MY CASE & MY ATTORNEY MIKE FLYNN
LaVendS
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MICHAEL J. FLYNN ) C.A. NO. 83-2642-C
Plaintiff )
VS ) COMPLAINT
LAFAYETTE RONALD HUBBARD )
a/k/a L. RON HUBBARD ) PLAINTIFF DEMANDS
Defendant ) A TRIAL BY JURY
I. INTRODUCTION
This suit seeks damages for acts perpetrated against
plaintiff, an attorney, by defendant and various of his
individual and organizational agents and employees pursuant
to a written conspiracy to "destroy" the plaintiff. It
arises out of plaintiff's representation of clients aggrieved
by defendant and the Church of Scientology.
II. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is Michael J. Flynn, an attorney admitted to
practice in Massachusetts with offices at 12 Union Warf,
Boston, Massachusetts, and with a domicile in Boxford,
Massachusetts.
2. Defendant is Lafayette Ronald Hubbard a/k/a L. Ron
Hubbard (hereafter "defendant" or "Hubbard" with last
known residence and domicile in Hemet, California.
Defendant has stated that he desires his present
whereabouts to be unknown. They are unknown to
plaintiff, but he can be notified through
a) his attorney, Sherman Lenske at Lenske, Lenske,
Heller & Magasin, Woodland West Building, Suite
#315, 6400 Canoga Avenue, Woodland Hills,
California;
b) Lyman Spurlock, his literary and business agent
through Author Services, Inc. with principal place
of business at 6464 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles
California;
c) David Miscavige, his trusted associate and good
friend, through Author Services, Inc, and
d) the Church of Scientology of California, Inc. with
principal place of business at 5930 Franklin
Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Jurisdiction of this court exists pursuant to
a. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332, diversity of citizenship, the
matter in controversy exceeding $10,000 exclusive
of interest and costs and the parties being
citizens of different states and
b. 18 U.S.C. Secs 1961-1968, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
The claims as hereinafter set forth have arisen in
Massachusetts.
4. At all times material hereto, Hubbard has done business
on a daily basis in Massachusetts, Nevada, California
and Florida through the "Guardian's Office", as
described infra and also directly through various
entities known as the Church of Scientology of
California, Inc. ("CSC"), the Church of Scientology of
Boston, Inc. ("CSB"), Flag Services Organization, Inc.
("FSO"), Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), Church of
Scientology International ("CSI"), Author Services, Inc.
("ASI"), as well as various other organizations
(collectively "Scientology organizations") and
individuals. He has done such business as follows:
a. Hubbard sells his publications, written,
copyrighted and published by him, including, inter
alia, "Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental
Health" and "Battlefield Earth" in each of the
four
(4) states set forth above and he directly
receives
income from the sale of said publications in said
states.
b. Hubbard receives 10% of all gross income of the
following Scientology organizations in the
following states:
CSB - Massachusetts
CSC - Florida, California and Nevada
FSO - Florida
c. Hubbard personally owns and controls the
copyrights
of all books published and sold by him in the four
(4) states. Said books and publications are in
excess of fifty (50) and are sold on a daily basis
by Hubbard in the four (4) states, from which
sales
Hubbard receives an annual gross income in excess
of one million dollars per year.
d. Hubbard has assigned to RTC all Scientology
trademarks which are used to do business and
produce income in excess of at least one million
dollars per annum, in each of these four (4)
states.
e. Hubbard communicates via telex in each of these
four (4) states, which network is used on a daily
basis by the Guardian's office and by the "Hubbard
Communications Office" to receive orders from
Hubbard and to provide information to him.
IV. STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM
A. Principal, Agency Relationship of Hubbard with various
organizations and individuals
5. Defendant is the founder, controller, principal and
absolute authority over the Scientology organizations
and individuals. The Scientology organizations, as well
as various individuals, acting as agents of defendant
within the scope of the authority granted to them by and
upon his express orders, engaged in the conspiracy to
perpetrate the torts alleged herein.
6. Hubbard ordered that the directors and officers of each
of the Scientology organizations enumerated above sign
written resignations in advance of their appointment as
Directors and Officers and this was done. Hubbard held
these "resignations" and over a period of years whenever
any of said Directors or Officers contested his orders
or authority, he removed them from their capacity in
said corporations, and appointed new individuals who
complied with his orders and policies.
7. Hubbard was a required signatory on every bank account
over $5,000 of each said Scientology organization.
8. Hubbard established, supervised and controlled an
organization called the "Guardian's Office" ("G.O.")
which he placed in each of the Scientology corporations
for purposes of enforcing his express daily orders. He
routinely called these orders the "daily battle plan."
