Re: Re.: Scientology sales tech: "Go for the throat. Go for blood. Go for the bloody throat."
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>Re.: Scientology sales tech: "Go for the throat. Go for blood. Go for
>the bloody throat."
>
>On Dec 20, 2007, AC asked "Does anyone know which Canadian report
>they're referring to?" (The LA Times article quoting the above excerpt.)
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/646253006cdc089d
>
>This report was unearthed by Tara Carreon and is webbed as a PDF at The
>Ralph Nader Library:
>http://www.naderlibrary.com/Scientology%20Exhibit%20-%2073%20Fiche%201-3.pdf
>[Beware: Over 30MB, mostly human-legible, but mostly computer-illegible].
>The report had been entered as an exhibit in the City of Clearwater
>hearings of May 1982 re. the Church of Scientology.
>
>I thought this was quite an important historical document, so I
>transcribed it, reproduced below. Also webbed at:
>http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/cw1982/exhibit73.html#p17
>I shall keep working on the webbed version in order to link to existing
>webbed materials referred to in the document wherever convenient.
Thanks for this important document, which I haven't possessed or seen
for many years.
<...>
>
>169. The paragraphs below in Chapter 5 are based upon the investigation
>of the informant for this warrant, and specifically, but not
>exhaustively include the following investigative sources:
>
>(a) Source #1
>(b) Source #2
>(c) Source #3
>(d) SCIENTOLOGY Technical Dictionary
>(e) H.C.O. Policy Letters
>(f) Promotional literature distributed by the Org.
>(g) Technical Bulletins, Volume 1-10
>(h) Organizational Executive Course Volumes 0-7
>(i) A true copy of the Affidavit of Gerry ARMSTRONG dated June 25, 1982,
>and his supplementary affidavit of August 11, 1982, (_See Appendix VII,
>pages 166 to 179).
I don't have copies, as far as I know, of either of these affidavits.
I executed a declaration for the US Justice Department that contains
the text of the August 11, 1982 supplemental affi:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-1984-09-06.html
Note the dates of these affis are after the May 1982 Clearwater
hearings. And the Information is signed by Sgt. Ciampini March 1,
1983.
<...>
>Wherefore the informant prays that a search warrant may be granted to
>search the said premises for the said things.
>
>SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of Toronto, in the Judicial District of
>York, this 1st day of March, 1983 A.D.
>
>[signature]
>CHIEF JUDGE OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT, ONTARIO
>
>[signature]
>DETECTIVE SERGEANT A. CIAMPINI
>\=====
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Roadrunner
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:59:05 -0400, rhill <rh...@xenu-directory.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Re.: Scientology sales tech: "Go for the throat. Go for blood. Go for
> >the bloody throat."
>
> >On Dec 20, 2007, AC asked "Does anyone know which Canadian report
> >they're referring to?" (The LA Times article quoting the above excerpt.)
>
> >This report was unearthed by Tara Carreon and is webbed as a PDF at The
> >Ralph Nader Library:
Does anyone care? Who cares? It doesn't say very much, now does it.
Your luck should be running out. I think we know about your deal...
Care to explain these matters:
http://tiny.cc/gerrys_affirmations
http://tiny.cc/another_look_at_the_affirmations
RR
rhill
> Note the dates of these affis are after the May 1982 Clearwater
> hearings. And the Information is signed by Sgt. Ciampini March 1,
> 1983.
That's right, I had forgotten about this, I meant to look further to
make sense of this. The document is marked as "Exhibit 73". When I look
at the indices of the Hearings, it lists exhibits 1 to 61, over five days.
Not clear why there are more exhibits afterward... Might be related to
the continued court proceedings between the City of Clearwater and the
Church of Scientology after the hearings? Scientology filed lawsuits
against Clearwater passed its ordinance to increase transparency of
non-profit finances after the hearings.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
It seems likely that Mike Flynn did lodge more evidence with the city
following the hearings. The Toronto raid was March 3, 1983, and the
OPP's Information would have become public, and huge news in the
Scientology war, shortly after that. Flynn was in regular contact with
Ciampini during that period, and put me in contact with him.
Following is the first part of the document with a few bits of
information I've been able to fill in or guess at, and some minor typo
corrections.
>documents and writings in the possession of the informant, previously
>and currently in force in SCIENTOLOGY, Toronto; the Organizational
>Executive Course, volumes 0-7, plus index and Modern Management
>Technology Defined, last reprinted in 1976.
>Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary last reprinted in 1975.
>Technical Bulletins last reprinted in 1979.
>Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters Chronological Pack from 6
>January 1970 to 28 December 1980, printing date unknown.
>All of the above are currently on sale and used in the practice of
>SCIENTOLOGY at Toronto.
>
>22. c) Other public documents from Canada and the United States of
>America, including court-filed documents, and judgements relating to
>SCIENTOLOGY, true copies of which are in the possession of the informant.
>
>23. d) Correspondence and documentation forwarded by SCIENTOLOGY Toronto
>to Ministries of the Ontario Government during 1980, 1981 and 1982.
>
>24. e) Original letters of response to the Ontario Provincial Police
>inquiries regarding the background of L. Ron HUBBARD, some true copies
>of which are included in Appendix [?]I, pages 4 to 11.
Appendix #I, pages 4 to 11.
[I realize that Ciampini and his fellow writers and proof readers
don't maintain that convention, "Appendix # [ ]," but it sure looks
like a "#" sign, and Ciampini, et al. don't completely adhere to one
form or convention in other instances in the document.
Also, see 27. below. Appendix I, as with Appendix #I here, is all
about Hubbard's biography.]
>
>25. SCIENTOLOGY was created by L. Ron HUBBARD. The first CHURCH OF
>SCIENTOLOGY was incorporated on February 18th, 1954, in Los Angeles,
>California, U.S.A. (See Articles of Incorporation, Appendix VII, pages
>137 to 143).
>
>26. SCIENTOLOGY's doctrines are adopted from the writings of Lafayette
>Ronald HUBBARD, most prominent of which is "DIANETICS: THE MODERN
>SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH", first published in the early 1950's. (See
>Organization Executive Course, Book 2, HCO Bulletin of April 2[?]th,
Organization Executive Course, Book 2, HCO Bulletin of April 28th,
>1960, page 91).
[That's HCOB "Books Are Dissemination."]
>
>27. From this emerged an international network of independently
>incorporated but centrally controlled organizations called the CHURCH OF
>SCIENTOLOGY. Controlling this vast network of organizations is a men
is a man
>about whom it is reasonably believed that an autobiographical myth was
>created. (See _Appendix I_, Pages 1 to 3).
>
>28. The herein alleges ambiguous and fraudulent claims made by HUBBARD
>on behalf of himself and SCIENTOLOGY are nonetheless believed by its
>many adherents throughout the world.
>
>29. Some of the extraordinary claims credited to his own experiences and
>knowledge are found in literature published and disseminated by SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>30. Claims of what SCIENTOLOGY professes him to be have been gathered
>from many sources also published by SCIENTOLOGY. When dealing strictly
>with the Province of Ontario, the informant has examined these
>publications in which SCIENTOLOGY defines such words as church, religion
>and why it claims to be a religious organization.
>
>31. Included is correspondence to various Ministries of the Government
>of Ontario, excerpts from SCIENTOLOGY "objectives" as filed with the
>Province to obtain status as a registered non-profit organization,
>applications to the Supreme Court of Ontario and newspaper
>advertisements. (See _Appendix II_, Pages 17 to 27).
>
>32. SCIENTOLOGY describes itself as a religion but did not adopt this
>guise to describe its operation until approximately 1954. (See _Appendix
>II_, Pages 6 to 16).
>
>33. As SCIENTOLOGY evolved through the years it has been the subject of
>other inquiries and investigations both in Ontario and abroad. (See
>_Appendix III_).
>
>34. One of the most significant years in SCIENTOLOGY was 1966 when
>HUBBARD established the post of The Guardian and Assistant Guardian on
>March 1st.
>
>35. The post of Guardian was quote: "To help L. Ron HUBBARD enforce and
>issue policy, and to safeguard SCIENTOLOGY organizations, Scientologists
>and Scientology".
>
>36. The Assistant Guardian post was also created on that date and to be
>appointed only by the Guardian.
>
>37. Other significant posts established were: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
>CALIFORNIA WORLD WIDE GUARDIAN OFFICE (G.O.) the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
>OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES (G.O.), and on September 1st, 1966, L. Ron
>HUBBARD resigned from the Board of Directors and the post of Executive
>Director and was given the title FOUNDER, to continue his research and
>writings. (Source for Paragraphs 34 to 37 is SCIENTOLOGY publication,
>"What is Scientology", page 142).
>
>38. However, as is submitted below, there are reasonable grounds to
>believe on the basis of investigation including examination of legal
>documents, that HUBBARD and his wife, Mary Sue HUBBARD, are in complete
>control of this vast network of commercial enterprises or franchises.
>The source for this is found in the following Paragraphs 39 to 44.
>
>39. In the Stipulation of Evidence agreed to by counsel for the United
>States and all defendants including counsel for Mary Sue HUBBARD,
>entered in the _United States of America vs Mary Sue HUBBARD et al_, in
>the United States District Court for the District of Colombia, #78-401
>Criminal, October 1979, Page sever (7) quotes, "At all times material to
Page seven
>the indictment, (indictment period Nov. 1978 - June 1977), L. Ron
>HUBBARD was by virtue of his role of founder and leader of SCIENTOLOGY
>overall supervisor of the Guardian Office.
>
>40. His wife, the defendant Mary Sue HUBBARD, held the titles of
>"Controller" and "Commodore Staff Guardian" (C.S.G.) and, as the second
>person in the hierarchy of SCIENTOLOGY, had duties which included
>supervision of the Guardian Office". (See _Appendix IV_, Pages 21 a,d 22).
21 and 22
>
>41. This stipulation was agreed to by all the defendants and eventually
>Mary Sue HUBBARD was convicted of a criminal conspiracy against the U.S.
>Government and sentenced to five (5) years in jail and fined ten
>thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
>
>42. Subsequently, the United States Court of Appeals (District of
>Colombia Circuit) October 2nd, 1981 found the HUBBARDs to be first and
>second highest officials in the SCIENTOLOGY organization during the
>indictment period, November 1973 to 1977.
November 1973 to June 1977.
>
>43. SCIENTOLOGY, through the Guardian Office, established a programme
>name "OPERATION BULLDOZER LEAK", date of 21 July, 1976, G.O. Program
>408, OT9, the stated purpose of which was to spread the rumour that L.
>Ron HUBBARD had no control of SCIENTOLOGY and no legal liability for it.
>(See Appendix IV, page 370).
>
>44. The above mentioned decision in the United States Court of Appeals
>(para.42) also found that "OPERATION BULLDOZER LEAK", the stated purpose
>of which was to spread rumor that L. Ron HUBBARD had no control over
has no control over[?]
>SCIENTOLOGY and no legal liability for it, also found that the "Red Box"
>effort to hide key personnel and key documents, showed efforts of
>concealment attributed to L. Ron HUBBARD.
>
>45. a) The source for the paragraphs 46 to 66 is information received
>directly from Provincial Constable Joao Cunha, an Ontario Provincial
>Police Constable, a person in my command whom I have known personally
>for about two (2) years as reliable and trustworthy. The said Constable
>was employed as an undercover police officer in the Toronto Day Org
>from March 1981 to February 1982 and has stated to me details and
>information from personal observation and experience which I believe to
>be accurate, hereinafter referred as Source #[?].
as source #2.
>
>b) Source for paragraph #63 and paragraphs #330 to #340 is the
>information received directly from Provincial Constable Bruce Burley, an
>Ontario Provincial Police Constable, a person in my command whom I have
>known personally for about 10 years as reliable and trustworthy,
>hereinafter referred to as Source #4.
as source #4.
>
>c) Additional sources of belief are my own investigation which includes
>contact with persons who have attended Celebrity Centre and the North
>Toronto Dianetics Centre; source #1 previously mentioned in Chapter No.
>1, and, physical surveillance to ascertain that these locations exist.
>
>46. SCIENTOLOGY organizations or Orgs are run on the same basic
>structure and policies whether in Toronto or Clearwater, Florida, or
>elsewhere in the world.
>
>47. SCIENTOLOGY Orgs each have a seven division structure with each
>division responsible for a specific function.
>
>48. Division 1 called H.C.O. (HUBBARD Communication Office), Division 2
>Dissemination, Division 3 Treasury, Division 4 Technical, Division 5
>Qualifications, Division 6 has divisions A, B, C in it and these are
>called the public divisions. Division 7 Executive, including the
>"Guardian Office". Each Org has overseeing all of its operation the
>Guardian's Office - the Guardian's Office responsibilities include
>preventing, any persons either Scientologists or non-Scientologists,
>from exposing or attacking L. Ron HUBBARD or SCIENTOLOGY. The Guardian's
>Office also ensures that all the orders of HUBBARD and his subordinates
>are carried at the local level.
are carried out at the local level.
>
>49. The number of staff members in each department within the divisions
>varies. Number of departments and divisions are a constant factor in
>each Org.
>
>50. The seven departments of the local org and the Guardian's Office
>each report to a similar set of departments at a higher level.
>
>51. Once information leaves the local level, it proceeds on either one
>of the major chains of command.
>
>52. The first chain originates from any of the seven departments
>previously mentioned, and passes to upper levels at the headquarters,
>Flag Land Base in Clearwater, Florida.
>
>53. The second chain of information is the Guardian's Office and
>information from the Guardian's Office is transmitted from the local
>Guardian Office level to the Canada Guardian's Office in Toronto,
>Ontario to the Deputy Guardian, Worldwide and then on to Mary Sue
>HUBBARD, Controller of the Guardian's Office, and finally to L. Ron HUBBARD.
>
>54. A diagram of the Org Board is included for reference. See Table #1.
>A diagram of the "Chain of Command" is included in Table #2.
>
>[TABLE 1 ORG BOARD]
>
>[TABLE 2 CHAIN OF COMMAND]
>
>CHAPTER 2
>
>_TORONTO ORGANIZATION_
>
>55. The Toronto Org which is now situated at 696 & 700 Yonge Street,
>Toronto, Ontario, has approximately 250 staff members. The Toronto Org
>is actually comprised of the two orgs, Day and Foundation. The majority
>of the staff members are deployed on the Foundation staff. The Day Org
>has approximately 30 members, while there are 20-30 staff members in the
>Guardian operation.
>
>56. There are as well, about 15-20 staff members in the Scientology Org
>Flag Operations Liaison Office (FOLO). The Flag Operation Liaison Office
>is responsible for the administration of policy and direction from the
>headquarters in Clearwater, Florida, U.S.A., that are carried out in
>Canada. Any programs that are enacted on a continental basis come under
>the auspice of the Flag Operation Liaison Office, which in turn may
>issue its own programs and orders in Canada.
>
>57. The Day Org which operates from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to
>Friday, and the Foundation Org operating from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
>weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends, is responsible for the
>bulk of the "training" of students who take Scientology courses.
>
>58. This is the mainstay of the income of Scientology and responsible
>for the constant flow of money into this organization.
>
>59. The entire financial operation is explained fully, later in this
>information, Chapter 5.
>
>60. In addition to the Toronto Org, there is also a location at 4[?]7
>S[?]bourne Street, Toronto, Ontario, known as the Church of Scientology
Sherbourne Street [I haven't been able to verify the street number
yet]
>Celebrity Centre, Mission of York, which caters to mainly professional
>people such as doctors, teachers, television and media people. This is a
>[?] money-producing location as the clientele is, from personal
>knowledge, one which has sufficient income to invest in the more
>expensive courses which Scientology offers for sale.
>
>61. At 2295A Yonge Street in Toronto, Ontario, the Dianetic Counselling
>Group of North Toronto is located. This is a branch of the SCIENTOLOGY
>Org at 696 Yonge Street. Primarily, this group is a franchise, which
>pays a franchise fee to the parent org.
>
>62. It services the population in the north corridor of Yonge Street and
>offers basic courses in SCIENTOLOGY. The mission send its students to
>the 696 Yonge Street location to purchase higher level training courses.
>
>63. With respect to the Dianetics Foundation source #4 received in the
>mail, in January 1983, promotional literature from SCIENTOLOGY which
>claimed that The Dianetic Foundation is a non-profit organization
>registered in the Province of Ontario.
>
>64. Through queries to the Ministry of Consumers and Corporate
>Relations, it has been determined that no such entity is registered in
>the Province of Ontario as either a corporation or small business or a
>non-profit organization registered under _The Corporations Tax Act_,
>R.S.O. 1980, c.97.
>
>65. The informant further believes, from information received from
>source #2, that the Dianetic Foundation at 700 Yonge Street, is run by
>Foundation Org, previously described in paragraphs 55 to 58.
>
>66. Further, it is believed that the only explanation for SCIENTOLOGY
>identifying itself publicly as The Dianetics Foundation and as a
>non-profit organization is to deceive the public, by not clearly
>identifying itself as the Church of Scientology and in order to avoid
>the payment of taxes to the Province. (_See Appendix VII_, pages [?]).
>
>CHAPTER 3
>
>_GUARDIAN OFFICE_
>
>_Introduction_
>
>67. The information for paragraphs 75 to 159 has been obtained from the
>sources set out in paragraphs 68 to 74 below:
>
>68. a) Source #1 above,
>
>69. b) Documents seized by F.B.I. in the U.S.A. in California in 1977
>relevant to SCIENTOLOGY in Ontario and personally examined by the informant,
>
>70. c) police investigation of criminal occurrences in the Province of
>Ontario as described in paragraphs 85 to 116 below.
>
>71. d) information received from a confidential and reliable source
>(hereinafter referred to as Source #3), a person whom I have known over
>the last two years to be a citizen of good reputation without a criminal
>record. The said informant is a person who has been in the employ of
>SCIENTOLOGY in that time period and has provided me details and
>information about the Org and documentation which I believe to be
>accurate and which I have confirmed, at least in part, through my own
>investigation including Source #1 above and sources described in
>paragraphs 68 to 70 above,
>
>72. e) reference to Guardian Office documentation from Toronto Org, in
>particular as referred in paragraphs 121 to 159 below,
>
>73. f) correspondence and documentation forwarded by SCIENTOLOGY Toronto
>to Ministries of the Ontario government,
>
>74. g) Stipulation of Evidence reproduced in Appendix IV.
>
>75. The Guardian Office (GO) as previously noted was formed to
>"safeguard" SCIENTOLOGY. For reasons hereinafter described, the
>informant for this warrant states that he has reasonable grounds to
>believe that the tactics of the GO are not only inconsistent with the
>existence of a "religion" but in some instances themselves constitute
>criminal activities in pursuit of the protection of SCIENTOLOGY as a
>franchise system.
>
>76. In the Toronto Org, as in all other Orgs, the Guardian Office is
>composed of seven divisions (_See Appendix V_, pages 1 to 15).
>Information on the "enemies" of SCIENTOLOGY is gathered by this office,
>analyzed and then "targeted" for the necessary action.
>
>77. The Guardian Office World Wide will initiate programs, such as SNOW
>WHITE, which began un April 1973, immediately after the Flag Ship
in April 1973
>Apollo, a converted frigate used as a headquarters, was expelled from
>Morocco. (_See Appendix V_, page 16). The program was directly ordered
>by L. Ron HUBBARD to free up access to all ports in the Western World
>for his ship. In order to achieve the acceptability of SCIENTOLOGY
>throughout the world, L. Ron HUBBARD personally ordered the SNOW WHITE
>Program.
[Just an side: A frigate is a warship, which the Apollo definitely
wasn't. She was a ferry, notably for cattle.
Modern frigates are related to earlier frigates only by name. The term
"frigate" was readopted during World War II by the Royal Navy to
describe a new type of anti-submarine escort vessel that was larger
than a corvette, but smaller than a destroyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate
This is from an Operation and Transport Corporation brochure that I
remember very well:
[Quote]
The Yacht Apollo has an illustrious history.
She was built in 1936 in Belfast, Ireland and used as a passenger
ferry. At the beginning of the Second World War she was requisitioned
by the British Royal Navy for active duty.
Her war record is a proud one.
She was used for important landing operations in Norway and the south
of France. She carried reinforcements to Iceland, disembarked troops
at Casablanca and traveled a total of 11,000 miles of North African
coast, as a transport.
As Flagship of the British Royal Navy she carried the important
personalities - Admiral Cunningham, General Sir Maitland Wilson
(Commander-in-Chief of the British Mediterrean operations), and
Admiral Tronbridge.
Admiral Cunningham said of this valiant ship: "It was of vital
importance for the victory of the Tunis Campaign."
In 1945 the ship became headquarters for "Operation Anvil", an
important war campaign.
In the final stages of the war, the Prime Minister of England, Sir
Winston Churchill, lived aboard and personally supervised the war
operations while encouraging the troops with his presence.
In 1945 the ship returned to her former peace time services.
[End Quote]
http://www.xenu.net/archive/FBI/fbi-245.html
It's no wonder Ciampini figured the Apollo was a frigging frigate.
:-)]
>
>78. Through the SNOW WHITE Program, any and all files held by Government
>or the private sector on L. Ron HUBBARD or SCIENTOLOGY were to be
>brought to light and "expunged". L. Ron HUBBARD was of the view that
>many countries who were unfriendly towards SCIENTOLOGY, kept secret
>dossiers which were disseminated worldwide. Consequently, SCIENTOLOGY
>was to attack these files and replace them with their own corrected version.
>
>79. SNOW WHITE Program was to be the ultimate weapon in this campaign
>and as quoted from Guardian Order #1206 of 22 June 1974, it "was the
>HIGHEST PRIORITY OF ALL GUARDIAN OFFICE ACTIVITY", and as previously
>mentioned was: "written by the Commodore who called it "Snow White"".
>(_See Appendix V_, page 16).
>
>80. Because such a priority was given this program, it led to a great
>deal of Bureau 1 (B1) activities in the Guardian Office. Standard Bureau
>1 policies for collection of data are penetration of the "targets" by
>whatever means, legal or illegal, to collect information.
>
>81. In the SNOW WHITE Program, a complicated network of code words was
>instituted by L. Ron HUBBARD for all nations, i.e. U.S.A. code name
>HUNTER, the United Kingdom code name WITCH.
>
>82. From the documents seized by the F.B.I. in 1977, the informant has
>viewed a document numbered #20272 in which the code name for Canada
>appears as "WEAN".
>
>83. SNOW WHITE was directed at private institutions as well as
>governments, and in some cases, individuals who were considered
>Suppressive Persons (S.P.'s) in order to gather and suppress any
>information adverse to L. Ron HUBBARD of SCIENTOLOGY.
or SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>84. The informant in this investigation has knowledge of the activities
>of the Guardian Office of the Toronto Org of SCIENTOLOGY as set out
>below which give grounds of belief in support of the above-described
>offences in that:
>
>a) the actions of the Guardian Office appear inconsistent with the
>operation of a bona fide religion involved in the distribution of income
>for non-profit reasons,
>
>b) the actions of the Guardian Office include the commission of
>[illegible] and its commercial operation preventing public disclosure of
>consumer fraud and a distribution of profit for the personal benefit of
>L. Ron HUBBARD and others.
>
>_examples of overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy_
>
>_Case #1_
>
>85. The Toronto Org was involved in activities such as the removal of
>files from the Ontario Hospital at Whitby, Ontario for the express
>purpose of attacking the field of psychiatry and the treatment of mental
>patient in institutions to embarrass the field of psychiatry and to
>deflect patients to SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>86. This attack on psychiatry has been a long standing tactic of
>SCIENTOLOGY and L. Ron HUBBARD who believed mental patients were
>mistreated by conventional psychiatric methods and it was HUBBARD's aim
>to have his theories or doctrines used in the treatment of mentally
>handicapped persons.
