by admin » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:41 pm
Part 8 of 14
To answer your question directly: It was sued by the Food and Drug Administration and Nathan Dodell. And the Article or Device case did originate from that publication among others. And if you read the Article or Device case, which, I believe, for the record, is, 333 F. Supp. D.C., 171 -- if you read that case -- you will see there's an appendix in the back of the case, and I believe, and the record will correct me if I'm wrong, that the first exhibit, the first exhibit, to pass on the court's opinion is Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and representations contained therein, which resulted in that warning which was put in as an exhibit. I But to stop you, Jim Calderbank, or the City of Clearwater, or LaVenda Van Schaick, or Paulette Cooper, or George Meister, or Jack Clark, or someone, Brown McKee, would have to bring a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, pay the lawyer to bring the lawsuit to challenge the publication. And you heard testimony about how much money the organization earns. You can draw your own inferences as to your ability to fight an organization with that money, that kind of money. And, also, as I suggested to you before, you can contact Nathan Dodell in the Food and Drug Administration and find out from him personally what it took to litigate that one case.
With regard to the confidentiality of auditing information, which, in my professional judgment, is at least, from the point of view of basic human rights one of the fundamental issues before this Commission, it may not be as concrete as whether there are ten or fifteen or twenty five people in a room. But in terms of what I suggest to be the insidiousness of this organization and what I suggest to be the level of deception practiced by this organization, it's one of the most fundamental issues to be considered by the Commission and scrutinized as to what the Commission can do to inform people who come to your city that their auditing information -- over the last whatever number of years the evidence shows -- has been used for the purposes the evidence shows it has been used for, aside from the issues of -- the monetary issues, the money that's extracted, based on the representations of what auditing does.
Aside from those issues, the information that is on deposit about human beings over in that organization and what that organization has done with that information is a very significant issue for this city to consider. I have seen, and the evidence is -- I put in some documents in evidence to show you people the types of things that are in this information. And some of the documents pertain to, as you will see, some political figures, not in this city and not even in this state.
But when an individual is subjected to E-Meter auditing or a security check and he's required to disclose every crime that he knows that he did, that his mother did, his father did, his brothers and sisters did, his uncle did, his best friend did, and at any point in time that information becomes useful for either investigative purposes by the organization or for direct review, they can go investigate the uncle, the brother, the sister. And if the information is given in specific enough detail by the individual who's being audited, all they have do, is go to those documents. So, if they want to find out whether or not Paul Hatchett's cousin, God forbid, did something in 1972 at such and such a location, all they have to do is go to that auditing information and then go check that place at that time for whatever purpose they're looking into.
The possession of that kind of information in an organization that uses it the way it uses it is a very substantial issue before this Commission. There are highly respected members of the clergy, and there are churches throughout the United States, and there are psychiatrists throughout the United States, and there are doctors throughout the United States, who are -- and there are lawyers throughout the United States, who are given highly confidential information that is protected by very specific laws, wherein the lawyer, the doctor, the psychiatrist, the clergyman cannot disseminate that information without the permission of the individual.
Well, this organization in this city, through laws, I submit, in this city, which can be enforced directly in this city to deal with this particular problem, which is -- as you heard from that -- nature of the income that's being derived in this City, at least equal to every other organization around the United States, is of paramount concern to Clearwater as opposed to Las Vegas, Nevada, or Boston, Massachusetts, or even New York City, or even, perhaps, Los Angeles, California.
If, in fact, the evidence is true that the income in Clearwater is equal to every other place in the United States, including Los Angeles, the magnitude of the problem that you are deliberating upon becomes apparent. And the bulk of information possessed by the organization in this city about people around the world, who are paying money in this city, becomes apparent. And the use of that information and the way that it's used, as has been demonstrated in very small degree, I suggest, in the evidence that we presented -- and there's a lot of evidence, but based on the evidence that could have been presented, I suggest to you it's been a very small degree -- something has got to be done. Something has got to be done to protect a nineteen-year old David Ray, when he wants to leave the organization, to not be required to sign a statement saying he did all these things to either lure him back in, into what could at least -- at least be described as indentured servitude. Or if he wanted to get out and he wanted to come to Mayor LeCher or the Consumer Protection Officer in the City of Clearwater, he should be able to come and say, "This is what the organization did to me,"' without fear that that organization or its attorneys are going to walk in before an official body and say, "This is what David Ray is."
The manipulation of people to prevent them from exposing the truth, whatever peccadilloes are in their background -- when the truth of what an organization is much more significant and substantial than some minor peccadillo -- are two competing interests that this city has got to substantially weigh.
Take, for instance, the testimony of Mr. Mayer. He was sent out on eighteen missions, if I remember the testimony correctly. And he read from a telex. He described a situation in Manchester, England where he went to a medical doctor and blackmailed him; that was basically what he said. If you go back over the record, I suggest that that's what it will tell you.
He went to Scotland; he went to Hawaii and blackmailed some woman with threats of bestiality that he had from her auditing folder to get her to do a particular thing. In some cases, I think, there were some instances -- evidence to raise the stats, to get the income up.