At all times material hereto, the G.O. employed
individuals under Hubbard's direction to operate in
California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Boston, Massachusetts,
Clearwater, Florida, and diverse other places.
Plaintiff has possession of the written policy of
Hubbard establishing and directing the G.O., together
with the "training materials" of the G.O., written by
Hubbard, all of which were used to commit the torts
alleged herein.
9. At all times material hereto, Hubbard has controlled
said Scientology organizations and issued express daily
orders to them through several individuals. These
agents include his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, Jane Kember
(the head of the G.O.), Arthur Maren (an employee of the
G.O.), David Miscavige (the current liaison of express
orders between Hubbard and the G.O. and all Scientology
organizations), Norman Starkey (an employee of the
G.O.), Joseph Lisa (an employee of the G.O.), Jim
Mulligan (an employee of the G.O.) and Lyman Spurlock
(in charge of ASI and all financial affairs of Hubbard
and the Scientology organizations). Plaintiff is in
possession of a 286 page "Stipulation of Evidence" filed
in United States v. Mary Sue Hubbard Crim. #78-401
(D.C.D.C. 1978), and executed by Mary Sue Hubbard and
eight (8) of the highest officials of the G.O., all as
agents of Hubbard, in which said individuals stipulate
that Hubbard is the "overall supervisor" of the G.O.
Said "Stipulation of Evidence" is a detailed stipulation
of the "operation of the G.O. to "destroy" some of the
"enemies" of Hubbard, one of which was the plaintiff.
10. At all times material hereto Hubbard used the
Scientology organizations and the above-named
individuals and others to implement and enforce both his
policies and his daily orders.
11. Some of these policies were written and copyrighted by
Hubbard and his agents and used by his agents of overall
policy directives to carry out his orders. Some of the
written policies that were specifically implemented
against the plaintiff as hereinafter described are set
forth below:
a. "Enemy: 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."
(hereinafter "Fair Game Policy")
b. "Don't ever defend. Always attack. Find or
manufacture enough threat against them to sue for
peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy
the person's repute and to discredit them so
thoroughly they will be ostracized."
c. "The purpose of the suit is to harass and
discourage rather than to win.
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 generally be sufficient to cause
his professional decrease. If possible, of
course,
ruin him utterly."
d. "This is correct procedure:
1. Spot who is attacking us.
2. Start investigating them promptly for
FELONIES
or worse using our 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 submit to an investigation of us.
Make
it rough, rough on attackers all the way."
e. "The following is a list of the successful . . .
actions used by [our] intelligence [bureau]".
- Using . . . [sex] on someone high in the
government to seduce them over to our side . . .
- Infiltrating an enemy group with an end to
getting documents . . .
- Covert third partying with forged or phony
signatures.
- Anonymous third partying. Particularly the
Internal Revenue Service . . .
- Direct theft of documents.
- Impersonating a reporter over the phone to get
information . . ."
f. "The following are possibilities for collecting
data:
1. Infiltration
2. Bribery
3. Buying information
4. Robbery
5. Blackmail
Details of these activities are set forth below.
14. In July, 1979, plaintiff in his capacity as an attorney,
undertook the representation of one LaVenda Van Schaick
for the purpose of obtaining a refund of monies paid by
her to CSC in the amount of approximately $12,000.
Plaintiff sent a letter to CSC for the purpose of
obtaining said funds in order to avoid the necessity of
instituting a lawsuit. CSC refused to pay a refund.
15. Within several days after sending the aforementioned
letter, Hubbard, who was then residing in Hemet,
California, ordered an immediate infiltration of
plaintiff's law office by a G.O. agent named Chuck
Malone who sought employment from plaintiff posing as a
Private Investigator. Malone's purpose was to steal
records and information from plaintiff's offices.
16. During the period between July to September, 1979, when
the correspondence concerning the Van Schaick refund was
being exchanged, the plaintiff began to receive phone
calls from clients, relatives and friends stating that
they had received strange telephone calls from various
individuals discrediting plaintiff and requesting
information about plaintiff. One of the plaintiff's
clients, Phyliss T. Sequeira, told plaintiff that she
had received a call requesting her to report plaintiff
to the bar because he had not turned over all of the
funds he had received in the trial of a case. In fact,
the client was present at the trial, received a trial
judgment upon a jury verdict and was paid in full.
Plaintiff is informed that the foregoing activities were
conducted by Joseph Lisa, Gary Lawrence, James Mulligan,
Kevin Tighe, Kathy Brown, Warren Friske and others all
acting as agents of the G.O. under the authority and
direction of Hubbard.
