Dr. Steve Kent's Declaration in the Padgett Case
Gregg
April 27, 2001
1. I, STEPHEN A. KENT (PhD), Professor of Sociology at the
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2H4, offer the
following declaration on behalf of THOMAS CARTER PADGETT in the Civil
Action No. 92-CI-00444, Laura Vannoy Padgett vs. Thomas Carter
Padgett.
2. My professional specialization is in the area of alternative
religions. I have worked specifically in this area at the University
of Alberta for the past thirteen years. Scientology is among the
groups that I have studied. I have been a Full Professor of Sociology
since July 1997. Prior to that time I held various positions as
Assistant and Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology. I
maintain Adjunct Professor status in the Department of Comparative
Literature, Religion, and Film/Media Studies, which means that I can
co-supervise graduate students and have some of my sociology courses
cross-listed for students in Religious Studies. I teach classes on the
sociology of religion at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
3. I began formal studies of Scientology in 1986, and since then
have published several articles on Scientology and referred to it in
still others. My vitae is attached.
4. In light of my professional publications and my knowledge of
Scientology practices, I am qualified to speak about Scientology's
use of the legal system against perceived opponents as a means of
harassment according to what it used to call the 'fair game' policy.
In addition, I can speak about Scientology's practice of
'disconnection.' In my professional opinion, Mr. Thomas Padgett has
been victimized by Scientologists' application of 'fair game' and
'disconnection policies.
A. USE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM AS PART OF SCIENTOLOGY'S FAIR GAME
HARASSMENT OF PERCEIVED OPPONENTS
5. A crucial document for understanding Scientology's harassing
legal strategy is the Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter
[HCOPL] (23 December, 1965), "Suppressive Acts[,] Suppression of
Scientology and Scientologists[,] The Fair Game Law." This document
can be found on pp. 552-557 of L. Ron Hubbard, The Organization
Executive Course, HCO Division 1, Copenhagen: Scientology Publications
Organization, 1970. This book was part of an 8 volume (plus index)
series known as the "old OEC volumes" or the "old green volumes"
because of the colour of their covers and the fact that a new OEC
series came out in 1991. Many Scientologists owned the entire "old"
series, and all Scientology organizations had copies because members
had to refer to it often in order to identify proper organizational
procedure.
6. Some time during 1991, the new OEC volumes ("the new green
volumes") appeared. The HCOPL of 23 December 1965RB appears in this
new volume, but it had been revised on 8 January, 1991. The revised
version contains much of the wording from the original, but it is
reorganized in places, and it has deleted reference to "Fair Game." I
will return to the debate over the role that the old "fair game"
doctrine plays in Scientology after 1991. I conclude that its
continued place in Scientology legal strategy makes it probable that
Mr. Thomas Padgett is a 'fair game' target.
7. This specific Policy Letter concerns the identification of and
response to persons, organizations, or actions that Scientology
founder L. Ron Hubbard identified as hindering or damaging
Scientology's activities and practices. Hubbard labeled the most
serious opponents "suppressive persons" (often abbreviated to "SPs").
8. According to Scientology policy, Mr. Padgett is a "suppressive
person." The definition given in a Scientology Policy Letter of this
term is: "A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to
suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts"
(old OEC 1: p. 552; new OEC 1: p. 873).
9. "SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy
Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this
policy letter" (old OEC 1: p. 552; new OEC 1: p. 873).
10. Several of the acts that Hubbard specified were such that
Scientology leaders would see Mr. Padgett as a suppressive person
committing suppressive acts. Suppressive Acts include:
11. "reporting or threatening to report Scientology or
Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress
Scientology or Scientologists from practicing standard Scientology"
(old OEC 1:p. 553; new OEC 1: p. 876); and
12. "engaging in malicious rumour-mongering to destroy the
authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of
Scientology..." (old OEC 1: p. 553; new OEC 1: 876); and
13. "delivering up the person of a Scientologist without
defense or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law" (old OEC
1: p. 553; new OEC 1: p. 876).
