CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMISSION HEARINGS RE: THE CHURCH OF SC

[admin]

Part 9 of 14

Mr. Calderbank.

James Calderbank

MR. CALDERBAINK: I was -- just to comment briefly on our consultants: I read many, many times about the brash attorney that was pulling in eighty thousand dollars or thereabouts. And I think the citizens of Clearwater should know what the eighty thousand dollars went for: upwards of five attorneys working three straight months in Boston. That went for not only their expenses, but for the payments of secretaries, reprinting of voluminous materials, documentation, collation of everything that was -- had something to do with Clearwater. And there was a lot of question in the city as to where that money and -- why that sum of money. And I think it was well spent. It was a little over one percent of our total budget, but, I think, that was probably the best percent that I've seen spent in a long, long time.

We stayed away from belief and religion, and we, as the Commission, recognize the freedom of belief in a religion or exercise thereof is absolute, but the conduct is not. And the Civil Liberties Union is out there. And I think the hearings showed that, perhaps, there are more civil liberties that may be being violated than just what was reported in the paper, maybe the civil liberties of some of the people in the Church.

And it's not the City of Clearwater against the Church of Scientology at all. The way I see it is: There are a thousand people, staff members, in that building over there or in buildings in the city that are citizens of Clearwater. And I look upon these hearings as trying to protect them from the superiors or, perhaps, the policies that are making them work twenty hours a day, seven days a week, as testimony showed, for only nine dollars and sixty cents, try to protect them from contagious disease and get them good medical care, get them good, sanitary living conditions. So, I don't see it as city versus Church. I see it as us doing our responsibility to even protect the staff members themselves.

And I'd like to see us move forward with the next phase.

[admin]

Part 10 of 14

MR. LeCHER: Mr. Berfield, do you have any parting comments?

James Berfield

MR. BERFIELD: Just a couple here: To these people that appeared as witnesses, I would just hope that they would leave not thinking that I was an adversary out to cook their goose or anything like that. I think that we, the people of Clearwater, owe them a debt of gratitude that they would have the tenaciousness in putting themselves and their families on the line the way they did and come forward and testify.

As to Mr. Flynn, I had not met him before this hearing, and I read a great deal about him. This morning, I think, he was unduly criticized for what appeared to be some ethical conduct of his in coaching the witnesses. As an attorney, what Mr. Flynn did was probably the most dangerous thing that any attorney can do and that's just let your witness go free. If you want to get killed in a court case, just give them a narrative and they'll kill you.

I also noticed that Mr. Flynn -- and I was watching very closely to make sure that the people and the people of Clearwater were assured of all the facts out of this each time he would put his hand over the mike, it seemed to relate to a question that might affect either pending litigation or something that pertained to religion or something along that line. And I could not hear exactly I what he said, but he wanted to ensure that justice did prevail here. So, I think, in that sense, Mr. Flynn, we owe you a debt of gratitude, too.

I think the biggest thing we have to keep in mind is that -- and Mr. Calderbank hit on this -- is that we have a heavy responsibility to all the people of Clearwater, whether they live in the Fort Harrison or they're just citizens here -- I shouldn't say, "just citizens" for their health, safety, and welfare. And that was the purpose of these meetings.

And I think if there had been other situations that have happened here in the United States -- that had hearings been conducted on them -- people would have not said, "How could that have happened" in whatever city it was.

And I think that was the biggest responsibility: to make sure that something doesn't happen here in Clearwater.

MR. LeCHER: Thank you.

Before we get to final comments here from Mr. Shoemaker and any thoughts that Mr. Bustin, the City Attorney, would like to leave with us as possible instructions or his point of view from a legal perspective, I'd like to waive the rules -- and the Commissioners can overrule me, if you want to, but -- I'd like to have Mr. Walters -- he asked me for permission to address the Commission at this point.

So, unless there's any objection from my fellows, I would like to have Mr. Walters come up and take the microphone, sir.

[admin]

Part 11 of 14

Edward Walters

MR. WALTERS: I just wanted to say -- I consider myself still under oath -- that I just wanted to know, want to let you know, the citizens know, the great change that's occurred for myself and the witnesses. I'm speaking for Janie and the Hartwells. We talked about this this morning and again just having lunch in a nearby place, where there were citizens coming up to us, two, three, one time surrounded us, telling us -- thanking us for coming here.

