OC: The McDonald Papers #8
Andreas Heldal-Lund
[Operation Clambake present: The McDonald Papers #14]
---
Ace of Clubs:
Well, it looks like I now have four-of-a-kind. Welcome aboard.
This is a Knowledge Report I wrote after an awfully strange phone
conversation with Matthew Veenker, who at the time I believed to be
a curmudgeon and little wanna'-be-Miscavige, swagger-stick-mentality
fascist. Later, I came to lower my opinion of him.
This report speaks for itself.
Thanks for your help.
Randy McDonald
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: LRH Comm CC Int 9 September 1995
FROM: Jon Randall McDonald
KNOWLEDGE REPORT
cc: Comm Ev Chairman CC INT EO 5256
Comm Ev Secretary CC INT EO 5256
IJC
Dir I&R CC Int
Dir I&R CC Nashville
Dear Sir:
This is to reduce to writing the content of our phone conversation
on the evening of Friday, 8 September 1995:
1) I informed you that, although I have been told verbally (in a
phone message left on my machine on Monday, the 21st of August 1995
by Paul LeQuerre) that I am an Interested Party in a CC Int
Committee of Evidence convened by you as Convening Authority, I have
never received from CC Int a copy of the Bill of Particulars, nor
have I ever been contacted by the Secretary to make any arrangements
regarding my testimony. (I've been told that the Bill of Particulars
was issued as CC INT EO 5256.)
2) I informed you that I had sent a FAX on 23 August to Paul
LeQuerre, with an info copy routed to the Secretary of the Comm Ev,
requesting that the Bill of Particulars be FAXed to me (as LeQuerre
had promised in his phone message), stating that no one had
contacted me to arrange my testimony, and requesting that someone
please contact me as soon as possible. (To this date, neither Paul
LeQuerre nor the Comm Ev Secretary have responded to that FAX. A
copy of it is appended to this FAX.)
3) You requested and got my FAX number, and said that a Bill of
Particulars would be FAXed to me that evening. (It is now over 24
hours later, and I still have not received the Bill of Particulars.
My FAX is fully operational, as I have received other FAXes in the
interim.)
4) You requested and got the phone number that I would be reachable
at for the next hour or so, and said that the Secretary would be
contacting me. (It is now over 24 hours later, and she has not
called. I have received numerous calls and several recorded phone
messages in the interim, so there has been no problem with my
incoming communication lines that would have prevented anyone from
getting through.)
5) I told you that I had been told in a phone conversation with
Stephen Mitchell, another Interested Party in this Committee of
Evidence, that the Committee had been enjoined to wrap their
proceedings up over this weekend. You affirmed that this was true.
6) I told you that I was very surprised to hear this, as no one from
the Committee had contacted me at all, and I live some 2,000 miles
away. No appearance by me had been scheduled; no arrangements had
been made to secure my evidence or testimony; I had been given no
opportunity to make travel arrangements; I had been given no
opportunity to secure the finances needed for such a trip; I had
been given no opportunity to arrange for any time off of my work
that such a trip might require; I had not even been provided with a
Bill of Particulars so that I might know and prepare to answer
whatever charges have been leveled against me.
7) I asked you if I was actually going to be called upon and
expected to suddenly appear in Los Angeles on scant hours notice,
and you said, yes, that was the case. You went on to say that IJC
had ruled that any testimony would have to be in person, and that
the information I had to give and my pleas to the charges could not
be taken by phone and/or FAX: that it was not "included in the
policy." You again said the Secretary would be contacting me, and
that I would receive the Bill of Particulars. (It is now 1:37 a.m.
Sunday morning, 10 September, and there still has been no Bill of
Particulars sent, still has been no phone call from the Secretary or
any other representative of the Committee.) You then went on to say
that I "could always just refuse to appear."
8) I told you that I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of
refusing to appear. I told you I was not only willing, but quite
eager to participate in this Committee of Evidence, and to answer
all charges against me. I told you that it would place an egregious
financial and logistical burden on me and my family if I were
suddenly required to travel to L.A. with the kind of ridiculously
short notice that was being discussed, but that I would do whatever
was necessary.