Well, I would suggest to you, common sense would indicate that if you are in charge of raising the Stats in Hawaii and someone of Mr. Mayer's ability -- Mr. Mayer's ability or whoever else runs this organization now comes to you with that type of information -- and it's all or else type of thing and you're already working fifteen to seventeen hours a day -- maybe you would be induced to be a little more vigorous to make a little more misrepresentation or to do anything, like, convince him he's loony to get money into that organization.
The suggestibility factors alone on that issue, with an operative like Mr. Mayer or some of these other skilled people coming with that information to a person to get them to be a little more aggressive in their solicitation practices in the collection of income, is a substantial issue before this Commission, aside from all the other issues with regard to the use of the information for purposes of extortion, blackmail, manipulation, or whatever. In order to give you a flesh and blood example of what this type of thing does, we specifically correlated our evidence so that some people would be before you such as Ernie Hartwell. Well, I heard Mr. Johnson say, "What does Las Vegas, Nevada have to do with Clearwater, Florida?" Well, I think it's quite apparent.
If they are making five hundred thousand a week during one period, or a million dollars a week during another period, or 2.3 million dollars at least once here for auditing, based on slave labor -- which is -- we'll get into at a later point in time -- then -- and they're using it in the way that I suggested -- if you can see a flesh and blood example of that, then, you will begin to realize that you're dealing with human beings and not just pieces of paper, as one exhibit -- the one exhibit on this issue we put on the transparency shows.
I mean Ernie Hartwell is someone who was told that he was going to come to Clearwater, Florida, and he ended up in the desert giving them auditing information.
And when he realized how significantly he had been duped and he tried to fight back to the degree that Ernie Hartwell could fight back, you saw what -- you heard from him what happened to him. You heard from Janie Peterson, as an operative. And she was only, I suggest to you, a GOPR, Guardian's Office Public Relations, which is probably the most neuter branch of the Guardian's Office. That's like Mr. Wilhere. I mean, those are the people who go out and show the public what nice guys we are. And the Guardian's Office B 1 Intelligence Gathering Division -- because of the high degree of compartmentalization, one, generally, has no idea what the other's got. They are just told: "Go do this and go do that with it." But you heard Janie Peterson testify how, not only in the case of the Hartwells, she went out and used that information or the organization, not Janie Peterson, the organization went out and used that information, took it to the Las Vegas Review Journal, issued a press release saying that he was a murderer -- which is another whole issue which we don't have the time for -- taped his conversations, edited the conversations, and then tried to use those against him.
Took Tonja Burden's auditing files, which were, according to her affidavit, as you will see, for some two years and three or four months taken here in Clearwater, Florida, while she coded and decoded telexes as a fifteen-year old child for the GO, and put on L. Ron Hubbard's pants, as her affidavit shows, and took off his pants, without his shirt on, and walked around collecting his ashes, as her affidavit shows. And in the interim, when she wasn't doing that, she was coding and decoding telexes for a criminal conspiracy, only they were double- and triple-coded so she didn't even know what they were.
And now their coding process works is another whole issue, and one of our exhibits is "The Correct Use of Codes."
But they took Tonja Burden's auditing information and telexed it from Clearwater, Florida and sent it out to the GO in Las Vegas. And the GO, as Mrs. Peterson testified, used it out there, and, also, LaVenda Van Schaick's. Well, with regard to the Hartwells and Van Schaick, those people appeared before you. They told you what they did.
Then, you saw them, and you saw the GO operative and what the GO operative did with it. That's a real example, totally correlated as to how the information is used.
But I would suggest to you that that example is not just the -- as an investigative body, one of your responsibilities, together with all the other information in evidence before you, would be to infer from that how widespread it is based on the policies, one of which was introduced into evidence by Mary Sue Hubbard to use the information. And I think you may recall the policy says to use all Ethics, personnel, processing files. So, that is just one example, and a very significant point, very significant: Brown McKee testified that up in Connecticut, per policy he sent the files to Flag. And he didn't know what they were doing with them. And if he'd known, he wouldn't have spent twenty-four years in the organization, or paid whatever amount -- I don't believe he testified how much he paid; I happen to know but -- whatever he did pay, assuming he did -- you can draw the inference from what other people paid.
Some nineteen-year old child in Clearwater, whose auditing files -- he began in Los Angeles, like, David Ray, who didn't get that much auditing fortunately. But I would suggest to you that, perhaps, Casey Kelley coming from Oregon, LaVenda Van Schaick coming from Las Vegas to Flag, and all of those auditing files being sent from Las Vegas to Flag when she came here and now in the possession of this organization here to be used in the way they were used against Van Schaick, all of those issues demonstrate what's being done with those -- that auditing information. And then --
MR. HATCHETT: Pardon me, please. Didn't Mr. McKee say he stopped sending those from Connecticut?