We came here scared. We've been dealing with the harassment a long time, and we didn't know if you'd believe us. We -- it was very hard for us to come here. Janie Peterson almost didn't make it to the plane. We got here. We found the accommodations very nice. We were put under protection, which otherwise, we would not have come here. The policemen that we met were exceptional young guys, well trained.

I'd like to thank the Chief of Police for the selection of the People. I can tell you if they were not as good as we saw, we would have left immediately. The hotel treated us pleasantly, courteously. If that's a sign of the rest of the hotels you have here, you've got better hotels than Las Vegas. So, all in all, we came here scared. We end up leaving with a little bit of courage and, let me tell you, with a lot of respect and admiration for Mayor LeCher, Mr. Calderbank, Mr. Berfield, Mr. Bustin, Mr. Shoemaker, Mr. Hatchett, and Mrs. Garvey. You have a lot to do with giving us the courage to speak out.

We -- meeting the people today outside -- I can say last night I went out on the beach for the first time without protection and met your citizens. We are developing a fondness for the friendly people of Clearwater. You have a great city, a city that cares. And it was our privilege to be here.

Thank you.

MR. LeCHER: Thank you very much.

I'll waive the rules on applause at this point, too.

[admin]

Part 12 of 14

Mr. Shoemaker, do you have any final, parting words for us?

Anthony Shoemaker

MR. SHOEMAKER: Mayor LeCher and members of the Commission, the city at this time doesn't have a commitment to Mr. Flynn and his associates of eighty thousand dollars, we have a commitment to seventy thousand
dollars for t~-.e `just two phiases of
-0, .1Z yCU
will recall, the final step, Phase III, is actually researching the record and preparing the facts of evidence in the final form.

You had an awful lot of information given to you in a very short period of time. There were a lot of documents I know you haven't had a chance to look at yet that were introduced in evidence.

I don't know whether you wish to proceed at this point in terms of going ahead and asking Mr. Flynn to go ahead and complete that Phase III, but it would be my recommendation that you do so. I think --

MR. LeCHER: Would you --

MR. SHOEMAKER: -- he has done an excellent job.

MR. LeCHER: Mr. Shoemaker, would you just exactly tell the People what Phase III really is?

MR. SHOEMAKER: Phase III is actually researching all of the volumes of testimony, as well as the documents that have been introduced into record, and preparing those in a form where they can be used as facts of evidence and be used for the development and the actual passage of the related ordinances that the Commission will be considering in the future concerning, basically, consumer protection and charitable solicitations ordinance.

MR. LeCHER: Thank you.

I'd like to give the floor now to Mr. Bustin, who has been sitting here, occasionally passing me notes and grabbing my arm when we or I got too far into the religious beliefs. He has kept the City Commission kind of on an even keel here to do our job much more effectively and more correct than we may not -- may have done. So, I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Bustin, who has been the City Attorney for seven or eight years now, at this point for comments.

[admin]

Part 13 of 14

Thomas Bustin

MR. BUSTIN: Well, first, does Phase III include a complete transcript of all the testimony?

MR. SHOEMAKER: It would -- I've already it does include the expenses, so that would, in fact, be related. It's the seventy thousand -- it's the total of eighty thousand dollars, plus expenses and the expense of the transcript.

MR. BUSTIN: I think that transcript, that documentation, is going to be important to the Commission to be here for your perusal individually, because I don't see how you could --

MRS. GARVEY: Remember.

MR. BUSTIN: -- remember everything.

MR. SHOEMAKER: That's a very good point. We should, also, instruct -- or I will instruct, based upon the Commission's decision, to have this actually typed up as a written transcript. That's a good point.

MR. BUSTIN: My only parting comment is that:I think -- it's my observation for whatever it's worth -- I think the Commission has tried very hard to stay away from anyone's beliefs in this proceeding. And I think they have, in the main, done a very good job of it. I think if everyone looks at the kind of conduct -- and I've been saying this over and over again, that we're only interested in conduct. When you really get down and look at this thing close and look at the type of conduct we've been talking about that's been brought to you in these proceedings, I think you can see why the city would have an interest in from a lawyer's perspective -- health, safety, and welfare arise by reason of that conduct. I think it would almost be dereliction of duty to this city if we ignored it.

There was an interesting little point raised, and I have to go back over it just a moment, because it stuck me when Mr. Johnson said something about the proceedings and Mr. Flynn sitting there with the witnesses and talking to them.

