankind. Mr. Armstrong was found to be clearly and certainly in this category and so was declared. The consequences of this are that he may no longer participate in the religious services of Scientology or the affairs of any church of the religion. The declare of Mr. Armstrong is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
The assertion that a Scientologist is free to injure a suppressive person is utterly false, as is the allegation that there is or ever was any “Fair Game Doctrine” such as you have described. The violation of another’s civil rights is itself a suppressive act, violates fundamental doctrines of the religion and would result in disciplinary action by the Church — and this is so whether or not the injured person is or has been declared a suppressive person.
As to the second matter — control by Mr. Hubbard — see the declarations which are referred to above.
The matters you discuss beginning with the last paragraph on page three of your October 5 letter and continuing through page six all relate to allegations about matters prior to the incorporation of this applicant, and to organizations other than this applicant. You have based this discussion upon statements and testimony of individuals who were once Scientologists and who have been expelled from the Church.
Your discussion, insofar as it bears any remote relevance to the exempt status of this organization, centers around the Mission Corporate
Category Sort or MCCS, which you describe (generally speaking) as a plan to develop corporate integrity while retaining control by Mr. Hubbard. You assert that this and other newly formed Scientology corporations were the product of such a plan. We suggest that your position in this is mistaken in light of the fact, which you apparently do not dispute or deny, that this corporation is legally organized consistent with section 501(c)(3), has not since its incorporation engaged in any activities other than those which accomplish its religious purposes, has not operated for Mr. Hubbard’s private benefit and has paid nothing to or for the benefit of Mr. Hubbard or any other private person.
We thus perceive no relevance to the allegations respecting the MCCS. However, we do point out to you that in fact the MCCS was considered within the Church of Scientology of California to have been a complete failure, and that it and the personnel involved in it had nothing to do with the restructuring of the Church which occurred during 1981 and 1982. Indeed, the MCCS planning and work were ignored by those involved in the restructuring which we have described above. See Exhibit J enclosed herewith.
In point of fact, the witnesses upon whom you and the court in the Armstrong case relied are embittered and vengeful individuals, bent upon the destruction of the Church. See Exhibit J. Furthermore, their credibility as witnesses has been destroyed by their documented perjury:
Howard Schomer. See Exhibit K, paragraphs 7 and 9, pages 4, 5 and 6.
Laurel Sullivan. See Exhibit K, paragraph 6, page 4.
Eddie Walters. See Exhibit K, paragraph 5, pages 2 and 3.
Gerald Armstrong. See Exhibit L.
Indeed, Gerald Armstrong, the principal witness upon whom you have relied, has carried his vendetta against the Church to the extremes of planning the forgery and planting in church files of incriminating documents in order to justify a takeover of the church through court process, and the subornation of perjury and blackmail to the same end, i.e., as part of a plan to gain control of the Church and its resources — not for the benefit of the Church or the religion but for the private enrichment of himself and other disaffected individuals who are clients of attorney Michael Flynn. See Exhibit L.
These, then are our comments, in short — the matters to which you have referred relate almost entirely to other times and other organizations, and they stem from embittered individuals who were expelled from the church, who are perjurers and who seek either to destroy the Church or to take control of it for their private enrichment.
We turn now to your letter of January 18, 1985, which refers to sections I and IV of your letter of the same date to Church of Spiritual Technology. Section I of that letter in turn refers to the two letters to which we have responded above. The following responds to section: IV, which is premised upon the material in the Armstrong case to which we have responded above. We respond further, as follows:
1. You request a description of past and present associations of each of our officers, directors and trustees with numerous corporations and ecclesiastical units. We object and decline to comply until you first inform us of all uses to which you intend to put such information and of the relevance thereof to this organization’s exempt status. This is based upon constitutional rights of association and upon the fact that the Internal Revenue Service has allied itself with
individuals who seek to destroy the Church and has encouraged them to do so (as discussed below).
2. The materials referred to in this sub-paragraph on page six of your letter are not in the possession of, under the control of or available to this corporation, except for Flag Order 3729 (see Exhibit M) and the order declaring Mr. Armstrong a suppressive person (see Exhibit I H).
You assert in this sub-paragraph that an official of this corporation who also serves on the governing board of a different corporation would have the ability to control these materials were they in the possession of that corporation. Your premise is not true — none of the personnel of this corporation is on the governing board of any such corporation. Additionally, your reasoning is flawed, because any such individual would of course hold his or her position on the governing board of the other corporation as a position of trust and with a fiduciary duty to the other corporation.
We point this out only as a theoretical matter under the circumstances, i.e., because none of our personnel is in such a position in any event.
Section III of your letter of January 18, 1985 to Church of Spiritual Technology is devoted to arguments in support of your position that the Internal Revenue Service cannot rule upon the exemption application of any Scientology organization until all of them have furnished all of the information you have requested of them. You base this upon what you perceive to be “connections” among the applicants, such as their having retained the same attorneys (Hamel & Park of Washington, D.C., and LeSourd & Patten of Seattle) and accountants (Alexander Grant & Co. and Laventhal and Horwath). Although you have not asked us to comment upon your arguments, we volunteer the observation that they appear to us to be flimsy and unsupported by any authority, considering the fact that each applicant is a separate corporation or trust, maintains and accounts for its own assets and engages in its own activities. Each is therefore either exempt or not, and, as we understand it, it is your duty to make a
determination upon such complete application which the applicant has responded to all reasonable requests for information.
However, we request that you refrain from making any determination as to our exempt status until we have had an opportunity to supplement the administrative record. This request is based upon information we have received from Church of Scientology of California to the effect that material relating to the credibility of Mr. Armstrong and other witnesses in the Armstrong case is being prepared for submission to the court which decided that case. We want an opportunity to place any new material relevant to your reliance upon that case in this record.
It had been our hope that the long standing institutional prejudice of the Internal Revenue Service against our religion and its churches would be set aside, and that this application would be acted upon in good faith. The evidence that that is not your intention is now overwhelming and cannot be ignored — Gerald Armstrong, upon whose word you rely and who you assert is a reliable and credible witness, has made it clear that his and his associates plan to destroy the Church was not only initiated and furthered with your knowledge and approval but as your agent. We therefore now also deem it necessary to supplement the record with the materials which document your long standing institutional prejudice against Scientology and Scientologists, and will do so in the near future.
Very truly yours,
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
By [signed Vicki Aznaran]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
a/k/a MO BUDLONG
Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3) 1
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America respectfully submits this Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court in imposing sentence in this case.
The defendants, Jane Kember and Morris Budlong, were each found guilty, following a jury trial, of nine counts of aiding and abetting burglary in the second degree. The evidence which led the jury to return these guilty verdicts revealed that during the years 1973 to 1976 the defendants ordered the commission of brazen, systematic and persistent burglaries of United States Government offices. Their purpose was to ransack these offices of all documents of interest to the organization which they led — the Guardian’s Office of the Church of Scientology — in order to secure total exemption from taxation and to protect Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard. In the process, from their headquarters in East Grinstead, England, they challenged and attempted to undermine the judicial and governmental structure of the United States. They did so by fraudulently using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a manner never intended by the Congress of the United States.