MR. FLYNN: I believe he says now that he has stopped sending them. For a long period of time, he testified that he did. But he now doesn't. He is now, as he testified, disassociated from the organization. He wouldn't be sending anything to them now. But for he -- I believe, he specifically testified for many years that he did, but he's stopped now.
And I think he did say that he'd burn them now before he would send them, now that he knows what he knows, which is, of course, the whole fundamental issue of deception, which is the fundamental issue underlying the two ordinances that we have proposed dealing with consumer fraud and charitable solicitation of funds.
And on that point, as our very minimal case study shows -- or our preliminary case study shows, the Supreme Court has constantly said over and over again -- and they just said it in connection with this Minnesota case involving the Unification Church and the case in New Mexico and the cases that are set forth in our preliminary report, particularly, the Shoenberg case -- the Supreme Court said over and over again: When you're dealing with charitable solicitation of funds in purported religious organizations on their face, you can't -- if the record -- if the organization makes one hundred misrepresentations -- or makes one hundred representations, of which ten are false and ninety are accurate, you can't completely shut down all of their solicitation; it's too broad. You can't simply vest in a public official the right to not grant the permit to solicit. Cantwell v. Connecticut and every case since has repeatedly stated you deal with the fraud; you don't ban the entire solicitation practice or their right to solicit until after an adjudication, and you deal with the fraud. If the fraud permeates the entire solicitation practice -- after an adjudication -- well, that's what you'd be dealing with.
So, we have drafted our ordinances to comply with the Supreme Court cases that deal with the fraud, not to simply vest in a public official the right to deny a permit, which is what every other Supreme Court case, when they have struck down ordinances of that type, have done. In the League of Mercy case in Jacksonville, when they went to enact an ordinance -- I submit to you, it's been upheld by the Florida courts. And, yet, in our professional judgment, that particular ordinance is also unconstitutional.
But an ordinance, as Cantwell v. Connecticut says, Shoenberg -- every case virtually says: Deal with the fraud. Don't ban completely the practice by simply allowing a public official to say, "No, you can't do anything." Deal with what is fraudulent.
With regard to some of the issues, the legal issues, that deal with the confidentiality of auditing information, in terms of criminal activity, it permeates extortion, blackmail. In terms of some civil responsibilities, it permeates issues concerning invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and all of those issues. Most of those things can be dealt with in a consumer protection statute.
If there's a consumer protection ordinance that specifically says you can't do it, you can't tell someone that it's going to be held in confidence and then not hold it in confidence, and then, if the person does it and you have a lawsuit against him and an adjudication punishable by a fifty-, a hundred-, and hundred and fifty-thousand dollar fine, whatever is warranted, based on the degree of harm or the degree of wrong, then, every time it's done that penalty is imposed. That's a very simple thing to regulate.
Then, arises the issue of some type of injunction: if they do it in any pattern per policy, then, you can prevent it possibly all together if there's strong enough evidence perhaps, placard right behind the registration desk, Just like a warning on a cigarette package, just like a warning in the Article or Device case, that the organization has a practice of doing it, and every time they do it a fine is levied, where everyone who walks in the door sees in large, capital letters, "This organization from such and such to such and such has done the following with your auditing information," or, perhaps, in a more legalistic manner.
And as our audit suggests, all of this would not be simply vested in a public official to go do it, which would probably be unconstitutional, although, in some instances it may not be, depending on various standards that could be used, but it could easily follow an adjudication. And if the issue is compelling enough to the community, as, I suggest, this issue is compelling enough, perhaps, it could be treated expeditiously in the legal process so that some corrective measures and remedial processes can be invoked.
I would suggest to you that if that type of deception, along with the other types of deception that we've talked about, is one of the ways they make money, it may have some impact.
With regard to the evidence on this issue, I’ve already gone over a little bit of it: there's a lot of it in the exhibits, there's been a number of witnesses, all of whom have testified that if they had known they wouldn't have given the information or that they wouldn't have paid the money. There is substantial evidence -- and we intended it to be so on that issue for that reason.
But even Mr. DeWolfe testified, if you wanted to believe him, that as far back as 1954, his father was bugging the auditing room. In terms of pattern, that pattern, I would suggest to you, has been taking place from 1954 right up to, at least, Janie Peterson's testimony. And maybe, maybe, right up to today, if David Ray's information came from where I at least, I would suggest it came from.
MR. CALDERBANK: Can we have Mr. Ray back to give sworn testimony as to the information he put in the auditing files, since he is not aware? Or can we take a deposition --
MR. FLYNN: I think that's a much --
MR. CALDERBANK: -- on the west coast to find out if Mr. Ray in fact, indeed, gave this information? That would show the pattern, if one existed, up to the present day, today, May 1982.
I'd like to request the Commission to take the steps to have Mr. Ray's deposition concerning this issue.
MR. FLYNN: I would suggest to you that that level of persistency is what will cure the problem.
MR. CALDERBANK: Mr. Flynn, you mentioned about the auditing and the -- if the evidence and transcript and record shows, indeed, there's a pattern or a need for some kind of consumer protection, how do we -- after hearing the testimony, how can we ascertain whether or not the auditing or confidentiality is being broken on a regular, day- to-day basis?