The Procedure was laid out quite well in these proceedings, and a copy of that procedure was provided to him. And the very same procedure that he criticized Mr. Flynn about was made fully available to Mr. Johnson. In fact, he would have had the same opportunity to sit at the table with his witnesses and talk to them. There's no -- if anyone looks at the documents, there is no restraint or constriction whatsoever.

MRS. GARVEY: He would have selected his own witnesses.

MR. BUSTIN: Right, exactly.

There was no -- it just struck me. In fact, that document went out to him on April 13th. And when I heard that, it just struck me kind of funny.

MRS. GARVEY: At this point we'd be derelict in our duty if we did not go on to Phase III?

MR. BUSTIN: Yes.

MR. LeCHER: All right.

Do we need a motion to --

MR. CALDERBANK: So moved.

MR. LeCHER: -- go on to Phase III and --

MR. CALDERBANK: I make a motion to continue on to Phase III and have the city consultants, Mr. Flynn and his associates, prepare the record and the analysis to bring to the City Commission at --

MRS. GARVEY: I --

MR. CALDERBANK: What's the closest possible date?

MR. HATCHETT: Give us a time span.

MR. FLYNN: Well, I will endeavor to produce it as quickly as I can. It's a -- it's a rather large task, simply because of the legal issues applied to the facts -- and as most lawyers know, that's a very significant job -- and then applying that in such a way to create ordinances that will both be effective, remedial, and produce the desired result.

In terms of a time frame at the present time, I'm reluctant to give it. We will do it as expeditiously as we can, as we did with the report and the preparation for these hearings. I believe we produced the report within about two months or so, which was some two hundred pages long and in length, and we produced these hearings within about two months or so. And we worked, I'll tell you, virtually non-stop with a large staff to do that.

And, in fact, we started preparing in advance of that, because we learned that the city most likely was going to go forward -- and we knew they wanted to go forward quickly -- so we took it on our own to just start collating some of the evidence to make sure that we could go forward as quickly as we could.

I'd like to make a couple of final comments, if I could?

MR. LeCHER: Yes, sir. You have the floor.

[admin]

Part 14 of 14

Michael Flynn

MR. FLYNN: With regard to -- I didn't address the issue of -- that Mr. Johnson addressed of speaking to my witnesses during the testimony. Of course, in congressional investigations, it's done all the time and there's absolutely nothing uncommon about it.

Secondly, as most of you Commissioners know you probably heard what I said to the witness, which was most of the time just "Tell the truth," or "Explain that," or "Confront that," or something of that type.

In one instance, I directly and quickly covered the microphone when Mr. Mayer was testifying, and it was just as about -- if you go back and check the video tape -- Mr. Mayer was about to give the name of an individual. And as you can imagine, there are many individuals who are quite fearful of having their names brought out in connection with just these investigations. And I thought he was going to refer to a particular individual who had expressed serious concerns to me about his safety, and I thought -- because of my knowing who Mr. Mayer is and who he dealt with in the organization -- he might mention that person's name, who I have had dealings with and who has specifically requested that his name never come out, at this point in time at least.

And at that one point in time, I believe, if you go back and check the video tape, you'll find that Mr. Mayer, I thought, was about to mention the name. As it turns out, it was a different name, and he went forward and said it.

Other than that, I think, as most of the Commissioners know, who have been sitting in front of me, I've just told the witnesses, "Explore the area; Don't explore it for constitutional grounds; Explain it," whatever.

And lastly, I'd like to thank each and every Commissioner for giving us the opportunity to give you what we perceive to be the facts.

I would particularly like to thank my associates, Mr. Hoffman, my brother Kevin, and Tom Greene, who -- the four of us have just worked unendingly for a long period of time, and we've all worked together on an equal basis and have put in an equal amount of time and effort into our investigation of this organization, both on behalf of you people and on behalf of our clients.

And most of the time, in the media, it's "Mr. Flynn this" and "Mr. Flynn that," and most of the time next to an eighty thousand dollar figure. And you don't see the backdrop of what took place to produce those hearings. I'm sure most of you realize now after seeing them that it took a great deal of effort. And that effort was expended on the part of all four of us and other staff personnel back in Boston, but mostly on the part of the four of us. And all they see is my name.

And so, I personally want to thank the three of them, because I know how much they did. And in some instances, I'm sure, that they did more than I did and, yet, they see my name in the newspaper. Fortunately, it's also my name next to the figure, and so I get both the attack and the criticism. But they did a great deal of work, and they deserve a lot of appreciation for it.