As this Court heard, these defendants set about filing FOIA requests with various Government agencies in order, inter alia, to cause these agencies to gather all the requested documents in a central repository for the review process mandated by the FOIA. Once the Guardian’s Office discovered where these documents were located, they began a systematic pillaging of that office — repeated
– 2 –
and surreptitiously breaking into that office, taking the documents, photocopying them with Government equipment and supplies, and replacing them in the Government files so that, in the words of defendant Budlong, these thefts would not be uncovered.
Notwithstanding the fact that they had obtained illegally all the documents they were seeking, they proceeded to file FOIA suits in the courts of this country, complaining that the particular Government agencies had not given them all the documents to which they were entitled. Thus, they perpetrated a fraud upon the American judicial system. They came into the American courts with unclean hands, seeking documents which they had already obtained by violating the laws of the United States. After abusing the trial courts, they proceeded to abuse the appellate courts never disclosing that they were engaging in litigation in bad faith, totally heedless of the waste of judicial resources involved. Such conduct, which strikes at the very heart of the judicial system, cannot be tolerated.
These defendants additionally ordered the theft of documents and memoranda of attorneys representing the United States Government, a party against whom they had instituted a variety of lawsuits. They did so to discover the attorneys’ legal strategy and gain an unfair strategic advantage in the courts. In effect, they violated the attorney-client privilege of every litigant who opposed them, a fact which they seek to obfuscate by complaining in bad faith, that their own attorney-client privileges were violated. Such conduct cannot be permitted in our judicial system.
Once their emissaries were caught in the midst of one of their criminal acts, the defendants orchestrated from England a massive obstruction of the due administration of justice. Such outrageous conduct, which, we submit, this Court can consider under standards recognized by the Supreme Court, strikes at the very heart of our judicial system — a system which has often, at crucial times in our history, been the savior of our institutions.
– 3 –
Moreover, a review of the documents seized from the two Los Angeles, California, offices of the Guardian’s Office — including log books of messages from these two defendants — show the incredible and sweeping nature of the criminal conduct of these defendants. Indeed, Guardian Program Order 158, and some of the other orders in evidence, have already provided the Court with a glimpse of this conduct. These crimes included: the infiltration and theft of documents from a number of prominent private, national, and world organizations, law firms, newspapers, and private citizens; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless law suits for the sole purpose of destroying private individuals who had attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; the framing of private citizens who had been critical of Scientology, including the forging of documents which led to the indictment of at least one innocent person; and violation of the civil rights of prominent private citizens and public officials. These are but a few of the criminal acts of these two defendants which, we submit, give the Court a glimpse of the heinous and vicious nature of their crimes.
In view of the severity of the crimes of which the defendants Kember and Budlong were convicted, the high level of their positions in the organizational hierarchy of the Guardian’s Office, compared with the positions held by their nine co-defendants who were convicted after a non-jury trial based on an uncontested stipulation of evidence, as well as the additional information which we now bring to this Court’s attention, we submit that the public interest demands the imposition of substantial terms of incarceration. This Court must make it clear beyond peradventure that the criminal conduct of these two defendants cannot be countenanced, and that anyone who sets about masterminding and executing the crimes of which they were convicted, uses and then tampers with the judicial
– 4 –
system as they have, will be dealt with in the most severe terms provided by the law.
The right of this Court to consider evidence of other crimes prior to imposing a sentence has long been recognized. It is well settled that “before making [a sentencing] determination, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972). Courts have a duty to obtain as much information as they can about a convicted defendant’s background, character, and conduct, criminal or otherwise, so that they can impose a sentence to fit the circumstances of the ease and the individual defendant. See United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978); 18 U.S.C. S 3577 (1976). Thus, hearsay assertions are admissible, Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959), as is information about prior crimes committed by the defendant, even if the indictments for those crimes are pending, United States v. Metz, 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 919 (1973); or the defendant was never tried for the other crimes, Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 244 (1949); or the charges were dismissed without an adjudication on the merits, United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 843 (1965); United States v. Needles, 472 F.2d 652, 655 (2d Cir. 1973); or the defendant otherwise avoided conviction. United States v. Jones, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 233, 307 F.2d 190 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 919 (1963); United States v. Cifarelli, 401 F.2d 512, 514 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 987 (1968). Even facts developed in prosecutions where the defendant was acquitted can be considered by the sentencing judge. United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1972).
– 5 –
In addition, the Court can consider all the circumstances surrounding a defendant’s conviction for the present crime. A court is also warranted in increasing the sentence when it believes that the defendant has undermined the judicial system through repeated perjury. United States v. Grayson, supra.
The Charges on Which the Defendants Were Convicted and the Continuation of the Burglaries after Meisner and Wolfe Were Caught.
Each of the two defendants now before the Court were found guilty of nine counts of aiding and abetting second degree burglaries of government offices at the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and the office of an Assistant United States Attorney in this very courthouse. The evidence at their trial proved beyond any doubt that the defendants not only commanded and directed these burglaries but also received the fruits of the burglaries — copies of the stolen Government documents — and that they commended and awarded their subordinates for their success in these criminal endeavors. Based on this overwhelming evidence, with which this Court is intimately familiar, a jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty against both defendants.
The evidence further shows, however, that the defendants did not stop their elaborate schemes on June 11, 1976 when they were informed that Michael Meisner and Gerald Bennett Wolfe had been confronted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations in this very courthouse during one of their attempted burglaries. Indeed, to the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the defendants continued to issue Guardian Orders and directives commanding crimes identical to those for which they have been convicted. We submit that such evidence is probative at a sentencing because it brings into focus more than anything else the refusal by the defendants to live by the law — their apparently intractable
– 6 –
conviction that they are somehow above the law. This is illustrated by Mrs. Hubbard’s statement on the witness stand that she and her codefendants, including these two defendants, felt they could do to others whatever they perceived, however erroneously, others were doing to them. Thus, they created the “Intelligence” or “Information” Bureau because they decided they had no use for the lawful remedies provided by our legal system. See e.g.: Government Exhibit No. 2 at trial. Such behavior, we submit, cannot be tolerated in any civilized society.
The following is a sampling of a few of the directives and orders which show that the defendants continued their illegal activities beyond June 1976:
Date and Exhibit Order or Communication 31 July 1976
(Gov’t Exh. No. 109)
(Exh. No. 1 hereto)
Compliance Report Re: Guardian Program Order 302 Operating Target 5. Lists priorities for penetration of Government agencies. Among agencies targeted for penetration: CIA, FBI, Defense Communications Agency, Federal Protective Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of the President and Vice President of the United States, the United States Senate, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 15 October 1976
(Gov’t Exh. No. 107)
(Exh. No. 2 hereto)
Defendant Budlong to Richard Weigand: “Attached is a project which can be utilized to debug and accomplish any infiltrating target you may have trouble with in your area.” Budlong demands that n[e]ach time it is implemented . . . B 1 WW is to be notified.”The attached project is called WEAVER’S NEEDLE. Major Target: “To successfully infiltrate (name of agency or organization) to locate and obtain their files on the C of S.” 27 May 1977
(Gov’t Exh. No. 111)
(Exh. No. 3 hereto)
Defendant Jane Kember reissues Guardian Program Order 158 as GPgmO 158 R (Reissue). While tracking the previous order of 5 December 1975 it refines it and changes some of the targets. Defendant Budlong’s title appears immediately before Kember’s name at the end of the order, indicating he approved the order.