MR. FLYNN: I would suggest to you that the more openness that is injected into this entire operation -- the more people are made aware that there is someone to go to, the more they're made aware that things are not as clandestine and secret as they're led to believe, the more that the truth can penetrate on whatever way it can penetrate -- maybe it would start with a Paulette Cooper, then, maybe it would go to a LaVenda Van Schaick or a Nan McLean, and then to Janie Peterson, who, in my opinion, was one of the most courageous witnesses for reasons known to me to appear before you.
MR. LeCHER: That's Jani Peterson. Commissioners -- you you have just a limited amount of time to speak, sir. And I would rather -- I would prefer that we allow you the time, and if we still have questions of you, we can ask it of you after your concluding remarks when the time is ours.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Mayor. I would suggest to you that more of Scott Mayer's, as he suggested to you -- and on that point, Scott Mayer, when he testified, dragged out some -- Scott Mayer is a very thinking person, I would suggest. And he dragged out some outlines and things that he thought you should do. And Mr. Berfield asked him whether he had discussed it with us in advance. Well, I tell you -- and I would go under oath -- that I had no discussion with Mr. Mayer in advance about his particular outline, but I was happy to see that he had thought through some of those things and presented them to you.
But there may be, if more truth is injected into this situation, which, for at least seven years in this city, has basically been a matter of media attention -- if more truth was injected by whatever manner in whatever way into this situation, there'd be more Scott Mayers and more Janie Petersons and Tonja Burdens and LaVenda Van Schaicks who have the courage to come forward. So, in response to Mr. Calderbank: You may get kids more willing to walk across the street in a little less state of fear. Or maybe, if there was a little less state of fear, they wouldn't even be there.
And if there was a notice behind a regging desk or the cramming room that those legal options existed -- a notice posted by this city -- maybe they'd begin at least to look at it and to think about it. And the regger or the crammer may say, "That's just a legal problem. Forget about it; it's got nothing to do with us." Well, he may think a little more, just a little. And that one little thought at some point may induce him to come forward.
Now, we're on our third area; there's, I think, twelve. We'll have to move quickly.
With regard to deception of the overall nature, purposes, organizational structure; what the organization is, what is Scientology to someone who is first presented with it, there are just unending issues. There are issues concerning, primarily, I would suggest, the Fair Game Doctrine. Well they say they cancelled it. You saw a cancellation. This policy letter -- this -- "What we're not going to do anymore is we're not going to put on Ethics Orders that the Fair Game Policy exists." That's what it said: "We're not going to put it on Ethics Orders." In other words, "We're not going to put it in writing." It causes bad public relations.
"This policy does not cancel any treatment of an SP," that's what it says. And I suggest the Church of Scientology come in here right now with their version of the cancellation. And I suggest to you that some of the exhibits we put in, such as Exhibit 4 was a Fair Game Declaration with a policy date in it, and the policy date is 1965. And the second one -- there are two. There's a long Fair Game Policy and a short one; they both integrate with one another. They're Exhibits 1 and 2, as you'll see. The cancellation is in 1968, two years after those two were adopted. The Fair Game Declare that we put into evidence is dated 8 June 1979, referring to the policy in 1965.
I suggest to you that any common sense interpretation would tell you that it hasn't been cancelled. Then, you get into the issue of conduct. Now, those are pieces of paper, their own pieces of paper. Then, you get into the question of conduct and the inferences to be drawn from conduct, and the inferences to be drawn --from Operation Snow White to penetrate every national agency across this country, which is one of the exhibits, and that took place in the 1970's. The cancellation was in 1968. Or Operation Normandy, or Operation Tacoless, against your former mayor, or Operation Speedy Gonzales, or Keeler 1, or Keeler 11. Those took place in the '75, ‘76, ‘77 era. Merrill Veneer, pursuant to one of those operations, penetrated his -- your former mayor's law firm in the seventies.
Or what they did to Tonja Burden, to LaVenda Van Schaick through the use of auditing information -- I mean, the inferences to be drawn from what was done to them as late as 1980, in terms of lying, cheating, or destroying. There are very clear cut legal inferences, as any trier of fact could find, from just the conduct alone. And the conduct is substantial, right up to David -- Mr. Johnson appearing in this room here today with David Ray's information, if you decided to draw that inference.
Most witnesses, I believe, testified that they wouldn't have joined the organization if they knew the criminal operations were taking place. So, whether Fair Game is canceled or not canceled, there's no question that these criminal operations -- eleven people have been convicted are in -- ten of whom are in jail, and the eleventh, I'm sure, will -- it will be quite immediate where she will go to jail.
Every witness, I believe, testified, or almost every witness, that they would not have joined the organization, paid money, provided labor, did whatever they did, move beds for sixteen to eighteen hours a day, took invoices like Casey Kelley did, whatever services provided or monies paid, they wouldn't have done it if they had known that this organization was breaking into places, pursuant to their operations on how to break in, or infiltrating the Clearwater Sun, or conducting all these other hundreds of operations that have been put before you. They wouldn't have done that if they had known the organization had a policy to do such things.