And lastly, I'd simply like to say that there can be something done. The facts show it. If the truth is brought to bear on this organization and the organization is exposed for what it is, the city can do something. And remedial ordinances will be effective and it will help people that have been harmed by this group, and the deception can be stopped.

And I firmly believe -- and I wouldn't have worked for three years on this project if I didn't think that something could be done. And I think that more and more people that are seriously interested can find the issues raised by the Church of Scientology, and the areas of deception that we've raised will in itself cause something fruitful and productive to be accomplished by curing those problems and negating those abuses here in the City of Clearwater. And I firmly believe it can be done.

And I hope the Commission and the people of the City of Clearwater feel strongly enough about the issue to pursue it.

Thank you.

MR. LeCHER: In conclusion, I'd like to thank the people.

Motion to Enter Phase III

We have a motion on the floor.

MRS. GARVEY: I second it.

MR. LeCHER: And seconded.

MR. CALDERBANK: A little discussion, too: I'd like to -- as the record comes out, I'd like specific recommendation on some areas that are not our jurisdiction and would be federal jurisdiction --

MR. LeCHER: Yes.

MR. CALDERBANK: -- as to put together either a complaint or a report or a compilation of data and who we send that to.

In one instance, a person told us of being signed up as a minister to avoid the draft; in another instance, we heard of less than minimum wages and telexes for criminal activities.

I'd like to see, as part of the record as part of Phase III, specific analysis of those areas that are federal in nature and how to bring it to the agencies that are responsible for it.

MR. LeCHER: We would assume that that would be included, right, Mr. Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: It will be.

MR. BERFIELD: Mr. Shoemaker.

MR. SHOEMAKER: Yes.

MR. BERFIELD: One thing along that line: one of the questions that was asked of me, and that would be whether or not -- and assuming the person were willing to pay for it -- copies of the transcript could be obtained?

MR. SHOEMAKER: Oh, absolutely.

MR. BERFIELD: And I think the other thing is we need to do something along the same line that we did with the original report and that's out it in the library, so people can go in and see in full.

MR. SHOEMAKER: That will certainly will be my plan, and we'll also have another copy down at the city clerk's office for anyone that wants to peruse it.

Absolutely, once we get a copy of it, anyone who certainly, they'll have to pay for the cost of it but anyone who'd be interested in receiving it, would be more than welcome to have it or just excerpts of it --

MRS. GARVEY: Yeah, just parts, sections.

MR. SHOEMAKER: -- can have it.

MR. CALDERBANK: And, in addition, I'd like -- I don't know whether this would be the time or the motion to make sure that we do get the sworn statement from Mr. Ray regarding his criminal activities that were purported by Mr. Johnson here at the table today and his psychiatric analysis, and whether or not that information was given under confidentiality to the Church, so that we may know whether or not, indeed, 1982, today, the last day, it's being used in the same type of pattern that the record tends to show.

So, I'd like to see the sworn statement from Mr. Ray be gotten as quickly as possible.

Also, Mr. Flynn said about his associates and on the Commission, each Commissioner has gotten a lot of credit because we did something that, perhaps, has been festering for years. But I think there is something that the citizens ought to know, too, that Mr. Bustin, Shoemaker, and the entire staff have been under just as much fire as us and they don't get the same type of credit.

The people will remember, a year ago, Mr. Bustin was roundly criticized in the paper and attacked many times. And I think that the people ought to know, like the budget and everything else, that staff work is a great -- it's a large deal of the work that goes on here. And without Mr. Shoemaker and Mr. Bustin becoming personally involved and committed to finding out the truth, this hearing would not have come off today.

And I want to thank them.

MR. LeCHER: We've come a long way since the days of late last year when there was a campaign calling for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any dishonest politician by the Church of Scientology.

We -- prior to the hearings beginning, we were criticized by such groups as the ACLU, which, I believe, has defended the American Nazi Party, we've been criticized by the National Council of Churches, and other groups whose names escape me at this point; they're technical names.

And I want to thank the people of Clearwater, who, apparently, have been behind us on this issue. I want to thank everyone out there for watching.

MRS. GARVEY: Just one comment.

MR. LeCHER: Go ahead.

MRS. GARVEY: I wanted to remind the public, the citizens of Clearwater, that this is only the beginning and we've got a long ways to go. And, hopefully, it'll whittle out and have an effect.

MR. LeCHER: Did we --

MR. BERFIELD: No. We --

Vote on the Motion to Enter Phase III

MR. CALDERBANK: Call for the question.