– 7 –
3 June 1977
(Gov’t Exh. No. 112)
(Exh. No. 4 hereto)
U.S. Secretary W.W. Hermann Brendel in a communication sent to defendants Kember and Budlong also lists priorities for B 1 U.S., including obtaining all U.S. Government files, and U.S. District Attorney, Los Angeles, files. It lists various operations against private individuals and organizations and state agencies including getting: (1) Susan Mondale “checked out;” (2) “Time-Life Books discredited.”
Additionally, based upon the correspondence between the defendant Jane Kember and Deputy Guardian U.S. Henning Heldt, there is no question but that the defendant Kember directed, encouraged, and personally monitored the Guardian’s Office attempt to attack and destroy Assistant United States Attorney Nathan Dodell. Indeed on June 6, 1976, defendant, Kember wrote to Heldt: “Have we ever done a really thorough B1 investigation of Dodell? . . . let me know what B1 found on him . . . want the intelligence] actions looked over.” That directive was complied with on 29 June 1976. See Exh. No. 6 hereto. Then on June 9, 1976 defendant Kember telexed former co-defendant Heldt: “Re: Justice Dodell attack strategy & yr desp[atch] 4 June. I consider that yr actions are excellent and that you are holding the line beautifully. V[ery] Well] D[one] and let me know how it goes.” She was given the information on 29 June 1976. See Exh. No. 7 hereto.
We submit that a mere sampling of the orders and communications emanating from these defendants indicates their heavy involvement not only in the criminal activities for which they were convicted but also in identical criminal activities for at least the year following the FBI’s confrontation with Meisner and Wolfe in this 1/ courthouse. Such a pervasive pattern of conduct would indicate
1/ While Kember and Budlong claim that the burglaries were carried out solely to remove “false reports” from Government files, the documents show otherwise. In fact, one of the programs of the Guardian’s Office called for the deliberate planting of false reports in Government files. In a World Wide project issued 16 September 1975 by (continued on next page)
– 8 –
that the only reason our proof of these criminal ventures ends in June 1977 is that the searches took place on July 8, 1977. One can only speculate as to whether these illegal activities were ever terminated by these defendants.
1/ (continued from preceding page) aide David Gaiman, Deputy Guardian for Public Relations World-Wide, an operation is ordered to plant false information in U.S. Security agency computers, “to hold up the American security to ridicule, as outlined in the GO by LRH.” It describes the plan as “to take a cat with a pedigree name . . . and to get the name into a computer file, together with a record whether it be criminal, social welfare, driving or whatever; and to build the sequence of events to the point where the creature holds a press conference and photographic story results.” The project called for the use of plants to place the false information into U.S. security agency computers. See Exh. No. 5 hereto.
IV.The seized documents demonstrate beyond peradventure that the two defendants before the Court for sentencing, Jane Kember and Morris Budlong, from their secure haven in East Grinstead, England, orchestrated a massive cover-up, obstructing the administration of justice in the ‘United States. They suppressed and fabricated evidence to be presented to and the grand jury in order to insulate from liability for the crimes which they investigating authorities themselves and Scientology had ordered and committed, including the nine burglaries of which they now stand convicted.
The Obstruction of justice
In so doing, they committed crimes ranging from harboring a fugitive to suborning perjury. Not only did they commit these crimes against the American judicial system, but they did so with impunity. Examples from a few of the seized documents provide a flavor of the brazenness and singlemindedness with which these two defendants set about obstructing the American judicial system. We submit that this Court not only can, but indeed should, consider this evidence in assessing the culpability of these defendants and the likelihood of their rehabilitation, or lack of such likelihood.
A. As to Jane Kember, the following are summaries of but a few of her communications which show her clearly at the helm of the conspiracy to obstruct justice:
Date and Exhibit Communication June 25, 1976
GWW Log Book,
p. 141 (Exh. No.
Jane Kember sends telex to Henning Heldt: “Re: Guardian’s Office D.C., Evaluation. Leave Herbert [Meisner] where he is. If Patsy [Meisner] not OK work out other solution.” [Complied to November 18, 1976]. October 29, 1976
GWW Log Book,
p. 149, (Exh. No.
Jane Kember sends telex to Henning Heldt: “Henning. I am totally overrun
– 10 –
9 hereto) on not getting vital date from BI lines. I want the following data in full. Re: MH [Mike Meisner] and your Boffin eval which has not even been received at WW. Are you having trouble with MM [Meisner] and why? I want full report and precise details. What are the possibilities of a Grand Jury investigation? I want full details. Why does the CSG [Mary Sue Hubbard] ordered time schedule have to be altered to await the outcome of the Silver [Wolfe] trial. If MM pleaded guilty could he then just say nothing or appear to be type 3 [crazy)? Will you please get me a full report on this whole scene without any justifications as to security being the reason for withhold of vital data. Much love, Jane.” November 1, 1976
GWW Log Book,
p. 150 (Exh. No. 10 hereto)
Jane Kember sends telex to Henning Heldt: “Problems appear to be with MM [Meisner] (1) Overts [thoughts against Scientology] been pulled [i.e., drawn out of him in an auditing session]?; (2) Is he producing? (3) Anyone explained that cooperation out of the question; (4) anyone explained why we want Silver’s case handled first?; and (5) anyone explained he will not open his mouth? . . .” November 1, 1976
GW Log Book,
p. 151 (Exh. No. 11
Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: “D.C. MM [Meisner] Mess. Please get BI data up the line fast and also data on urgent situations.” November 12, 1976,
GWW Log Book,
p. 155 Exh. No.
Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: “Re: Herbert [Meisner]. That sounds much better. Please let me know when his overts have been pulled.” [See Exh. No. 10, supra). January 11, 1977,
GWW Log Book,
p. 162 Exh. No.
Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: “Henning, Please send me a list of all the people who know about the M [Meisner] cycle. Then please report on how you are getting eyes only actually being duplicated and all extraneous people off, repeat off, the lines. Much love, Jane.” April 20, 1977,
Exh. No. 14
Handwritten letter from Jane Kember to Henning Heldt: [Jane Kember sets out in detail the present plans for the cover-up, and asks what is causing the delay in completion of the cover-up. She concludes: “Please write a detailed
– 11 –
report which actually answers these questions . . .”].
B. As to Morris Budlong, the seized documents clearly show that every detail of the cover-up had to receive his specific approval.