After receiving a letter denying the request for a
refund, plaintiff received a letter dated September 11,
1979 from CSB. The September 11th letter stated that
the Church would be willing to pay approximately 50% of
the funds pain by Van Schaick and at the same time
suggested that Van Schaick should not sue the Church for
the balance of the funds because she had an extensive
drug history, had "three abortions", had "attempted
suicide", had severe mental problems, and had signed an
agreement never to sue the Church of Scientology or the
Hubbards.
17. Shortly after the receipt of the foregoing letter,
plaintiff received several anonymous telephone calls
suggesting that the representation of Van Schaick was a
"dangerous matter," that no one "messes with the
Church," that if the undersigned had any doubts about
this issue, to contact other people who had sought to
"interfere" with Scientology. These calls were made by
individuals acting on orders from Hubbard.
18. During this time plaintiff observed individuals following
him, defamatory calls were made to various clients of
plaintiff shortly after he had called said clients on
the phone, and personnel at the small airport where
plaintiff maintained his airplane observed unidentified
individuals viewing the plane and seeking information
about it. The individuals performing these acts were
acting on orders from Hubbard.
19. On or about October 19, 1979, plaintiff was flying said
airplane to South Bend, Indiana, when the engine began
to malfunction at approximately 8,000 feet in altitude,
lost power entirely for a period of time, and plaintiff
was forced to land at an airport in proximity to where
the malfunction occurred. The plaintiff subsequently
discovered that large amounts of water were present in
his fuel tank, although prior to take-off the
undersigned had engaged in a pre-flight examination of
said fuel tanks, and no water was present. The presence
of the water caused the malfunction of the engine and
the cessation of power. Plaintiff believes that water
balloons were placed in the tanks of the airplane by
Joseph Lisa and James Mulligan, agents of the G.O., on
orders from Hubbard.
20. For the period October, 1979 and the ensuing several
months, plaintiff's client, Van Schaick, has claimed
numerous incidents of personal harassment, including the
surveillance of her home and her child, being run off
the road in her car, numerous telephone calls to her
neighbors, suggesting that she was an unfit mother,
calls to her employer resulting in a loss of her job as
a waitress and attempts to separate her from her
husband. In November, 1979, Hubbard sent Gary Klinger,
a G.O. agent from Los Angeles, to convince Van Schaick
that the "harassive things" being done to her were done
by plaintiff.
21. In November, 1979, nine (9) of the highest officials in
the G.O. were convicted of a variety of crimes, and
approximately 30,000 documents seized by the F.B.I. from
CSC were released to the general public. These
documents, in part, demonstrate that Hubbard, the G.O.
the Scientology organizations and the above-named
individuals were responsible for the inexplicable and
harassive incidents that had occurred in the prior
several months.
22. On December 14, 1979, after approximately six (6) months
of research and investigation at a cost in the excess of
$20,000 to the plaintiff, plaintiff brought a lawsuit
against CSC on behalf of La Venda Van Schaick.
23. On or about December 27, 1979, two weeks after the
commencement of the Van Schaick action, Hubbard, through
the G.O., sent an individual named Bill Broderick to
pose as a prospective client in order to gain
information about plaintiff's office and his files on
Scientology.
At the same time, defendant intensified his harassment
of individuals associated with plaintiff and attempted
to disrupt non-Scientology cases the plaintiff was
involved in and generally initiated a campaign of
unrelenting personal and legal harassment, as is
described in the remaining paragraphs herein.
24. On January 3, 1980, approximately three weeks after the
commencement of the Van Schaick case, without filing a
counterclaim in said action, and without filing a Motion
to Dismiss within the time allowed by the rules, the
G.O. under the direct orders of Hubbard, through
attorney Steven Burris, filed Church of Scientology of
Nevada, Inc. v. Thomas Hoffman and others, Civil #
KV-80-10-HEL (Nevada Fed. District Court, January 3,
1980). Plaintiffs were the said Van Schaick, Kevin
Flynn, brother and employee of plaintiff, Thomas G.
Hoffman, Esquire, a colleague of plaintiff working with
plaintiff in the same suite of offices and Edward
Walters, a client of plaintiff. That suit alleged a
conspiracy by said individuals to deprive Scientology of
its First Amendment rights. The suit was dismissed by
the Federal Court within 120 days.
25. At the same time as the filing of said action, Hubbard,
through the G.O., filed in succession, four (4) separate
Bar complaints against plaintiff alleging, inter alia,
conspiracy to violate Scientology's First Amendment
rights and the unlicensed practice of law by Kevin
Flynn. The first three complaints were filed on January
15, 1980, February 7, 1980 and April 3, 1980, all of
which were dismissed on April 10, 1980 by the
Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. On November 19,
1980, the G.O. filed yet another complaint which was
dismissed on May 4, 1980. The purpose of filing said
Bar Complaints was to harass plaintiff, and remove him
from his "position of power" as a lawyer. They were
filed without probable cause.