MR. LeCHER: On the motion, which is --

MR. HATCHETT: Phase III.

MR. LeCHER: -- Phase III, to enter Phase III, all those in favor say "Aye.

Opposed?

(Whereupon, the motion was voted upon by the Commissioners and was carried unanimously.)

MR. LeCHER: The motion carries. This hearing is concluded.

(A book, entitled What is Scientology?, was marked as Exhibit No. 60, as of this date; A copy of a Veteran's Administration physical examination of L. Ron Hubbard was marked as Exhibit No. 61, as of this date.

(Whereupon, the hearing was concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, Karen E. Rizman, a certified court reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing hearing transcript of the City of Clearwater Commission Hearings Re: The Church of Scientology, pages 4-141, is a true and accurate transcription of my, dictated tape recordings of the proceedings taken at the Clearwater City Hall, Clearwater Florida, on Monday, May 7, 1982

Karen E. Rizman

[admin]

Exhibits

Exhibit 1

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 OCTOBER 1967

Issue IV

PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS
(Applies both Orgs and Sea Org)

LIABILITY - Suspension of Pay and a dirty grey rag on left arm and day and night confinement to org premises.

TREASON - Suspension of pay and deprivation of all uniforms and insignia, a black mark on left cheek and confinement on org premises or dismissal from post and debarment from premises.

DOUBT - Debarment from premises. Not to be employed. Payment of fine amounting to any sum may have cost org. Not to be trained or processed. Not to be communicated or argued with.

ENEMY - SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:jp
Copyright (c) 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[admin]

Exhibit 2

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965
(Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965,
Issue I. This was originally misdated as
1 March 1965)

(HCO Division 1)

ETHICS

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS
SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
THE FAIR GAME LAW

Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.

The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups.

A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a pc yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Group.

A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.

A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. Only ARC Breaks worsen it. To the PTP is added ARC Breaks with the Suppressive Person or Group. The result is no-gain or deterioration of a case by reason of the suppressive connection in the environment. Any Scientologist, in his own experience, can probably recall some such cases and their subsequent upset.

Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen. Quite the contrary. In the most flagrant of such cases the Scientologist's case worsened and the Suppressive Person or Group sent endless reports to press, police, authorities and the public in general.

Unless the Potential Trouble Source, the preclear caught up in this, can be made to take action of an environmental nature to end the situation one has a pc or Scientologist who may cave in or squirrel because of no case gain and also a hostile environment for Scientology.

This policy letter gives the means and provides the policy for getting the above situation handled

A Potential Trouble Source may receive no processing until the situation is handled

A Suppressive Person or Group becomes “fair game”.

By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.

The families and adherents of Suppressive Persons or Groups may not receive processing. It does not matter whether they are or are not Scientologists. If the families or adherents of Suppressive Persons or Groups are processed, any auditor doing so is guilty of a misdemeanor. (See HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue 1).

A Potential Trouble Source knowingly permitting himself or herself or the Suppressive Person to be processed without advising the auditor or Scientology authorities is guilty of a crime. (See HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965. Issue II.

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS

Suppressive Acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.

Such Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations; public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened; proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the Suppression of Scientology; pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology; testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it; reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practising or receiving standard Scientology; bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist including the non-payment of bills or failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of the Chairman at Saint Hill and receiving a reply; demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the fees must be refunded but this Policy Letter applies); writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press; testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public; continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons; organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology; organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else; calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures; infiltrating a Scientology group or organization or staff to stir up discontent or protest at the instigation of hostile forces; 1st degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings; mutiny; seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or “to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology”; engaging in malicious ‘rumour-mongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to “safeguard” a position; delivering up the person of a Scientologist without defense or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law; falsifying records that then imperil the liberty or safety of a Scientologist; knowingly giving false testimony to imperil a Scientologist; receiving money, favours or encouragement to suppress Scientology or Scientologists; sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology such as a student, a preclear, a ward or a patient; blackmail on Scientologists or Scientology organizations threatened or accomplished—in which case the crime being used for blackmail purposes becomes fully outside the reach of Ethics and is absolved the fact of blackmail unless repeated.

Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.