Date and Exhibit Communication September 28, 1976
(Exh. No. 15
from Mo Budlong to Dick Weigand, DGIUS, cc to Jane Kember: Sets forth plan for harboring Meisner as a fugitive (change his identity, go into hiding) and obstructing justice by having Wolfe plead guilty, giving no details of the reason for being in the courthouse. Concludes: “If any of the above is not clear, please ask immediately as I don’t want any confusions on what has to be done.” November 2, 1976
(Exh. No. 16
Mo Budlong sends telex to Greg Willardson, DDGIUS, criticizing the Information Bureau for handling the obstruction of justice by itself without help from the Legal Bureau. Concludes: “Rectify this immediately. BI handles security and keeps M [Meisner] and Silver [Wolfe] cheered up. Legal handles the cases and Legal handling. You will wrap all of BI round a telegraph pole if you continue this way. Send full explanation by telex, Love, Mo.” December 1, 1976
(Exh. No. 17
To Mo Budlong, cc: to Jane Kember, from Mitchell Hermman: Sets out details on how the obstruction of justice is being handled in the United States Guardian’s Office. Concludes by telling Mo Budlong that the overall cover story for Meisner and Wolfe is being prepared for his final approval. January 24, 1977
(Exh. No. 18
Telex to Mo Budlong from Dick Weigand, DGIUS: “Re: Silver [Wolfe]: Justice going for Grand Jury on Silver matter this month. Also Justice wants to talk with Silver. Plan is to stall Grand Jury by Silver promise of talk in end of January. Handling is to get Silver briefed and drilled at US by BI and Legal to give Justice admission of guilt and back-up story if needed from Herbert [Meisner] Pjt currently at WW, specifically Tgt. 4. Need your ok on use of Tgt. 4 to proceed.
– 12 –
Intention is with Silver drilled and briefed he can get Justice to drop Grand Jury. Grand Jury not wanted as Silver could be given immunity then made to give data as no 5th Amendment rights after immunity. Then data from him could be used to get us or Herb [Meisner) or even used against Silver if proved false. Can I get your telex OK or not OK on Tgt. 4 so as to proceed. Love, DGIUS. . . January 24, 1977
(Exh. No. 19 hereto)
In reply to the above, Mo Budlong sends telex to Dick Weigand, DGIUS: “Target 4 on my copy is to brief Silver on story. This is OK but DGLWW requires more data on grand jury’s powers and has asked DGIUS for same [A] If Silver [Wolfe] states that he will plead guilty will Grand Jury proceed? [B] Is Grand Jury going for indictment on Silver or Murphy? [C] If Silver is to plead guilty, why does he need a story? [D] Also per plan, if Murphy [Meisner] is to plead guilty, why does he need a story? Surely sequence is he is arrested, goes to trial, pleads guilty and is sentenced. Much love, MO.” January 24, 1977
(Exh. No. 20 hereto)
In reply to the above, Dick Weigand telexes Mo Budlong: “Re: Silver [Wolfe]. Reply to your Q’s: (A) If Silver pleads guilty, matter should not go to Grand Jury. This needs to be verified by Legal. (B) Grand Jury is for Silver. (C) Story for following: United States Attorney’s Office District of Columbia has theory that Silver and Herb [Meisner] after documents for Church. They want to determine what Silver was up to and will drop charges if they determine theory not true. A meeting with them was set up at their request to go over this. Silver story for meeting. Purpose twofold: to provide time for legal to research and to see if U.S. Attorney’s Office can be convinced to drop charges. Silver attorney predicts Silver will be charged with impersonation and forgery of I.D. and trespass. Silver has acknowledged doing this. Difficulties would come if he were also charged with conspiracy and Grand Jury was used to try to develop this charge aimed at Church. (D) Murphy [Meisner] story would be needed for same sit. . . May 3, 1977
(Exh. No. 21 hereto)
To Mo Budlong from DGIUS, Dick Weigand and Greg Willardson, DDGIUS; reports on handling of Meisner due to his lack of cooperation: “We went back to BI and organized a crew of guys to handle the worst eventualities
– 13 –
May 2, 1977
(Exh. No. 22 hereto)
by force if necessary (i.e., gag, handcuffs, etc.)”
“We eventually got to [Meisner’s] at about 2:15 a.m., 30 April, and Dick, Brian (SE Sec) and I went in to see [Meisner] first with the three guards . . . Herbert was quite upset about the guards initially . . . [H]e was not going to allow guards staying with him. He then threatened that then he would have to leave even if he had to make a scene, including involving the police . . . .
“At times throughout the above conversations the guards and I were searching through his belongings removing any materials connected with the Church or his notes on the scene, and safeguarding dangerous implements like knives, razors, etc. . . .
“We then left at about 6-6:30 a.m. with the guards in charge.”May 2, 1977 (Exh. No. 22 hereto)To Mo Budlong from DGIUS, Dick Weigand: . . . The guards stayed with [Meisner] and are with him now.
“Then on Saturday and Sunday I had people continue to look for a better place to take him. Sunday a place was found and Brian and the guards tried to move him. He refused and said he would pull in all sorts of trouble if we tried to get him out the door. He was physically removed from the building, and taken to the new place where he is still under constant watch. His auditing will hopefully be started today as the auditor is getting handled today . . . .”June 7, 1977 (Exh. 23 hereto)Letter (CSW) from DGIUS to Mo Budlong containing handwritten approval by Budlong: DGIUS proposes a slight change in the cover story to be used by Meisner when he turns himself in after a year as a fugitive. He is to claim that he found out he was wanted by calling his wife, instead of by calling Wolfe, as was originally the story. Mo approves the change in the cover story on June 15, 1977, writing: “This change is fine. Love, Mo B”June 22, 1977 (Exh. No. 24 hereto)To Mo Budlong, cc: to Jane Kember, from Cindy Raymond: Mo (and Jane) are informed attached) that Meisner has escaped and that B-I is developing programs, inter alia, to provide a cover for “his turning.”
– 14 –
Thus, as the evidence shows, these defendants orchestrated an elaborate cover-up, beginning in June 1976 and continuing through June 1977 and, no doubt, thereafter. In fact, a significant part of the defense they presented at trial — their attack on the integrity and reliability of Michael Meisner — was foreshadowed in the “obstruction documents.” They presented this Court with a shabby attempt at impeaching Meisner’s credibility by claiming that he stole money from the Church — the same false claim they made against another former Scientologist who had the courage to expose their crimes and thus fell victim to their fair game doctrine. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797 (Ct. App.. 1976), cert. denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977).
It is the two defendants before the Court for sentencing who, along with their already convicted and sentenced cohort, Mary Sue Hubbard, bear the greatest degree of responsibility for the massive conspiracy to obstruct justice which they jointly directed. While the others already convicted of that offense (Henning Heldt, Duke Snider, Gregory Willardson, Richard Weigand, Cindy Raymond, and Gerald Bennett Wolfe) indeed deserved the punishment they received, they acted under direct orders of Jane Kember and Morris Budlong, a factor appropriate for consideration by this Court in assessing the relative severity of the sentences that the defendants Kember and Budlong should receive.
– 15 –
Other Crimes Committed by These Defendants
The defendants’ contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in order to protect their Church from Government harrassment collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants. If anything, these documents establish beyond question that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured 2/them by the Constitution. The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment. Their targets included, among others, the American Medical Association (AMA), which had branded Scientology’s practice of “dianetics” as “quackery”; the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which sought to
2/ This is precisely how Scientology’s critics viewed Scientology’s activities. Newsweek, November 20, 1978 at 133: “The Church of Scientology relies on suits and petty harassment to register its complaints. In August, the Scientologists slapped a $1 million suit on the Los Angeles Times after it ran a series about the Church. The lilies wasn’t accused of libel; rather, the Scientologists claimed that the paper conspired with the FBI and Justice Department to violate the church’s civil rights by poisoning the atmosphere before a trial” of the nine convicted co-defendants. See also discussion, infra, regarding Scientology’s lawsuits against its perceived “enemy”, Paulette Cooper.