26. On or about May, 1980, after the dismissal of Hoffman
supra in Nevada Federal District Court, Hubbard through
the G.O., and attorney Burris, acting as an agent of the
G.O., then commenced an action against the said Van
Schaick, Kevin Flynn, Edward Walters, and other clients
of the plaintiff in the state court in Nevada, which was
nearly identical to the federal action. As to Van
Schaick and Kevin Flynn, this suit was also dismissed.
Said suit was brought on the basis of a false affidavit
procured by the G.O. on behalf of Hubbard.
27. Defendant through his agents in March 1980, filed
Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc. v. Michael Flynn
et. al., Civil #40906 in the Massachusetts Suffolk
Superior Court. The defendants were the plaintiff
herein and four of his clients. The complaint alleged
that the clients had stolen materials from CSB and
turned them over to plaintiff. Said suit has been used
to mislead various courts into the belief that plaintiff
stipulated to the placement of the filed in court.
28. In September, 1980, Hubbard, through the G.O., filed a
suit against the plaintiff. Church of Scientology of
Nevada, Inc v. Michael Flynn Civil #202573 (Nevada
Circuit Court), alleging essentially that the plaintiff
was engaged in a conspiracy against Scientology and
abusing the judicial process. Scientology counsel
attempted to procure a false affidavit from a G.O. agent
support the case (sic). The Nevada state court granted
plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in that action.
The suit was brought for purposes of harassment. It was
the fourth (4th) suit brought against plaintiff or his
office and the third (3rd) suite dismissed as of
November 1980.
29. Between January and May, 1980, plaintiff was subjected
to hundreds of instances of personal harassment, which
plaintiff is informed, based upon affidavits of Warren
Friske, Carol Garrity, Gerald Armstrong, and other
informants, to have been conducted by the G.O. under the
direct authority and control of Hubbard. These
included, inter alia, contacting the plaintiff's
insurance agent, Philip Chesley, and informing the agent
that the plaintiff had murdered the husband of one of his
clients; making a bomb threat to the plaintiff's
building, resulting in its evacuation; throwing rocks at
his building; sending a post card threatening to poison
the plaintiff; harassive phone calls at all hours of the
day and night at plaintiff's home; making obscene
telephone calls to neighbors and suggesting in said
calls that plaintiff was making them; having process
servers arriving at plaintiff's home at all hours
terrifying plaintiff's wife and children, and placing
dirt in the fuel tank of plaintiff's car.
30. Between approximately August, 1979 and up to and
including at least September, 1981, the G.O., pursuant
to policies and orders of Hubbard, and acting as his
agent, stole documents directly from the plaintiff's
private office condominium compound. Some of the G.O.
agents involved in the theft and use of said stolen
materials were Kevin Tighe, Chuck Malone, Gary Lawrence,
James Mulligan, Joseph Lisa, Sylvana Garritano, Warren
Fiske, David Aden, Robert Johnson and others.
31. These documents number at least 20,000 and include but
are not limited to the following:
a. Attorney/Client Communication:
1. typed and handwritten drafts of letters to
and
from clients;
2. telephone message slips containing names,
addresses and telephone numbers of
clients;
3. affidavits and statements from clients;
4. draft court pleadings such as
interrogatories,
etc., sent to and received from client;
and
5. personal financial information of clients.
b. Work Product:
1. notes, memoranda, and internal office
product;
2. draft court pleadings;
3. draft proposals, etc.; and
4. memoranda re: contracts with other
counsel,
investigative and government agencies.
c. Miscellaneous:
1. contracts;
2. invoices, bills, checks, etc.;
3. correspondence and memoranda;
4. personal financial information; and
5. typewriter ribbons.
32. Hubbard and the G.O., as his agents, used the stolen
documents and information to separate plaintiff from his
clients, disrupt plaintiff's law practice, destroy
plaintiff's reputation and business, interfere with
plaintiff's causes and generally perpetrate all the
tortious schemes set forth herein. A few examples are
as follows:
a. Contacting opposing parties, opposing counsel, and
the insurers of opposing parties in the cases of
Leff v NEMCO, Ham v. Bard Parker, Marides v.
Anthony's Pier Four, French v. Fidelity Union Life
Insurance Co., and many other cases in which
plaintiff represented parties, for the purpose of
preventing case settlements, blocking production
of
evidence, revealing plaintiff's strategy and
evidentiary posture, and generally interfering
with
his ability to represent his client.