>
>87. When his theories were rebutted, it was the task of the Guardian
>Office to infiltrate agencies where mental patients were treated and spy
>on the practices of these institutions and remove files which they fell
they felt
>would be embarrassing to the agency in question.
[My eyes are nay what they used to be, but it's a start, I hope it
helps, and I'll carry on later.]
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Roadrunner
RR
rhill
> [My eyes are nay what they used to be, but it's a start, I hope it
> helps, and I'll carry on later.]
>
> � Gerry Armstrong
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Many thanks, it sure helps.
Gerry Armstrong
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:59:05 -0400, rhill <rh...@xenu-directory.net>
wrote:
>
>87. When his theories were rebutted, it was the task of the Guardian
When his theories were rebuffed,
>Office to infiltrate agencies where mental patients were treated and spy
>on the practices of these institutions and remove files which they fell
which they felt
>would be embarrassing to the agency in question.
>
>88. In August 1972, Corporal John WRIGHT of the Ontario Provincial
>Police of the Security Intelligence Branch, whose reports I have read,
>revealed that one John PARKER, representing the Society for Individual
>Freedom, delivered the file of Benjamin GOLDBERG, (a psychiatric patient
>for some 56 years), to Mr. Ron POULTON, Supervisor, Communication
>Section of the Ontario Ministry of Health.
>
>89. PARKER alleged he had received the file from some SCIENTOLOGISTS and
>was having some second thoughts about SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>90. Corporal J. WRIGHT checked the post office box of PARKER and found
>that it was rented to one Allen COULSON of 27 Chicora Avenue, Toronto,
>Ontario.
>
>91. COULSON was a member of SCIENTOLOGY and attached to the Guardian's
>Office. He was later arrested for a criminal offence which is also part
>of this information.
>
>92. The phone number given by PARKER was listed to one H. JOOT and
>WRIGHT discovered that Helen Parker CLEMINSON-JOOT was the telephone
>subscriber. She was married to one Jaan JOOT, a SCIENTOLOGIST and a
>member of the Guardian's Office, as later confirmed by Source #1.
>
>93. According to Source #1, Jaan JOOT was to be referred to in the
>Toronto Org as Don ARMSTRONG, and Allen COULSON to be referred to as
>Keith SUMMERFIELD. This name change, as referred by Source #1, comes
as referred to by
>from a Toronto Org SCIENTOLOGY Orders of the Day, printed in 1974, and
printed in 1972 [or it looks like 1972 to me]
>personally read by Source #1. To confirm this, it was later discovered
>by the informant for this warrant that SUMMERFIELD had his name changed
>legally in 1965 to Allen COULSON.
>
>94. Later investigation by Corporal WRIGHT revealed that SCIENTOLOGY had
>self-sponsored a research team that was to travel coast to coast
>interviewing staff, parents and social workers of all mental institutions.
>
>95. Bryan LEVMAN and Susan MORGAN of SCIENTOLOGY stated they had
>permission from Dr. [?].C. DEADMAN, Medical Director, Ministry of
[Appears to be J.C. DEADMAN.]
>Health, to conduct their survey of Whitby which allegedly dealt with
>problems and diseases of psychiatric patients. After Susan MORGAN and
>Bob DOBSON-SMITH were introduced to authorities at Whitby, they had
>little difficulty obtaining access to patients' files.
>
>96. LEVMAN alleged the Goldberg file was received by SCIENTOLOGY via
>mails anonymously.
>
>97. MORGAN and DOBSON-SMITH also advised they subsequently made a couple
>of visits to Whitby O.H. to ascertain it the copy they received was genuine.
if the copy
>
>98. The last visit paid to the Whitby O.H. was made at 3:30 a.m. on the
>guise that MORGAN, DOBSON-SMITH and Phil McAINY required some vital
>information quickly to complete their research on the GOLDBERG file.
>They were given access.
>
>99. Concerning the truthfulness of LEVMAN who was the head of the
>Toronto Organization of SCIENTOLOGY, it was later discovered that under
>direct questioning by Corporal WRIGHT, LEVMAN denied that COULSON and
>JOOT were members of SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>100. This it is believed was done to avert suspicion and negate
>publicity for SCIENTOLOGY and its members. The Society for Individual
>Freedom previously mentioned was a front group of SCIENTOLOGY. (_See
>Appendix V_, page 63).
>
>101. Further, On April 1st, 1982, Source #3 had conversation with a
>SCIENTOLOGIST and former Guardian Office staff member, and it was stated
>to Source #3 that personnel from the Guardian Office in Toronto had
>stolen a Whitby Hospital file on a patient by the name of GOLDBERG and
>then turned it over to the Globe and Mail newspaper.
>
>_Case #2_
>
>_BREAK AND ENTER_
>
>_COULSON - CHORNOPESKY_
>
>102. In April 1974, two members of the Guardian's Office of Scientology,
>one being the aforementioned Allan COULSON and a Michael CHORNOPESKY
Allen
>were discovered after business hours in an office building at 330
>University Avenue in Toronto, Ontario.
>
>103. When discovered by the security guard at approximately 11:00 p.m.,
>they had, in their possession, three flashlights and two briefcases.
>They were unable to give the security guard a satisfactory explanation
>for their presence, the public had no access to the building after 5:45
>p.m. and they had no permission to be there.
>
>104. The Metro Toronto Police (MTPF) were called and COULSON and
>CHORNOPESKY were taken to No. 52 Division. In addition, two tension bars
>were found at 330 University Avenue, and when confronted with the
>evidence, CHORNOPESKY admitted ownership and stated that he and COULSON
>were in the building to examine documents in the offices of W[?] and
WEIR and
>FOULDS, a law firm.
>
>105. This law firm was, at that time, involved in the defence of one
>Nancy McLEAN in her civil suit against Scientology. There were in the
>offices a quantity of documentary files of the McLEAN family which were
>to be used in court during this civil suit.
>
>106. Both CHORNOPESKY and COULSON refused to admit they were members of
>SCIENTOLOGY or that the documents they were after were those belonging
>to McLEAN. As a result of the police investigation, bih were charged
both were charged
>with possession of instruments for the purpose of housebreaking, and
>sentenced to two years probation.
>
>107. Bryan LEVMAN, also mentioned previously, was contacted during the
>investigation to ascertain whether either of the two accused were
>members of the Scientology and denied the membership under direct
>questioning of Staff Sergeant John [?] of Metro Toronto Police Force.
>
>108. The informant has gathered information from Source #1, from the
>Metro Toronto Police reports and transcript at the trial of COULSON and
of the trial
>CHERNOPESKY, of 1975, October 25th, in which the two accused pleaded
>guilty to the charge of possession of instruments for housebreaking and
>were sentenced to two years probation. (_See Appendix V_, pages 64 to 69).
>
>109. The Metropolitan Toronto Police investigation with which I am
>familiar showed that COULSON and CHERNOPESKY had been sent to a lawyer
CHORNOPESKY
>on their charges by SCIENTOLOGY and that anytime anything of importance
>took place, SCIENTOLOGY sent those matters to this particular lawyer.
>
>110. Source #1 can attest to the fact from reading SCIENTOLOGY documents
>and from personal knowledge that the accused were members of the
>Guardian Office and that LEVMAN was protecting the image of SCIENTOLOGY
>when he denied that the accused were SCIENTOLOGISTS.
>
>_Case #3_
>
>_THEFT OF FILES - ONTARIO GOVERNMENT_
>
>111. Examination of F.B.I. seizures of SCIENTOLOGY files in California
>in 1977 revealed copies of Ontario Government documents. Examples of
>such documents are included in this information under Appendix V, pages
>70 to 79, and are as follows:
>
>- A covering Scientology memo entitled, "Police and Intelligence", which
>sets out the attachments which are correspondence between the Attorney
>General of Ontario and the U.S.A. Attorney General and correspondence
>denoting a connection between the Los Angeles Police Department
>Intelligence Unit and the Ontario Provincial Police with the concluding
>line stating, "Hope this is of some benefit to you".
>
>_Case #4_
>
>_THEFT OF FILES - COMMITTEE ON HEALING ARTS_
>
>111A. Material correspondence from the Ministry of Health which deals
>with the subject of Scientology Documents from the Committee on Healing
>Arts (C.H.A.), specifically dealing with the Professor John A. LEE, who
with Professor John A. LEE,
>SCIENTOLOGY hoped to exploit and a covering letter which contains the
>summary of file contents signed by "JAAN" who, we have reasonable and
>probable grounds tp believe, is the previously mentioned JAAN JOOT.
to believe,
>
>112. From this summary, it was deduced that SCIENTOLOGY had managed to
>place an agent in the offices of the C.H.A. and this agent was removing
>copies of files which were eventually sent to the Guardian's Office in
>Los Angeles where they were eventually seized by F.B.I. in 1977. It is
by the F.B.I
>believed this was done by SCIENTOLOGY to obtain advance information on
>the C.H.A. findings should they prove harmful to themselves.
>
>113. The C.H.A. findings were in fact unfavourable to SCIENTOLOGY and
>advised that authorities in Ontario should keep the activities of
>SCIENTOLOGY under constant scrutiny.
>
>_Case #5_
>
>_THEFT OF FILES FROM THE TORONTO SUN NEWSPAPER_
>
>114. From the documents seized in the U.S.A. by the F.B.I. referred to
>as Source (b) in paragraph 69, and from information from Source #1, the
>informant believes that SCIENTOLOGY had placed an agent in the offices
>of the newspaper the Toronto Sun.
>
>115. An internal memo written in 1976 that clearly indicates that
>SCIENTOLOGY had placed this agent in the Toronto Sun and that agent had
>intercepted a letter sent from a reporter on that paper to another
>reporter in Clearwater, Florida, U.S.A. The informant and the postal
>authorities in both Canada and U.S.A. were made aware of this
>information but were unable to discover who the offender was.
>
>116. The previously mentioned memo now clearly shows that the agent
>placed at the newspaper had intercepted private mail and had done so to
>ascertain if there was any co-operation between the two newspaper on
newspapers
>articles dealing with SCIENTOLOGY. (_See Appendix V, pages 100 to 110_).
>
>_additional evidence of conspiracy_
>
>117. The informant has also included in _Appendix V_ additional copies
>of material seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1977
>reflecting the overall policy of the Guardian Office infiltration, break
>and enter, covert intelligence gathering and instructional policies on
>how to carry out such activities. (_See Appendix V, pages 111 to 210_).
>
>118. To summarize the activities of SCIENTOLOGY in the 1970's and early
>80's, the informant can state from his personal knowledge from viewing
>all the documents made available from the Federal Bureau of
>Investigation raids in the United States of America that SCIENTOLOGY was
>bent on destroying in whatever manner opposition to its expansion and
>its successful achievement of tax exempt status from the Internal
>Revenue Service (I.R.S.). For U.S.A., F.B.I. material on the Guardian
>Office, (_see Appendix V, pages 111 to 210_).
>
>119. SNOW WHITE tactics in dealing with governments or people, as
>exposed in the U.S.A. in 1979, ranged from harassment to burglary,
>blackmail and perjury when called upon to testify before a judicial inquiry.
>
>120. Further proof of the policy of lying in court to protect
>SCIENTOLOGY was exposed in 1981, when under oath, in Denmark in the
>Eastern Division of the Danish High Court, Division 14, Case
>#503/1978(7043) an action between Jacob ANDERSON and Mr. Pete Olaf
>JORGENSEN et al, testimony was given by one Gibeke DAMMAN, an
>ex-SCIENTOLOGIST, that to lie under oath was to protect the interests of
>SCIENTOLOGY. (_See Appendix V, pages 211 to 214_).
>
>121. The Guardian's Office operates as a secret police-like force within
>SCIENTOLOGY to protect profit and existing franchises and to prevent
>exposure of SCIENTOLOGY as other than a religion. The sending of
>dispatches, projects or programmes of a sensitive nature require special
>security procedures. (Ref. GO 1987, 7 July 1976).
>
>122. Guardian's Office documents express serious concern that persons in
>authority will learn, as through Customs or postal inspections, that
>data or information has been obtained by SCIENTOLOGY in a manner
>requiring SCIENTOLOGY to attribute its source as anonymous or
>"otherwise" giving rise to the belief that documents have been illegally
>obtained. (Ref. Formal Dispatch and File Security, 14 July 1976).
>
>123. The Guardian's Office is concerned with possible physical
>surveillance of Org premises and the alerting of guards in that respect
>(Memo, 9 Sept. 1977).
>
>124. Guardian's Office documentation, internal and from outside Canada
>directed to Toronto commonly uses language including:
> standard targetting
> guards
> security
> sensitive nature
> attacks, major attacks, actions, primary targets, vital targets,
>operating targets
> defensible records
> command
> dispatche[?]
dispatches, releases [maybe, needs to be confirmed]
> orders
> front line trenches
> SHOW WHITE Programmes, infiltration
> targets, opposition, immediate threat, enemy
> intelligence, intelligence files
> suitable guise
> covertly obtained materials
> agent
> operative
> special bank files
> investigations
> isolation and containment of major suppressive elements of society
> sweep aside opposition
> need of secrecy or concealment is required
need to know GO (Guardian Order) applies
degree of secrecy or concealment is required
> covert and clandestine activities
> raid, raid drill
> possible leaks, leaks
> meter checks
> heavy security file cabinets
> recruit a plant
> high crime
> executing a target
> security risk
>
>125. Guardian Office documentation reflects a lack of any absolute
>prohibition against covertly or illegally obtained materials but rather
>a recognition of the limited use of such documentation, inadmissible in
>legal proceedings, as a possible guide to where SCIENTOLOGY could secure
>legally useful documents. (GO 784 WW, 30 June 1973).
(GO 784 WW, 08 June 1973).
[This is "INTELLIGENCE ITS ROLE." Also see 126 below.]
>
>126. The Guardian Office internal documentation shows concern for the
>appearances of stating that because the description "Intelligence" unit
>is too "revelatory" its activities are to be referred to as an
>"information" service as a guise for its true purposes. (GO 784 WW, 08
>June 1973).
>
>127. The Org Security section is responsible for ensuring that
The Org Security section [Looks like.]
>confessionals (personal behaviour questionnaire done on E-Meter) are
>utilized by HCO to further keep security in on the Org. (GO 3432, 12
>October 1980).
>
>128. Meter checks and HCO confessionals are particularly useful in
>investigations where you have an enturbulated Org. The meter checks will
>help you zone in on the likely troublemakers. (GO 3490, 09 December 1980).
>
>129. The Guardians Office is responsible for undertaking intelligence
>activities involving covert and clandestine activities, and agents so
>involved are [?] frequently checked. (GO 1735, 29 July 1975).
>
>130. Guardians Office personnel are directed to the Comm Dept. to
>inspect to see if all "Z Materials" are accessible to "handle" (control
>or direct) in event of a raid. Ensure that all telex master files are
>stored securely. Carry out any handlings necessary. Inspect the Org
>facilities to handle Z traffic in event of a raid, and ensure these are
>operational ... GO through some non-B1 Z traffic. Inspect to see if it
>is really Z, or just "eyes only" or what ... Do the filing of the
>security files, shredding cludge, but correctly retaining useful data
>(after vetting it as necessary) (Local SB Security Officer
>Apprenticeship, 11 Dec. 1979).
>
>130A The Z traffic mentioned in this paragraph is believed by the
>informant, after examining this document and the documents seized in the
>U.S.A. by the F.B.I., to be the equivalent of the "Red Box" material
>implemented by the SNOW WHITE Programme. (See Appendix IV; 49 F Supp
>209(1979) at 232).
493 F Supp 209(1979) at 232).
[
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._v._Hubbard_493_F.Supp._209_%281979%29
]
>
>131. Personnel are directed to inspect the latest raid drill write up
>... ensuring all vetting in the GO is done. (Local SB Security Officer
>Apprenticeship, 11 Dec. 1979).
>
>132. Further documentation speaks of ensuring security of outside B1
>locations, and any materials therein, so as there is no liability to the
>Organization (Local SB Security Officer Apprenticeship, 11 Dec. 1979).
>
>133. Any person used by Bureau 1 in the field must have security
Bureau I [Looks like.]
>clearance from the Info Bureau after the person's records have been
>checked (GO 1156, 28 May 1974).
>
>134. As late as 20 Feb. 1982, the Guardian's Office Canada was involved
>in the continuing of the SNOW WHITE Program under external direction,
>for example:
>"For example, the SNOW WHITE eval about to be issued will need to be
>cleared with WW attorneys as well as US as it affects both areas".
>
>135. Special security measures are required for the auditing of GO staff
>members because of concern for security of GO materials and data where a
>GO staff member makes statements to a non-GO auditor. (GO [?]82RA, 06
>June 1977, cancelled 5/4/82).
>
>136. As early as 1966, L Ron Hubbard stated:
>"Remember, churches are looked upon as reform groups. Therefore we must
>act like a reform group".
>This particularly gives the informant grounds to believe that the
>adoption of non-profit status for religious purposes is a description of
>convenience only. (GO [?], 19 January 1982).
>
>137. GO WW, Cont GOs and GOs are viable with an increasing amount of
>income resulting from GO production (GIL 180, 29/12/1981).
>
>138. The clear involvement of L. Ron HUBBARD in local operations as
>evidenced by:
>
>"_POLICY_:
>NOTHING IN THIS EVAL MAY BE INTERPRETED TO VIOLATE OR ALTER OR CHANGE
>HCO PLS OR HCO BS. ANYONE EXECUTING A TARGET IN THIS EVAL IN SUCH A WAY
>AS TO VIOLATE OR ALTER ANY HCO PL OR HCO B WILL BE ACTIONABLE BY COMM
>EV. ANY RECOMMENDATION IN THIS EVAL OR CHANGE OF POLICY OR TECH MUST BE
>CLEARED BY THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE (WDC) BEFORE BEING PLACED IN THE EVAL
>AS A TARGET AND RESULTING PL OF BULLETIN _MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE
PL OR BULLETIN
>FOUNDER PERSONALLY._ ALL DATA OR HANDLINGS WHERE THEY REFER TO POLICY OR
>BULLETINS MUST GIVE THE POLICY OR BULLETIN NUMBER AND ITS LOCATION AND
>TEXT VERBATIM.
>. GO 037872 INTELLIGENCE PRINCIPLES
>. HCO PL 16.2.1969: TARGETS DEFENSE
>. GO 1514: GO PURPOSE
>. 2.12.1969: Intelligence Actions
>(OC PGM [?], Jan. 15, 1982, revised Feb. 15, 1982) (emphasis added)
>
>139. Guardian Office documentation speaks of the mentality of G WW and
>GO B1 promoting a dangerous environment with what amounted to almost a
>fixation on the who's who had or were attacking us who then had to be
>annihilated (OC PGM [?], 15/1/1982, revised 15/2/1982).
>
>140. "The GO has been increasingly boxed into the legal arena in a
>number of countries and areas following chronic Intell. failures over
>the years in handling who's (sources of attack) and suggestion cutting
>across Scientology expansion".
>(GO PGM 0415R, 15/1/1982, revised 15/2/1982).
(OC PGM 0415R, 15/1/1982, revised 15/2/1982).
[Then 138 and 139 above would be OC PGM 0415R. "OC" = Office of the
Controller.]
>
>141. The Guardians Office is responsible for protecting the tax exempt
>status of Scientology through religious cover for commercial franchising:
>"Do an eval on our international religious/org image to truly isolate
>what the correct religious image for the Church is".
[The following omitted:]
(Guardian Office Strategic Plan, 20 Dec. 1981). This gives the
informant reasonable grounds to believe that Scientology engages in
offences 1 and 3 above while maintaining a religious appearance to
further its economic ends.
>
>142. The Guardian Office B1 has planted undercover agents in groups or
>organizations to further its interests, for example a spy in various
>"anti-cult" groups during the period of about 1976 to 1980. This
>information was corroborated by Source #3.
>
>143. Scientology itself, not any member thereof in Ontario, is licensed
licenced
>to perform marriages under _the Marriage Act_, R.S.O. 1980, c.256. The
>licensing to marry was assigned by G.O. "major target" status to 1982.
licencing
>Written application and subsequent correspondence to the Office of the
>Registrar General, Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Relations, has
>been examined as has copies of Toronto Org documentation "plotting"
>strategy to obtain the right to marry. That latter SCIENTOLOGY
>documentation, dated 1982, acknowledges unwillingness to answer
>Government inquiries and several deliberate lies and untruths in
>SCIENTOLOGY's responses to the Ministry in an effort to obtain legal
>status to marry. It was explained to Source #3 that in the past, the
>Ministry had asked specific questions that they did not want to answer,
>such as the financial lines of the Org, and the Guardian Office, did not
>want to answer the questions and did not, stating the questions had
>nothing to do with the issue.
>
>143A. In 1981, the Toronto Org viewed the Attorney General of Ontario to
>be improperly influencing the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
>to prevent licensing - an "Ontario Government Handling Programme" was
licencing
>formulated by the Toronto Guardian Office to place an agent in the
>office of the Attorney General to get "data" and to use the services of
>"all Scientologists in the area". Personal data on the Attorney General
>and his family was to be gathered and analyzed. Such conduct raises
>reasonable grounds to believe that the right to marry is sought in
>furtherance of SCIENTOLOGY's aims at representing itself as a non-profit
>organization while increasing revenues for distribution to the HUBBARDs
>and others.
>
>144. The Guardian's Office was responsible during the years 1981 and
>1982, according to source No. 3, and other police investigation for the
>placement of G.O. personnel in two Provincial Political Parties in the
>Province of Ontario. This is believe to be consistent with the dictates
believed
>of the SNOW WHITE Programme that Field Staff Members who are members of
>the Guardian's Office, be placed in the offices of targets of
>SCIENTOLOGY. Attempts have been made to place such a G.O. agent in the
>office of a member of the other political party to "[predict?]". The
[Yes.] to "predict".
>informant has reason to believe that such persons are located by the
>Guardian's Office in order to forewarn SCIENTOLOGY should the Government
>discuss anything affecting SCIENTOLOGY's interests and to act in
>accordance with G.O. reflects a continuation of the SHOW WHITE Programme
>tactics.
accordance with G.O. Orders in that regard. The informant has reason
to believe that this conduct by SCIENTOLOGY and the G.O. reflects a
continuation of the SHOW WHITE Programme tactics.
>
>144A. SCIENTOLOGY has experienced varied success in Canada in achieving
>municipal property tax exemption, as for example, under the _Assessment
>Act_ R.S.O. 1980, c. 31. Documentation date 1982 in Toronto Org reveals
dated 1982 in the Toronto Org
>that the G.O. should use "some B1 (intelligence) and PR (public
>relations) actions to handle the tax officials out of court" and
>specifically handling city of Toronto officials with B1 tech. The
>documentation states that tax exemption is necessary for an affluent and
>prosperous Org. A solution of the Org was to create a "game" and target
>for getting all land tax cases handled, giving high commendations and
>valuable awards to those members successfully assisting in that regard.
>
>145. Orders for the Guardian's Office, Information Bureau, describe
>confidential data collection planning for target areas:
>
> "_TARGET AREAS_
>
> The first action in planning data collection is that of knowing
>what target areas exist from which to collect information. Our
>experience through the years has taught us these fairly well.