– 16 –
respond to private citizens’ inquiries about the courses offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to report the news and inform the public, law firms which represented individuals and organizations against whom Scientology initiated law suits (often for the sole purpose of harrassment); private citizens who attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize an organization whose tactics they condemned; and public officials who sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected or appointed in a fair and even-handed manner. To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, supra. That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person,” “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. (He may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Id., 58 Cal. App. 3d at 443 n.1, 129 Cal. Rptr. at 800 n.1. 3/ This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.
The United States submits that the activities outlined in this section show the scope, breadth and severity of the crimes committed
3/ This led the California Court of Appeals to state that “Any party whose tenets include lying and cheating in order to attack its ‘enemies’ deserves the results of the risk which such conduct entails.” Id., 58 Cal. App. 3d at 452, 129 Cal. Rptr. at 805.
Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that the fair game policy continued in effect well after the indictment in this case and the conviction of the first nine co-defendants. Defendants claim that the policy was abrogated by the Church’s Board of Directors in late July or early August, 1980, only after the defendants’ personal attack on Judge Richey. Transcript of September 5, 1980, at 14.
– 17 –
by the defendants in this case. It is for this very reason that the United States believes that the defendants must be sentenced to substantial terms of incarceration.
A. Private Organizations
American Medical Association
In the early 1970’s, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, issued an order concerning the “Great Health Monopoly”, which accused the AMA of monopolizing health care to the exclusion of groups such as Scientology. In this order, Hubbard called for the break-up of the AMA.
In accordance with the Founder’s policy, the AMA’s Chicago headquarters were first infiltrated by Scientology in 1972. Documents stolen during this period were utilized in the publication of a book written by unindicted co-conspirator Joe Lisa using a pseudonym. The book, entitled “In the Public Interest,” was covertly published and distributed by the Information Bureau of the Guardian’s Office in order to discredit the AMA.
In early 1974, Michael Meisner, then the Assistant Guardian for Information in the District of Columbia, was ordered to recruit and place an agent in the AMA’s District of Columbia office. Co-defendant Hermann, who was in charge of covert operations in the District of Columbia, recruited June Byrne and assisted her in infiltrating the local AMA office under the false name of Lisa Giannotti.4/ Among the documents photocopied and stolen by Byrne
4/ See Exh. No. 25 hereto, which contains much correspondence among co-defendants Heldt, Weigand and Raymond, with copies sent to defendants Kember and Budlong, concerning the use of Ms. Byrne as a covert operative at the Clearwater Sun newspaper, following her detection by AMA investigators in 1975. At page 4, co-defendant Heldt writes: “P.S. We must get this reported to WW.”
At page nineteen, co-defendant Raymond stated that June Byrne had been blown as a Scientology agent at the Clearwater Sun. She added “that there is a chain of events leading up to the base blown agents which starts in late 1974 when June (The CWSUN FSM) was placed in (continued on next page)
– 18 –
were minutes of meetings between the AMA and the National Medical Association; memoranda of discussions with the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and memoranda regarding the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) and the Co-ordinating Committee on Health Information (CCHI).
Another covert operative was placed in the Chicago headquarters of the AMA in order to obtain all documents on the CCHI. That agent, Sherry Hermann, a/k/a Sherry Canavaro, a/k/a Sandy Cooper, obtained all these documents and relayed them to her husband, co-defendant Mitchell Hermann who was her case agent. (Exhibit No. 26 hereto.)
In the Spring of 1975, Mr. Meisner received an order to covertly leak to the press the numerous AMA documents which had been obtained in the District of Columbia and Chicago. That action was intended to provoke investigations of the AMA’s tax exempt status by Congressional Committees, the IRS, and the Federal Trade Commission. Pursuant to these directives, Mr. Meisner was to anonymously contact reporters and send them copies of these stolen documents… Newspapers subsequently referred to that anonymous source as “Sore Throat.” Defendants Kember and Budlong were kept constantly apprised of the operations concerning the AMA, and indeed encouraged these activities. Thus, for example, on October 16, 1975, Jane Kember told Henning Heldt, in response to a report of his on October 7, 1975: “AMA: SORE THROAT . . . Let me know how this goes.” GWW Log, p. 101, Exh. No. 27 hereto. And again on October 21, 1975, defendant Kember telexed to Heldt the cover story to be used by AMA infiltrators, if caught:
Henning Re: Sore Throat . . . David [Gaiman –
4/ (continued from preceding page) the AMA D.C.” Co-defendant Raymond discussed, the placement of Jodie Gumpert as a second covert agent at the AMA in the District of Columbia, her detection by the AMA, and her subsequent infiltration of the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce.
– 19 –
DGPRWW] has laid down a strategy which is to enable us to contain the scene. Our plants when trapped are Freedom investigative reporters just like any other newspaper. The plants themselves do not have to confess or be named. . . . We can undercut AMA’s continual effort to expose us by indicating it is a smokescreen to prevent Freedom from publishing. . . . MLV, Jane
GWW Log, p. 101, Exh. No. 27 hereto. Likewise, on October 7, 1975, defendant Budlong telexed Weigand, DGIUS:
Dick, Sore Throat is an Intelligence matter. Nothing in your data indicates a situation requiring other Bureau assistance. Send full data on the scene before you hand Sore Throat matter over to anyone else. Love, Mo
DGIWW Log, p. 27, Exh. 27-A hereto.
Better Business Bureau
The infiltration of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) began on December 4, 1972, with the placement of Sherry Canavaro (later Sherry Hermann, a/k/a Sandy Cooper) as a covert agent within that organization. (Document No. 16727.) Defendants Kember and Budlong were informed of Scientology’s covert operations within the CBBB and prospects that the covert agent might become the CBBB’s representative to the CCHI (Coordinating Conference on Health Information). (Exhibit No. 28 hereto).5/
Mental Health Organizations
Guardian Order 121569 MSH (1) issued on December 15, 1969, directed the infiltration of all mental health organizations both nationally and world-wide. Exhibit No. 29 hereto. This Guardian Order was carried out on a number of fronts by operatives of the Information Bureau headed by defendant Budlong. Thus local mental
5/ One of the functions of the CCHI was to coordinate efforts against groups believed to promote quackery. The defendants were successful in having their covert operative become the CBBB’s representative to two CCHI meetings, one of which she was able to tape.
– 20 –
health organizations were infiltrated by covert operatives in Las Vegas and St. Louis. Indeed, the Assistant Guardian for Information in Las Vegas reported that “everything possible was done to collect this data, everything from infiltration to stealing to eavesdropping, etc. . . .” (Document No. 13336.)