And I believe, specifically, McKee of twenty-four years gave some evidence on, at least inferentially, on that issue, Kelley of three years, and Ray of six months. That covers a long time span. If they knew that those criminal operations were taking place, they wouldn't have joined that organization.
That in itself is an organizational deception. What the GO does, what it has done, what it continues to do, the written policies, it's got to do is all organizational deception.
With regard to just some of the peripheral links to Clearwater, you've got all of the operations in Clearwater which we haven't even discussed. And you've got Project Owl, which came from Clearwater, originated by Mitchell Hermann. You've got Burden's auditing files going out to -- from Clearwater to Las Vegas, the Hartwell enticement to come to Clearwater. All of those are types of deception, which, had they known about the nature of the organization -- it's goals, purposes, at cetera - -they would never have joined.
Some of the financial issues, involving "It's a crime to give anything away, Make money, make more money," the price lists, that Kelley testimony that nothing was given away, all of those would suggest to you that there is not a charitable purpose here. You can't give, for instance, auditing, which is alleged to be for spiritual travail, to a terminally ill person, if you remember the testimony of Lori Taverna. I mean, that would give you some inferential suggestion as to the charitable purposes of this organization or whether it's just to acquire money and what it does with its money.
If Casey Kelley thought that the money was being used to infiltrate the City Commission's office as opposed to all the things that he thought it was being used for, there's a level of deception that has been practiced right there, which this Commission can consider. There's a level of charitable purposes right there, which this Commission can consider. And those types of things go all the way down the evidentiary chain.
One specific example is Mr. Kelley couldn't get a typewriter, but Mr. Mayer could travel to Hawaii and accuse some poor victim of bestiality in order to get her to raise the income. Or Janie Peterson couldn't get paper, but Gary Clingler could be sent to Boston to tell LaVenda Van Schaick that her husband was having an affair, that her lawyer was going to be disbarred.
I would suggest to you that all of that evidence would show you what the priority of the use of funds was in deciding whether the priority related to charitable purposes or other purposes. And the legal significance on a potential charitable solicitation of funds ordinance is broad ranging and will be discussed in whatever follow-up report we present.
Then, you have issues concerning the use of telexes, the evidence of crimes already before the Commission, both documentary and testimonial, involve extortion, blackmail, larceny, burglary, bugging, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, smuggling, false swearing, perjury, violation of IRS laws and Immigration and Customs laws, to state a few.
Civil torts involve fraud, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duties, and potentially the minimum wage laws, to state a few.
The Article or Device warning has already been discussed to some degree. It's a fundamental issue in the case. It has very specific legal significance. I won't go into it in any more length at the present time. I think every witness testified that if they had known there was no scientific basis for this thing they wouldn't have become involved, basically.
And the Article or Device warning, which is in evidence, specifically requires that in eleven-point leaded type to do that, which in some publications they do, in some publications they do something narrower. But in no publication that I have ever read have they ever done it in full compliance with the court order. And in this particular publication, What is Scientology?
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Flynn, I might point out that within the last year or two years a personalized copy of that was given to each one of the City Commissioners, to myself, as well as Mr. Bustin, the City Attorney.
MR. FLYNN: So, they were --
SHOEMAKER: It was before you came along --
MR. LeCHER: That was my gift when I became Mayor.
MR. SHOEMAKER: It was a couple of years ago.
MR. FLYNN: I believe that the warning says on the cover page or the title page. Well, the cover is the cover, and the title page is there. That's the title page.
And you can ask people that are familiar with publications -- I used to be the editor-in-chief of a law review, so I know a little bit about publications. But you can ask, perhaps, the reporters what the title -- what the cover page and the title page is?
And then you turn to this page, and you see the size of the print. And stuck in here -- and I think you can see the size of it -- it -- "The E-Meter is not intended or effective for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of any disease."
Well, that is probably one-third, number one, of what the warning said should be put in, and I won't dig out the warning now, but it's a number of sentences and it goes on in detail. That's a very shortened-down version; it's not in eleven-point leaded type; it's not where it's supposed to be. And I suggest to you that the level of deception perpetrated by this organization in placing it where it placed it, on this particular page where they give the printing dates --
MRS. GARVEY: Not too many of us read those.
MR. FLYNN: -- is something that inferentially you can consider.
The legal documents issue is an issue that we could talk for two hours on.
There is evidence -- we put them on -- on releases, waivers, freeloader's debt, things like that.
Kelley testified that he thought that he would only have to pay the freeloader's debt if he tried to get back in. Well, even that has some legal significance. Ray testified that he was told he had a six thousand dollar freeloader's debt. As the exhibits will show, Tonja Burden, after December 17th, 1977, when she was made to sign these disclosures, releases, and everything else she signed, was sent a freeloader's debt. She was out of the organization; she was not trying to get back in the organization. She was out, and she was told that she pay it.