If a person or a group that has committed a Suppressive Act comes to his, her or their senses and recants, the HCO Secretary:

A. Tells the person or group to stop committing present time overts and to cease all attacks and suppressions so he, she or they can get a case gain;

B. Requires a public announcement to the effect that they realize their actions were ignorant and unfounded and stating where possible the influences or motivations which caused them to attempt to suppress or attack Scientology; gets it signed before witnesses and published broadly, particularly to persons directly influenced or formerly associated with the offender or offenders. The effect should be calculated to expose any conspiracy to suppress Scientology or the preclear or Scientologist if such existed;

B(1). Requires that all debts owed to Scientology organizations are paid off.

C. Requires training beginning at HAS at their expense if Division 4 (Training and Processing) will have the person or the group members;

D. Makes a note of the matter with copies of the statement and files in the Ethics files.

E. Informs the Chairman of Saint Hill and forwards a duplicate of the original copy which shows signatures.

Any Potential Trouble Source owing money to any Scientology organization is handled the same as any other Scientologist. Failure to discharge a financial obligation becomes a civil Ethics matter after normal, within-org avenues of collection have been exhausted.

Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.

Civil Court action against SPs to effect collection of monies owed may be resorted to, as they are Fair Game.

***

Until a Suppressive Person or Group is absolved, but not during the period when the person requests and has a Committee of Evidence, or an amnesty occurs, no Scientology Ethics other than this HCO Policy Letter applies to such persons, no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist.

The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.

Such persons are in the same category as those whose certificates have been cancelled, and persons whose certificates, classifications and awards have been cancelled are also in this category.

The imagination must not be stretched to place this iabel on a person. Errors, misdemeanors and crimes do not label a person as a Suppressive Person or Group. Only High Crimes do so.

A Committee of Evidence may be called by any Convening Authority who wishes more concrete evidence of efforts to suppress Scientology or Scientologists but if such a Committee’s findings, passed on, establish beyond reasonable doubt Suppressive Acts, this Policy Letter applies and the person is fair game.

Outright or covert acts knowingly designed to impede or destroy Scientology or Scientologists is what is meant by Acts Suppressive of Scientology or Scientologists.

The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics requires that actions destructive of the advance of the many, by Scientology means, overtly or covertly undertaken with the direct target of destroying Scientology as a whole? or a Scientologist in particular, be summarily handled due to the character of the reactive mind and the consequent impulses of the insane or near insane to ruin every chance of Mankind via Scientology.

***

POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE

A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of Suppressive Acts is known as a Potential Trouble Source or Trouble Source. The history of Dianetics and Scientology is strewn with these. Confused by emotional ties, dogged in refusing to give up Scientology, yet invalidated by a Suppressive Person at every turn they cannot, having a PTP, make case gains. If they would act with determination one way or the other— reform the Suppressive Person or disconnect, they could then make gains and recover their potential. If they make no determined move, they eventually succumb.

Therefore this Policy Letter extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends. So long as a wife or husband, father or mother or other family connection, who is attempting to suppress the Scientology spouse or child, or hostile group remains continuingly acknowledged or in communication with the Scientology spouse or child or member, then that Scientologist or preclear comes under the family or adherent clause and may not be processed or further trained until he or she has taken appropriate action to cease to be a Potential Trouble Source.

The validity of this policy is borne out by the fact that the US government raids and other troubles were instigated by wives, husbands or parents who were actively suppressing a Scientologist, or Scientology. The suppressed Scientologist did not act in good time to avert the trouble by handling the antagonistic family member as a suppressive source or disconnect fully.

Disconnection from a family member or cessation of adherence to a Suppressive Person or Group is done by the Potential Trouble Source publicly publishing the fact, as in the legal notices of “The Auditor” and public announcements and taking any required civil action such as disavowal, separation or divorce and thereafter cutting all further communication and disassociating from the person or group.

Unwarranted or threatened disconnection has the recourse of the person or group being disconnected from requesting a Committee of Evidence from the nearest Convening Authority (or HCO) and producing to the Committee any evidence of actual material assistance to Scientology without reservation or bad intent. The Committee must be convened if requested.

Before publicly disconnecting, the Scientologist would be well advised to fully inform the person he or she accuses of Suppressive Acts of the substance of this policy letter and seek a reform of the person, disconnecting only when honest efforts to reform the person have not been co-operated with or have failed. And only then disconnecting publicly. Such efforts should not be unduly long as any processing of the Potential Trouble Source is denied or illegal while the connection exists and a person not actively seeking to settle the matter may be subjected to a Committee of Evidence if processed meanwhile.