9) I asked you if it was true that you had told Stephen Mitchell in
a phone conversation that I had written some "very enturbulative
reports" that were "not accurate." You said that you had not told
Stephen Mitchell that my reports were "not accurate." You then went
on to tell me that my reports were "rabidly critical." Without
regard to the validity of that assessment, I asked you if that was
an offense under the Scientology Justice Codes. You said, no, but
that you were very highly trained, and then implied that my reports
were indicative of overts and withholds.
10) I again asked you about what you had told Stephen Mitchell. I
told you that he said he had asked you very directly about my
reports: "Are they accurate?" And he said that you had replied very
directly, "No, they aren't."
11) You again denied that you ever said that in that manner; you
asserted that you had merely given him your opinion about my reports
being inaccurate, and that you had made it clear to him that it was
merely your opinion.
12) I then asked you several times what, specifically, you felt, in
your opinion, was inaccurate in any of my reports. I failed,
actually, to ever get that question answered, because you then
changed the subject and criticized the routing I put on the reports,
without ever addressing the accuracy of the facts contained in the
reports. I told you I had sent the reports to responsible officers
of the Church that I felt should be informed of the data contained
in the reports. I conceded the fact that perhaps I may have been
guilty of misrouting, and asked if that were an actionable offense
in the Scientology Justice Codes. You then mentioned a charge of
"Spreading destructive rumours about senior Scientologists..." but
didn't really complete the thought, and said I would get the Bill of
Particulars, and would then find out exactly what I was being
charged with, and that I needed to take this up with the Committee.
13. You again asserted that the Bill of Particulars would be
forthcoming, and that the Secretary of the Committee would be
contacting me to arrange my testimony.
14. I expressed my sincere hope that you would take a fresh and
unbiased look at my reports, with a view not to the routing, but to
the actual facts (the time, place, form, and events) that were
contained in the reports. And I expressed to you my sincere belief
that if the facts contained in my reports were true (as I understand
them to be) then we all have a great deal of responsibility to
shoulder in bringing all the facts to light.
The above is an outline of the salient facts of our phone
conversation, based on my notes taken at the time and my fresh
recollection. If your recollection of any part of the conversation
differs from this description, I invite you to amend this write-up
with notes to correct any inaccuracies from your viewpoint.
I have made all arrangements to secure a flight to L.A. as soon as I
know when and where I am to appear before the Committee. It is
vitally important to the economic survival of me and my family that
I not be away from my work for any protracted period of time, as I
am the sole regularly-earning provider for my wife and four
children. As my work is as a freelance artist, and as I have worked
for 10 months to build up and secure my position with several
agencies here, and as my practice is wholly dependent on my ready
availability to perform the work for these agencies in a timely
manner under extreme deadline pressure, my absence for more than
even a few days would severely jeopardize my position and income. I
trust the Committee will understand this, and will exercise a due
and rational regard for my circumstances in making their
arrangements with me for my appearance.
In addition to the above, I would like to have entered into the
record of the Committee of Evidence the following facts:
1) I have not received any copies of any reports on me at all.
2) I have neither seen nor heard any shred or particle of evidence
of any allegation against me.
3) In July of this year I suddenly discovered that my name had been
put on a non-enturbulation order, when I had had NO prior contact
from any Ethics Officer or anyone in the Church about any problem
with anything I was doing or not doing, and with NO ethics gradient
applied to any real or imagined wrongdoing on my part.
4) The phone conversation I had with you left me with the clear and
surprising impression that I am regarded with extreme prejudice
because I had the temerity to write a High Crime report on an august
personage within the hierarchy of the Church. I wish to go on record
as saying unequivocally that I stand 100% behind the facts contained
in my reports, and I assert that they are facts exactly as I know
them to be, or as they were presented to me by parties who I named,
with the time, place, form, and event clearly represented as
accurately as possible from my records and recollections. The fact
that you or anyone could even remotely associate those reports with
"Spreading malicious rumors..." is beyond my comprehension, as an
integral part of the definition of rumor is that it is "of uncertain
origin." In addition, most dictionaries add that rumors are not
based on any evidence, and are circulated by word of mouth, gossip.
There is not the least uncertainty about the origins of any of the
facts contained in my reports. I clearly reported the exact sources
of the data contained therein, and I clearly signed my own name to
the reports.