14. Mr. Padgett's statements to the media about
Scientology (see his "Challenging Scientology's Claims," Cap Cod
Times, March 19, 1999: A10), his presentations and/or talks about
Scientology at conferences, and his attempt to get certain
Scientology-derived behaviors introduced into various civil and
criminal procedures qualify him and a Suppressive Person according to
Scientology policy. The old version of the policy specifically states,
"[a] Suppressive Person or Group becomes 'fair game'" (old OEC 1: p.
552).
15. The very next HCOPL in Volume 1 of the old Organizational
Executive Course (dated 17 March 1965) discusses the "Fair Game Law."
In this context, the Policy says:
16. "[s]o, in Scientology, anyone who rejects Scientology
also rejects, knowingly or unknowingly, the protection and benefits of
Scientology and the companionship of Scientologists. If the person
never was a member of the group or if the person had been a member of
it, the result is the same" (old OEC 1: p. 558).
17. Mr. Padgett, of course, had been a Scientologist, so he is
covered in this Policy Letter.
18. Also in the old OEC 1 volume is a definition of "High Crimes."
They "consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing
Suppressive Acts. Cancellation of Certificates, Classifications and
Awards and becoming fair game are amongst the penalties which can
leveled for this type of offense..." (HCOPL of 7 March 1965, "Offenses
& Penalties," in old OEC 1: p. 551).
19. Consequently, Mr. Padgett is a "Suppressive Person" and
therefore also is a "fair game" target. Indeed, in an October 28, 1999
affidavit by Mr. Padgett filed in Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Thomas
C. Padgett (Criminal Action No. 98-CR-067), he stated that he learned
(presumably in 1993) from the Nashville, Tennessee Scientology
Celebrity Center that the Scientology organization had in fact
declared him to be a suppressive person.
20. In an HCOPL of 18 October 1967, Hubbard identified what was to
happen to a person in either Scientology organizations or its elite
"Sea Organization" whom Scientology declared to be an "enemy." An
enemy inside Scientology would receive an "SP Order. Fair game. May be
deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist
without discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied
to or destroyed."
21. Hubbard's HCOPL of 21 October, 1968 entitled, "Cancellation of
Fair Game," also appeared in the old OEC Volume 1 (p. 489). The four
sentence statement, however, reveals that Hubbard ordered
Scientologists to stop using the term, "fair game," because it brought
the organization bad public relations. The actual behaviors, however,
toward supposedly "Suppressive Persons" were not to change. The Policy
read: "[T]he practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR
GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public
relations. This P/L [Policy Letter] does not cancel any policy on the
treatment or handling of an SP [Suppressive Person]" (p. 489).
22. It is true that the new OEC volumes appear to have purged the
"fair game" term. Evidence strongly indicates, however, that the
organization has never purged the aggressive behaviors that went along
with the term regarding "the treatment or handling of an "SP" such as
Mr. Padgett.
23. Evidence that the aggressive behaviors continued after
Scientology published the new volumes in 1991 comes from an
examination of the confidential Scientology publication "Department of
Special Affairs[,] Investigations Officer[,] Full Hat Checksheet,"
dated 1991.
24. On p. 5, the person is required to do a demo[nstration] of the
statement, "Why the only way to defend anything is to attack." This
attitude bodes ill for critics such as Mr. Padgett, regardless of the
accuracy of their comments.
25. In the 1991 "Department of Special Affairs[,] Investigations
Officer[,] Full Hat Checksheet," a person on this course was required
(on p. 26 #25) to read "HCO Exec Ltr [Hubbard Communications Office
Executive Letter] 27 Sept[ember] [19]65, "Amprinistics." This
Executive Letter discusses a number of people and "splinter groups"
that supposedly took Dianetics and Scientology material. On the first
line of p. 3 of that document, it says, "Treatment: They are fair
game, can be sued or harassed." I realize that the Church of
Scientology International reissued a revised version of this Executive
Letter on 24 September, 1983, and that the revised version omits
mention of "fair game" and accompanying suits and harassment. The
"Full Hat Checksheet," however, did not list this revision (as it did
with other items) when identifying the required reading, but instead
listed the earlier version containing the "fair game" statement.