The real motives of Suppressive Persons have been traced to quite sordid hidden desires—in one case the wife wanted her husband’s death so she could get his money, and fought Scientology because it was making the husband well. Without handling the wife or the connection with the woman the Scientologist, as family, drifted on with the situation and the wife was able to cause a near destruction of Scientology in that area by false testimony to the police and government and press. Therefore this is a serious thing—to tolerate or remain connected to a source of active suppression of a Scientologist or Scientology without legally disconnecting the relationship or acting to expose the true motives behind the hostility and reform the person. No money particularly may be accepted as fee or loan from a person who is “family” to a Suppressive Person and therefore a Potential Trouble Source. There is no source of trouble in Scientology’s history greater than this one for frequency and lack of attention.

Anyone absolved of Suppressive Acts by an amnesty or a Committee of Evidence ceases to be fair game. Anyone found guilty of Suppressive Acts by a Committee of Evidence and its Convening Authorities remains fair game unless saved by an amnesty.

This Policy Letter is calculated to prevent future distractions of this nature as time goes on.

RIGHTS OF A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON OR GROUP

A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes.

However a person or group may be falsely labelled a Suppressive Person or Group. Should the person or group claim the label to be false, he, she or they may request a Committee of Evidence via their nearest HCO. The executive with the power to convene a Committee of Evidence must do so if one is requested for recourse or redress of wrongs.

The person or representative of the group labelled Suppressive is named as an Interested Party to the Committee. They attend it where it convenes.

The Committee must pay attention to any actual evidences that the person or group that is accused of being suppressive may produce particularly to the effect of having helped Scientology or Scientologists or a Scientologist and if this is seen to outweigh the accusations, proof or lack of it, the person is absolved.

Any knowingly false testimony, forgeries or false witnesses introduced by the person or group accused of being suppressive can result in an immediate finding against the person or group.

Any effort to use copies of the testimony or findings of a Committee of Evidence called for this purpose or holding it to scorn in a civil court immediately reverses any favourable finding and automatically labels the person or group suppressive.

Failing to prove guilt of Suppressive Acts, the Committee must absolve the person or group publicly.

If the findings, as passed upon by the Convening Authority, demonstrate guilt, the person or group is so labelled as a Suppressive Person or Group.

RECOURSE OF A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE

A person labeled a Potential Trouble Source and so barred from receiving auditing, may request a Committee of Evidence of the nearest HCO as recourse if he or she contests the allegation.

The Committee of Evidence requested must be convened by the nearest Convening Authority.

If evidences of disconnection are given or if the alleged Suppressive Person or Group is clearly and beyond reasonable doubt shown not to be guilty of Suppressive Acts or is shown clearly to have reformed, the Committee of Evidence findings and the Convening Authority must remove the label of Potential Trouble Source from the Scientology and the label Suppressive Person or Group from the suspected person or group.

But should the former Potential Trouble Source's state of case show no gain after reasonable time in processing, any exe3cutive of Division 4 (Training and Processing) may order a new Committee of Evidence in the matter and if it and its Convening Authority reverse the former findings, the labels are applied. But no auditor may be disciplined for auditing either during the period between the two findings.

RECOURSE OF AN AUDITOR

An auditor disciplined for processing a Potential Trouble Source or a Suppressive Person or a member of a Suppressive Group, may request a Committee of Evidence if he can persuade the Potential Trouble Source and the Suppressive Person or a representative of the Suppressive Group to appear before it.

The auditor so requesting may also have named as an Interested Party or Parties with himself the person or persons who supplied the information or misinformation concerning his actions.

[admin]

Exhibit 3

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 FEBRUARY 1966

HCO Div
LRH Comm
ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY
(Additional Pol Ltr)

Remimeo
Exec Sec Hats
HCO Sec Hat
Legal Officer Hat
LRH Comm Hat
Dist Sec Hat
Press Hat
Sect 5 Dept 3

Anyone proposing an investigation of or an "Enquiry" into Scientology must receive this reply and no other proposal:

"We welcome an investigation into (Mental Healing or whoever is attacking us) as we have begun one ourselves and find shocking evidence."

You can elaborate on the evidence we have found and lay it on thick attacking the attackers only.

NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to an investigation of the attackers.

This was the BIG error made in Victoria. I okayed an Enquiry into all Mental healing. I ordered evidence on psychiatric murders to be collected. Non-compliance with these orders brought on the loss of Melbourne and the law in Victoria against Scientology. This was the non-compliance that began it. The original order I gave was relayed as "we welcome an Enquiry into Scientology ..." or it was changed to that in Melbourne.