And I suggest to you that if these hearings -- if this Commission investigated it further and brought in many witnesses on this particular issue -- you'll see affidavits on the issue that we submitted and you'll see documents that have been signed and have been introduced as exhibits along this point. But you will find, I would submit to you, that ninety percent of people getting out of Scientology who were staff members and received services, believe that they owe that debt.
So, that alone is a legal issue that has serious consequences in a consumer protection ordinance. The Kelley marriage license, although, a small item, is of some significance, because it relates to the Disconnect Policy. And the attitude -- and you've seen the Disconnect Policy on the overhead transparency, that you must divorce someone who is PTS to you, someone who is against Scientology.
Well, they have a legal obligation -- if they marry people as ministers, as they hold themselves out to be -- to file with the clerk of this city -- I would suppose, I'm not precisely familiar --
MR. BUSTIN: The county.
MR. FLYNN: -- the county, that the marriage has taken place. Well, in Kelley's situation, it didn't. Well, that was one witness out of fifteen. Now, how many more people do we know who've been married or not married? I don't know. Maybe many more witnesses would have a similar experience. There was some testimony that there were many quickie marriages in the Church.
And the legal significance to the county or the city on that issue alone is important. It also demonstrates to some degree the effectiveness of the Disconnect Policy, which is a whole issue in itself.
There is a whole issue upon which no evidence has been submitted on organizations, like ASI, Applied Scholastics, Narcanon, the elderly society, Gerus, et cetera, et cetera, their purposes and what they do. But intertwined with all that is the question of -- if these women are having children and are married or not married, the legal consequences to the children. There are issues pertaining to whether or not -- who's supporting the children, who's legally responsible to support the child, whether they go on the welfare rolls.
In the City of Boston, because of our own particular investigatory efforts about how the staff lives in the City of Boston, we have determined from many former staff members how they live in terms of food stamps, welfare, unemployment, and things like that. That issue hasn't even been addressed in these proceedings and the potential consequences to children, or to the particular welfare program who are dealing with children.
Things like that permeate all of these legal considerations with regard to the way the Church treats the WOG world and the legal requirements of the WOG world. Then, for instance, to perpetrate the level of deception that, I would submit, the evidence shows on individuals, such as David Ray, and make him sign a release and further perpetrate the deception that the release is binding so he's afraid to go -- of even going to a lawyer. He doesn't even think of going to one because he thinks he's signed a release. I mean, this is a nineteen-year old boy you're talking about. Most of those kids, they wouldn't even know how to go to a lawyer. And they think they've already signed a document where all their rights are lost anyway. And we're not talking about a document that gives them the right to get into heaven or hell; we're talking about a right to bring a lawsuit, pursuant -- essentially, through a consumer protection ordinance over here in the Pinellas County Courthouse to get their money back.
The conditions in the Fort Harrison building have broad-ranging consequences for a lot of different reasons. In some -- if there are four hundred staff members -- and it takes four hundred staff members to work sixteen to eighteen hours a day, at nine dollars and sixty cents an hour or seventeen dollars and twenty cents an hour, whatever, to keep the organization going --
MRS. GARVEY: A week.
MR. FLYNN: A week, pardon me.
-- to keep the organization going -- well, if there was an enforcement of an ordinance that said you could only have 1.1 rooms -- persons per room or two persons per room, and those people had to go elsewhere, or they had to buy more buildings to house them, and they didn't get such cheap labor to house them, because they now had to have more buildings and more everything else, or reduce staff, I think the financial impact, which deals with the issue of deception, becomes apparent.
The testimony on that is significant. I believe every year, right up to 1981 -- right up to the summer of 1981, is covered. I believe Mayer testified that he erected the bunks; Kelley, from '77 to '80, lived in a room with fifty people; Van Schaick was here in '77 with eight to ten people; Taverna and Pace were here in, I believe, '79, June to December '79, with eight to ten people; Ray was here in the summer of 1981. You heard him describe the conditions -- in let alone the staff wards -- in the RPF.
And I submit to you that one inference that could be drawn as to the purpose of the RPF is even cheaper labor. The guys that can't get their -- maybe the staff -- some staff members, like Ray, moved the beds; maybe the guys in the RPF cleaned the toilets so, if they had less people in the RPF because they couldn't house them where they house them, maybe, they'd have to house them elsewhere and pay more money to house them elsewhere so they can get people to clean the toilets.
MRS. GARVEY: Well, they don't even pay for the RPF.
MR. FLYNN: No. I was not relating it so much to wages, which is an altogether -- another issue. If they paid them the wages, they wouldn't have the labor force to do it.
But even if you enforced an ordinance that says you could only have two people per room, where would the labor force go? And if the labor force is reduced all of the support technology that keeps this million dollars a week flowing may be affected.
One -- one point of interest is that, in 1981, I believe, David Ray testified, in the summer, he was over -- he was over at the Fort Harrison. At that time, and this is from my memory -- the Scientologists, at least with regard to the Bank of Clearwater building, were erecting on it -- outside their building at some point during that period -- to try to spruce up their image, their PR image, while David Ray was chest-deep in garbage and living in a room with eight to ten people. I would suggest to you, that may have something to do with deception of this city.