5) If the charges against me are related to my having written those
reports, of course it is obvious that this is in clear violation of
policy regarding the disciplining of someone for the fact of having
written a report. But regardless of that, I stand by the data in my
reports, and defy anyone to prove any part of those reports false.
My personal integrity is far more important to me than my immediate
life, and personal integrity consists of observing what one observes
and saying what one observes. That is what I have done in my
reports, and damn the consequences.
6) If the sitting Committee is, in fact, a fact-finding body, and if
any of the charges against me are related to those reports, then it
is incumbent upon the Committee to FIND OUT THE FACTS of those
reports, and establish with finality whether they are true or false.
If they are false, then I deserve anything I get. If they are true,
then this needs to be clearly stated in the FINDINGS in order for
justice to be done, and to RUN OUT THE GROUP ENGRAMS. The facts that
MUST be established are these:
A) IS the agreement with the IRS a SECRET agreement? (Unknownness,
group unconsciousness, hidden data line, mysterious particles,
not-is-ness, entered arbitraries, omitted data, connection and
adherence to a group demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts.)
B) IF it IS secret, was it, in fact, the desire of BOTH parties to
keep it secret?
C) DID Jim Morrow, the Tax Compliance Officer at OSA Int, TELL me
the things I put in the report, or didn't he? If he DIDN'T tell me
those things, then he should be able to tell the Committee point
blank and under oath that he never said them, that the agreement is
NOT secret, and he should be able to provide a copy to PROVE that it
isn't secret, and so settle the matter, once and for all, that I am
a bald-faced liar who makes up wild, unfounded stories, and who
commits my lies to written reports, and who then sends those wild,
trumped-up lies to all the Ethics Officers and LRH Comms and senior
Ethics terminals so I can just be summarily declared.
D) ARE "Scientology Policy Directives" legal issues, and DO they
constitute "policy" for the Church? If so, what of LRH's statement:
"If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy?" If so,
WHAT LRH HCO PL ESTABLISHES THEM? If not, WHO is trying to usurp the
position of LRH as SOURCE? (Wrong Source, Added Falsehood, Altered
Importance, introduction of arbitraries, negation of policy.)
I welcome the opportunity to get to the actual facts regarding these
issues, and to have them fully communicated openly and honestly.
I have gone to some lengths to arrange for my transportation to L.A.
and for a place to stay there for a brief time, and am standing by
to go as soon as someone contacts me to let me know when and where I
am to appear. I WILL be there. Eagerly.
Regards,
Jon Randall McDonald
P.S. Please note my actual name. I understand the source of
alter-is, so it didn't surprise me to see it incorrect on the
non-Enturbulation order, but I would appreciate it if in the
Findings and Recommendations I could at least have my full name
presented correctly. "Randy" is an affectionate nickname that is
reserved for use by my close friends.
Yours faithfully, Andreas Heldal-Lund - Adm. TOXE CXI
_______________________________________________________
OPERATION CLAMBAKE ----> http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/
S T O P T H E C U L T O F S C I E N T O L O G Y
Heidrun Beer
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 20:45:37 GMT, hel...@NOSPAMonline.no (Andreas
Heldal-Lund) wrote:
>[Operation Clambake present: The McDonald Papers #14]
[...]
>D) ARE "Scientology Policy Directives" legal issues, and DO they
>constitute "policy" for the Church? If so, what of LRH's statement:
>"If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy?" If so,
>WHAT LRH HCO PL ESTABLISHES THEM? If not, WHO is trying to usurp the
>position of LRH as SOURCE? (Wrong Source, Added Falsehood, Altered
>Importance, introduction of arbitraries, negation of policy.)
[...]
>Jon Randall McDonald
[...]
Oh, this guy is great, I love him. Imagine 1.000 or 10.000
of such people becoming active, I mean ACTIVE!!!
Heidrun Beer (clear baby)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussing CoS practice: http://www.icon.fi/~marina/clrbaby/index.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Competition" is a trick of the weak to fetter the strong.
Where there's a group to be helped or a preclear to be processed
or a student to be trained, see that it's done; and *if* it gets done,
don't count the cost in broken rules.
- LRH, 29.10.59 II, "Service" -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------