26. An L. Ron Hubbard article entitled, "The Scientologist[:] A
Manual on the Dissemination of Material," appears on pp. 151-171 of L.
Ron Hubbard, The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology,
Volume 2 (1954-1956), Copenhagen and Los Angeles: Scientology
Publications, 1976. It first appeared around mid-March, 1955 in
Scientology's Ability Major 1 magazine. This book is part of a
twelve-part series now known as the (old) Tech volumes or the old "red
volumes" because of the colour of their covers. Serious Scientologists
owned the entire set, and all Scientology organizations had copies
because members had to refer to the books often in order to identify
proper auditing (which is a form of counseling) procedures. Indeed,
this item is required reading in the 1991 "Department of Special
Affairs[,] Investigations Officer[,] Full Hat" course, as indicated by
its inclusion on p. 4 of the "Full Hat Checksheet" under Section D:
Department 20." This department is the Department of Special Affairs,
which replaced (and in some policies and personnel, continued) the old
Guardian's Office, which was notorious for its use of lawsuits in
attempts to silence critics.
27. The paragraph instructing Scientologists to defend only by
attacking, even in a court of law, outlines the behaviour that I
believe explains many of the current legal and social situations
burdening of Mr. Padgett. It states:
28. The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to
defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you
will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms
of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE
INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will
WIN. Don't ever let them have any other thought than that Scientology
takes all of its objectives (p. 157).
29. Moreover, the second-last paragraph on that same page contains
two key sentences for understanding Scientology's attitude toward
lawsuits:
30. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough
harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well
knowing that he is not authorized, will be generally sufficient to
cause his professional decease. If possible, ruin him utterly (p.
157).
31. I note that on p. 5 of the Executive Directive Office of
Special Affairs International (1991), Investigations Officers were
instructed to study the Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter
from August 15, 1960 entitled, "Department of Government Affairs."
That Policy Letter instructed Scientologists:
32. [i]f attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or
anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat
against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an
exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't
ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks
in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best (p. 484 in old OEC
7).
B. USE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM AS PART OF SCIENTOLOGY'S FAIR GAME
HARASSMENT OF OPPONENT THOMAS PADGETT
33. Much of the harassment that Mr. Padgett has endured while
engaged in legal actions with his former wife, Laura Vannoy Padgett,
has been committed by anonymous perpetrators. Consequently, I cannot
say with certainty who the perpetrators were. One incident, however,
strongly indicates that perpetrators were Scientologists. In the
police report filed after Mr. Padgett found that items inside his
garage had been vandalized, the officer stated, "written on the
newspaper sheet in print were the words, 'SHUT THE FUCK UP'"
[underlines in original report]. The underlined letters, 'SP' are the
same as 'suppressive person,' which has very definite meaning in
Scientology.
34. A different event, however, demonstrates that
Scientology is committed to publically ruining Mr. Padgett's
reputation. On September 8, 2000, Mr. Frank Ofman, Director of Public
Affairs, Church of Scientology, Boston, published a letter in the Cap
Cod Times (p. A10). Its first sentence referred to Mr. Padgett
pejoratively as "deadbeat dad Tom Padgett." It erroneously reported
that he had "been officially sentenced to five years in jail." (Mr.
Padgett was released from jail several weeks later when the court
learned that he had been imprisoned because of an administrative error
in the handling of his child-support checks.) The brief letter went
on to ask the newspaper whether its failure to report his imprisonment
was because it defended Mr. Padgett's "views that he shouldn't pay
child support? His disregard for law and order? Crime?" The letter
ended by giving a membership figure for Scientology ( 8 million) that
almost certainly is grossly inflated, and indicated that
Scientologists "will continue to apply the principles of L. Ron
Hubbard to create a world without crime." The content of the letter
itself, however, indicates that another application of Hubbard's
principles that Ofman was applying involved the 'fair game' practice.
35. Another professional has reached the conclusion that
Mr. Padgett has been the subject of serious harassment. Practicing
Arbitrator G. Preston Doom stated (on March 24, 2001), "[o]ne cannot
ignore in reviewing prolific documentation of Mr. Padgett's life since
1992, that he has been engulfed in vexatious litigation being
protracted by his ex-wife which has advanced into criminal charges.