>
> A list of target area is given below:
> 1. National government
> a. Tax departments
> b. Health departments
> c. Mental health departments
> d. Justice departments
> e. Immigration departments
> f. Labor departments
> g. Intelligence departments
> h. Custom departments
> i. Drug control departments
> j. Police enforcement departments
> k. Consumer departments
> l. Other departments
>
> 2. Local equivalents of national governments
> 3. National and local medical associations
> 4. National and local psychiatric associations
> 5. National and local mental health associations
> 6. National and local psychological associations
> 7. The media, national and local
> 8. National and local state religions
> 9. National and local minority religious groups
> 10. Better Business type associations
> 11. National and local advertising associations
> 12. Disaffected Scientologists
> 13. The relatives and friends of PTS Scientologists
> 14. Squirrel groups
> 15. Individuals in any of the above categories.
>
> The above list is not totally complete but is given to establish an
>idea of what is meant by target areas.
>
> Target areas are not assigned solely on the basis that these areas
>have attacked Scientology in the past, but should be assigned on the
>potential of threat now or in the future. It is up to the information
>Bureau to predict and handle attacks before they occur, not passively to
>handle them only after the fact."
> (GO [?], April 14, 1980)
GO 3175-7 [See 146]
>
>146. The information Bureau is directed as to the necessity of the
>operational necessity of covert data collection, stated to be confined
>to legal activities, but includes for example Guardian Order 3175-7,
>April 14, 1980.
[This means 145 is GO 3175-7.]
>
>1. Secret or concealment involved either with the person collecting the
>information or the means used to collect the information.
>2. The very essence of covert information is access.
>3. Creation of a cover to protect the agent from detection.
>4. Recommended operational conduct likely to contravene Part IV.[?] of
>the Code, document removal without authority, payments to employees of
>the target areas, which in the case of Government employees violates the
>employees' oath of secrecy and may constitute a breach of Section III of
>the Criminal Code.
>
>147. The Toronto Org has prepared itself in the eventuality of a police
>raid including a whistle code as to the police position, and, immediate
>posting of auditing sessions in the Deputy Guardian area to disguise the
>G.O. office area and initiation of document shredding (hats to be worn
>in case of a raid, G.O. 2085).
posting of pastoral counseling signs , and the starting of auditing
sessions in the Deputy Guardian area to disguise the G.O. office area
and initiation of document shredding (hats to be worn in case of a
raid, G.O. 2085).
>
>148. In October 1980, a list of procedures to follow, taped to the
>reception desk on the second floor. The instructions were as follows:
> "If the police show up to search the premises immediately call AG
>(Asst. Guardian) at (phone number) or (phone number), advise that
>unwelcome persons present. Upon completion of this immediately call DG
>(Deputy Guardian) at (phone number) or (phone number) or at night call
>(phone number), if no answer call (phone number), let these numbers know
>whether or not they have a search warrant. Demand to see it. Stall and
>say that some church officials are coming to assist them".
>
>149. In August 1981, the Assistant Guardian of the Information Bureau,
>Toronto GO, attended the Day Org morning product conference. This
>meeting is held daily, in the Executive Director's office on the third
>floor, (The GO is also located on this floor) and is attended by
floor. (The GO
>Division heads only. The Assistant Guardian stated that the GO was
>having a raid drill and that a raid was not expected but they should be
>prepared in any event. The staff were advised to remain in the office
>and to continue working and to not leave the third floor. The alert
>would be the sound of a whistle blowing. Staff members working on the
>other [floors?] of the building were not believed [?]
>
>150. In addition to the raid procedures, there are strict rules
>regarding access to the Guardian Offices. In September 1980, Source #3
>was advised that the third floor at 696-700 Yonge Street was where the
>hierarchy of SCIENTOLOGY were located and that it was strictly out of
>bounds with access absolutely prohibited.
>
>151. The elevator system had been fixed so that the doors did not open
>on the second or third floors without the use of a key.
>There were two staircases landing up to the second and their floors but
staircases leading
>the third floor doors were always locked denying access. An intercom
>system was utilized at the main staircase, with a "buzz code system". It
>was necessary to identify oneself and to identify who one wished to see.
>(The third floor also housed the Toronto Day and Foundation Executive
>Directors office, LRH Communicator and the FBO offices).
>
>152. All persons wishing to see someone in the Guardian Office had to
>stay on the second floor and have their arrival announced through the
>Receptionist, who in turn would notify the appropriate person. The
>visitor, or even a staff member, would then wait in the reception area
>until a G.O. escort was sent down. Frequently, G.O. staff members would
>conduct their business on the second floor or go out to a restaurant
>rather than returning upstairs. Telephone calls to G.O. personnel were
>screened at the switchboard and instructions were that if the caller did
>not identify himself, the call was not to be put through.
>
>153. Even Org staff members, assisting GO personnel, were never left
>unattended while on the third floor. This applied to the hallway as
>well. If one were allowed into GO office space, they were accompanied
>and not allowed to walk around freely.
>
>154. The third floor hallway doors leading into GO office space were
>always locked, even when personnel were working inside. Rooms within the
>main office space were kept locked as well, even when GO personnel were
>inside. Even GO staff members are not allowed free access to many areas
>in their floor and office areas is maintained at all times.
inside. Even GO staff members are not allowed free access to many
areas in their own office areas. Strict security of the third floor
and office areas is maintained at all times.
>
>155. The Guardian Office maintained night security on the third floor,
>apart from the security man left to look after the remainder of the
>building. The obsession with security gives reason to believe that the
>fruits and instrumentalities of crimes committed in furtherance of
>Offence #3 are located at the location to be searched.
>
>156. Copies of Guardian Office intelligence reports are to be sent to
>the Continental G.O. and to G.O. WW (Guardian's Office World Wide). In
>sending reports, security is to be kept in mind with no reference to how
>the data was obtained to protect the sources identity. (GO 4037, 20 May
>1982).
>
>157. The GO 3641 Guardian Order Confidential DGI/AGI and Information
>Bureau Full Hat Checksheet, a document to assist in training experienced
>G.O. B1 personnel in Toronto includes studies in relation to specific
>Guardian Orders and policy, for example:
>
> 1. why psychiatry is a target to attack
> 2. two ways to collect information
> 3. operations collection
> 4. cover to data collection methods
> 5. how to divert attacks
> 6. enemy names
> 7. battle tactics
> 8. the 7 targets
> 9. occupy territory
> 10. reason for attack
> 11. GO alert
> 12. Snow White Programme Orders
> 13. intelligence actions
> 14. sequence of action of an intelligence officer
> 15. codes and coding
> 16. advantage of codes and cyphers
> 17. suppressive acts
> 18. enrollment in suppressive groups
> 19. internal security
> 20. E-Metres replace guns
> 21. ethics E-Meter checks
> 22. police raids, handling a raid
> 23. phone security
> 24. need to know system
> 25. a drop, a safehouse
> 26. the art of cover
> 27. building a background, using a real name
> 28. organization infiltration
> 29. covert operation
> 30. dead agent
>
>158. SCIENTOLOGY advocates its agents and Guardian personnel gathering
>affidavits, saying what SCIENTOLOGY wants from persons to protect and
>deflect blame from SCIENTOLOGY. As for example, by committing a
>potential trouble source to a sworn statement of facts. SCIENTOLOGY
>DOCUMENTATION ADVISES:
>"The most important thing to remember when getting an affidavit or
>statement is that it should be very clear and should state precisely
>what you want it to. An affidavit must be _sworn to and signed_ before a
>Commissioner of Oaths or a Notary Public. (Both are individuals who have
>been given a commission by the Government to administer oaths and take
>affidavits). Almost all lawyers can swear affidavits but you will find
>that they often advise the person swearing the affidavit not to do so
>without consulting their lawyer due to the content of the affidavit.
>Therefore, avoid having lawyers swearing affidavits unless he is the
>Church's lawyer or you have no other choice.
>
>159. You can find a Notary Public by checking the Yellow Pages of the
>telephone book under the heading. You will find that Notaries are the
under that heading.
>best people to swear affidavits as they have only a little legal
>training and very very seldom advise anyone of anything".
>(Ref: Affidavits, Statements and Bonds, Page 1).
>
>_CHAPTER 4_
>
>_LEGAL PROCEEDINGS_
>
>160. As a result of examination of Court judgements and documents from
>Canada, the United States, Australia, England and France, the informant
>has collected the information in paragraph 161 to 167.
>
>161. In May of 1982, the Full Supreme Court of Australia ruled in an
>unreported judgment that the Church of New Faith practicing Scientology
practising
>was not a religious institution. _See Appendix VI, pages 1 to 2_.
>
>162. The Statement of Claim filed in the County Court of the Judicial
>District of York in the matter of _CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY of TORONTO v.
>NANCY McLEAN_ (No. 26342.76) states in paragraph 1 that "the plaintiff
>is and was at all material times a non-profit religious corporation
>incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario".
>
>Paragraph 5 of the above-styled Statement of Claim states however that
>"as a result of the foregoing breaches, the plaintiff has suffered a
>loss of _business profits_ and has been put to out-of-pocket expenses".
>(emphasis added). _See Appendix VI, pages 4 to 10_.
>
>163. The case of _S. v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, EX PARTE SECERDAL AND
>ANOTHER_, (1970) [?] E.R. 836 (C.A.), is an appeal from the Divisional
R. v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, EX PARTE SEGERDAL AND ANOTHER_, (1970) 3 All
E.R. 836 (C.A.), is an appeal from the Divisional
>Court judgement, reported at (1970) [?], confusing an application for
Court judgement, reported at (1970) 1 Q.B. refusing an application for
[See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/segerdal.html ]
>mandamus that the Scientology Chapel at Saint Hill Manor, East
>Grinstead, Sussex, England be recorded as a place of worship. The appeal
>to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division was unsuccessful and an
>application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. _See
>Appendix VI, pages [?] to 35_ for the Court of Appeal Judgement.
>
>164. An action by the Founding Church of Scientology in the U.S. Court
>of Claim reported [?] (1969), to recover Federal income taxes and
of Claims reported at 412 F. 2d 1197 (1969), to recover Federal income
taxes and
>assessed interest paid by Scientology to the Untied States Government
>was dismissed. Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied
>on March 30, 1970; 397 U.S. 1009.
>
>At issue in this case was whether the Founding Church of Scientology was
>entitled to an exemption from Federal income taxation as a corporation
>"organized and operated exclusively for religious or educational
>purposes" 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954), Section 501(c)(3).
>
>As stated in the headnote to the case, Collins, J. held that "where the
>founder of the Church was not only paid, in addition to his salary,
>commissions and royalties, but he and his family received unexplained
>payments in nature of loans and reimbursements, the Church was not
>entitled to exemption from Federal income taxation under statute".
>
>The U.S. Court of Claims judgement, _THE FOUNDING CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
>V. THE UNITED STATES_, is found at _Appendix VI, pages 36 to 42_.
>
>165. The case of _THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO V. MARITIME
>BROADCASTING COMPANY LIMITED, GORDON PROUDFOOT AND STEVEN NORTH_, an
>unreported judgement of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal delivered on May
>10, 1979, involved an appeal from an order dismissing the Respondents
>because the Church had failed to comply with an order of the Chief
>Justice for the production for inspection of 194 specified documents.
10, 1979, involved an appeal from an order dismissing the Appellant
Church's action for defamation against the Respondents because the
Church had failed to comply with an order of the Chief Justice for the
production for inspection of 194 specified documents.
>
>Chief Justice [?], in dismissing the appeal by the Appellant Church stated:
Chief Justice MacKeigan,
>
>"The learned chambers judge refused any adjournment. I think she was
>right in doing so. No suggestion was made then, or indeed has since been
>made, that the appellant has tried to find the missing documents in
>England or elsewhere. In particular, and very surprisingly, no affidavit
>has been offered as to the results of the search in England, which Mr.
>Lewis on August 2, 1978, said would be reported within two weeks.
>Nothing has been reported to show that the missing documents are not
>available to the appellant and not under its control. Thus the appellant
>has given no reason why it should not be punished for contempt under
>r.20.09(1) and have its action dismissed." _See Appendix VI, pages 43 to
>47._
>
>166. In the case of the _CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF EDMONTON,
>CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF CALGARY AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
>MISSION OF OLD STRATHCONA V. EVELYN HAMDON, LES JACKMAN, LORNA LEVETT,
>BETTY McCOY, BRENDON MOORE, WILLIAM REID, NEIL TAYLOR AND DAVID
>WALLACE_, an unreported judgement of the Alberta Queen's bench delivered
judgment
>on October 6, 1980, it was held that "the proceedings and action of the
>Plaintiffs amounted to a clear abuse of process". The Court further
>stated that "the contempt of court, the failure to comply with
>innumerable court orders, the need to formally settle minutes of appeal;
>the entire conduct of the Plaintiffs in not one that should be
>countenanced by out courts" and accordingly, the Court awarded costs on
our
>a solicitor/client basis to the Defendants. _See Appendix VI, pages 48
>to 50_.
>
>167. The Superior Court of Paris on February [?], 1978 sentenced L. Ron
>HUBBARD [?] to four years imprisonment and [?] fine and issued a warrant
>for his arrest [?] Articles [?] _Code of Criminal Procedure_. The
>defendant HUBBARD was convicted along with 3 other officials of the
>French Scientology Association of "having in Paris and on the national
>territory,
[Wow, that copy's beyond me for now. I think I went exterior trying to
make sense of the dots though.]
>
> "between 1967 and January 9, 1976, used fraudulent manoeuvres to
>induce the existence of false enterprises, having imaginary power and
>credit, or for having encouraged the hope of success or of any other
>unreal event, namely: Under the guise of an association, pretending to
>be a "Church", whose sole objective is philosophical and religious,
>whereas the said institution functions as an organized psychotherapeutic
>system and veils its character as a well-managed, fully operative
>commercial enterprise, ... by carrying out pseudo personality tests
>under the leadership of unqualified persons, by using in conditions not
>in keeping with scientific practice, ... by giving the aura of a
>religious status, ... pressure on individuals attracted by the hope of a
>better personal balance, of a more successful career and especially of
>"Happiness", and by persuading these persons thus that their goals can
>only be attained by an initiation of a religious character, in the
>concrete form of courses, services or books or documents distributed or
>given out at a costly price, whereas the real value of these courses,
>services or books is in no way related to the high prices required to
>purchase them; having obtained from many people the payment of high sum
payment of large sums [I'd bet.]
>of money, and stealing in this way [?] a part of the fortunes of others;
>..."
>
>The Court found as a fact that the French Scientology organization was
>"a commercial enterprise hiding behind false pretenses, a business
>selling services, namely psychotherapy sessions". The Court highlighted
>the evidence of a circular signed by the defendant HUBBARD in which he
>wrote that "the collecting of money is essential" and concluded from all
>of the evidence that "money is _above all_ what interests the leaders of
>Scientology" (emphasis in the original).
>
>The Court further concluded from all the evidence that the Defendant
>HUBBARD was the true beneficiary of the profits of the French
>Scientology Association in so much as there was "the devious but real
>transfer to England of 100%(sic) of the amount of the gross income" for
[It was 10% of course. 10% of GI went to Hubbard. It may have been
written 10/%, a "0" struck through with a slash.
[This might be helpful: http://www.antisectes.net/jugt78.htm ]
>his use and that the Defendant HUBBARD "in spite of appearances,
>remained in fact and skillfully the master of this "affair" of a very
>particular kind".
>
>For the judgement in _ATTORNEY OF THE REPUBLIC, THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE
>DEFENSE OF THE FAMILY AND THE INDIVIDUAL AND TRAN NGOC LAN V. HENRY
AND M. TRAN
>LAARHUIS, JACQUELINE VALANTIN, LAFAYETTE RONALD HUBBARD_ and _GEORGES
>ANDREU_, _See Appendix VI, pages 51 to 63_.
>
>167A. On Friday, February 29, 1980, the 9th Chamber of the Appeal Court
>discharged Georges ANDREU who presided over Scientology in Paris, France
>from September 1973 to 1976 and who, on February 14, 1978, received a
>year's suspended sentence and a fine of 3,000 francs for fraud.
>
>167B. The Appeals Court Judgement stats that ANDREU played a limited
stated
>role in Scientology which had been in existence for a long time, and
>that this Judgement concerned only him and did not affect the other
>convictions and sentences imposed in 1978 on HUBBARD and the above
>mentioned persons in paragraph 167.
>
>_CHAPTER 5_
>
>_ACTIVITIES OF SCIENTOLOGY IN TORONTO_
>
>168. This Chapter deals with the investigation conducted by the
>informant and others which was commenced in the fall of 1980, and
>continued on a full-time basis to date, of the activities of SCIENTOLOGY
>in Canada and elsewhere.
>
>169. The paragraphs below in Chapter 5 are based upon the investigation
>of the informant for this warrant, and specifically, but not
>exhaustively include the following investigative sources:
>
>(a) Source #1
>(b) Source #2
>(c) Source #3
>(d) SCIENTOLOGY Technical Dictionary
>(e) H.C.O. Policy Letters
>(f) Promotional literature distributed by the Org.
>(g) Technical Bulletins, Volume 1-10
>(h) Organizational Executive Course Volumes 0-7
>(i) A true copy of the Affidavit of Gerry ARMSTRONG dated June 25, 1982,
>and his supplementary affidavit of August 11, 1982, (_See Appendix VII,
>pages 166 to 179).
>
>170. As a result of this investigation, and from the grounds of belief
>set out in Chapter 1 to 4 above, and from examination of the matters
>listed in paragraph 173, it is the informant's belief that the above
>described offences have been committed on the basis that reasonable
>grounds exist for believing that:
>
>(1) The Toronto Scientology Org operates as a franchise in a world-wide
>network of Scientology Orgs,
>
>(2) Intense organized commercialism in Scientology Toronto exists
>without "donations" to a religious group but rather the payment of set
>fees whereby courses and materials are sold,
>
>(3) Scientology fraudulently misrepresents courses and objects sold as
>religious processing or artifacts, for example, the Purification Rundown
>and E-Meter respectively, to increase revenues and market such items and
>other courses at hight cost, set prices unrelated to real value or
high
>represented qualities of, and benefits from, such items.
>
>(4) An ever identifiable concern for generation of increased profits, as
>opposed to concern for religious pursuits,
>
>(5) The role of the Guardian Office as a part of Scientology dedicated
>to protection of income-production and the advancement of a religious
>guise for Scientology's commercial franchising and prepared to commit
>criminal offences and to conduct intelligence operations in furtherance
>of an agreement to "protect" Scientology.
>
>(6) On a world-wide and local basis, Scientology's lack of openness or
>disclosure of the true nature of its operation and income-distribution,
>
>(7) Distribution, at least in part, of income or profits payable to, or
>otherwise available for, the personal benefit of persons in Scientology,
>including:
>
> a) monies paid to high level orgs and to L. Ron HUBBARD in
>particular through monies paid out of Canada to R.R.F. and to high level
>orgs outside Canada as "management fees", publications and courses;
>
> b) monies to upper level executives in the Toronto org through a
>unit-post pyramid payment system and an extended commission payment system.
>
>171. An incorporated entity may obtain non-profit status upon
>application to the Provincial Government under the _Corporation Tax
>Act_, and upon application to the Federal Government pursuant to the
>_Income Tax Act_.
>
>172. Since 1967 the Church of SCIENTOLOGY has applied for and been
>granted exemption from corporate taxes otherwise payable on the basis of
>its representation that it was complying with the following statutory
>provisions:
>
> 149. (1) No tax is payable under this Part upon the taxable income
>of a person for a period when that person was
>
> (l) a club, society or association that, in the opinion of the
>Minister, was not a charity within the meaning assigned by subsection
>149.1(1) and that was organized and operated exclusively for social
>welfare, civic improvement, pleasure or recreation or for any other
>purpose except profit, no part of the income of which was payable to, or
>was otherwise available for the personal benefit of, any proprietor,
>member or shareholder thereof unless the proprietor, member or
>shareholder was a club, society or association the primary purpose and
>function of which was the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada;
[P. 61 of the naderlibrary copy is cut off through "promotion." But I
see "of amateur athletics in Canada" comes from regulation. Freakout
mode off.]
>
>_Income Tax Act_, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63 as amended, S.C. 1976-77, c. 4,
>s. 59(2) as amended.
>
> 49.(l) Except as hereinafter provided, no tax is payable under this
>PArt upon the taxable income of a corporation for a period when that
Part
>corporation was,
>
> (b) a club, society or association that, in the opinion of the
>Minister, was not a charity within the meaning given to that expression
>by subsection 149.1 (1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) and that was
>organized and operated exclusively for social welfare, civic
>improvement, pleasure or recreation or for any other purpose except
>profit, which has not in the taxation year or in any previous taxation
>year distributed any part of its income to any proprietor, member or
>shareholder thereof, or appropriated any of its funds or property in any
>manner whatever to or for the benefit of any proprietor, member or
>shareholder thereof, unless the proprietor, member or shareholder was a
>club, society or association, the primary purpose and function of which
>was the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada, or
>
>_The Corporations Tax Act_, R.S.O. 1980 c. 97, as amended.
>
>173. Examined below in this Chapter are the following:
>
>A. The Source of Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters
>B. The E-Meter
>C. Staff Recruitment - Security Checks and Contracts
>D. Staff Status Courses, Study and Service Privileges
>E. Freeloaders Debt in Relation to Contracts
>F. Regging Staff
>G. Significance of Statistics
>H. Completed Staff Work
>I. Sunday Service
>J. Donations Versus Set Fees
>K. Regging Public
>L. Purification Rundown
>M. Finances
>
>A. _THE SOURCE OF HUBBARD COMMUNICATION OFFICE POLICY LETTERS_
>
>174. According to HUBBARD Communication Office (H.C.O.) Policy Letter of
>March 1965, Issue II, "Policy: Source of", _See Appendix Vii, pages 3
>and 4_ only L. Ron HUBBARD may write H.C.O. policy letters or authorize
>them. (Ref: OEC Volume 0, page 336).
>
>175. Some H.C.O. Policy Letters, binding directives upon Scientology,
>are hereinafter referred to. The HUBBARD Communication Office policy
>letters are basic organizational policy within the orgs. This policy
>letter states, "If it is not in an HCO policy letter it is not policy".
>According to Source #2, the policy letter is in force today. This policy
>letter also states, "... no officer or SCIENTOLOGY personnel may set
>aside policy even when requesting revision". Although the above is
>stated in this HUBBARD Communication Office policy letter, another
>policy letter of 19 March 1968 (ref. OEC Volume 0, page 281), entitled
>"Service", states: "Use the rules until they prevent you from doing your
>job, but if these stop you, then to hell with the rules! Get the show on
>the road". (_See Appendix VII, page 5_.
>
>
>B. _THE E-METER_
>
>176. The informant further has reasonable grounds to believe and does
>believe that the SCIENTOLOGY is a profit-oriented organization, by the
>method of which the E-Meter, an alleged "religious artifact", is
>marketed by SCIENTOLOGY. Due to the high mark-up value of E-Meters, at
>times of well over 100%, affords further evidence of a profit making
>operation. Further, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the said
>E-Meter is fraudulently represented as a spiritual artifact.
>
>177. The definition of the E-Meter, as contained in the SCIENTOLOGY
>Technical Dictionary, by L. Ron HUBBARD, is as follows:
> "The E-Meter is a religious artifact used as a spiritual guide in
>the church confessional. It is an aid to the auditor (minister, student,
>pastoral counsellor) in two-way communication locating areas of
>spiritual travail and indicating spiritual wellbeing in an area".
>The E-Meter is used by SCIENTOLOGY during auditing sessions, in order to
>help the auditor (counsellor) find the areas of upset (problems) in an
>individual.