With regard to -- and this is really not specifically relevant because it's the organizational policies, not necessarily Hubbard's. If Hubbard adopted them in the chain of command, that's for your consideration. But if the organization was doing them on an organization wide level, that's all you need, regardless of who wrote them.
But there is the SO 1 line, the Sea Org. -- the Standing Order Number 1, where people like Tonja Burden and Taverna and others could be made aware of the terrible conditions. There is the Hartwell testimony where they were on the ranch with Mr. Hubbard where all the terrible conditions persisted. And that goes right to the top of the organization. The inferences that could be drawn there are of significance.
The medical issues are of obvious significance. It's a whole area which could be investigated in itself. Perhaps, it's appropriate for the AMA or for your local investigative agency to do so.
There has been testimony, for instance, from Van Schaick that she had to drink alcohol for the hepatitis epidemic. There is the Affidavit of Garritano that he was here; he got hepatitis. If you want to go up and take his deposition or pay for him to come to this city, that could be done.
Those epidemics and those problems should not be treated by Medical Officers. The city should be aware that they exist, and they should be given proper treatment.
And as someone testified, there wasn't enough money to go to the doctor. I believe it was David Ray who was told that by the Medical Officer. There wasn't enough money to go to the doctor, but there was enough money to infiltrate and steal documents from agencies all across the country, including, as the extensive exhibit shows, documents in this city.
The education and the care of the children issue is of significance. The testimony by Miss Van Schaick about the death of that child, which is currently under investigation, deserves to be looked into. I will state and this is not to be taken as part of the factual record but only in terms of your consideration for pursuing the investigation on this subject -- we do have other evidence that has nothing to do with LaVenda Van Schaick about that situation. And when LaVenda Van Schaick testified about it, for your information, we didn't even know that she was going to testify about it, and we didn't know that she had that information because our information comes from other sources. And we were quite surprised when we heard it.
The things, like, telling children and thirteen- and fourteen-year old Cadet Org members that the U.S. government nerve gassed Jonestown people is of significant concern, when those same twelve and thirteen-year old children are working day and night -- are working all day and playing video games at night and not receiving an education. Miss Taverna testified that in another city her child didn't receive the proper education.
There's testimony to some degree about what some of these children were doing here. The ideal testimony would have been from a teacher who had been in the City of Clearwater. We have that evidence in Los Angeles, and we are -- we have hard, concrete evidence. We don't have anyone who would come forward that was anywhere close to a teacher or a nanny in Clearwater that we could have presented to you. We do have that situation, and we presented an affidavit on it with regard to the person's knowledge of the conditions in Los Angeles. And you've got Tonja Burden's testimony that she was here -- in her affidavit -- for all those years and she never received any. And you have Rosie Pace's testimony and Lori Taverna's testimony, which relate to some degree to the issue, at least, enough to, perhaps, suggest to you that there should be some investigatory effort made in that area.
We are going to have to -- there are the issues of restraint, physical versus psychological. There's some evidence of -- probably more evidence of a psychological type of restraint. But there is some evidence of actual physical restraint, and I believe the record will bear that out. David Ray got into a fist fight because he wanted to go out for one day. Taverna was asked to go with her Ethics Officer to physically restrain someone. But I believe the bulk of the evidence shows more of a psychological restraint than a physical restraint, but there is some evidence of the latter.
The whole family disintegration issue, et cetera, is an issue of broad-ranging consequences. To me, personally, I would -- and professionally, I would view it as an area of extremely vital concern.
Scientologists would claim that it, perhaps, invades their religious practices, so we won't pursue that -- for the time -- for the present time.
The financial issues are, of course, significant.
The testimony -- I've already referred to some degree as to how much they made. One of the reasons we brought someone like Kelley, for instance, is because he actually received the invoices. That's pretty hard evidence in terms of accounting procedures and the type of evidence that often can come into a judicial proceeding, which this is not, on trying to prove how much money they get. They could publish things in their -- on their bulletin board, whatever, as, I believe, Taverna testified to, that she saw some publication about one million per week.
But Kelley's testimony was pretty hard testimony because he actually received the invoices and he knew exactly what was coming in during the period that he was doing that. And there was corroborative evidence on the 2.3 million dollar week.
Mayer testified about the twenty-five percent seventy-five percent breakdown and how Hubbard tries to keep the expenses down to twenty-five percent. The rice and beans issue, the labor force issue, the nine dollars and sixty cents per hour or seventeen -- per week: or seventeen dollars and twenty cents per week are all issues that have to be considered in terms of the deception, the ordinances, both charitable and consumer protection, and the impact -- as I've previously discussed -- the impact on controlling to some degree, through proper ordinances or enforcement of zoning provisions or whatever, how that labor force lives would have -- could have a significant impact on financial considerations.
The Clearwater connection has a lot of very specific items of evidence. I believe the overall -- and I could run through them all. I believe they'll all be borne out in the record, when it's created, and the legal inferences to be drawn therefrom.