Co-Defendant Sharon Thomas was recruited as a covert operative in 1973 in the District of Columbia by co-defendant Snider, the Assistant Guardian. She was later assigned to infiltrate the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Beginning in January 1974, co-defendant Hermann supervised co-defendant Thomas’ APA thefts. While in the APA, co-defendant Thomas stole documents regarding Scientology as well as confidential files of the APA’s Ethics Committee concerning complaints against psychiatrists. (Document Nos. 8804 and 8805.) These stolen documents were sent to defendant Budlong.
Moreover, Guardian Program Order 1238 (Exhibit No. 30 hereto), issued la the defendant Kember and approved a the defendant Budlong, had as its “major target:”
To obtain the information necessary to take over the control of NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health) while at the same time establishing the lines and resources to be used in taking over NIMH.
Also included in that program were the infiltration of the Public Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA).
The Los Angeles-seized documents set out a variety of actions instituted by the defendants and their organization against individuals and groups engaged in so-called “anticult” activities. In February 1977, Jane Kember promulgated Guardian Program Order 1017, entitled “ARM (Anti-Religion Movement) Clean Sweep” (Document No. 13724), which had been approved by defendant Budlong. That Guar-
– 21 –
dian Order called for the placement of “covert agents” for “data collection lines” with anti-cult groups. (Id. at 1.)
B. Law Firms
As part of their criminal activities the defendants actively encouraged burglaries and thefts of documents from private law firms in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California, that represented private organizations sued by Scientology, including the law firm of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn, in D.C.
At least three burglaries were committed during the early months of 1976 at the law offices of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn, who then represented the St. Petersburg Times in a Scientology-initiated law suit. Defendants Kember and Budlong were regularly kept informed of the results. In February and March 1976 three entries were made into the office of Jack Bray and his secretary at the above-mentioned law firm, the first one by Richard Kimmel, the acting Assistant Guardian for Information in the District of Columbia, and the second one by Kimmel and Michael Meisner. On each occasion, documents outlining the law firm’s strategy in defending the law suit brought against the St. Petersburg Times were taken. See Exhibit No. 31 hereto, a telex from defendant Duke Snider to the World-Wide Guardian’s Office, dated 13 February 1976, setting out information obtained by Kimmel from Mr. Bray’s office.
C. Private Individuals And Public Officials
The defendants directed and encouraged a number of covert operations against private individuals and public officials to destroy and discredit these persons because they had either attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights by criticizing Scientology or by attempting to carry out their duties as public officials.
– 22 –
As early as February 29, 1972, defendant Kember had written the DGIUS (then Terry Milner) directing that he find out information about Paulette Cooper so that she could be “handled” (Exh. No. 32 hereto). Paulette Cooper is the author of The Scandal of Scientology, a work highly critical of Scientology. Kember’s interest in handling Cooper continued, and her loyal workers in the United States carried out incredible schemes pursuant to Kember’s directive. 6/ In March 1976, Mo Budlong’s deputy at World-Wide asked for details on an Operation Dynamite to be carried out against Paulette Cooper. The operation was delegated to the Northeast Information Bureau Secretary, with the directive to “Report to WW.” (Exh. No. 33, DGIWW log book pp. 72 and 73.) Also in 1976, the highest ranking Scientologists in the United States, including at least six of the co-defendants (Heldt, Snider, Weigand, Willardson, Hermmann, and Raymond), designed a series of plans in furtherance of the directives of co-defendants Kember and Budlong, which had as their goal Paulette Cooper’s imprisonment or commitment to a mental institution.
In the Spring of 1976 six separate schemes were devised with the express purpose
“To get P.C. (Paulette Cooper) incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks.”
(See Operation Freakout dated 1 April 1976, Exhibit No. 34 hereto; see also Exhibit No. 35.) Their stated purpose was “[t]o remove PC [Paulette Cooper] from her position of Power so that she cannot attack the C[hurch] of S[cientology].” The six separate schemes
6/ In addition to Kember’s specific directive that Cooper be handled,” Mo Budlong and other World-Wide supervisors were under standing orders to see to it that all attacks on Scientology occurring anywhere in the world were “reported and handled properly, [or] both CSG [Mary Sue Hubbard] and I will have your heads for breakfast . . . love Jane.” Order of Jane Kember contained in Information Bureau Hat Pack, volume I, Exh. No. 37 hereto (emphasis added).
– 23 –
were jointly entitled “Operation freakout.” In its initial form Operation Freakout had three different plans. The first required a woman to imitate Paulette Cooper’s voice and make telephone threats to Arab Consulates in New, York. The second scheme involved mailing a threatening letter to an Arab Consulate in such a fashion that it would appear to have been done by Paulette Cooper. Finally, a Scientology field staff member was to impersonate Paulette Cooper at a laundry and threaten the President and then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. A second Scientologist would thereafter advise the FBI of the threat.
Two additional plans to Operation Freakout were added on April 13, 1976. The fourth, plan called for Scientology field staff members who had ingratiated themselves with Cooper to gather information from Cooper so Scientology could assess the success of the first three plans. The fifth plan was for a Scientologist to warn an Arab Consulate by telephone that Paulette Cooper had been talking about bombing them.
The sixth and final part of Operation Freakout” called for Scientogists to obtain Paulette Cooper’s fingerprints on a blank piece of paper, type a threatening letter to Kissinger on that
paper, and mail it. 7/
7/ The sixth plan bears a distinct resemblance to a scheme of Scientologists in 1972 and 1973 against Paulette Cooper. In 1972 Scientologists obtained Paulette Cooper’s fingerprints on a blank piece of paper, typed two bomb threat letters on that and another piece of paper, sent the threats to Scientology offices in New York, and then advised the FBI that they had received the threats and that they may have come from Cooper. Paulette Cooper was indicted in the Southern District of New York in 1973 for making these threats. An order Nolle Prosequi was filed on that indictment in 1975. As Bruce Raymond/Randy Windment noted in his April 13, 1976 “CSW” to Weigand, which Weigand approved, the sixth plan of Operation Freakout was likely, to prove effective since the same kind of scheme against Cooper had worked in the past. Attached is approved Operation Freakout. This additional channel [the sixth plan] should really have her put away. Worked with all the other channels. The F.B.I., already think she really did the bomb threats on the C of S [Church of Scientology]. (Document No. 11423).
– 24 –
On March 31, 1976, defendant Kember telexed Henning Heldt concerning Ms. Cooper:
PC [Paulette Cooper] is still resisting paying the money but the judgment stands in PT [present time] . . . . [8/] Have her lawyer contacted and also arrange for PU to get the data that we can wait for her to turn up publicly so we can slap the writs on her. If you want legal docs from here we will provide. Then if she still declines to come we slap the writs on her before she reaches CW [Clearwater] as we don’t want to be seen publically [sic] being brutal to such a pathetic victim from a concentration camp.
GWW Log, p. 131 (Exh. No. 36 hereto.)
When Scientology first decided to set up a base in Clearwater, Florida, in late 1975, it did so using the cover name of “United Churches of Florida” (UCF) with no outward connection to Scientology. Gabriel Cazares, who was Clearwater’s Mayor, campaigned for the disclosure of the true purposes of the UCF. When UCF’s connections to Scientology were uncovered, Mayor Cazares became highly critical of Scientology. Because of his criticism, Mayor Cazares was targeted by the Guardian’s Office and its Information Bureau and covert operations designed to remove him from office were ordered.