>
>178. The E-Meter is simply a galvanometer whose leads are attach to tin
attached
>cans (asparagus or soup cans) that the individual holds during a
>session. A significant role of the E-Meter is as a lie detector during
>security checks given by the church. These security checks are to
>ascertain one's intentions and beliefs about SCIENTOLOGY when being
>recruited as staff and periodically thereafter. (_See Paragraphs 197 to
>200 below_).
>
>179. Various governments have studied the E-Meter and have drawn the
>following conclusions regarding the device: From a Report of the
>commission of Enquiry into Scientology for 1978 from South Africa, page 103:
Commission of Enquiry into Scientology for 1972
>"8.12 The Commission is satisfied beyond any serious doubt that the
>claims made on behalf of the E-Meter are intensified beyond the limits
>of truth. It is an instrument capable of detecting and registering skin
>reaction to electricity. Skillfully used or abused it could unearth
>close and personal secrets. It is scientifically of no value in testing
>emotions, feelings or reactions of persons. It has no value in itself in
>the treatment of psychosomatic or other illnesses".
>
>"_CONCLUSION_:
>The "E-Meter", considered as an instrument in relation to the literature
>supplied by the Commission, and in the context in which it is apparently
>used by the Church of SCIENTOLOGY, is not a scientific method for
>assessing or measuring human behaviour".
>
>180. From the Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology in
>Australia in 1963, page 45:
>"A great air of mystery and reverence surrounds the E-Meter. It is
>accorded almost magical powers. It is said to be infaillible. Of it
>HUBBARD writes, "The E-Meter is never wrong. It sees all, it knows all.
>It tells everything".
>
>In fact, it is no more than a powerful gimmick for controlling preclears
>and developing in them a sense of awe and of submission to and
>dependency on the HASI. It is merely an electrical measuring instrument,
>with no other capacity than to detect and record the degree of
>resistance to the flow of electricity of any medium placed between its
>terminals to complete the circuit".
>
>181. From the Australian Inquiry, page 96:
>"Scientologists, without any proof that thought causes a facsimile which
>alters the density of the body or the electrical field of the thetan or
>the voltage passing through the E-Meter, proceed on the assumption that
>it is the thetan which causes the E-Meter to register".
>
>182. From the Australian Inquiry, page 97:
>"None of the scientology theories associated with, or claims made for
>the E-Meter is justified".
>
>183. From a study for the Committee on Healing Arts in Ontario, the
>Sectarian Healers and Hypnotherapy, page 65, it advises that the Food
>and Drug Administration of the U.S.A. seized 100 E-Meters and in 1967 it
>was determined in a Federal Court that the E-Meters were mislabelled.
>
>184. In a subsequent decision in the United States Court of Appeals in
>1973, _United States of America vs An article or Device... "Hubbard
>Electrometer" or "Hubbard E-Meter", etc. Founding Church of Scientology
>et al, No. 712064_, it was upheld that the E-Meter was misbranded and
>could only be distributed as follows:
>
> "1. E-Meters shall be used or sold or distributed only for use in
>bonafide religious counselling.
>
> 2. Each E-Meter shall hear the following warning, printed in
bear
>11-point leaded type, permanently affixed to the front of the E-Meter so
>that it is clearly visible when the E-Meter is used, sold or
>distributed: "The E-Meter is not medically or scientifically useful for
>the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not
>medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily
>functions of anyone."
>
> 3. "Any and all items of written, printed, or graphic matter which
>directly or indirectly refers to the E-Meter or to Dianetics and/or
>Scientology and/or auditing or processing shall not be further used or
>distributed unless and until the item shall bear the following prominent
>printed warning permanently affixed to said item on the outside front
>cover or on the title page in letters no smaller than 11-point type:
>
> WARNING
>
> The device known as Hubbard Electrometer, or E-Meter, used in
as a Hubbard Electrometer,
>auditing, a process of Scientology and Dianetics, is not medically or
>scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of any
>disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the
>health or bodily functions of anyone".
> (_See Appendix VII, Page 16_).
>
>185. The E-Meter is a high profit item marketed by SCIENTOLOGY. The
>profit is due to the fact that the E-Meter is essentially a low cost
>item to produce. The E-Meter is distributed to the orgs by "Publications
>Organization U.S." (Bridge Publications), or "Publications Organization
>Denmark" (New Era Publications). Both Publications Organizations are
>SCIENTOLOGY controlled.
>
>186. These two Publications Organizations sell the Meters to the Toronto
>Org for $300.00 to $1,000.00. The meters are then sold to the staff and
>public for price ranging from $1,000.00 to $2,500.00. The Org in
prices
>Toronto, on importation of the meters, represents to Canada Customs the
>fair market value as the price at which the meters were purchased from
>the foreign publications companies. That value is declared after the
>subtraction of non-arm's length bulk purchase discounts given to the
>importing Toronto Org. The Toronto Orgs are in fact only paying duty and
>tax on the value at which they purchased the items, rather than on the
>value for which the items are actually being sold for in Canada.
>
>187. A tremendous amount of sales pressure in exerted towards staff to
>purchase an E-Meter. Source #3 in 1982 was told that the fact they did
>not know how to operate an E-Meter made no difference, as eventually a
>meter would be mandatory to do upper level SCIENTOLOGY training. Further
>pressure was put on the person by being told that by purchasing the
>Meter at that time advantage could be taken of a limited time discount.
>The salesperson was not concerned that the person had outstanding debts
>and was not willing to over-extend further. Within a few days the person
>was re-approached and told that it was mandatory for staff member to
mandatory for a staff member to
>purchase their own E-Meter. The salesperson eventually contacted a bank
>(SCIENTOLOGY loan applicants have dealt very successfully at this bank
this Bank
>in the past), and made the necessary arrangements and told the
>individual that the loan would be approved and it was just a matter of
>signing papers. However, the loan was turned down and the salesperson
>ceased conversation with the previously potential customer and put his
>attention on another prospect. Each time the person was approached, the
>salesperson utilized the "tagging" sales method, he always had another
>staff member with him to assist in answering questions and to reinforce
>what he had stated.
>
>C. _STAFF RECRUITMENT_
>
>_General_
>
>188. The greatest asset that SCIENTOLOGY orgs have on a worldwide basis,
>allowing them to expand, is, with exceptions, the use of largely
>unqualified and poorly paid staff, a situation akin to slave labour with
>little or no compensation for employment in a harsh environment. It is
>the informant's belief that it is this seldom properly compensated work
>force which assists SCIENTOLOGY to reap high profits.
>
>189. SCIENTOLOGY is constantly on the lookout for new staff members.
>Every division has numerous posts or positions which are never
>adequately filled, thus putting extra responsibility and duties on the
>shoulders of the division heads. Also, in order to secure a different
>post, the staff member is obligated to fill his former post with a fully
>trained, competent replacement, before being transferred. Normally, the
>"Personnel Procurement Officer" (PPO) is responsible for recruiting.
>However, anyone seeking personnel for their department .....
> "... may procure it wherever they wish, and however they wish..."
>(Ref: Organization Executive Course, Volume 1, page 129, HCO PL 28 March
>1961, Personnel Policies Staff Post Qualifications Permanent Executive
>to Be Approved)
>
>_Methods_
>
>190. Various methods are utilized by the Org to attract new staff. Basic
>course and academy students are the prime candidates.
>
>191. Initially, one is befriended and all personal data secured.
>SCIENTOLOGY's policy is to reject anyone with a criminal record or
>history of psychiatric illness from staff eligibility. Such persons are
>not eligible for course enrollment.
>
>192. SCIENTOLOGY prefers to recruit unemployed and/or "loner" types with
>promises of employment with another staff member's private company, or
>state that sufficient income can be earned through the commissions from
>books sales, or promise rent-free accomodation in exchange for
>babysitting services. The recruited will say anything to entice an
The recruiter
>individual to join staff.
>
>193. For others, joining staff is approached quite subtlely. The
>interested procurer will conveniently be present during course room
>breaks to sociably chat and promote the advantages of joining staff,
>such as free services, discounts and the reward of helping others.
>Casual tours of the building and introductions with "very friendly"
>members are conducted. When questioned in regards to the Org, staff
>members provide varying answers but will never speak negatively or
>attempt to discourage. To do so and be discovered, is risking
>disciplinary action, as it is in contravention of policy (Ref: HCO PL 20
>October 61, OEC Volume 0, page 23). It is in the best interest of staff
>members to aid in increasing staff and thereby possibly reduce the
>burden of their own post duties.
>
>194. Holding a post on staff is presented as being a prestigious type of
>job and comparable to an "executive position" in society. The extremely
>remote possibility of not qualifying or the challenge of perhaps not
>being eligible is dangled in front of the prospect to further tantalize.
>This proves quite effective and the potential staff members usually
>become quite eager to prove their "worthiness".
>
>195. Staff members are persistent and have been known to talk for hours
>at one time to a prospect, in order to persuade him to join staff.
>Ordinarily any resistance to joining staff is eventually worn down, and
>any indecision overcome. Letters are continuously written, and pamphlets
>forwarded by Personnel Procurement Officers (names secured from the vast
>mailing lists that are kept at the Org), to entice persons to join
>staff, the plea being to "become part of a team of staff that dedicate
>themselves to helping mankind". The promises being "to achieve your
>purposes and goals working in SCIENTOLOGY".
>
>196. Newspaper ads in the help wanted columns are placed in local
>newspapers. Such ads in 1981 did not specify the type of work. The Org
>deliberately omits full disclosure to applicants, in particular
>regarding salary and payment. For example, in early November 1981, one
>female applicant believed she had been hired as a paid receptionist for
>the Org, but was not aware she was not to be paid on a regular basis.
>She was unaware that she was to be paid the same as other staff members
>as per the policy at the Toronto Org, which is a percentage of the
>corrected gross income for the org. This amount varies but for lower
>staff members, is usually less than $5.00 per week for the Toronto Day
>Org. After approximately one (1) week of work, she discovered,
>inadvertently, she would not be paid regularly and subsequently never
>returned.
>
>_Security Checks - New Staff_
>
>197. "Security checks should be given any new staff on a meter. When a
>theft or insecurity has occurred, staff should consent to such a check
>and such a consent is contained in the hiring contract." (Ref: HCO PL 20
>July 1966 Amended 19 March 1968, Organization Executive Course, Volume
>0, page 49).
>
>198. SCIENTOLOGY uses the E-Meter for security checks of its new staff
>members. The apparent purpose, given the questions asked, is primarily
>to determine whether or not anyone has infiltrated the Org. A security
>check is designed to elicit any negative attitude the member may have
>towards SCIENTOLOGY, L. Ron HUBBARD or Mary Sue HUBBARD. By using the
>E-Meter, the person administering the check can allegedly determine, or
>convinces the person he can determine, whether the subject has any
>negative thoughts on SCIENTOLOGY or has engaged in any perceived
>anti-SCIENTOLOGY activities.
> "Security Check: An E-Meter is better known as "lie detector" and
>is used to ascertain truth of background and conduct". (Ref: HCO
>Bulletin of 3 February 1960, Technical Bulletins Volume IV, Page 23)
>
>199. In the initial security check, questions of a personal nature are
>asked in relation to educational background, family and social
>relationships, use of alcohol and drugs etc., with the person responding
>required to hold the tin cans of the lie detector device. Administration
>of a security check is a pre-condition of employment. The person
>administering the check is recording, in writing, the response and
>reactions of the E-Meter at all times. The E-Meter is shielded, thus
>preventing the person submitting to such a check from observing the needle.
>
>200. Information is recorded and retained by the Org in pre-clear
>folders. New staff are not informed at the onset that numerous staff in
>the Org have access to the pre-clear folder. Should a staff member cause
>problems, the Guardian Office has absolute access to the file for use in
>"handling" the individual and bringing him under control with the
>implicit, if not expressed, threat of public disclosure of personal details.
>
>_Contract_
>
>201. Once the individual has been persuaded to become a staff member,
>through the promises of salary, respected position and _free_
>SCIENTOLOGY services, a contract is presented for signature. A true copy
>of contract is contained in _Appendix VII, pages 17 to 21_.
>
>202. The staff member presenting the contract for signature provides
>little or no detail as to the significance of the document and seeks to
>obtain the signature as summarily as possible.
>
>203. SCIENTOLOGY maintains that the document is legally binding such
>that failure to fulfil the obligations set forth therein, makes the
>member liable to remit forthwith, a sum equal to the full value of all
>services received "free of charge" as a staff member, frequently
>thousands of dollars.
>
>204. A perspective staff member when contracted may agree to be staff
to be a staff
>member for five (5) years or two and one half (2-1/2) years. The
>contract has a third option of being contracted on a weekly basis, but
>such short term contracts are strongly discouraged. Org staff seek to
>obtain long term commitment. For example, one person was informed that
>the weekly contract applied to professionals only who were used in a
>consulting capacity. Another staff member advised that an individual
>could be hired on a weekly basis but that would mean ineligibility for
>any free services.
>
>205. Normally, a new staff member signs a two and one-half (2 1/2) year
>contract, as it is difficult for the procurer to obtain a five (5) year
>commitment. However, shortly after the contract is signed, and
>definitely prior to its expiry, the staff member is re-approached and
>pressured to enlist for a longer duration. Also, if one is selected to
>attend a higher level org for training, it is mandatory to sign a five
>(5) year contract.
>
>206. Another contract, different than the above described, was
>introduced in the Toronto Org in the summer of 1981 -- "Sea Org" where
>members sign a _"billion year"_ contract. Joining the Sea Org is
"_billion year_"
>perceived as one of the highest proofs of a Scientologist's dedication.
>
>D. _STAFF STATUS COURSES STUDY AND PRIVILEGES_
_Staff Status Courses General_
>
>207. A newly contracted staff member must enroll in Scientology's Staff
>Status Courses, of which there are three. The new staff member has no
>choice but to take these courses. These are used solely to orient the
>new staff member with the org and its basic policies.
>
>208. Although these courses are represented as free of charge, the new
>staff member must sign a promissory note for the value of the courses.
>
>209. If the staff member chooses to leave the Org, he will be harassed
>and pressured to pay for the services which he received "free". The
>payment sought is equivalent to the total of the promissory notes
>signed. (_See Paragraphs 234 to 242_).
>
>210. Once the individual has been recruited, has signed the contract and
>successfully passed the security check, he believes himself to be in a
>position to attain the benefits promised by the SCIENTOLOGY recruiter.
>
>A new staff member expects to start services geared toward personal
>enhancement. In reality, training is commenced immediately to make a new
>staff member an obedient, productive staff member, and of little or no
>personal benefit to the individual. Prior to completion of the staff
>status courses, one is classified as an "expediter" and works in
>whatever area is assigned by the senior member. These duties could range
>from passing out free personality test tickets on Yonge Street to "mess
>work", such as emptying garbage cans or washing floors. It is explained
>to the new staff member that the period of time spent as an expediter is
>to orient himself as to how the Org functions.
>
>211. Though new staff members are generally verbally guaranteed a choice
>of post prior to joining staff, it is normally predetermined where that
>staff member is to be assigned. Per item #7 on Staff Covenant (contract):
> "Staff members shall accept whatever activity is assigned, in
>accordance with existing policy".
>Per item #16 on Staff Covenant (contract):
#15
> "The Church shall not be obligated to honour any verbal promise or
>any other terms or conditions not specifically covered in this
>Covenant....."
>
>_Staff Status 0 (Zero)_
>
>212. This course takes approximately one and one-half (1 1/2) hours to
>complete and the price of same fluctuates greatly. In 1980 one staff
>member was required to sign a promissory note, and received a debit
>invoice, to the staff members, staff member account, in the amount of
the staff member's, staff member account
>nearly four hundred dollars ($400.00) for this course, yet five (5)
>months later, the same course was offered free of charge, without the
>necessity of signing a promissory note.
>
>213. Such a change in the price of a course has no bearing on a
>Freeloaders Debt billing to a staff member who has signed a promissory
>note for the course. Such a staff member is required to repay according
>to what was being charged at the time the course was taken. Staff Status
>0 is basically an Org orientation and consists of absurd and ridiculous
>drills. The following examples are directly quoted from Staff Status 0
>check-sheets (course directions):
>
>_EXAMPLE_:
>#4 "Go outside and look at the Org".
>#6(c) "How many desks are there in HCO?"
>#7(b) "Go to the reception centre.
> 1) Note whether there is a Receptionist on post".
> 2) Note whether the front door is open so people can come in".
>#14(b) "Locate the cashier's desk. What colour is it?"
>#23 "Now go outside and take another look at the Org.
> a) What does the sign on the front of the building say?"
>(_See Appendix VII, pages 22 to 25_).
>
>214. For the new staff member who signs a promissory note for the Staff
>Status 0, as for example the staff member described in paragraph 212
>above, each of the above described areas of instruction, as set out in
>paragraph 213, i.e. "go outside and look at the Org", costs the staff
>member about $15.00 each. The informant has grounds to believe that such
>courses offered by Scientology at the costs to the participant, and upon
>the representations as to the value to the purchaser are misrepresented
>and the real worth is unrelated to cost.
and that real worth
>
>215. Staff Status 0 is a mandatory course for any new staff member.
>
>_Staff Status I_
>
>216. Depending on the recommendation one receives upon completion of
>Staff Status 0 and the "TIP" (Technical Individual Program), the Staff
>Section Officer (SSO) recommends either the completion of a study course
>prior to Staff Status I or "routes" (directs) the Staff member directly
>on to Staff Status I.
>
>217. As with most courses, a staff member signs a promissory note for
>whatever training is received. It is mandatory for the staff member to
>take the training the Staff Section Officer deems necessary. Within a
>one year period, the cost of Staff Status One course fluctuated from one
>hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) down to sixty dollars ($60.00).
>Staff Status I takes approximately nine (9) to twelve (12) hours to
>complete and consists of further orientation, the importance of
>Scientology's public image, the reason for post training, staff
>regulations and learning the basic chain of command.
>
>218. In total, there are ten (10) H.C.O. Policy Letters to be learned
>and five (5) drills to be performed.
>
>_Staff Status II (Two)_
>
>219. This course takes approximately twenty (20) to twenty four (20)
twenty four (24)
>hours to complete and the price remains relatively consistent at three
>hundred dollars ($300.00). It is much more detailed than the two
>previously described courses.
>
>220. Essentially, it covers the duties of a staff member, the inner Org
>communication system, policy-source and interpretation, ethic
>proceedings, chain of command, and definitions of suppressive acts. In
>total, it covers sixty two (62) HCO Policy Letters to be learned and
>fourteen (14) drills to be performed.
>
>221. The sole purpose appears to be the training of an obedient,
>productive staff member and the placing of the member further in debt to
>the Org. These courses in no way assist a staff member in attaining any
>of the Org's promised spiritual gains.
>
>222. Upon completion of each and every course, the individual is tested
>on the E-Meter to ensure total comprehension and agreement with the
>course material. The individual must attest to the successful completion
>of the course and that he wished others to receive the training he has
wishes
>and to acquire the knowledge he has. It is necessary to write a "Success
>Story" proclaiming the benefits gained by the course taken, as a record
>of comprehension and agreement of the course material. Public and staff
>members are supposed to be awarded a certificate upon completion of any
>course. The public generally seem to receive certificates but staff
>members are generally ignored.
>
>_Study and Service Privileges_
>
>223. Staff members are constantly reminded that studying (i.e. receiving
>services) is a "privilege" despite the fact that it is mandatory to take
>the staff enhancement courses and that the member is committed to a
>service contract and a promissory note.
>
>224. According to policy (Ref: HCO PL 30 Jul 66 amended 19 Mar 68, OEC
>Volume 0, page 49), staff are required to study after post hours (40
>hours minimum per week). However, a study period is allowed during post
>hours, providing it does not interfere with assigned production and
>daily quota. Study periods during post hours are more readily available
>to a new recruit, who will undoubtedly be of more service to the Org if
>he is trained in the basics of a staff member's training. In this way,
>he becomes familiar with the chain of command system and the necessity
>for strict adherence to policy. He is not to dispute policy, nor to
>waste another staff member's valuable money-producing time, and acquires
>some knowledge on ways to achieve his own statistics.
>
>225. A program entitled, "Grass Roots" was implemented by the Toronto
>Org in the spring of 1981. Executive Directive No. 5040, dated 8 April
>1981, issued by Armelle PEARSE (Executive Director for Toronto Day Org),
>to all staff stated:
> "We are getting in the standard basic 12 1/2 hours of study per
>week as one of the basics to return Day Org to its former state of
>production of 1971-74. During that boom period, we had several FEBC's,
>fully hatted staff and hatting and study time being done. You have made
>a good start by submitting a 12 1/2 hour schedule. However, this has
>resulted in many staff coming off production and not getting in their 40
>hours on post per week, so the schedule currently is not workable".
>The directive further states:
> "I realize this will involve some schedule change for most, but LRH
>policy is clear on post time and study time so that above must be
>confronted. Qual or HCO will assist those who find it difficult. This
>will be done with policy references, etc."
>(_See Appendix VII, page 26_).
>
>226. Scientologists are encouraged to acknowledge and congratulate
>course completions. New staff members are encouraged to experience pride
>in course completions and to further enter what is represented as the
>fraternal atmosphere of the Org.
>
>227. Very few staff members are able to take any type of personal
>enhancement courses in off post hours, simply due to lack of time. Many
>must put in well beyond the minimum 40 hours weekly in order to meet
>their assigned quotas, plus it is usually necessary to maintain outside
>paying jobs in order to have such basic necessities as food, clothing
>and accomodation.
>
>228. By the time the new staff member realizes he will be getting
>minimal wages from the org and very often no pay at all, he is already
Org
>caught up in the world of SCIENTOLOGY. The member finds himself
>financially indebted to SCIENTOLOGY, committed to a service contract
>which does not afford enough payment to survive, depleted financial
>resources, long work days to meet quotas, and limited to existence in an
>environment of other Scientologists.
>
>229. New staff anxiously anticipate the "free" receipt of services (such
>as auditing) to enable them to attain the represented benefits of
>SCIENTOLOGY. However, the non-paying staff member is depreciated in
>importance and priority in view of the Org because of the persistent
>emphasis upon the value of the paying members. Most join staff with
>little or no auditing experience and do not know what it entails, yet
>are intrigued by the wonderful stories they have heard in the Org about
>the capabilities of auditing.
>
>230. If one is not a potential source of revenue, the Org's concern over
>his wellbeing is quickly decreased. The Org demonstrates concern when a
>staff member's personal problems interfere with his overall production
>and revenue-producing ability.
>
>231. Staff sometimes receives auditing if it will aid an intern in
>becoming a professional auditor, the Org will be able to charge the
becoming a professional auditor. If he is a staff intern who becomes a
professional auditor, the Org will be able to charge the
>paying public for auditing sessions with this auditor. If the intern is
>a public person, the Org benefits because the public person will be
>ready to buy his next level of auditor training. That is about the only
>time staff are "invited" to session, and even than they will be
>subjected to constant breaches of SCIENTOLOGY's proclaimed "Auditor's
>Code", i.e. continuous change of auditors, appointment cancellations, see:
Code", i.e., continuous
> "4. I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made".
> "7. I promise not to permit a frequent change of auditors".
> (Ref: The Auditor's Code, obtained from Page 190 in SCIENTOLOGY
>publications "What is SCIENTOLOGY?).
SCIENTOLOGY?").
>
>232. Even though being in session has been primarily to assist an intern
>in becoming qualified, the staff member will be required to pay for the
>processing if he breaks the staff contract.
>
>233. The particular "actions" (series of questions relating to
>particular theme) that are run during these sessions, are the ones that
>are required by the intern to complete a level of training and little or
>no attention is paid to the staff member's personal problem or "case",
>unless it is so significant that he is "unsessionable".