This is correct procedure:

(1) Spot who is attacking us.

(2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.

(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.

You can get "reasonable about it" and lose. Sure we break no laws. Sure we have nothing to hide. BUT attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned .They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us - only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us.

I speak from 15 years of experience in this. There has never yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would come out.

They fear our Meter. They fear freedom. They fear the way we are growing. Why?

Because they have too much to hide.

When you use that rationale you win. When you go dishwater and say "We honest chickens just plain love to have you in the coop, Brer Fox," we get clobbered. The right response is "We militant public defenders of the freedom of the people want that there Fox investigated for eating living chickens!" Shift the spotlight to them. No matter how. Do it!

You can elaborate on the formula. Let's say some other branch of government wants to investigate us via the press Just apply the formula:

"We welcome a public enquiry into (that branch activity) as we already have begun to investigate their (----)." It will always work. It even would have worked on the U.S.F.D.A. when they first began five years before their raid on D.C. They run! And that's all we want.

HOW TO STOP ATTACKS

The way we will eventually stop all attacks from there on out is by processing the society as follows:

(l) Locate a source of attack on us.

(2) Investigate it.

(3) Expose it with wide lurid publicity.

You see the same thing in a preclear. He has a rotten spot in his behaviour. He attacks the practitioner. The spot is located on a meter. It blows and the preclear relaxes.

Well this is just what is happening in the society. We are a practitioner to the society. It has rotten spots in it. Those show up in attacks an us. We investigate and expose - the attack ceases.

We use investigators instead of E-Meters. We use newspapers instead of auditor reports. But it's the same problem exactly.

So long as we neglect our role as auditor-to-the-society we will be attacked.

Society is pretty crazy. It's a raw jungle. So it will take a lot of work. We must be willing to put in that work as a group or we'll be knocked about.

Remember, CHURCHES ARE LOOKED UPON AS REFORM GROUPS.

Therefore we must act like a reform group.

The way to seize the initiative is to use our own professionals to investigate intensively parts of the society that may attack us. Get an ammunition locker full. Be sure of our facts. And then expose via the press.

If we do this right, press, instead of trying to invent reasons to attack us will start hanging around waiting for our next lurid scoop.

We must convert from an attacked group to a reform group that attacks rotten spots in the society. We should not limit ourselves to mental healing or own line. We should look for zones to investigate and blow the lid off and become known as a mighty reform group. We object to slavery, oppression, torture, murder, perversion, crime, political sin and anything that makes Man unfree.

The only error we can make is disperse our investigation. We do a preliminary look, then we must select a target and investigate it until we have the cold facts and then BANG, fire the salve.

Don't worry about libel if our facts indicate rottenness. The last thing that target will do is sue as then we would have a chance to prove it in court, which they are terrified of our doing.

Remember - the only reason we are in trouble with the press or governments is that we are not searching out and exposing rotten spots in the society. We must practice on the whole group called society. If we do not it will attack us just as preclear will attack a Scientologist that won't audit him.

To get wholly over to cause we must select targets, investigate and expose before they attack us.

We have at this writing a long way to go. But we might as well start somewhere. Begin by investigating any attacking group, find and expose the dead bodies. Then work on to our selecting the targets.

And that will handle it all.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml:ldm
Copyright (c) 1966
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[admin]

Exhibit 4

SEA ORGANIZATION

FLAG CONDITIONS ORDER 4500-237

8 June 1979

FOLOs
ALL ORGS
ALL MSNS
GWW

[Deleted]

DECLARE

[Deleted] having blown the Sea Organization is hereby DECLARED a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON.

blew from Flag in early 1979 and despite many attempted handlings both from Flag and from FOLO EUS he has not taken the opportunity to get back into the group. It should be noted that [Deleted] was given an extraordinary amount of time to get himself squared away and back into the group and despite this he has chosen to stay blown and break his Sea Org contract.

He is also DECLARED a FREELOADER and ASSIGNED a CONDITION of TREASON.

He is not permitted any auditing or training in any Church of Scientology at all until he has fully done the requirements of steps A to E of HCO PL SUPPRESSIVE ACTS SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS THE FAIR GAME LAW 23 Dec 65.

Real Laplaine
HCO FB Cope Off

Approved by AVC

for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:AH:RL:111