To that end, in early March 1976, co-defendant Hermann notified co-defendant Snider that Mayor Cazares was about to attend a Mayor’s Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 13-17, and that Assistant Guardian for Information in Clearwater, Joe Lisa, was formulating a covert operation to claim that Mayor Cazares had a mistress. (Exhibit No. 38 hereto.) Shortly thereafter, Hermann
8/ Cooper has been sued by the Church of Scientology on numerous occasions and in many jurisdictions around the world. Since 1970 the Church of Scientology has filed six lawsuits in three foreign countries and numerous lawsuits in the United States against Cooper. As of December 1979, with the exception of three foreign lawsuits and a counterclaim in an American lawsuit, all of the actions had been dismissed.
– 25 –
ordered Mr. Meisner to carry out an operation on Mayor Cazares during his Washington trip — that operaton was to involve a fake hit-and-run accident. Sharon Thomas was to be the main participant in that operation. She was to meet Mayor Cazares, drive him around town, and at a predetermined location stage a hit-and-run accident with Mr. Meisner as the “victim.” On March 14, 1976, Thomas offered to show Mayor Cazares the town. During that drive, Thomas, who was driving, staged her fake hit-and-run accident in Rock Creek Park, hitting Michael Meisner. She drove on without reporting the accident to the police. Of course, Thomas knew that no harm had been caused to the”victim.” (Exhibit No. 39 hereto). In a report dated March 15, 1976, to defendant Morris Budlong, Weigand apprised Budlong of the incident and discussed how Scientology could use that “fake” accident against Mayor Cazares and concluded that “I should think that the Mayor’s political days are at an end.” (Id. at 2.)
On June 6, 1976, Jane Kember promulgated Guardian Program Order 398, entitled “Mayor Cazares Handling Project.” Its purpose was “to remove Cazares from any position from which he can inhibit the expansion of Scientology” and called for, among other things: (1) carrying “out a covert campaign to create strife between Cazares and the City Commission”; and (2) placing a covert operative in his Congressional campaign organization, getting the operative “as highly placed as possible. Use this operative to collect data on planned activities and feed this to PR and Legal to carry out operations to hamper the effectiveness of the campaign . . .” (Exhibit No. 40 hereto.) On November 3, 1976, unindicted co-conspirator Joe Lisa informed co-defendant Snider that Mayor Cazares had been defeated in the Congressional race as a result of the implementation of defendant Jane Kember’s Guardian Program Order 398, and the other Scientology actions which included “[p]hone calls . . . spreading rumors inside his camp, contributing
– 26 –
to disorganization in his campaign . . . ” (Document No. 1491.)
On January 4, 1976, defendant Jane Kember issued Guardian Order 1361-3 which called for the theft of Los Angeles IRS Intelligence files on “celebrities, politicians and big names.” In complete disregard for the rights of these individuals, Jane Kember directed that the stolen information be published. (Document No. 11513.) In fact, IRS files on former California Governor Edmund Brown, current California Governor Edmund Brown, Jr., Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and his wife, and Frank Sinatra 9/ were stolen from the IRS’ Los Angeles offices and disclosed to the press. (Document Nos. 11514, 1546, and 1548.)
The defendants and their organization mounted a head-on assault upon newspapers that had been critical of Scientology. They infiltrated newspapers and, in other instances, without disclosing that they were associated with Scientology, planted stories of interest to their organization. For the sake of brevity, we will cite just one example.
In November 1975, defendant Willardson ordered Michael Meisner to send three District of Columbia covert agents to Clearwater. One of the operatives sent to Clearwater was June Byrne, the blown AMA
9/ These are but four examples of the numerous operations conducted against private citizens and public officials. A review of the documents seized in Los Angeles shows the incredible scope of these operations.
In fact, in order to help determine what individuals and groups to develop operations against, the files of the World-Wide Information Bureau, which defense witness Sheila Chaleff so fondly referred to as “Mo’s Files,” are divided into eight “enemy” classifications, depending upon the particular degree of “suppressiveness” which the Guardian’s Office perceives in its “enemies.” Among the eight classifications are “traitor,” “enemy,” and “international enemy.” The latter category includes such “treacherous” groups as the European League for Human Rights, the World Council of Churches, the United Nations, and the World Federation for Mental Health. Exh. No. 41 hereto.
– 27 –
agent. In Clearwater, Ms. Byrne infiltrated the Clearwater Sun and provided Scientology almost daily reports on the activities of that newspaper, all of which were forwarded to defendants Kember and Budlong (See e.g., Documents Nos. 17988, 17991, 17995, 17996, 18006 which cover less than a two-week period.) She remained as Scientology’s covert operative at the Sun until late 1976 when she was withdrawn out of fear that her cover had been blown.
E. State and Local Government Agencies
Numerous state and local Government agencies throughout the United States were targeted for infiltration by the defendants and the Guardian’s Office. These infiltrations and thefts were called for by two programs promulgated by Jane Kember — Guardian Program Order 302, which was also approved by defendant Budlong, and Guardian Order 1080. Guardian Program 302, Government Exhibit 67 at trial, ordered the infiltration of of all Governmental agencies that refused to acquiesce to Scientology’s demand for access to their files.10/
On March 4, 1974, defendant Jane Kember issued GO 1080, an umbrella program ordering the infiltration of the California Attorney General’s Office and all local district attorney’s offices in California. (Exhibit No. 42 hereto.) On January 13, 1976, a sub-project of GO 1080 regarding the Los Angeles Office of the California Attorney General was promulgated. It directed that that office be infiltrated “through any way or means and then locate and obtain full copies of any and all files on the C of S, C of S investigations, etc.” (Document No. 1317 at 13-15.) On February 12,
10/ Thus, pursuant to GPgmO 302, Deac Finn, the Assistant Guardian for Information in New England (AGI NE), wrote on June 8, 1976, requesting Weigand’s approval for Finn’s project to infiltrate the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (Document No. 1535, p. 2). See also Document No. 21703 entitled “Project OW which sets out co-defendant Hermann’s plans for such infiltration in response to the planned investigation of the Church for criminal fraud and of one of its members for kidnapping.
1976, it was reported that keys to the Attorney General’s office had been obtained. (Document No. 1318 at 2.) Co-defendant Weigand also outlined for the benefit of defendant Budlong the progress of GO 1080, appending excerpted stolen data prepared by defendant Raymond. (Document No. 1323; See also Document No. 1336 — a similar letter from defendant Willardson to defendant Kember, routed through defendants Heldt, Weigand and Budlong.)
On August 10, 1976, compliance was reported to Guardian Program Order 302 as it pertained to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. (Document No. 149; Documents Nos. 11591-11595 are copies of documents stolen from that office.) On that same date, compliance was reported with Guardian Order 1080 and Guardian Program Order 302 as far as the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office was concerned. (Document No. 813.)