>
>E. _FREELOADER'S DEBT IN RELATION TO CONTRACT_
>
>_General_
>
>234. A Freeloader's Debt is the accumulation of all the promissory notes
>signed by a staff member for his "free" courses taken within the
>contracted period, which he must pay to the Org in the event that he
>leaves prior to completing the full term of his contract. The
>Freeloader's Debt is for some SCIENTOLOGIST's a major reason why they
>remain in the Org. Because SCIENTOLOGY staff members have little or no
>savings and live day by day. They generally have limited access to funds
live day by day, they generally
>to pay their Freeload Debt. They must, because of these financial
Freeloader Debt.
>problems, remain on staff, thus compounding their financial commitments.
>
>235. By hiring staff on a service contract basis, with Freeloader Debt
>and secrecy covenants, staff are effectively prevented from defection
>and the Org is protected against lawsuit or attack from staff.
>
>236. One condition in the contract states:
> "Further, I recognize, understand and agree that in consideration
>for the Church permitting me to become an active participant pursuant to
>this Declaration, I shall not commence any action or assert any claim
>against either or both of them, their heirs, successors or assigns,
>based on any matter arising out of or in connection with the Church, and
>I hereby release L. Ron HUBBARD and Mary Sue HUBBARD and their heirs,
>successors and assigns, from and against any and all claims I or my
>successors or assigns ever had, now have, or may hereafter acquire,
>arising out of my dealings with the Church as a staff member pursuant to
>this Declaration".
>
>237. This condition, one of many, directly contradicts SCIENTOLOGY's own
>proclaimed Creed, wherein it is stated:
> "That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk
>freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or
>write upon the opinion of others".
> (Ref: Page 188, "What is SCIENTOLOGY?, SCIENTOLOGY Publication)
>
>238. If the individual contemplates leaving the Org, the intimidation of
>having to pay the Freeloader Debt will make the member very hesitant to
>assert this desire, and consequently, he my stay only because it is not
may stay
>economically feasible for him to leave.
>
>239. If the individual does "blow" staff (leave without permission),
>thereby breaking the contract, an "ethics order" (pronouncement of
>misconduct) is written and the person declared a freeloader. Under no
>circumstances will services be allowed to the freeloader at any Org
>until this debt is paid.
>
>240. The freeloader will be contacted at home or place of employment by
>phone, letter or personal appearance, in order to collect the debt.
>Installment payments are acceptable as long as the Org is receiving some
>money. If necessary, the Org will pressure, in any way possible, to make
>the freeloader secure financing to pay his debt. Thus the Org received
receives
>the money immediately and a third party assumes the debt risk.
>
>241. The Reg (professional salesman) recommends to the freeloader a
>financial institution where the Org has experienced success in helping
>service-takers obtain loans, and frequently accompanies the applicant to
>help "handle" (persuade successfully) the loans manager.
>
>242. Based on the actions repeatedly displayed, the Reg's apparent
>helpfulness is more likely motivated by the possibility of securing a
>commission on the Freeloader's Debt and relieving pressure from his
>supervisor to obtain more revenue for the Org.
> "Therefore, where a freeloader refuses to cooperate in repaying his
>debt, even after receipt of a correct billing and repeated
>communications from the Org, the Org is obligated to resort to any and
>all legal means to obtain payment".
> (Ref: HCO PL Chronological Pack 15 January '72 - 27 December '72,
>HCOPL 13 October 1972 Freeloader Program Administration, Who is a
>Freeloader?)
>
>F. _REGGING STAFF_
>
>243. In SCIENTOLOGY terminology, a "Reg" is short for Registrar. The
>common meaning of the word "regging" is selling.
>
>244. SCIENTOLOGY registrars are trained to employ hard sell methods. As
>salesmen, their sole function is to procure income for the Org. In
>SCIENTOLOGY selling almost anything goes, if it will secure income for
>the Org. Anyone is a target, the only criteria being that the person
>have money, credit card or other sources of revenue.
>
>245. Becoming a staff member does not protect one from being the object
>of intensive regging. Although the staff member is undoubtedly aware of
>the "system" and the fact that the sales pitch is probably a "stat
>boost" for the Reg, he is nevertheless a target for the Reg who will not
>always attempt to disguise his intentions and will be all the more
>forcible because he is dealing with staff.
>
>246. The Reg has the added leverage of being able to use the staff
>member's position against him by stating it is his duty as a staff
>member to purchase certain items because he receives so much already for
>so little. Not wanting services or various artifacts draws suspicion of
>lack of loyalty to SCIENTOLOGY, and one is made to feel guilty and is
>verbally confronted that he is only on staff to take advantage of free
>privileges.
>
>247. As a staff member, the prime concern is to boost the Org's income
>and it is the duty of the staff member to help in any way possible.
>
>
>248. The artifacts, which sell at a highly inflated price, are classed
>as being an investment, Quantity buying is encouraged for staff to
an investment. Quantity
>increase the gross income of the Org. Members then resell to make a
>profit as a personal source of revenue.
>
>
>249. A reg will frequently state that due to inflation, prices always
>increase and therefore it is advantageous to purchase now, even if the
>purchase necessitates a loan. It makes no difference that the individual
>may not know how to operate an "E-Meter", because the reg insists that
>he eventually will, because he is a Scientologist. The Org is concerned
>with boosting income. There is no concern that the staff member may be
>over-extending himself financially.
>
>250. The reg is very helpful when it comes to bank loans. He will inform
>the staff member what bank and branch to approach, the name of the
>manager to see, arranges the appointment, provides transportation, and
>even accompanies the staff member there. The reg encourages application
>for the maximum amount, ensuring that the member will be a continued
>source of revenue to the org.
>
>251. If the loan application is rejected, the reg will want to know if
>the staff member has any friends or relatives who will agree to a
>private loan, or will agree to co-sign at a bank. The reg will handle
>these people for the staff member and attempt to convince them that it
>is very worthwhile and in the best interest of the staff member.
>
>252. The reg elicits all pertinent data including details of any
>savings, stocks, bonds or items of resale value (i.e., car, jewellery)
>possessed by the staff member.
>
>253. The regs are professional salesmen trained at "closing" sales and
>will use any method felt necessary to secure money. The fact that they
>are paid a healthy commission on some sales, serves as an incentive and
>is a main driving force behind their dedication and persistence.
>
>254. A potential customer is dropped immediately once it is discovered
>he has no money nor access to any funds.
>
>255. A staff member with an outside job, and a majority of low level
>staff find it necessary (unless being otherwise supported), is asked to
>deposit money into an "Advanced Payment Account" (monies deposited for
>future use). Such an account has no interest rate and the money cannot
>be withdrawn. The reg is very adept at informing the staff member of how
>much money he should be able to deposit. While it is definitely
>preferred that entire fees be paid in advances, some money coming in is
>better than none.
>
>
>G. _THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STATISTICS_
>
>_Statistics General_
>
>256. Every position or post in a Scientology org has a predetermined
>economically related end product which forms the basis for the
>statistics of the particular post. The org and each post is under
>pressure to keep statistics on the increase. The higher statistics rise
>the more pressure there is placed to ensure they continue to climb.
>Where a statistic increases and then remains constant it is described as
>non-optimum.
>
>257. Low statistics is a reason for a staff member to be dismissed from
>staff and in turn results in a subsequent demand for payment by that
>member for his services received.
>
>258. Statistics are a source of continual pressure upon the staff
>member. Statistics are also used to ensure that a staff member is always
>working for the org.
>
>259. This org is governed by "Statistics". According to HCO PL 1 Sept.
>AD15 issue VII (Ref. OEC Vol. 0; page 173):
>"The purpose of the Org is to get the show on the road and keep it
>going. This means production. Every division is a production unit. It
>makes or does something that can have a statistic to see if it goes up
>or down".
>It further states:
>"Every post in an Org can have a statistic. So does every portion of the
>org. The purpose is to keep production (statistics) up. This is the only
>thing that gives good income for the staff member personally. When
>statistics go down or when things are so organized you cannot get one
>for a post, the staff member's pay goes down as the Org goes down in its
>overall productions".
>
>260. Hence, the ethics system designed by HUBBARD is to combat and
>confront a down statistic situation in an Org. The ethics system
>(SCIENTOLOGY's justice and punishment system) involves negative
>sanctions for the staff member whose statistics are down.
>
>261. If a staff member is "upstat", he can do no wrong. If the reverse
>is tru, he can do no right.
is true,
>"Ethics actions are often used to handle down individual statistics. A
>person who is not doing his job becomes an ethics target".
>(Ref: HCO PL 1 Sept. AD Issue VII, OEC Vol. 0; page 173).
>
>262. This policy letter further states:
>"Therefore if a staff member is getting production up by having his own
>statistic excellent, ethics sure isn't interested. But if a staff member
>isn't producing, shown by his bad statistic for his post, ethics is
>fascinated by his smallest misdemeanor. In short, a staff member can get
>away with murder so long as his statistics is up and can't sneeze
his statistic is up
>without a chop if it's down".
>
>263. If a staff member is "upstat" he will be eligible to receive
>additional income. If the entire Org is upstat, the gross income will be
>greater and more money is available for distribution to staff.
>
>264. Non-production is never rewarded and good production safely cloaks
>a staff member from ethics actions (disciplinary actions) being taken
>against him.
>"It should be established as a matter of principle that the staff member
>who does a good job gets lots of processing (auditing) and a person who
>is not doing a good job is given minimal processing".
>(Ref: HCO PL 10 Aug 64 Good Workers (Ref OEC Vol. 0, page 44)
>
>265. This policy further states:
>"An almost perfectly run organization will fail to get in income or give
>service if the reverse policy is used and if the whole effort to improve
>the Org is concentrated on processing only erring staff members".
>
>266. The purpose of the ethics system is confirmed in HCO PL 7 Dec 69,
>Ethics, Design of (OEC Vol. 0, pg. 188) which states:
>"An ethics officer uses ethics to protect ethics upstats and keep the
>stats up and smoke out crime that push people and stats down".
>
>_Conditions_
>
>267. The Org has been compared to ".... home to SCIENTOLOGISTS" (REF:
>HCO PL 27 Dec. 63, The Magic of Good Management, OEC Vol. 7; pg. 301).
>In fact, because of the extreme emphasis on statistics, a staff member
>must operate within a rigidly controlled environment. Staff can be
>ordered by a senior to meet their daily statistic quotas, which can
>necessitate putting in a considerable amount of overtime hours, with no
>additional pay. The practice of the assignment of conditions is a useful
>tool for ensuring that production always increases.
>
>268. The conditions, in regards to statistics, are as follows:
> Power
> Affluence
> Normal
> Emergency
> Danger
> Non-Existence
>Conditions of Power, Affluence and Normal are considered "upstat", and
>anything below this is "downstat".
>
>269. For example, if a staff member increases his gross income stat from
>$100.00 to $200.00 in a one week period, he would be put to a condition
>of Power. The staff member will be awarded additional pay because of
>this and will be protected from any ethics action. If the following week
>the staff member brings in the same amount ($200.00), he is put in a
>condition of "emergency" and no extra pay will be received and
>discipline could be instituted. If the staff member had brought in
>$195.00, he would be in the condition of "danger", and liable to stiffer
>ethics actions.
>
>270. In the Toronto Orgs, there exists a significant staff shortage
>problem. Therefore, there are few "firings" or post dismissals, as even
>the worst producing staff member must be utilized, if only in a position
>of demotion such as assignment in the Estates department, to clean
>toilets, hose down the same area, sweep floors, etc.
the sauna area,
>
>271. Although in Scientology policy is deemed an unbending law, to be
>strictly adhered to at all times, any rule can be broken if production
>is at stake. Policy will be used either for or against the staff member,
>depending on the circumstances and what is deemed appropriate by senior
>officials concerned about their own stats and stats of posts under their
>control.
>
>272. To keep in good standing and remain being classed as an "upstat",
>and subject to its privileges, the staff members must always increase
>their production.
>
>273. There is no tolerance of a down statistic.
>"Never justify why a graph continues to be down and never be reasonable
>about it. A down graph is simply a down graph and somebody is goofing".
>(REF: HCO PL 6 Nov 66 Issue I (OEC Vol. 10, page 223).
>"Rationalizing a statistic" is a derogatory term meaning finding excuses
>for the down statistics.
>"Finding excuses or reasons why a stat is down does not bring it up and
>at best is a scathing comment on the lack of foresight or initiative of
>the executive in charge of the area. What is wanted is (1) prevention of
>stats going down and (2) quick action to bring them up. Being reasonable
>about their being down should be regarded as agreement with their being
>down, which is, of course, suppressive. (Ref: HCO PL 8 Feb 68 Statistics
>Rationalization OEC Vol. 0, page 246).
>
>274. The last word "suppressive", in the above mentioned quotation
>deserves special comment. Being labelled a "suppressive" is greatly
>feared by every staff member.
>
>"Letting an SP (Suppressive Person) collapse the stats of an Org is a
>shooting offence". (REF: HCO PL 7 Dec 69 OEC Vol. 0, page 188).
>
>_Birthday Game_
>
>275. SCIENTOLOGY has devised a clever scheme to keep staff always
>pushing to increase their production and to compete within their own Org
>structure (i.e. Toronto Day vs. Toronto Foundation), and against other
>SCIENTOLOGY Orgs as well. In order to prove to L. Ron HUBBARD how hard
>everyone is working towards the ultimate goal of "clearing the planet",
>an annual "birthday game" was introduced.
an annual "birthday game" was introduced. Each week the main stats of
each and every Org translated into a point system according to
condition and subdivided by Province/State and individual Orgs, are
recorded and distributed to staff, ranking Orgs by priority, sequence
determined by highest to lowest points, based solely on production. If
one division within the Org is "down stat", it could be held
responsible for holding the entire Org back from being the number one
Org on the planet.
>
>276. Prizes are awarded at year end (March 13, L. Ron HUBBARD's
>birthday, hence birthday game) to the Org having the highest point
>total. For example, the executive director will receive an E-Meter and
>the staff will be awarded a plaque for the building.
>
>277. The Org uses the birthday game to hype or generate the staff into
>meeting their daily quotas and produce more money for SCIENTOLOGY.
>Morning and evening staff meetings are held and executive conferences to
>monitor the daily statistic levels.
>
>278. Division heads must predict their stat target daily and submit a
>"battle plan" written up to show how they will achieve same. The chain
>of command moves into action, with pressure to produce an upstat,
>starting at the top of the Org and working all the way down the line. If
>weekending (every Thursday, 2:00 p.m.) is approaching and a particular
>stat is still down, the staff member may be subject to an
>ever-increasing amount of pressure from the higher executives.
>
>279. The approach to induce staff to produce varies and depends largely
>on the person doing the "handling" and the personality type of the
>person being "handled".
>
>280. Some may merely receive suggestions on how to increase their stat,
>be referred to helpful policy, or even be assisted on the duties of
>their post. Others are subject to a much steeper gradient of pressure.
>They may be hounded by phone calls and personal contact to check on
>their production status. They may be ordered to have their quotas met by
>the following morning, which necessitates unpaid overtime. They may be
>the victims of profane language, severe looks, threatening gestures and
>resistant feelings of guilt for holding back the Org.
>
>281. The type of handling, and extent of pressure exerted is based on
>what the individual can hear, without him "blowing" (leaving) or "caving
can bear, without
>in" (unable to produce) thereby becoming totally useless as a
>money-making resource.
>
>282. Innumerable written policies apply to the application of the
>statistics system and significance of it in relation to production.
>
>E. _COMPLETED STAFF WORK_
H._COMPLETED STAFF WORK_
[See 255-256, which is G._...]
>
>283. A completed staff work (C.S.W.) form must be presented to a staff
>member's senior for approval, if one requests time off of post (away
>from production hours).
>
>284. The C.S.W. must explain why time off is being requested and an
>appropriate solution to the loss of production hours by the requesting
>staff member. The solution must be presented and guaranteed (promised)
>before permission is granted so as not to interfere with production.
>
>285. For example, a staff member may promise to have his statistic met
>by the target date or perhaps promise to secure someone to replace him
>on post during his absence. In 1981, a female, Toronto Foundation Org
>staff member, CSW'd for one Saturday's relief to get married. Even under
>this circumstance she was obligated to find herself a suitable
>replacement before the C.S.W. was approved. Dental appointments, job
>interviews or social functions are to be arranged for off
>production/post hours. If a member is consistently late or known to be
>absent without reason, other staff members are sent to his residence to
>bring him in and get him on post. If one calls in sick, he is told to
>come in and get on post. No illness is serious enough to grant a staff
>member time off.
> "Case is no excuse. If a staff member's breath can be detected on a
>mirror, he or she can do his or her job".
> (REF: HCO PL 21 Feb 64, Staff Regulations, OEC Volume 0; Page 43)
>
>F. _SUNDAY SERVICES_
I. _SUNDAY SERVICES_
>
>286. The Toronto Org rarely conducts religious services in its chapel.
>Source #2 and #3 are not aware of a single instance, during the period
>of September 1980 to present time, when said services have been held.
>
>287. During December 1980, Source #3 was approached by the Assistant
>Guardian Legal Bureau, Guardian Office, to assist during off-post hours.
>On one occasion, Source #3 accompanied this AG in order to receive
>"hatting" (training) on how to ensure the "legal rudiments were in".
>This consisted of a check sheet outlining certain things that had to be
>checked weekly. For example, a specified area had to have an altar,
checked weekly. For example, a specified area had to have a sign
stating chapel and this area also had to have an altar,
>SCIENTOLOGY cross and a SCIENTOLOGY book present. Also, it was mandatory
>that someone be "mocked up" (dressed up) as a minister at all times and
>that an ad appear in a newspaper advertising services. The AG told
>Source #3 that all auditing rooms must have signs reading "Pastoral
>Counselling" and explained that this was like confession to the Catholics.
>
>288. During September 1981, Source #2 was asked by the same person if he
>would wear ministerial garb, consisting of a white collar. He was told
>the reason for this request was because SCIENTOLOGY was a church and
>therefore someone should wear a minister's mock up, and because the
>person who usually did was away for training. Source #2 was not a
>minister of the Org and there were no plans for Source #2 to obtain any
>form of training for this function. He was merely requested to wear the
>white collar so that someone in the Org looked like a minister.
>
>289. In July 1982, at a Guardian Office staff meeting, the AG (Assistant
>Guardian) of the entire Toronto Guardian Office, stated the major
>objective was to receive land tax exemption and to save a lot of money
>and that the Guardian Office wanted to receive religious recognition
>first to make achieving the land tax exemption easier. The proposed plan
>was to "put the chapel back in the Org" as the C.O. (Commanding
>Officer/Executive Director) of the Toronto Foundation Org had taken it
>out a few months previously to utilize the space for something else.
>When this was mentioned, another C.O. staff member (Dolores ALLAIRE)
another G.O. staff member
(Doloras ALLATRE) [Looks like to me.]
>wanted to know what difference that would make because the Church never
>held services anyway.
>
>290. The A.G. explained that a Church had to have a Chapel to be
>accepted as a bona fide religion and that she also planned on forming a
>woman's auxiliary to further boost the image and the Chapel could be
>used to hold their meetings.
>
>G. _DONATIONS VERSUS SET FEES_
J. _DONATIONS VERSUS SET FEES_
>
>291. SCIENTOLOGY, in an attempt to show itself as a non-profit
>organization, claims that all fees paid for services are donations.
>
>292. Although called donations, payments to the org in actual fact are
>pre-set fees. The fees are established on an international basis and the
>amount (donation) given may be subject to some local variation of the
>same amount as that set by SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>293. Before receiving anything from SCIENTOLOGY, the full amount must be
>paid.
>
>294. The Org charges a set fee for any course or service taken. On the
>invoice, it is referred to as a "donation", which infers that the amount
>received was determined by the purchaser, which is not true.
>
>295. The Org will accept a deposit on any course, but the individual is
>not allowed to commence training until the amount is paid in full.
>
>296. SCIENTOLOGY professes the desire to help mankind and to personally
>enhance lives, but what determines whether or not an individual received
receives
>the "necessary and immediately required" help is whether or not he has
>the money to pay for it.
>
>297. This practice stems from HUBBARD's theory on "not rewarding
>non-production", in other words, not providing SCIENTOLOGY training to
>persons unable to pay for services.
>"The more you help those in society with low statistics the more tangled
>affairs will get. The Orgs require fantastic attention to keep them
>there at all when we reward low society statistics with training and
>processing. The worker pays his way. He has high statistics, so give him
He has a high statistic, so give him
>the best in training and processing, not competition with people who
>don't work and don't have any money. Always give the best service to the
>person in society who does his job. By not extending credit you tend to
>guarantee the best service to those with the best statistics and so
>everyone wins again. None is owed processing and training. We are not an
>Earthwide amends project."
>
>298. This policy further states:
>"Charity is charity. It benefits the donor, giving him a sense of
>superiority and status. It is a liability to the receiver but he accepts
>it as he must and vows (if he has any pride) to cease being poor and get
>to work".
>
>299. This policy continues, stating:
>"Only when success is brought by enslavement or rewards are given to
bought by
>bums or thieves will you find me objecting. This is a new look. It is an
>honest look. Reward the up statistics and damn the down and we'll all
>make out".
>(REF: HCO PL 6 March 1966, Rewards and Penalties, OEC Volume 0, page 177).
>
>300. Prices for training, etc., fluctuate constantly and appear to be
>based on the state of the economy and what the current market will bear.
>There are "limited time only" offers advertised through posters on the
>Org walls. Coincidental extensions beyond the alleged expiry date are
>also common if the org is in a financial slump and Org stats are down.
if the Org
>
>301. Books such as "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", by
>L. Ron HUBBARD, are sold at a set rate. However, if a person seems
>interested in purchasing the book and lacks sufficient funds, the seller
>will hunt up an old or damaged copy and sell it for whatever amount of
>money the buyer has on his person.
>
>302. Deposits in the amount of a few pennies will be accepted as advance
>payments. Staff members have been chastised for not securing the
>prospect's last few cents as an advance payment. It would appear there
>are two primary reasons for this practice. Mainly, it is felt that a
>person who invests even a small, partial payment will be more likely to
>return, and thus the full payment will eventually be collected. No
>effort is every made to refund deposits, of any amount, to those that do
>not return. Secondly, in order for the public division to count someone
>as a "new name", a major statistic for the division, something must be
>bought. An advance payment is quite acceptable and the new name may be
>claimed as a statistic. However, according to policy (HCO PL 28 Nov 71
>Issue II Public Division Statistics, OEC Volume 6, Page 86), the least
>item to be purchased that can be counted as a statistic is a book and
>does not include items of lesser monetary value such as magazines.
>
>303. While SCIENTOLOGY operates on a policy of payment for services, the
>org will accept a donation of any amount of money at any time, without
Org
>an exchange of service for the contribution. It is interesting to note
>that HUBBARD's own policy (para. 298) regarding charity is not
>applicable to a SCIENTOLOGY Org.
>
>K. _REGGING PUBLIC_
>
>304. A SCIENTOLOGY reg will use his "hard sell" methods upon public
>members. "Public" means anyone not a staff member.
>
>305. Public members are brought along the "bridge" (a chart of
>SCIENTOLOGY services) on a gradient scale. The public begin with a
>simple low cost courses "Self Improvement Course", "Success Through
begin with simple
>Communication Course", etc. When the basic course reg feels that the new
>public member might be ready for higher services, the person is then
>turned over to the upper service reg. The time is right when the reg
>knows the financial background of the public member and has raised the
>person's expectations and curiosity concerning the mysteries of SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>306. The Public Division (Distribution Division) is controlled by the
>Public Executive Secretary. The primary objectives are bringing new
>people into the org, securing new names for central files, starting new
Org,
>people on basic courses, regging people for other courses, these are
>classified for the stats for this Division.