Having a felony label placed on Mr. Padgett would completely dash any
hopes of him resuming any decent paying job." Vexatious litigation
and the imposition of a felony label are actions in accordance with
Scientology's 'fair game' practices.
36. Earlier, in an arbitrator report, Mr. Doom devoted a
paragraph to what I am calling 'fair game' practices against Mr.
Padgett:
There appears t o have been some unusual out-side interference in this
progressive career. Based on conversations with Mr. Padgett and
careful review of factual documents, one must conclude that impact
caused by a[n] unfriendly and non-traditional entity which in many
professional corners is regarded as cultic. Unfortunately, this
negative influence will no doubt continue until cognizant authority
stays with expected intervention" (p. 2).
Most assuredly, that "unfriendly and non-traditional entity" is
Scientology as it implements its 'fair game' practices.
C. THE SCIENTOLOGY DISCONNECTION POLICY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MR.
THOMAS PADGETT'S EFFORTS TO OBTAIN UNSUPERVISED VISITATION TIME WITH
HIS CHILDREN
37. Mr. Padgett's designation as a suppressive person has
important implications for the manner in which Scientologists would
view his contact with his the children. Again according to
Scientology's definitions, these children would become "potential
trouble sources" because of their extended contact with their father
(Mr. Padgett). As Scientology defines the term, a "Potential Trouble
Source (abbreviated 'PTS')" is "[a] person who is in some way
connected to and being adversely affected by a suppressive person. He
is called a potential trouble source because he can be a lot of
trouble to himself and others" (Church of Scientology International
[compiler], The Scientology Handbook, Los Angeles: Bridge
Publications, 1994: p. 426).
38. More specifically, a "PTS Type I" is "one who is associated
with or connected to a suppressive person in his present time
environment. By 'connected' is meant in the vicinity of, or in
communication with in some way, whether a social, familial, or
business relationship" (Church of Scientology International
[compiler], The Scientology Handbook, p. 428).
39. According to Scientology doctrine, Scientologists have their
ability to progress in auditing damaged by being in contact with
suppressive persons via potential trouble sources. Consequently, one
accepted Scientology strategy is to attempt to get the Potential
Trouble Source to cease contact (called 'disconnecting' in
Scientology) from the suppressive person. As a Scientology publication
states (after discussing how the organization had canceled the
disconnection practice in the past), "the tool of disconnection was
restored to use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and
standardly trained in the technology of handling suppressives and
potential trouble sources" (Church of Scientology International
[compiler], Scientology Handbook, p. 440).
40. Consequently, Mr. Padgett has every reason to believe that his
ex-wife is attempting to minimize if not prevent him from having
contact with his children. In essence, the children would become
"potential trouble sources" from that contact, which in turn would
cause problems for the mother in her Scientology activities. Indeed,
the current situation regarding his children--in which his former wife
has sole custody and Mr. Padgett has restricted visitation--amounts,
functionally, to being "disconnected" (to use a Scientology term) from
his children (given the great distance that Mr. Padgett lives from
them). Likewise, Mr. Padgett has reason to fear that his former wife
might be attempting to turn their children against him.
D. THE AMERICAN LEGAL COMMUNITY'S UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENTOLOGY'S 'FAIR
GAME' PRACTICES
41. Taking a broad perspective on the issues in this case,
American legal scholars are aware of the kind of harassment that Mr.
Padgett has experienced. An article by J. P. Kumar entitled, "'Fair
Game': Leveling the Playing Field in Scientology Litigation" appeared
in The Review of Litigation 16 No. 3 (1997): 747-772. Kumar correctly
reveals that, "[m]uch to the Church [of Scientology]'s chagrin,
opponents frequently cite its own founder, L. Ron Hubbard, for the
'fair game doctrine,' a revealing statement that may explain the
ferocity and zeal of the organization's litigation stance" (p. 748).