F. Other Federal Government Agencies and the United Nations
Among other direct orders issued by Jane Kember calling for illegal operations against other Government agencies and international organizations, to be carried out by Mo Budlong and his Information Bureau, are the following:
1. Guardian Order 1344, issued October 10, 1974 (Exh. No. 43 hereto), called for penetration of and theft of documents from the 11th District Coast Guard Intelligence and the National Headquarters of Coast Guard Intelligence, Washington, D.C. The program was carried out by, inter alia, the placement of co-defendant Sharon Thomas as Scientology’s covert operative at the Coast Guard (prior to her employment at the Department of Justice). Duke Snider
makes the following cryptic notation on the cover sheet of the G.O.: “Jane also telexed and mentioned that the BI targets are to be done and not just left up in the air.” (Exh. No. 43).
2. Guardian Programme Order 283, issued February 24, 1976
– 29 –
(Exh. No. 44 hereto), which was proposed by co-defendant Cindy Raymond, approved by Morris Budlong, and issued by Jane Kember, had the following over all “Plan: To penetrate, the UN [United Nations] and establish lines for feedback data so that we can predict and handle anything that may stop the acceptance of our submissions to the U.N.” Later documents indicate Scientology recruited an FSM to apply for a job as a security guard at the U.N.
3. Guardian Programme Order 407, issued June 9, 1976 (Exh. No. 45 hereto), subtitled “Off the Hook”, and issued by Jane Kember two days before Meisner and Wolfe were confronted in this Courthouse, called for getting “Scientology in all its aspects ‘off the hook’ with the IRS . . . .” The means to be used included “monitor IRS handling of audit on 1361 lines” and “ensure 1361 Collection Line keeps close watch on area of IRS concerned with LRH tax returns. . . .”
– 30 –
Comparative Roles of These Defendants and the Previously Convicted Co-Defendants
The defendant Jane Kember was, during the periods relevant to the charges of which she was convicted, the Guardian WorldWide of the Church of Sciengology. Her principal role was to “protect” and “defend” Scientology from all persons and organizations, private and governmental, whom Scientology viewed or perceived as its enemies. As such — after L. Ron Hubbard (the Founder and Commodore), and Mary Sue Hubbard (the Deputy Commodore, Controller, and Commodore Staff Guardian) — she was superior in authority to everyone else within the Guardian’s Office. By the defense’s own witnesses this Court was told that the defendant Kember ruled with an iron hand the whole Guardian’s Office network which stretched through dozens of countries in almost every continent in the world.
Prior to assuming her position as Guardian World-Wide, in the late 1960s, the defendant Kember served as the Deputy Guardian for Intelligence (later renamed Information) World-Wide — a position assumed about 1967 by her loyal and hard working deputy and now co-defendant — Morris Budlong. Thus, both defendants Kember and Budlong are long-standing, committed and dedicated high officials of the Guardian’s Office. It was unchallenged at their trial that these two defendants took a leading role in every endeavor of the Guardian’s Office. They drafted, reviewed and issued every order which commanded the commission of criminal acts. They demanded total and absolute loyalty and obedience from their subordinates, awarded them when they obtained it, punished them when they did not. They demanded to be kept informed of every move made by their underlings through an elaborate system of weekly reports and emergency telex messages when the need arose.
– 31 –
Everyone of the other defendants previously convicted after a non-jury trial based on an uncontested stipulation of evidence, with the exception of Mary Sue Hubbard, were below them in the hierarchy of the Guardian’s Office and carried out the orders of these two defendants. Seven of the other eight defendants subordinate to Kember and Budlong were convicted of one felony count carrying a maximum term of incarceration of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In December, 1979, five of them received sentences of four years incarceration and $10,000 fines; the other two received sentences of five years in prison and $10,000 fines.
The defendants Kember and Budlong, on the other hand, were each found guilty following a five-week jury trial, of nine counts of burglary in the second degree — felonies each carrying terms of incarceration of “not less than two years nor more than fifteen years.” 22 D.C. Code § 1801(b). We submit that the sentences this Court will impose upon the defendants Kember and Budlong must be both commensurate with their role in the crimes of which they were convicted as well as with the sentences imposed upon their previously convicted co-defendants.
– 32 –
The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years. It also puts to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harrassment campaign against them.
The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the defendants’ wanton assault upon the laws of this country. The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury investigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in response to a grand jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story, and assisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of this country. Their total disregard for the laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of villification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private and public individuals and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail. One can only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their “Red Box” data. That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims.
– 33 –
The crimes committed by these defndants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard. No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes. It is interesting to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled “Modern Management Technology Defined” that “truth is what is true for you,” and “illegal” is that which is “contrary to statistics or policy” and not pursuant to Scientology’s “approved program.” Thus, with the Founder-Commodore’s blessings they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.
These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed. The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.” That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society.
These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.
Moreover, we submit that in imposing any sentence upon these two defendants, the Court should consider the deterrent effect which
– 34 –
a severe sentence will have upon others — besides the defendant Jane Kember who apparently remains the Guardian World-Wide, all other members of the Guardian’s Office, and L. Ron Hubbard himself, the ultimate responsible authority. It is clear from the press releases issued by Scientology following the jury’s verdict, and their vicious actions against another member of this Court, that they have yet to learn the errors of their criminal ways.
The United States submits that the only appropriate punishment in this case, the only one that is in the best interest of justice and the public, is a substantial term of incarceration for each of the two defendants now before the Court.
Moreover, we submit that there is no reason whatsoever under 18 U.S. Code § 3148, why these two defendant should not be denied bail pending any appeal they wish to take. Both defendants are in this country solely for trial and the service of any sentence imposed by this Court, pursuant to an extradition order from the Government of the United Kingdom. Following the service of their sentences, they will return to the United Kingdom. They are not employed in the United States, and, indeed, in at least the case of defendant Kember cannot be so employed. Thus, the only questions which remain are, in the words of 18 U.S. Code § 3148, whether
[a] person . . . who has been convicted of an offense and . . . has filed an appeal . . [presents] a risk of flight or danger . . or if it appears that an appeal is frivolous or taken for delay. . .
We submit that in the instant case, any appeal taken by these two defendants will be frivolous. and taken only for the purpose of delaying the ultimate day of judgment. The only real issues raised by the defendants involved the challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court over the burglary charges, and whether they had standing to challenge the searches of the two Guardian’s Office premises in Los Angeles, California. The Court of Appeals has already, for all
– 35 –
practical purposes, resolved against them the former issue. In Re: United States v. Kember (Mary Sue Hubbard et al., appellants), D.C. Cir. Nos. 80-2329 to 80-2332 (decided November 24, 1980), slip op. at 11. As for the standing issue, it has been conclusively resolved against the defendants, as this Court pointed out, by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the defendants, international criminals, whose danger to the community the evidence overwhelmingly bears out, have been convicted of serious charges carrying severe penalties and now present a great risk of flight. Thus, we submit, defendants should be denied bail pending appeal.
CHARLES F. C. TUFF
United States Attorney
Assistant United States Attorney
Assistant United States Attorney
Assistant United States Attorney
– 36 –
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a copy of the foregoing Sentencing Memorandum has been mailed to R. Kenneth Mundy, Esquire, 1850 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20006 and John Shorter, Esquire, Mitchell, Shorter, & Gartrell, 508 Fifth Street, N Washington, D.C., 20001, this 16th day of Dec.
Assistan United States Attorney