I suggest to you, as 1 suggested at the outset, the primary consideration is the organization, not the individuals -- not Hugh Wilhere or Janie Peterson or even L. Ron Hubbard. The primary consideration is the organization, whether the organization has got policies doing the types of things that some of these witnesses have testified about and what can be done to deal with those policies in your City to prevent them from happening again, and, perhaps, even to correct abuses that have been inflicted upon people in this city in past, but possibly to give them some degree of remedial protection.
Thank you.
MR. LeCHER: Does that conclude your summation, sir?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, it does, Mayor.
MR. LeCHER: You were fifteen minutes early. Ladies and gentlemen, we would -- I'd like to take a break for lunch and then come back, and I'd like to have us, the City Commission, decide what they want to do, if anything, with respect to what has happened here today.
And so, we will take a break and come back -- do you want to come back in an hour, please -- come back at one o'clock. It is now five minutes after twelve.
We are recessed until one.
(Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)
Afternoon Session
Charles LeCher
MR. LeCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Staff, consultants, and press.
Welcome back to the Clearwater City Commission Hearings, i.e. -- excuse me -- i.e., the Church of Scientology -- we have heard close to five days of testimony. And to the extent that these hearings had been an attempt to find out to what extent the organization, in this instance, the Church of Scientology, should be permitted to engage in questionable business practices without being restricted by city government. In the past, there's been an assumption or justification the Church was operated in their secular conduct, operated within a code of ethics that required very little supervision by government.
However, for the past five or six years, we have heard louder and louder rumblings that the Church of Scientology has disregarded such ethics, has violated numerous city codes, as well as the basic rights, has been engaged in profit- making endeavors for the personal gain of individuals within the Church.
It was because of these charges that your Commission took it upon themselves to conduct these investigations with regard to secular conduct to determine if further legislation is needed. Failure to abide by basic and just codes of human safety, health, and welfare, failure to cease activities that appear at this point to be fraudulent and deceitful, leave the City of Clearwater with no alternative but to work within the framework of existing ordinances and those that are contemplated as further guarantees for all our citizens' well being, including the Scientologists who are here for certain periods of time.
I had hoped that the Church would appear here today to refute the testimony that was presented this past week. The Commission had hoped that there would be sufficient evidence submitted by both sides as would require much serious thought and discussion on the part of the mayor and the Commission.
Since the Church of Scientology has not seen fit to appear here to address the issues being investigated against itself -- and there have been many serious charges that have been levied against them in the past five days -- they leave your Mayor and Commission no alternative at this present date but to go to Step III.
I want to reiterate that this Commission has been careful in refusing to listen to testimony that speaks of the religious dogma of the Church of Scientology. We were only interested in those practices that may adversely affect both the people who reside and visit Scientology facilities in Clearwater, as well as those accusations, which, if found to be valid, have been used to fraudulently dupe and deceive members of this Commission, who are sworn to defend the laws of this country, the State of Florida, and the Clearwater Municipal Code.
Nowhere, in any of those laws, is there an exemption granted to an individual or a group because of it being religious rather than secular. We will see that our laws are enforced in a manner wherein everyone is treated equally; no one or no one group will be given any special treatment.
So, I hope that when the dust finally settles, we will let our actions speak clearly. We consider each and every citizen of Clearwater to be equal, and we expect every citizen of Clearwater and every organization within it, with respect to secular conduct, to adhere to the same set of rules, ethics, and protection of Clearwater and its citizens.
That is my comment on these hearings.
And we will be gathering further information as to exactly what we should do about this. It will be studied, disseminated, and dispersed to other agencies.
My fellow Commissioners, if you have any final thoughts or questions, I would like to yield to you at this time.
MR. CALDERBANK: Mrs. Garvey --
MR. LeCHER: Mrs. Garvey.
Rita Garvey
MRS. GARVEY: I really don't think very much needs to be said, except to thank the consultants for doing a very, very good job. And I think they laid the groundwork exceptionally well.
And, of course, also, thanks for the witnesses who appeared. Without them -- without their courage, we would have gotten nowhere.
And, I guess, the only question I have is: What's our next step?
MR. LeCHER: Mr. Hatchett, do you have any parting words?
Paul Hatchett
MR. HATCHETT: I'm grateful to Mr. Flynn and his staff. I feel grateful to this City Commission. I want the general public to know that it took a courageous step to make that decision, and it's not going to haunt me. And I'm going to hang with it so long as it's legal and I know it's right. I have a responsibility to this charter and to the State of Florida to pursue it.
Thank you, again.
And the same as you, Mrs. Garvey, I'm going to hang in there and ask for the next step.
MR. LeCHER: Before we get to Mr. Calderbank, I just want to praise the Commission and the staff. These hearings could have gotten out of hand. Someone could have used it for personal gain or to monopolize it. I think this Commission was very fair in the way they conducted themselves in the investigation and, also, the way they conducted themselves personally and professionally here at this podium.