Soon afterward he added, "[w]hatever the Church's official policy on
perceived enemies and actual opponents, there is little question that
the Church has practiced a confrontational litigation strategy that
has frustrated judges as well as opponents" (p. 748). In the context
of the case in which Mr. Padgett currently is embroiled, he can count
himself as sharing good company with his frustrations.
42.abUnder a section of the article entitled, "Litigation Tactics,"
Kumar identified "Relentless Litigation." About this strategy he
wrote, "[p]erhaps the most obvious feature of the Church of
Scientology's use of the legal system is the sheer volume of
litigation initiated by the Church in both offensive and defensive
situations" (p. 749). Mr. Padgett's insistence, therefore, that he
has been the victim of vexatious litigation is in accordance with what
members in the legal community already have identified in other
circumstances.
43. Later in that same section, Kumar identifies another tactic as
"Attacking Credibility." He concluded:
[f]inally, one of the most controversial features of Scientology
litigation is the Church's vehement attacks on the credibility and
character of lawyers, even judges. According to a number of
Scientology critics, these attacks have run the gamut from legal
avenues, such as formal allegations of bias or misconduct or courtroom
accusations against parties and witnesses, to extralegal activities
such as picketing, paid advertising, and private investigations of
opponents. One common tactic is to uncover or accuse individual
adversaries of criminal activity (p. 755).
Mr. Padgett, it seems, has been on the receiving end of a predictable
Scientology attack, the basic dimensions of which are well-known to
the legal community.
44. As Kumar realized, solutions to Scientology's use of 'fair
game' in legal settings raises difficult issues for the courts. His
concluding advice, however, may have bearing on this case.
[T]rial judges possess the power to maintain control of their
courtrooms, to broadly construe and vigorously police the requirement
of good faith, and to safeguard the integrity of the legal process.
In the event of misconduct, they must be willing to exercise that
power without hesitation or fear of reflexive reversal. Instead of
turning to sweeping reforms, litigants, the legal system and the
public must rely on trial judges to preserve fairness, equity, and
order in their domain (p. 772).
In my professional opinion, this court has the power to put an end to
the harassment that Mr. Padgett has suffered and at the same time
reach a just and equitable solution that places the welfare of
children as its first priority.
45. I have met Mr. Padgett in person, when we both attended a
conference in March, 1999. In addition to several conversations with
Mr. Padgett during the conference, he and I spoke for quite a few
hours (possibly as many as six or so) after the conference was over.
Much of that extended conversation was about his legal battles. In
this statement, however, I have tried to base my comments almost
exclusively on documents.
46. I have not received any remuneration or payment for making
this statement.
Under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States, I
declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this day of , in
_________________________
Stephen A. Kent (PhD)
Professor
Stephen A. Kent (Ph.D.)
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6G 2H4
Michael 'Mike' Gormez - www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
In article <3b009d64...@news2.lightlink.com>, elr...@home.com
(Gregg) wrote:
>Stephen A. Kent (Ph.D.)
>Department of Sociology
>University of Alberta
Who's going to web it? Mail me the url when it's up or I do it.
Mikey
--
Scientology & Dianetics
Tax-exempt child abuse and neglect?
www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
tommyboy
The last page of Dr. Kent's report on the version entered with the
Kentucky Court had the following on it.....
-----------------------------------------------------
Under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States, I
declare that the forging is
true and correct.
<signature>
Stephen A. Kent
State of Indiana
St. Joseph County
Stephen A. Kent signed before me, a notary
on May 2, 2001.
Linda C. Nagy
Notary Public
My Commission Expires Sept. 27, 2001
____________________________________
This declaration along with Dr. Kent's oral testimony, was entered as
record on May 9, 2001. Since then, Dr. Kent and my attorney
have both informed me that counsel for the
Scientologists objected to this report and to just about everything that
came out of Dr. Kent's
mouth!!.........as they regularly do when the truth
is told. On cross examination, he even asked Dr. Kent, an esteemed
professor of Sociology, under oath, to define what a "deadbeat dad" was?
How profound eh! The answer should have been, "It depends on whether
one is in the U.S. or the rest of the free world like Canada."
FYI,
Tom Padgett