>
>307. The specific duties are outlined in HCO PL 21 June 65, Distribution
>Division (Div. VI), OEC Vol. 6, page 2).
>
>308. In HCO PL 28 Nov. 71 (OEC Vol. 6, page 86), it is stated that new
>people brought into the Org .... "... are new, raw public coming into
>the Org for the first time for Testing, Events, Introductory Lectures,
>to see the Public Registrar or for any reason in the direction of
>wanting to know about SCIENTOLOGY".
>
>309. And in reference to the number of new names to central files:
>"This is anyone who has bought something from the Org for the first
>time, whether this is a book, HQS course, or any other service - either
>paid in part of in full, and whose name is not already in Central Files.
part or in full
>This does not authorize the illegal practice of counting a new name to
>C/F as someone who bought an "FSM Magazine" or some other small item.
>The least item bought is a book".
>
>310. The Public Divisions are critical to the Org, and are the "front
>lines" as it is from this area that "raw public" are secured to buy
>books and courses, and hopefully these persons will bring in friends and
>relatives as well, also possibly be recruited for staff.
>
>311. The Public Divisions are extremely important areas of action on the
>Org board. These Divisions keep the new public coming in, business
>continuing and expand an organization".
>REF: HCO PL 31 March 69 OEC Vol. 6, page 94).
>
>312. Def. "BUSINESS" per Modern Management Technology Defined, Hubbard
>Dictionary of Administration And Management, by L. Ron HUBBARD (page
>60), BUSINESS - "remunerative activity."
>
>313. Numerous methods have been devised and policies written in
>SCIENTOLOGY on how to secure "bodies in the shop". HCO PL 27 Dec. [63?],
[Yes] HCO PL 27 Dec. 63,
>The Magic of Good Management (OEC Vol. 7, page 301), describes the
>importance of having persons come into the Org, how this can be achieved
>and how this pertains to org solvency.
>
>314. A favourite marketing tool of achieving bodies in the shop is
>through direct solicitations of persons on the street by the "body
direct solicitation of
>router". This staff member has usually received some training and has
>been properly "hatted" (trained) in regards to this function. (Example:
>HCO Bulletin 15 Sept. 59 Dissemination Tips) (OEC Vol. 6, page 101).
>
>315. Raw public are enticed into the Org with offers of a free
>personality or I.Q. test with the further offer of an immediate result
>or interpretation of the test, from someone represented as a trained
>professional. What the body is not aware of is that every attempt will
>be made to sell him something, anything, before he leaves the Org.
>
>316. The "trained" professional or evaluator possesses no formal
>training in the field of psychology, psychiatry or the healing arts.
>
>317. Most persons persuaded to enter the Org are told that the test will
>only take a few moments of their time to find out more about themselves
>and how they are handling their lives. The personality test takes
>approximately one-half (1/2) hour to complete, as it consists of 200
>questions. It takes an additional 10-15 minutes [?] by the evaluator.
additional 10-15 minutes to be scored and graded by the evaluator.
[Looks like.]
>People are encouraged to read SCIENTOLOGY literature while awaiting test
>results.
>
>318. "Everything must be done to make testing prominent, accurate and
>available. The Test Section, as an entrance point to service, must look
>crisp and efficient. There is no virtue in telling the applicant how
>fast they can be marked. Stress how carefully they are marked and the
>expertness of evaluation".
>REF: HCO PL 28 Oct. 60 (OEC Vol. 6, page 157).
>
>319. The test evaluator has only one objective and that is to convince
>the person he has problems and to convince him that he needs the help
>SCIENTOLOGY can offer according to source #3.
>
>320. "Evaluation tests should be helpful, wise and very direct. An
>evaluator should know all HCOB's (Hubbard Communication Office
>Bulletins) about test evaluation. Remarks that "Scientology can improve
>this or that characteristics" or "processing can change this" or
>"training can stabilize that" should be used repeatedly during the
>evaluation for sake of impingement (emphasis). A clever evaluator can
>surmise such things as domestic grief, trouble with possessions etc.,
>much more easily than a fortune teller.
>
>Test evaluation is modern, scientific fortune telling. It deals with
>past, present and future. A low profile, low I.Q. future is of course a
>dreary one, profitless, unless changed. We can erase the fate of the
>past and later utterly anyone's future, so it does not matter how hard
and alter utterly
>one leans on the person. Remember low cases want only to escape the
>consequences of life.
>
>A poor or average test (or a theetie-weetie (overly optimistic attitude)
>high test with no reality) shows a rough future full of disease and
>injury. Processing as of the past six months shows a very high shift of
>future in terms of high graph gains". (HCO PL [28?] Oct. 60 continued)
[Yes] HCO PL 28 Oct. 60 continued)
[This is HCO PL "New Testing Promotion Section."]
>
>321. This policy continues on stating:
>"The IQ factor, while it is in actuality improved by processing, is
>useless without Scientology training. It can be used to sell training.
>The professional aspect of training should be played down in selling.
>The practical application aspect of it should be played up while graph
>and IQ reading for the pc. Certain traits showing difficulty in handling
>people should be stressed as most easily remedied and kept remedied by
>academy training. Graphs showing the "therapeutic" value of training
>should be in display book and on the wall".
in the display book
>
>3211. More data is contained in HCO PL 24 November 1960 (OEC Volume 6,
322.
>Page 164) which states:
>"Evaluator now explains each point in graph. But it is vital that at
>each low point, where explained, he adds, "Scientology can help that".
>This is said directly to make an impingement. The wording can be varied
>but the sense must be the same. Do not precede this statement with
>"Don't worry" or the like as this cancels impingement".
>
>Graph done, evaluator explains IQ. If low, he says, "Scientology
>training can raise that". He explains levels of IQ, tells persons even
>if it's high that IQ means little unless person knows something with it".
>
>323. This policy continues stating:
>
>"The Evaluator now leans back and says "that's it". Incomer is hanging
>on ropes. If incomer says anything like "what can I do about it?"
>Evaluator says "that is very commendable, a good point in your favour
>wanting to do something about it. I'm a technical person not a sales
>personnel. Confidentially though, I'll give you a tip. Don't spend money
>foolishly until you know what you're spending it for". Psychiatrists and
>so forth could cost you thousands, so why don't you take the Anatomy
>Course and learn something about the mind. That's just a tip. It's cheap
>and you'll be wise about what to do about yourself. The person over
>there is in the Service Department, ask him".
>
>324. The test evaluator will attempt, in every conceivable way, to route
>the person over to the Public Servicing Secretary (public reg) to enroll
>and pay for a course.
>
>325. If the individual lives out of town or refuses to see the reg, the
>sales pitch swings immediately into the book sale instead. There is
into a book sale
>constant pressure to sell something to everyone.
>
>326. HUBBARD has placed some revelations on what people can be accepted
some restrictions on what
>for training, and if the individual falls within a restricted category,
>he will be refused services and strongly pressured to purchase books
>instead.
>
>327. "For the first time in our history, I am placing restrictions on
>the acceptance of students for training on Dianetics and Scientology. It
>is important that these restrictions be placed in effect and kept in
>effect. We are becoming too successful to take stupid risks as an
>organization".
>
>328. This policy continues stating:
>
>"Therefore, no student may be accepted for training by the Director of
>Training (D of T) until he has been given a solid security check by the
>D of T personally. If the student fails to pass the test, he is to be
>sent to the HGC (HUBBARD Guidance Centre) for processing, using the
>money deposited for training. When entirely cleared, he may then be
>accepted for training and only then. Thus he is not refused training,
>but he may not be trained before he is cleared as a security check.
as a security risk.
>State of case shall be used for rejection only when it is such that he
>or she is impossible to security check by reason of a stalled or wild
>needle that will not register.
>
>These three reasons only may be used for rejection in addition to the above:
>1) Has a criminal record;
>2) Is studying Scientology to procure data or evidence for another
>organization; and
>3) Is a member of subversive organization that might use Scientology to
>overthrow a government by force".
>
>(REF: HCO PL 30 August 1960 - Training Restrictions; OEC Volume 1, Page 512)
>
>329. If the individual has ever been "institutionalized" for mental
>illness, he will not be offered any courses for sale and will only be
>pressured to buy books. Even if the person requests to enroll on a
>course, he will be rejected. This practice of refusal applies to persons
>who have had any type of brain surgery and it does not matter if it is a
>frontal lobotomy or removal of a tumour.
>
>330. On November 23rd, 1982, a complaint was received by the informant
>regarding a mentally handicapped person who had allegedly been defrauded
>of $50,000.00 by SCIENTOLOGY. The victim in this occurrence was one Ivan
>MAGEE, then under psychiatric care at the Toronto General Hospital.
>
>331. The complaint came from the parents of MAGEE and was investigated
>by Source #4. The result of this investigation showed that the subject
>was apparently defrauded by SCIENTOLOGY and five of its members as follows:
>
>332. In September 1982, MAGEE, who had in the past been
>institutionalized for psychiatric treatment, and was, at the time,
was, at that time,
>living at a half-way house for psychiatric patients, became associated
>with members of SCIENTOLOGY through his place of employment.
>
>333. MAGEE was told that the Purification Rundown could help him improve
>his I.Q. and cease his dependence on drugs which he was taking for his
>mental condition.
>
>334. This inducement led MAGEE to pay $1,700.00 to Narconon for the
>Purification Rundown. (Narconon is a wholly controlled SCIENTOLOGY
>Organization as per SEA ORGANIZATION, FLAG BUREUX DATA LETTER 220, dated
>29 August 1972, _See Appendix VII, page 27._ It is operated by the
>Guardian Office and its Board of Directors is invariably made up of
>SCIENTOLOGISTS.
>
>335. It is, according to Source #2 (described above), also paying a
>management consultant fee to the Toronto Org of SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>336. However, after paying his money, MAGEE was informed by a physician,
>Dr. K. KERR, that he should not take the service because he could
>experience health problem. By this time he was induced by a number of
>SCIENTOLOGISTS to cease taking his prescribed medications.
>
>337. MAGEE, who wished to become a member of SCIENTOLOGY, was not
>eligible because of his mental handicap but was told that he could
>petition SCIENTOLOGY and the purchase of SCIENTOLOGY books and tapes for
>$7,471.00 may assist in this petition.
>
>338. The subject also paid for auditing which he received from a member
>of SCIENTOLOGY, which was not eligible by SCIENTOLOGY policy to receive.
which he was not eligible
>
>339. It was also discovered that MAGEE gave another member of
>SCIENTOLOGY $12,000.00 so that member could take SCIENTOLOGY services.
>When SCIENTOLOGY discovered that there were some problems in relation to
>these monies, they had MAGEE sign an agreement that the money was a loan
>rather than a gift.
>
>340. Subsequently, MAGEE gave this SCIENTOLOGY member another $17,500.00
>for an unknown purpose.
>
>341. Occasionally, an "illegal pc" (a person in a restricted category)
>manages to become enrolled and commences a course without being
>detected. When it is discovered, it is handled in the following way:
>
>"I do not want to be placed in a position where I would be refusing help
>to anyone who needed it. The history of institution and shock cases is
>that they can be helped but that they do not continue long enough in
>processing to be helped. They become subjected to pressure in their
>surroundings to end off processing. After causing considerable work by
>auditors, many such cases leave before anything effective can be done
>and ask for refunds which the organization is bound by its code to then
>make.
>
>Anyone with institutional or shock history would have to guarantee to
>continue in processing long enough to be helped and to waive any right
>to refund. It is not mandatory that either an organization or an auditor
>help them even when permission is granted".
>
>342. This policy continues stating:
>
>"A petition (request for special consideration) from anyone with shock
>or institutional record may be granted only with the stipulation that:
>1) They obtain the consent of an Org and auditor to help them.
>2) They continue in processing for enough time to be actually helped.
>3) They waive the right to refund.
>4) They follow instructions given by the Org.
>5) That they do not attack any auditor, Org or Scientology during or
>after processing and post a bond not to do so.
>6) That they help Scientology and help others.
>7) That they sign and have any guardian sign a document containing these
>stipulations".
>(REF: HCO PL 16 May 1970 - Institutional and Shock Cases, Petitions
>from, OEC Volume 1, Page 529).
>
>343. All the aforementioned policy pertaining to restrictions is
>contrary to earlier policy, HCO PL [?] October 1961 revised 7 March 1967
HCO PL 20 October 1961 revised 7 March 1967
>- Non-Scientology Staff, OEC Volume 0, Page 23) which states:
>
>"This group has accepted you at face value. No one of this group will
>hold your past against you. A person entering a Scientology group is
>looked upon as a person whose conduct now is important, but whose
>conduct in the past is utterly unimportant".
>
>344. The org also advertises "free personality and I.Q. tests" in local
The Org also
>newspapers, supplying the address to attend, with no mention of SCIENTOLOGY.
>(_See Appendix VII, page 28_).
>
>345. Many books are sold in the public divisions, and book selling units
>are also organized to sell door to door in neighbourhoods. These
>purchasers' names are added to the Central Files system and persistent
>contact made to induce these people to attend the Org in person.
>
>346. The low priced basic courses serve only as a stepping stone to the
>more expensive upper level training. Depending on the person's financial
>situation, he may be approached by the Div II Reg to enroll in the
>higher priced courses, upon near completion of a basic course. Data on
>his financial status will be secured by the Public Division Personnel,
>through informal chats, and this data passed on to the appropriate Reg.
>At this point, the Reg is a total stranger to the prospect and the sales
>technique of "tagging" is greatly utilized. Tagging is the term used
>when one Reg starts a sales transaction, works the prospect and then the
>other partner moves in and takes over. This tagging method is often used
>by SCIENTOLOGY as the prospect has no partner and must face the sales
>team alone, thereby melting the prospect's resistance.
>
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Android Cat
news:3okfr5pkoc40hhfkb...@4ax.com...
> Continuation of sidecheck of text.
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:59:05 -0400, rhill <rh...@xenu-directory.net>
> wrote:
Nice!
The Sunday Services section certain matches my observations 20 years later.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-discussion/has-anyone-ever-attended-sunday-service-church-cientology-28350/#post1214559
Thread necromancy!
--
Ron of that ilk.
rhill
> Continuation of sidecheck of text.
>
Many thanks, all changes incorporated. Frankly, I don't know how you do
this, it must be very difficult to read two versions and then make a
mental diff, down to whether a single letter is capitalized or not. I'm
very impressed.
>> 317. Most persons persuaded to enter the Org are told that the test will
>> only take a few moments of their time to find out more about themselves
>> and how they are handling their lives. The personality test takes
>> approximately one-half (1/2) hour to complete, as it consists of 200
>> questions. It takes an additional 10-15 minutes [?] by the evaluator.
>
> additional 10-15 minutes to be scored and graded by the evaluator.
> [Looks like.]
"graded" doesn't seem to fit, as by the look of it, using the line above
as a reference, it appears to be a 7-letter word. I transcribed with
[gr???ed] for the time being, but if you confirm it really can't be
anything else, I will transcribe as "graded".
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
You're right. It has to be "graphed."
I now see the "Ciampini Information" as Canada's entry in the pantheon
of Great Scientology Reports. The investigation took three years,
multiple investigators, and analyzed a mountain of Scientology's own
material. And the report contains a recommendation of action that
could perhaps be modeled; specifically, a search warrant, a raid,
prosecution and convictions.
Ciampini and the Project 20 team got it right, except that it was
worse than they thought.
We share honorable mentions in Scientology's IRS tax exemption
submission:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/csi-prod-1993-11-04-152016-152073.html
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
xenufrance
Lots of pieces and some analyses of the lies offered by the cult main liars
to the IRS from 1990 to 1993 are to be found on
http://www.xenufrance.net/index-eng.htm .
We can only suppose that the crime cult leader had some more in his hands
than these most evident formal lies to obtain the exemption. Strangely
enough, the crime cult paid $12,5 million to get them. Later, the
Commissioner Goldberg got a job to the Whitehouse under Clinton: why - don't
ever forget that Clinton was the roommate of someone who became a
scientologist of high level. What did he say about Clinton? We'd like to
know what the cult hides in his three underground antinuclear caves.
r
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
[Final part, as good as I can get it for now.]
>
>347. This tagging method and many of the sales methods used by a
>SCIENTOLOGY Reg are contained in the book, "Big League Sales Closing
>Techniques", by Les DANE. This book is sold at SCIENTOLOGY Orgs,
>primarily to staff members, but is also listed on SCIENTOLOGY
>Publications list.
>
>348. If a person's financial state is not too secure, or still unknown,
>the Division VI Reg will enroll him on another basic course, usually a
>much higher priced one.
>
>349. It is necessary for these public students to supply and purchase
>whatever course materials are required.
>
>350. A Reg of Div II of the Toronto Org, on October 22nd, 1981, stated
>that public members want to be "bled of their money ... if they didn't,
>they would be staff members eligible for free training."
>
>351. An American Reg, visiting the Toronto Org on January 25th, 1982,
>while lecturing at a staff meeting, stated that one should not feel
>guilty about taking someone's money or having them sell their house or
>borrowing from a bank to pay for services because if that person took
>$10,000.00 to a bank, the bank is not able to sell them extra day of
them an extra day of
>life, but SCIENTOLOGY can. This Reg claimed to have "regged" $85,000.00
>in one week period at three Orgs. He also told the Toronto Org staff
in a one week
>that you don't let anyone walk out the door until you have their money.
>
>352. Once a public person has paid for all levels of training available
>at the Toronto Org, he is then regged to pay for more services at an
>upper level Org. For this higher level training, both public and staff
>are targets for the reg.
>
>353. For example, on July 21st, 1981, a staff member at the Toronto Org
>sold his private auto for a sum of $9,400.00. Prior to his payment, two
Prior to his receiving payment, two
>regs learned of the forthcoming source of revenue and promptly began
>professional sales tactics in order to secure the monies from him. They
>were successful and the entire payment cheque was signed over to the org
Org
>upon receipt and forwarded to an upper level Org in Los Angeles as
>advanced payment for upper level services. However, he would not be
>eligible to receive this training for at least two to three years as he
>had not yet done the prerequisite courses at the Toronto Org. Although a
>credit would be invoiced in his advance account in Los Angeles he would
>not receive any interest on the money, nor would he be able to withdraw
>the sum and still remain a SCIENTOLOGIST in good standing.
>
>354. There is a great pressure on the consumer to buy more and more of
>SCIENTOLOGY, mainly due to the pressure placed upon the regs. There is
>constant pressure to secure ever increasing amounts of money for the
>org. The Executive Director of the Org, in an effort to push the staff
Org
>to higher production, on May 15th, 1981, walked throughout the Org with
>a sign on the back of her clipboard, upon which was written, "Go for
>blood". This sign was in reference to a staff meeting the previous week
>(May 8th, 1981) where all staff were required to yell repeatedly after
>the Executive Director, "Go for the throat. Go for blood. Go for the
>bloody throat".
>
>L. _PURIFICATION RUNDOWN_
>
>355. SCIENTOLOGY's initial auditing action is the Purification Rundown.
>It must be taken as the first major step up the SCIENTOLOGY bridge. For
>the reasons set out below, the informant, for this warrant, has grounds
>to believe that this course is a further example of consumer fraud given
>the misrepresentations of fact by SCIENTOLOGY as to the qualities of,
>and benefits from, the course and the relation of the real worth of the
>course to its actual cost.
>
>355A. The Purification Rundown, as described below, is an example of the
>fraudulent pattern of SCIENTOLOGY services marketed to the public. An
>example of the representation of the claims of the Purification Rundown
>is illustrated above in paragraphs 330 to 340, an incident which
>occurred in 1982.
>
>356. SCIENTOLOGY promotes and sells what is described as a
>detoxification course called the Purification Rundown. This programme,
>developed by L. Ron HUBBARD, traced back to an HCOB dated November 5,
>1874, is represented as being able to rid the body of toxins from food
1974
>preservatives, atmospheric poisons, pesticides and medical drugs such as
>aspirin, pain pills and tranquilizers, as well as illicit drugs such as
>marijuana, LSD, angel dust and other street drugs. It also professes to
marihuana,
>rid the body of the harmful effects of radiation and to build up
>resistance towards radiation exposure. These claims are confirmed in
>various promotional literature distributed to the public. (_See Appendix
>VII, pages 29-33_).
>
>357. "In today's chemical oriented society, the single most destructive
>element is drugs. Drugs retard or prevent case gain.
>
>Recent research by Ron has demonstrated that "Not only LSD, but other
>chemical poisons and toxins, preservatives, pesticides, etc., as well as
>medical drugs and the long list of street drugs (Angel Dust, Heroin,
>Marijuana, etc) can lodge in the tissues and remain in the body for years".
Marihuana,
>
>Now, like a cleansing flow of pure spring water, Ron's latest
>breakthrough, the Purification Rundown, clears the way to new vitality,
>energy, and full and optimum case gain. "The primary purpose of the
>Purification Rundown", Ron says, "is to handle drugs, toxic substances,
>accumulated in the body, and according to the success stories pouring
>in, it certainly does that".
>
>And, as an added benefit, a fully and properly done Purification Rundown
>lessens the consequences of future radiation exposure, as fully
>described in the article, "Purification Rundown and Atomic War" in this
>issue.
>
>Experience the invigorating freshness of this sparkling new rundown!
>
>It's vital for all.
>
>See the registrar and sign up now!". (Appendix VII, page 33)
>
>358. Another piece of promotional literature quotes the opinion of Paul
>JACOMELLO, a Toronto physician, as to the benefits of the Purification
JACONELLO
>Rundown. The opinion is accompanied by any reference to the fact that
is unaccompanied by
>Dr. JACOMELLO is himself a SCIENTOLOGIST. He states:
JACONELLO
>
>"L. Ron HUBBARD has discovered and piloted a detoxification programme
>which has staggering implications in our polluted world. The end result
>of the programme is a drug free and chemical free body.
>
>The individual feels much better and a re-energization occurs in the
>body. Persons who have finished generally feel healthier, both mentally
>and physically, and I.Q. is enhanced and improved by such a programme.
>
>The results are remarkably consistent and the renewed vitality that
>occurs seem to lay a new foundation of both mental and physical health
>for those who complete it. Ron HUBBARD, who pioneered this programme,
>has made available an incredibly effective programme which will benefit
>each and every person who does it".
>
>359. A third piece of promotional literature states the following:
>
>"Do something about the effects of the past drugs and chemicals on You
>with the Purification Rundown.
>
>A person can re-experience drug effects even years after he has taken
>them. Those unexplained effects are known as restimulation.
>
>L. Ron HUBBARD, the Founder of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY, found that
>these effects can remain, quietly or forcefully, far longer than
>previously understood or believed. They can make life sluggish and muddy.
>
>Chemicals in the air, water and food can have these effects on you.
>Perhaps the worst are "street drugs" and medical or psychiatric drugs.
>
>GET RID OF THE RESTIMULATIVE EFFECTS OF PAST DRUGS AND CHEMICALS!.
>
>The Purification Rundown, developed by L. Ron HUBBARD is an effective
>programme including exercise, sauna sweating and good common-sense
>nutrition. Thousands have now experienced a new vigor and clarity of
>thought with the Purification Rundown.
>
>Many who are students have found they can study much more easily - some
>can study successfully for the first time!.
>
>Many more have found they can more brightly and energetically accomplish
>their goals. Life can be fresh and hope for the future can be real!" ...
>
>360. The Purification Rundown is a loosely supervised programme which
>includes exercise, sauna sweat-out and the intake of numerous and large
>dosages of vitamins, minerals and oil.
>
>361. Prior to beginning the rundown, it is necessary to receive written
>approval from a recognized medical practitioner, stating the individual
>has no heart problems and is not anemic.
>
>362. The Qualification Division Secretary of the Toronto Org referred
>Source #3 in 1982 to obtain an appointment with Dr. JACOMELLO prior to
Dr.JACONELLO
>beginning the Purification Rundown. Should an appointment with Dr.
>JACOMELLO not be available, the staff member was further advised by a
JACONELLO
[He's still apparently quacking for Ron:
Detoxification
<...>
- Niacin/exercise/sauna program for removal of foreign chemicals (The
Hubbard Method)
http://www.jaconello.com/energy_health.html ]
>Guardian Office staff member, that any doctor would do but, to merely
>state that a health programme was about to be undertaken. The programme
>should be presented as one which contained some exercise, followed by a
>sauna and a vitamin programme.
>
>363. Source #3 did attend JACOMELLO's medical centre for examination and
>blood tests. JACOMELLO gave Source #3 four (4) form prescriptions to
>fill in with name, address and date. These form prescriptions listed the
>type and dosage of vitamins and number of repeats on each, and were
>signed by Dr. JACOMELLO. When filled out by Source #3, they were
>returned to JACOMELLO who placed them, along with a letter of approval
>re: said Source's approval to commence Purification Rundown, in sealed
>envelope, addressed to the Case Supervisor. This envelope was turned
>over to Source #3 for delivery.
[All JACONELLO above.]
>
>364. It is also necessary to sign a release and consent form which
>forever discharges the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, L. Ron HUBBARD, etc., from
>any and all claims, actions, damages, injuries, etc., as a result of the
>Purification Rundown.
>
>365. One must also take the SCIENTOLOGY I.Q. personality and aptitude
>tests prior to commencement of the Purification Rundown, and one of each
>of these tests after completion. The same tests are done each time, and
>any marked improvement is allegedly due to the success of the Rundown.
>
>366. It is also necessary to read two (2) HCO Bulletins prior to
>starting the programme. These were, "Purification Rundown Replaces the
>Sweat Programme" HCOB 6 Feb 78 RA revised 16 Mar 78 re-revised 4 Dec 79
>and "Purification Rundown Case Data" HCOB 31 May 80. Having read the
21 May 80.
>bulletins the staff member may never again be checked on comprehension
>of the required reading material.
>
>367. This programme costs in excess of one thousand ($1,000.00) and can
>take weeks or months to complete. The reason for the time variance in
>the duration of the rundown is because the individual undergoing the
>rundown must state when he feels it is complete. SCIENTOLOGY refers to
>this as having reached the "end phenomena".
>REF: HCO Bulletin 21 May 82 Purification Rundown Case Data "the End
[It's typed 21 May 82, but should be 21 May 80 as in 366.]
>Phenomena is reached when the individual is free of the restimulative
>presence of residuals of past drugs and other toxic substances. He will
>no longer be feeling the effects of these impurities going into
>restimulation and there is a marked resurgence of overall spiritual
>wellbeing". (_See Appendix VII, Pages 34 to 52_).
>
>368. Each day the individual picks up his instructions from the Case
>Supervisor (C/S). This informs him of what dosages of vitamins, minerals
>and oil he is to consume. At the end of each session, the individual
>submits a daily report to the C/S stating:
>a) time jogged
>b) time sweated in sauna (excluding breaks)
>c) list of vitamins, minerals, niacin, cal-mag formula (amount), salt,
>potassium, oil and fluids taken.
>d) any reactions from the niacin and where present, whether they
>increased or diminished from the previous day
>e) weight change
>f) any occurrences, somatics or restimulati and where present, whether
>they increased or diminished from previous day
>g) diarrhea, if experienced
>h) vegetables consumed
>i) quantity of sleep
>j) any "wins" (favourable occurrences)
>
>369. Source #3, taking the programme in 1982, never met the C/S and only
>communicated via the written daily report system.
>
>370. That person had adequate sleep, and ate a well balanced diet while
>on this Rundown, but still experienced adverse effects (headaches,
>nauseous stomach, light headedness, muscle spams in legs, occasional
>diarrhea).>
>371. The above described staff member reported headaches to the C/S and
>requested (via the daily report system) to know if seeing a doctor would
>be advisable.
>
>372. The C/S instructed the staff member to consume salt and to increase
>the number of hours in the sauna.
>
>373. A headache was reported the next day and the C/S instructed the
>staff member to consume extra salt and potassium and to take cool
>showers and drink plenty of water, as "the headaches sounded like
>overheating or salt depletion". The number of hours in the sauna was
>also to be increased.
>
>374. Also, while on this programme, this staff member reported feeling
>dizzy when leaving the sauna, despite consuming salt and potassium and
>drinking plenty of water and taking cool showers. When this symptom was
>reported a second time to be C/S, and that a headache had also
to the C/S,
>developed, the C/S instructed the staff member to read the HCO Bulletin
>Purification Rundown Case Data, Section 4 and Section [?]. This bulletin
[I'd say Section 5, both from the shape of the few dots we have, and
the content of the sections that the C/S is likely to instruct the
staff member to re-read.]
>was included in the prerequisite reading material.
>
>375. The staff member followed these instructions and again reported the
>adverse symptoms stating that these symptoms may have been caused by too
>many hours in the sauna and that a doctor should be consulted.
>
>376. The C/S instructed the staff member to see a doctor, but in the
>meantime, to continue on the programme, as, "the symptoms might be
>toxins running out" (poison leaving the body). Two days later, the staff
>member reported feeling well and the C/S told the staff member that a
>doctor need not be seen.
>
>377. The above mentioned staff member also collected a urine sample on
>Day #18, and two other urine samples, (18 hours apart) on Day #19 of
>this programme. The staff member noted that the refrigerated sample from
>Day #18 appeared to be divided into two distinct parts, being a thick
>green coloured substance in the bottom half of the container and an
cream coloured
[At least it looks like. I think it would also be a more expected
color in refrigerated urine, than green.]
>orange coloured liquid in the upper portion.
[Yeah, a flask of liquid separted into two layers, green and orange,
would be memorable. Maybe a kerbango tango. So I'm thinking cream and
orange.]
>Forensic chemical testing
>of the said staff member's urine revealed the body's attempts to rid
>itself of the heavy niacin intake.
>
>378. Every individual on the Purification Rundown dispenses his own
>vitamins, without medical or any immediate supervision. There is no
>medical person present to check blood pressure or daily state of health.
>The staff member was frequently alone in the sauna and was never
>assigned a "twin" to be present in the event that assistance was required.
>
>379. At the onset of the programme, the staff member took the following
>vitamins, shown in milligrams:
>
>Niacin 100
>Vitamin A 10,000
>Vitamin D 400
>Vitamin C 500
>Vitamin E 800
>Vitamin BX (B Complex) 2 tablets
>Vitamin B1 400
>Mineral Tablets 2
>Cal Mag 1 cup
>Oil 2 tablespoons
>
>380. Over the following twenty-four days, the vitamins dosages were
vitamin dosages
>increased daily to the following:
>
>Niacin 4,000
>Vitamin A 50,000
>Vitamin D 2,000
>Vitamin C 5,000
>Vitamin E 2,400
>Vitamin BX (B Complex) 6 tablets
>Vitamin B1 1,000
>Mineral Tablets 5 capsules
Mineral Capsules
>Cal Mag 2 cups
Cal-Mag
>Oil 3 tablespoons
>
>381. HUBBARD's theory on niacin and increased dosage of it and other
>vitamin quantities, dictates what the C/S instructs in then daily
>reports. The above described staff member was subject to increased
>dosages of vitamins and longer lengths of time in the sauna, to
>alleviate the adverse symptoms reported.
>
>382. An uncomfortable niacin reaction causing the skin to flush and
>become itchy was experienced by the staff member. Other persons on the
>Rundown experienced this reaction but thought it was drugs being run out
>of their bodies as proclaimed in HCO Bulletin of 6 Feb. 1978 RA revised
>16 Mar. 1978 Re-revised 4 Dec. 1979, The Purification Replaces The Sweat
>Programme: (_See Appendix VII, Pages 53 to 71_) which states as follows:
>
>_NIACIN_
>"Niacin, as one of the B Complex vitamins, is essential to nutrition. It
>is so vital to the effectiveness of the Purification Rundown that it
>requires some extensive mention here.
>
>It can produce some startling and in the end very beneficial results
>when taken properly on the Rundown, along with the other necessary
>vitamins and minerals in sufficient and proportionate quantities, and
>along with proper running and sweet out.
sweat out.
>
>Its effects can be quite dramatic so one should understand what niacin
>is and does and have a good R-factor on it when starting the Rundown.
>Taken in sufficient quantities it appears to break up and unleash LSD,
>marihuana and other drugs and poisons from the tissues and cells. It can
>rapidly release LSD crystals into the system and send a person who has
>taken LSD on a trip. (One fellow who had done the earlier sweat out for
>a period of months and who believed he had no more LSD in his system
>took 100 mg of niacin and promptly turned on a restimulation of a full
>blown LSD trip!).
>
>Running and sweating must be done in conjunction with taking niacin to
>ensure the toxic substances it released actually get flushed out of the
>body.
>
>_NIACIN BACKGROUND HISTORY_
_NIACIN: BACKGROUND HISTORY_
>
>Niacin's biochemical reaction is my own private personal discovery. In
>the middle of the 1950's I was doing work on radiation and I worked out
>that it must be niacin that operated on radiation. I was recently told
>by a doctor that the Dianazene formula of that time is remarkably
>workable today. Niacin runs out radiation. It will often cause a very
>hot flush and prickly, itchy skin which can last up to an hour or
>longer. It may also bring on chills or make a person feel tired.
>
>The outpoint in medical thinking has been that they thought the niacin
>itself turned on a flush, so they invented something called Niacinamide
>to keep from turning on this flush. Niacin all by its lonesome does not
>turn on any flush. What it starts to do is immediately run out sunburn
>or radiation, so the Niacinamide they invented is worthless and it
>should be mentioned that it is". This same Bulletin continues stating:
>
>_NIACIN THEORY_
>
>"In theory, niacin apparently does not do anything by itself. It is
>simply interacting with niacin deficiency which already exist in the
niacin deficiences
[That appears to be the word (also see below), which is usually
considered obsolete, and not proper usage, meaning "deficiencies,"
which is proper usage.]
>cellular structure. It doesn't turn on allergies, it runs out allergies.
allergies; it
>Evidently anything that niacin does is the result of running out and
>running through past deficiencies.
deficiences.
>
>_CAUTION_: The manifestations niacin produces can be quite horrifying.
>Some of the somatics and manifestations the person may turn on are not
>just somatics in lots of cases in my experience. I have seen a full
>blown case of skin cancer turn on and run out. _So, a person can turn on
>skin cancer with this and if that should happen, if niacin is continued
>the skin cancer has run out completely_.
>
>Other things that may turn on are hives, flu symptoms, gastroenteritis
>(inflammation of the mucous membrane of the stomach and intestine),
>aching bones, upset stomach or a fearful or terrified condition. There
>seems to be no limit to the variety of phenomena that may occur with
>niacin. If it is there to turn on by niacin it apparently will do so
>with niacin.
>
>"The two vital and proven facts are:
>1. When the niacin was carried on until these things discharged, they
>did run out as they _will_ do (sometimes people chicken out on it and
>don't finish the course and it leaves them hung up. This should not be
>allowed to happen).
>
>IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF WHERE
>NIACIN IS CONCERNED.
>
>2. When the niacin dosage was increased, the whole lot of the rest of
>the vitamins being taken were also increased proportionally, the niacin
>itself, taken in large amounts, did not create a vitamin deficiency".
>
>383. A critical analysis of the Purification Rundown, dated October 8th,
>1981, has been written by a Toronto physician, David HOGG. Dr. HOGG
>concludes his analysis by stating:
>This HUBBARD's programme not only fails to deliver what it promises but
"His (HUBBARD'S) programme
>may actually be detrimental to the health of those taking it". (_See
>Appendix VII, Pages 74 to 78_).
>
>384. In 1981, a professor of Pharmacology at the University of Toronto,
>consulted by the Ontario Provincial Police, stated that there is no
>scientific basis for the claims made by the Purification Rundown, and in
>fact, an individual with blood vessel problems, on such high dosage of
such a high dosage of
>Niacin, could experience severe health problems.
>
>385. In keeping with HOGG's assessment, an evaluation of the
>detoxification procedure used in the Purification Rundown was undertaken
>in October 1971 in the U.S.A. by two medical doctors plus a Registered
>Nurse and another individual.
>
>386. The report, entitled "Evaluation of Narconon New Life", was
>conducted for the Deputy Director of the Health Treatment System, State
>Department of Health, Sacramento, California. (_See Appendix VII, pages
>79 to 132_).
>
>387. This report completed in 1974, deals mainly with Narconon, a
report, completed
>SCIENTOLOGY directed drug rehabilitation programme, but makes specific
>statements dealing with the "detoxification" or Purification programme
>then in existence in SCIENTOLOGY. Excerpts from the report and its
>findings are as follows:
>
>"III.
>_INTRODUCTION_
>The State of California has sought to intervene in the process of drug
>addiction and give opiate addicts alternative to incorporation and
>hazards of a self-destructive life-style. In January, 1973, with the
>passage of Senate Bill 714, millions of dollars of state monies were
>made available to county governments through the Mental Health
>Short-Doyle mechanism. Those funds were specifically designed to add
>treatment alternative to the earlier repertoire of jails and prisons,
>probation and parole, civil commitment and court orders".
>
>"*Narconon - Conditions for continued Public Funding
>1. Programme shall operate a facility that specifically and exclusively
>deals with rehabilitation of _narcotic addicted_ persons as required by
>their County contract. Such condition should be documented in each case
>to the satisfaction of county authorities.
>2. Programme shall make all fiscal, programme and client treatment
>records available for evaluation by duly authorized evaluators of the
>county or state. Independent audit by a CPA shall be done.
>3. Programme must cease all practices that have been found to be
>specifically practices of the Church of Scientology and which may only
>be practiced by a recognized minister of the Church of Scientology.
>(Example - use of E-Meter in student auditing, use of training materials
>copywrited by the Church of Scientology).
>4. Programme shall eliminate all restrictive admission policies listed
>in their legal contract for Narconon Rehabilitation Programme that are
>not in accordance with standard admission policies for Short-Doyle
>clients receiving mental health services.
>5. Detoxification procedures shall be stopped on the premises since
>their procedures are without proper medical supervision and may be
>dangerous".
>
>"VII. _LETTER OF INSIGHT_
>
>Shortly after the team completed its evaluation and initial report, one
>of the team's members (Dr. Tennant) received the attached letter which
>reveals many of Narconon's means of operation. In the letter there is an
>overt and scientifically invalidated advertisement for detoxification
unvalidated
>with megavitamins. Note that there is no reference as to which drugs for
>which megavitamins might provide withdrawal assistance. We were informed
>by Narconon staff this may include barbiturates, and the team considers
>this is to be a potential life-threatening hazard. Note further that
>Narconon charges $300 for 72 hour detoxification.
>
>g. "_Urine Testing_: No urine testing is done by Narconon New Life
>Halfway House. However, students on parole may get urine testing at
>their parole officers. It was not stated whether or not records were
>kept of urinalysis results but it appeared clear that communication
>between Narconon and the parole officials was maintained".
>
>k. _Detoxification_: Narconon New Life Halfway House has one room
>specified as the Detoxification room. The detoxification procedure is
>monitored 24 hours daily by a Narconon trained detoxification
>specialist. The procedure consists of "touching", "extroverting" the
>subjects attention from his body, and approximately a half handful of
>enteric coated vitamins taken every six hours. The detoxification
>procedure usually does not exceed 72 hours and is described as
>comfortable. The subject is said to sleep well. A single page communique
>from Mark Jones (former Executive Director-Narconon U.S.) explicitly
>states that only heroin addicts should be detoxified by the Narconon
>process. This information is either unknown or unheeded by the staff
>members interviewed at Narconon New Life Halfway House. Mr. John Powers
>states that he had seen a "convulsion" stopped immediately by the
>Narconon procedure but was unable to describe in even laymen's terms
>what this convulsive episode consisted of. What he did describe was
>similar to a hysterical outburst which could quite easily be relieved by
>a calm, soothing and attentive companion".
. . .
>
>l. _Informed Consent_...
>Item 11 "expressly waives the prohibitions of Section 1543 of the Civil
Section 1542
>Code of California". i.e. Certain Claims not affected by general release.
>
>There is a specific detoxification agreement (see attachment) that
>simply provides a signed agreement that the detoxification subject will
>remain in the detoxification and is willing to accept a no refund provision.
>
>We were not provided with and must presume that there is _no_ informed
>consent document specifying the _risks_ involved in withdrawal from
>hypnotic/tranquilizer medications such as convulsive episodes during
>barbiturate withdrawal. There are two inherently logical conclusions for
>omitting this type of informed consent document:
>1) The legal contract described above apparently relieves Narconon of
>any legal responsibilities for any such risk
>2) Mark Jones' memorandum excluding detoxification from any drug
>excepting heroin in which serious withdrawal complications are minimal.
>Nevertheless our information indicates that the latter directive is
>either unknown or unused at Narconon New Life Halfway House.
>
>11. _INTERVIEW OF PATIENTS_
>a) _General appearance_: The residents appeared to be well dressed and
>well nourished.
>b) _Attitude_: The patients has a positive attitude. Most of them want
had a positive
>to become qualified Scientologists.
>
>13. _ADVERTISEMENTS AND CLAIMS_
>
>b. _Misleading Claims_: Narconon claims to have an 86% cure rate for
>narcotics addicts which is simply not true. Mr. Greg ZEROVNIK, National
>Director, Narconon U.S., explained that the 86% figure came from a study
>of parolees from the Arizona State Prison who may or may not have been
>narcotics addicts. This sort of claim is, of course, misleading to both
>the prospective client and to public officials who are sincerely
>attempting to find ways to cope with the problem of drug abuse.
>
>Narconon also advertises detoxification with mega-vitamins and other
>non-medical procedures that may be hazardous and in some cases lethal.
>Attachment 19 is a Narconon letter to the East Valley Free Clinic
>advertising an extraordinarily expensive detoxification procedure. It
>furthermore claims a 68% two year "success rate" for drug abstinence and
>for arrests "for anything related to drugs". It implies that these
>success ratios are applicable to heroin addicts and alcoholics. This
>claim is either misleading or miraculous.
>
>16. _RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUED STATE FUNDING_
>a) Detoxification procedures should be stopped on the premises since
>their procedures are without proper medical supervision and may be
>dangerous.
>b) These evaluation team members recommend cessation of State funding."
Three evaluation team members
. . .
>
>2) Program must cease all practices that have been found to be
[ ] Programme must cease
>specifically practices of the Church of Scientology and which may only
>be practiced by a recognized minister of the Church of Scientology.
>(example - use of E-meter in student auditing, use of training materials
(Example - use of E-Meter
>copyrighted by the Church of Scientology).
Scientology)."
>
>IV. _FINANCES_
M. _FINANCES_
>
>_Org Income_
>
>388. A main source of Org income is the "donations" which are in fact
>set fees in price lists of services available at the org. If the
Org.
>individual attempts to make a "donation" of a voluntary offering of his
>choosing other than in the amount price listed for the service the
the service, the
>service is not rendered.
>
>389. In one instance, in the summer of 1981, where an actual cash
>donation was made to the Org not referrable to any services sought to be
>taken, no one present had any idea how to invoice or record the incoming
>cash other than in the context of a purchase.
>
>390. Money appears to be the motivating factor in the conduct and
>operation of SCIENTOLOGY. Source #2, familiar with the day to day
>operations of the Treasury Department, can attest to the fact [?] am Org
the fact that an Org
>such as the Toronto Org alone, will have a gross income of approximately
>one million dollars annually - no taxes are paid.
>
>391. There is a great amount of stress placed upon individual staff
>members to acquire more revenue for the Org. It is perhaps greatest upon
>those persons who are in direct revenue procuring positions. There is a
>constant pressure to recruit new members or former members who have
>dropped out of the Org. Current members who have financial resources are
>constantly pressured to purchase more services from SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>392. The Division II Regs are among the highest revenue producers for
>the Org as this is their sole function in the org. They use a varied
in the Org.
>number of what could be described as professional sales techniques
>designed to break down all resistance to a sale. The Div II Regs are to
>establish contact with the local bank officials, and in particular, the
>Loans Officer. Any an all loans are to be the personal commitment of the
Any and all
>individual - no financial liability to the org and it is illegal
>(against policy) for a staff member to co-sign a loan for any amount.
>(See Executive Directive Sea Organization, 7 January 1981, _Appendix
>VII, pages 133 to 135_.)
>
>393. As Thursdays are the end of the week for statistical purposes for
>the Org, it is not uncommon for a Reg to be at a sympathetic bank on a
>Thursday morning to assist an individual in securing a new loan for the
>purchase of further SCIENTOLOGY services. The loan, once approved by the
>bank, is then counted as a statistic for the Org. The general attitude
>of the Org and the Reg is that it doesn't particularly matter what the
>member purchase, so long as he purchases something.
member purchases,
>
>394. The fluctuation and wide variance of these prices, both up and
>down, over the last several years, appears to substantiate this concept
>that the Org charges whatever the market will bear.
>
>395. A public member must pay the Org for services before commencing the
>services. SCIENTOLOGY cannot be purchased from the Org on credit. In
>order to increase immediate income to the Org and to transfer the
>member's debt relationship to a third party other than the Org, the
>Toronto Org has arranged with the Royal Bank of Canada that goods or
>services may be purchased at the Org through use of the Visa Credit
>Card. The bank alone therefore suffers any loss occasioned by the
>member's default in payment.
>
>396. Prior to the acceptance of the VISA credit card at the Org, it was
>a general practice of SCIENTOLOGY to have the individual contact his
>credit card Company and have his credit limit raised to the maximum
>amount. Once this was made available, the member would, in most cases,
>then make use of the credit card cash advance system to pay for
>SCIENTOLOGY services.
>
>397. Another source of income for the Org is the collection of the
>Freeloader's Debt. This is the debt incurred as a result of an
>individual deciding to join the Org as a full-time staff member and
>signing a contract to to work for the Org. The services received during
contract to work for the Org.
>this period of employment are stated to be "free" but should the
>individual decide to leave during this period, he is subject to
during the contract period, he is
>immediate repayment of the cost of all services he received for free. If
>a staff member does leave during this period, he receives a bill
>advising him how much he owes the Org. the repayment can be made as one
The repayment
>lump sum or arrangements can be made to pay on a monthly or weekly
>basis. If such avenues for repayment fail entice the individual to pay
fail to entice
>his debt, there is another method used, that being for the Org to offer
>a special discount price for one day if the person can come up with the
>money on that date. The philosophy of the org to obtain, if not all the
The philosophy of the Org appears to be that it is in the best
interest of the Org to obtain, if not all the
>money owing, then at least a substantial percentage of it. These
>discounts are approved by senior SCIENTOLOGY executives at the local
>level. HCO Policy letter of 27 February 1971, First Financial Policy,
>states:
>
>"Income is more important then disbursement".
>This is a quote approved by L. Ron HUBBARD and strictly adhered to by
>all SCIENTOLOGISTS.
>
>_distribution of income to staff members_
>
>1) _Unit Value Distribution Of Profit_
i) _Unit Value Distribution Of Profit_ [or appears to be (i) anyway.]
>
>398. Lower level SCIENTOLOGY staff members are poorly compensated for
>the amount of labour provided to the Org. Part of this reason is the
>clever way in which SCIENTOLOGY has set up its payroll procedure. The
>amount of money available for the benefit of staff members is a set
>percentage of 45% of the amount allocated to the Org for its expenses.
>This system creates a two-fold situation in which SCIENTOLOGY itself
>cannot lose. By only allocating a certain percentage of the weekly
>revenue collected to benefit staff, the Org protects itself from having
>to draw upon its reserves to provide income to staff should the need
>arise due to poor weekly income. Secondly, this system is also used to
>encourage staff members of the Org to generate as much revenue as
>possible for the Org in order that the profit may be higher for the
>distribution to and personal benefit of the staff members.
>
>399. Each post in SCIENTOLOGY is worth a predetermined number of units,
>depending upon each staff members position within the Org. When the
>dollar amount allocated for distribution to staff is known, it is then
>divided by the aggregate number of units of all staff members in the Org
>to calculate a per unit monetary value. This unit value is then the
>measurement of profit distribution, the unit value is multiplied by the
>number of units which each staff member is worth, thereby giving the
>dollar amount each staff member is to receive. Where the amount received
>by the staff member is sufficient to cause payroll deductions to have to
>be made, these are substracted and deposited into a bank account until
>such time as it has to be paid to the appropriate government agency.
>
>i) _HCO (Hubbard Communication Office) Book Commissions_
ii) [Best guess, based also on i) above before 398 and iii) before 403
below.]
>
>400. All items such as books, tapes, E-Meters etc. ... received by the
>[?] are purchased from Publications Organization United States (Bridge
Org are purchased
>Publications) or Publication Organization Denmark (New Era
>Publications), which are SCIENTOLOGY controlled organizations, all funds
>remain in the SCIENTOLOGY family of companies.
>
>401. In addition, considering the initial cost of the items to the
>SCIENTOLOGY organizations as a whole, and the high mark up price at the
high mark up prices at the
>local Org, and the high turnover of products, the HCO account represents
>the greatest mechanism for the removal of business profits from
>SCIENTOLOGY to L. Ron HUBBARD and his upper level Orgs supplying the
>said products.
>SEE TABLE #4
>
>402. From the revenue generated by the sale of books, tapes, E-Meters
>and other such items handled through the HCO account, the Org pays a
>commission to the seller. In this instance, SCIENTOLOGY pays the
>commission whether the seller is a staff member or not, this commission
>is paid even if the staff member makes a sale during post hours. The
>person who sells the book or other item receives a 15% commission for
>the sale. These commissions are paid on weekly basis to the seller. This
>system of commissions encourages the staff member, with a low number of
>units allocated to his post, to sell more and more such items, due to
>the fact that these commissions are paid on a regular basis. This in
>turn creates a larger turnover of these items for the Org, generating an
>even greater revenue and a higher profit for SCIENTOLOGY Orgs outside
>Canada and for high unit-post staff members locally.
>
>ii) _FSM (Field Staff Member) Commissions_
iii) [I think.]
>
>403. Another method of motivation used by SCIENTOLOGY is to offer a
>commission on auditing and training. This also encourage members to sell
encourages members
>more of those services which generates a greater revenue for SCIENTOLOGY
these services
>and staff member.
and staff members.
>
>404. An FSM of SCIENTOLOGY is one who recruits new members into
>SCIENTOLOGY by expanding the benefits and rewards of training and
>processing. Once the new member starts purchasing services, the FSM
>receives 15% of the amount spent by the member on training (study
>courses) and 10% of the amount spent on processing (auditing), because
>the FSM was the new member's first contact with SCIENTOLOGY. The FSM
>also receives a commission any time the new member who he recruited
>purchases subsequent services. The relationship continues as long as
>both people remain in SCIENTOLOGY. These commissions are also paid to
>regular staff members who recruits new members during their off post hours.
who recruit new members
>
>405. This pyramid system encourages those in SCIENTOLOGY to constantly
>sell SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>_Training Fees_
>406. It has been established by investigation that a percentage of all
>net income of the Org is channelled to the higher management Orgs within
>SCIENTOLOGY both in Canada and outside. This would result in the lower
>Orgs showing a negligible profit on paper, where in fact the funds have
>been transferred to another segment of the SCIENTOLOGY operation under
>the guise of training and management fees. For example, with respect to
>training fees, a local Org is directed to send students to FLAG to
>advance their studies, which is SCIENTOLOGY's headquarters in
Headquarters
>Clearwater, Florida. Transportation to FLAG is also paid for by the
>staff member's Org.
>
>There are two particular courses offered called the O.E.C., F.E.B.C.
>(Organizational Executive Course, Flag Executive Briefing Course). These
>courses are generally in the area of three months duration in total and
>there appears to be a heavy demand by FLAG to have the Orgs send as many
>people to Clearwater as possible for this training.
>
>408. Once the course is completed, FLAG then sends the local org a bill
>for the cost of each student. The cost, excluding accommodations is, for
>the F.E.B.C. ($9,000.00) nine thousand dollars, while the O.E.C. is
>($16,000.00) sixteen thousand dollars for a minimum of over ($25,000.00)
>twenty-five thousand dollars. It is referred to as a bill, while in an
>official document from the International Training Organization, it is
>referred to as a "donation".
>
>409. The money used by the local Org to pay for these services or
>donations is any amount the Org has left over after paying its
>outstanding debts. These amounts of money go out of the Org therefore as
Org, therefore
>expenses serving to reduce the profit.
>
>_Management Fees_
>410. The Org must pay management fees to upper level Orgs such as FLAG,
>FOLO, Continental G.O., Church of SCIENTOLOGY World Wide, local G.O. and
>G.O. Reserve Account. Although little if anything is received for these
>payments, it would appear that the management fees are nothing more than
>"franchise fees".
>
>411. Prior to 17 December 1982 and HCO Policy Letter 25 Nov 1981, all
25 Nov. 1981,
>funds sent to these Orgs were a fixed percentage of the Toronto Org's
>Corrected Gross Income (C.G.I.)
>
>FLAG 5%
>FOLO 5%
>LOCAL G.O. 5%
>C OF S WORLD WIDE 5%
>G.O. RESERVE ACCOUNT 10%
>CONTINENTAL G.O. 5 to 10% (depending on the amount of CGI)
>SEE TABLE #5
>
>412. Over the period of seven month (1 Jan. 81 to 31 July 81), the
>Toronto Day and Foundation Orgs paid in excess of one hundred and twenty
>thousand dollars ($120,000.00) for these management fees. Cheques made
>out to Church of SCIENTOLOGY World Wide and FLAG, dated 19 January 1981
>through 23 July 1981, were all returned to SCIENTOLOGY Toronto orgs
Orgs
>after having been cleared in banks in Luxemburg.
>
>413. All cheques that are sent to FLAG to pay for services, tangible
>goods and management fees are made payable to the Religious Research
>Foundation (R.R.F.).
>
>414. Effective 17 December 1981, a new policy was implemented via HCO
>Policy Letter 25 November 1981, stating that each Org will be notified
>monthly by telex what percentage of the C.G.I. is to be sent to the
>Church of SCIENTOLOGY International (C.S.I.) formerly called Church of
>SCIENTOLOGY World Wide. once that has been determined, then the
Once that has
>remaining part is to be sent to Special Org reserves (S.O.R.). It has
Special Org Reserves (S.O.R.)
>been determined that C.S.I. and S.O.R. are eligible to receive 20% of an
>Org's C.G.I. ... S.O.R. is believed to be held at FLAG.
>
>Concerning the further management fees, 5% of the C.G.I. is being sent
415. Concerning the further management fees, 5% of the C.G.I. is being
sent
>to FOLO and 5% to Continental G.O. (G.O. CANADA), as they apparently
>have no source of income and therefore depend on the lower Orgs for
>total financial support.
>
>The informant believes that the payments of money to R.R.F. by the Orgs
416. The informant believes that the payments of money to R.R.F. by
the Orgs
>throughout the world, including the Toronto franchise, constitutes a
>distribution of profit to, or for the benefit of L. Ronald HUBBARD or
>other persons, and bases that belief upon the following:
>
> (1) examination of the affidavits of Mr. Gerry Armstrong, true
>copies of which are reproduced in Appendix VII. The said true copies of
>Armstrong's affidavits were requested from and received from the office
>of the Florida Agency of Law Enforcement. The informant for this
>warrant, in addition, spoke to Gerry Armstrong by telephone, following
>arrangements made with a lawyer in the United States, to confirm the
>contents of the said affidavits. The said Armstrong has stated that he
>has direct knowledge that the payments to R.R.F. are controlled by, and
>received by, L. Ron HUBBARD for his personal use and benefit, as
>detailed in the said affidavits and telephone conversations.
>
> (2) In the Stipulation of Evidence, a true copy of which is
>reproduced in Appendix IV, in the matter of _United States of America v.
>Mary Sue Hubbard et al_, U.S. Dist. Ct., No. 78-401 Crim. October 1979,
>Mary Sue Hubbard "Controller" and "Commodre Staff Guardian", signed an
and "Commodore Staff Guardian",
>acknowledgement that R.R.F. was a Scientology "front" organization and
>that Scientology was concerned about the internal Revenue Service
Internal
>(I.R.S.) gaining knowledge of that organization.
>
> (3) The informant has seen a true copy of the transcript of the
>proceedings, _United States District Court v. Jane Kember and Morris
>Budlong, A.k.a. Mo Budlong_ (the Guardian World-Wide and the Deputy
Budlong, a.k.a. Mo Budlong_
>Guardian for information World-Wide, respectively) from which the
>informant gained the following information concerning the Religious
Informant
>Research Foundation: Michael Meisner, the Assistant Guardian for
>information for the Washington, D.C. Guardian's Office, testified on
>October 30, 1980 and November 6, 1980 in the United States District
>Court for the District of Columbia that he was instructed by Mary
>Rezzonico, the Deputy Guardian for Legal, United States, to be on the
>alert during his illegal entries into the offices of the Internal
>Revenue Services and the U.S. Department of Justice for any information
>contained in their files concerning R.R.F. Meisner testified that
>Rezzonico described R.R.F. as "some kind of Scientology organization
>outside of the United States, through which some U.S. monies,
>Scientology monies, had been funnelled".
>
> (4) The obstruction of employees of the Federal Government -
>Revenue Canada, at the premises of Scientology, 696-700 Yonge Street, in
>the exercise of their duties under the Federal _Income Tax Act_ during
>February of 1981. The informant bases this on information received from
>Source #3 who learned through the conversation with an Org staff member,
>that the Guardian Office and members of its staff, had purposely
>established an office for the Revenue Canada auditors in a converted
>washroom at the back of the Chapel. The reason for this was that this
>space was cool, damp, crowded and improperly ventilated. These factors,
>combined with the presence of two Guardian Office staff members that
>were continually called away to answer the phone (calls intentionally
>being placed to them by other Guardian Office staff) provided the
>intended interruption to severely hamper the efforts of the Revenue
>Canada auditors. The Org staff member relating this episode to Source #3
>indicated that the operation had been successful as the auditors only
>remained for two days.
>
>_Bank Accounts_
>417. The SCIENTOLOGY Org in Toronto maintains several bank accounts at
>the Royal Bank of Canada at Yonge and Grenville Streets, Toronto,
>Ontario. Apart from the main accounts used by the org, other groups
the Org,
>within the Org also maintain accounts at this same Branch. The
>Guardian's Office Toronto, FOLO Canada, Continental Publications Liaison
>Office Canada, the Guardian's Office Canada, possess their own accounts
>and banking privileges. There are upward of 25 separate accounts at this
>one Bank Branch.
>
>_Finance Office #1 Account (F.O. #1)_
>418. This account is under the control of the Flag Banking Officer
>(FBO). All revenues collected by the Org for whatever purpose are the
>FBO's direct responsibility. Records maintained as to the origins of the
>revenue as well as the services rendered. All invoices for services
>(books, meters, etc.) are scrutinized by the FBO. At the end of the
>SCIENTOLOGY week (Thursday, 2:00 p.m.), it is the responsibility of the
>FBO to distribute all income received to the various other SCIENTOLOGY
>bank accounts.
>
>419. The Flag Banking Officer records the gross income for the week. All
>revenues from the sale of books, E-Meters and other accountable items is
>then transferred to the Hubbard Communication Office (HCO) Account.
>
>420. Provincial Sales Tax applicable to the sale of taxable items is
>deducted and transferred to the reserve account.
>
>421. From the gross income, money is also deducted and deposited to
>other bank accounts such as Public Executive Secretary (PES) Account,
>and Field Staff Member (FSM) Account.
>
>422. The amount of money remaining after the above mentioned transfers
>is known as the Corrected Gross Income (C.G.I.).
>
>423. From the Corrected Gross Income, the Flag Banking Officer then
>calculates the amount of money to be disbursed to the upper level orgs,
>(such as Flag, FOLO and the Guardian Offices) of SCIENTOLOGY as
>Management fees. This is on a fixed percentage basis.
>
>424. The remainder of the Corrected Gross Income is then transferred to
>the Main Account for the use of the local Org for operating expenses.
>
>425. The only funds retained in the F.O. #1 account after all
>transactions have taken place is a float amount known as the Bounced
>Cheque Float. This basically is just a nominal amount in order to cover
>any NSF cheques received by the Org.
>
>426. The F.O. #1 account is perhaps the most important bank account at
>any SCIENTOLOGY org. This account best shows the flow of money in and
>out of the org.
>
>_Main Account_
>427. All the money in this account has been transferred by the FBO from
>the Finance Office #1 account. The amount transferred into the main
>account is the remaining amount of the corrected gross income after the
>management fees have been paid. Of this remaining [total], 45% is to be
to[t]al [I don't know if there's a best way to correct that. "Sic"
maybe. Of this remaining toal [sic] , 45%.]
>distributed to staff members, 15% is for promotion purposes, 30% for
>operating expenses and the remaining 10% is for bills overdue or
>deposited to the reserve account.
>
>428. Although these percentages are directed towards specific purposes,
>changes may be made. It is not uncommon for the largest percentage (45%)
>to be allocated to promotion in lieu of distribution to the benefit of
allocated as promotion
>staff members. From this account, training fees are paid to FLAG, FOLO,
>or any other higher level org from operating expenses.
>
>429. All the money deposited in this account has been allocated for a
>specific expense. Except at the actual time of transfer, there is little
>or no money in it. The money that is deposited in this account is spent
>soon thereafter. SEE TABLE #3.
>
>_Hubbard Communication Office (H.C.O.) Account_
>430. All revenue from the sale of books, tapes, E-Meters and other
>SCIENTOLOGY marketable products is transferred into the HCO account from
>the FO #1 account. As quickly as the money is transferred into this
>account, it is disbursed to pay for such items as promotion,
>transportation, and to replenish stocks of these items, and payment of
>commissions to members for the sale of these items.
>
>_Reserve Account_
>431. The main purpose of the Reserve Account is to act as an emergency
>source of cash should the org be involved in a situation that might
>require a large amount of cash such as building loan payment to Special
>Org Reserves (SOR), believed to be situated at FLAG in Clearwater, Florida.
>
>[TABLE #3]
>
>[TABLE #4]
>
>432. Figures in January 1982 revealed there was approximately $75,000.00
>in this account.
>
>433. A secondary purpose of this account is the retention of sales tax
>from items sold. All tax collected is deposited, again through the F.O
>#1 account, to this account for payment to the respective government
>agencies. This also encompasses Canada Pension Plan and Unemployment
>Insurance Contributions, from both employee and employer, as well as
>income tax payable by the employees.
>
>_Guardian's Office Local Account_
>434. Prior to 7 December 1981, 5% of the corrected gross income of the
>Org was transferred into this account from the FO #1 account. This money
>was expended by the G.O. for the purchase of office supplies, expenses
>incurred by members of the Guardian's Office while on special projects
>and for legal fees incurred by their counsel. Also paid for from this
>account is the fee for use of the xerox copier and paper shredder at the
>Org.
>
>435. As of December 1981, all expenses etc., incurred by the Guardian's
>Office were covered by the Org from the Main account and the 5% of the
>C.G.I. was no longer allocated directly to the G.O. This is believed to
>be an attempt on the part of SCIENTOLOGY to show that the G.O. is no
>longer the direct control of SCIENTOLOGY as a whole, and that the G.O.
>has changed its ways of the past.
longer an autonomous network, not linked or under the direct control
of SCIENTOLOGY as a whole, and that the G.O. has changed its ways of
the past.
>
>436. The original G.O. local account was still functioning as funds
>remained in the account after December, 1981.
>
>_Guardian's Office Reserve Account_
>
>437. This is another account for the use of the Guardian's Office. While
>the previous reserve account is supplemented by whatever the Org can
>contribute, the G.O. Reserve Account is given a fixed percentage from
>the Org's corrected gross income, transferred into this account from the
>FO#1 account.
>
>438. The purpose of this account is for the legal defense of
>SCIENTOLOGY. Money is very seldom withdrawn from this account. The
>policy being that it is to be used as a reserve, primarily for the G.O.
>in case of an emergency. Although if there is an emergency, "gather bit
>by bit a cushion of cash to fall back on and don't ever fall back on it
>..... make more money to meet the emergency instead". (REF: HCO PL 28
>Jan 65, How To Maintain Credit Standing & Solvency, OEC Vol. 3, page 40)
>
>_Claims Verification Board Account_
>
>439. This account is maintained solely for refunds to dissatisfied
>customers. There is generally not very much money in this account at any
>time.
>
>440. Any refunds made by the Org generally take up to four months to
>process, therefore, when a request is made for a refund, nominal sums
>are deposited over an extended period, and when there are sufficient
>funds in the account, the refund is made from this account. The money
>that is used to replenish this account when needed is taken before the
>C.G.I. is calculated and is then transferred from the FO#1 account to
>this account.
>
>_Public Executive Secretary (P.E.S.) Account_
>
>441. All funds received into this account are disbursed from the F.O. #1
>account. These funds are as a result of income from the Public Divisions
>sale of Basic Courses (Success Through Communication Course, Self
>Improvement Course etc.). It is operated as a joint account between the
>Day and Foundation Orgs, with each Org entitled to strictly that portion
>of the income it contributed to that account.
>
>442. Expenses from this account are in the nature of newspaper ads
>Sunday Church Services, promotion of courses offered by the Public
>Divisions and other miscellaneous office expenses.
>
>_Day and Foundation Field Staff Member (F.S.M.) Account_
>
>443. This account is used solely for the payment of all commissions with
>the exception of the commission paid on the sale of books and other such
>items.
>
>_Estate Account_
>
>444. This account is maintained by the Flag Banking Officer in Toronto
>and is kept separate from all other accounts. Revenue is received into
>this account from the lease of office space in the SCIENTOLOGY building
>at 696-700 Yonge Street, Toronto. All tenants, including Day and
>Foundation Orgs, pay rent to Estates. In the case of Day Org, it pays
>$600.00 per week and Foundation pays $900.00 per week, yet these
>"separate" Orgs operate out of the same office space. It is believed
>that Day and Foundation Orgs write off these expenses as rent for tax
>purposes.
>
>445. From the revenue received, Estates then pays all utilities, upkeep,
>other such amenities and the building loan for the building at 696-700
>Yonge Street, Toronto. It is believed that the building loan is from
>Special Org Reserve (S.O.R.) at FLAG and is the area of two million
is in the area
>dollars ($2,000,000.00).
>
>[MONEY FLOW CHART]
>
>
>_Ch. 6_
>
>_CONCLUSION_
>
>_Things to be Searched For_
>
>The informant believes from investigation including direct observations
>of Source #2 and #3, that the files and other documents listed in the
>section of this Information under the heading of "Things To Be Searched
>For" and designated as Central Files, Ethics Folders, Staff Personal
>Files, Flag Operations Liaison Office (FOLO) Files, Treasury Files,
>L.R.H. Communication Files, Books of Account, Continental Publications
L.R.H. Communicator Files,
>Liaison Office (CPLO) Canada Files, will afford evidence that
>SCIENTOLOGY is primarily a profit oriented organization. This will be
>shown primarily through the Org's own books of accounting and records.
>Evidence as to the org's marketing techniques will also be found among
Org's
>these documents. These documents will be found among FOLO Files,
>Treasury Files, CPLO Files and Books of Account. Evidence contained in
>these documents will also demonstrate the chain of command of
>SCIENTOLOGY, the organization of policy, the pattern of marketing of
>fraudulently represented courses, money [?] therefrom, as well as the
money obtained therefrom,
>distribution of monies to higher level management [?] of SCIENTOLOGY.
management bodies of [Looks like.]
>
>Such evidence will also be found among the FOLO Files, Treasury Files
>and L.R.H. Communication Files. Towards SCIENTOLOGY's goal of high
L.R.H. Communicator Files.
>profit, the organization will also use documents such as Ethics Folders,
>Claims Verification Board Files and Freeloader's Files to secure a
>certain amount of control over dissatisfied members. It is through the
over disaffected members.
>use of these files and other methods that SCIENTOLOGY is able to create
>a fear of possible legal ramifications against the member, while at the
>same time acquiring signed waivers of legal action against themselves,
>thereby effectively closing the door on redress by the member. The above
>described classes of documents will, in addition, detail the income of
>the Org and its distribution to the personal benefit of staff members
>and payment of commissions and unit value compensation to staff members.
>The said documents will further show the taxable income of the Org for
>which taxes were lawfully payable to the Province of Ontario and the
>Government of Canada.
>
>The said documents will, in addition, reflect the origin of monies and
>payments to higher level Orgs as "management fees", whether such
>payments out of Canada are supported by invoice or other document, and
>the mechanics of payment to R.R.F. including receipts, levels of
>payments, recording the reason for payment.
>
>The documents to be searched for, with the exception of Guardian Office
>documents, are sought for the time period January 1, 1976 to February
>15, 1983, [?] affording evidence of the commission of the described
>offences based upon:
>
> the observations of documents and the operation of SCIENTOLOGY by
>Sources 2 and 3 at 696-700 Yonge Street reported to me,
> the governing books or manuals in force at SCIENTOLOGY today were
>issued as a re-edition in 197[?] and have governed the operations of
1976 [Looks like, plus see Offences #1 b) below.]
>SCIENTOLOGY since that time,
> the period of the fraudulent conduct of SCIENTOLOGY in the
>prosecution of L. Ron HUBBARD in France,
> the period of the indictment in the United States in the
>prosecution of Mary Sue HUBBARD et al and the intense application of the
>SNOW WHITE [?] and R.R.F. in the United States.
SNOW WHITE programme to protect taxes and status
[Just based on same language in Offences #1 d) below.]
>
> From police investigation, including direct observations of Sources #3
Sources #2
>and #3, it has been learned that the Guardian Office, Toronto and Canada
>files will afford evidence of the role of these offices within
>SCIENTOLOGY and the extent of [?] activities undertaken to protest the
of the activities undertaken to protect the
>non-profit status of SCIENTOLOGY and the public exposure of consumer
>fraud. From information learned about the Guardian's Office described
>above, it is believed that the G.O. has acted in a manner inconsistent
>with a religion and has, under Ron L. HUBBARD's direction, engaged in
>illegal activities where perceived necessary. In addition, stolen and
>illegally obtained documents in furtherance of the object of continued
>tax exempt status it is believed will be obtained in the search.
>Documentation on the SNOW WHITE programme will, in addition, reveal a
>concerted effort to promote SCIENTOLOGY as other than a commercial
>enterprise.
>
>The said documentation from the Guardian's Office is requested from
>January 1, 1972 to the present, a time period beyond the stated time of
>the described offence, to afford that the G.O., prior to 1976, was
>employed by SCIENTOLOGY, as through the SNOW WHITE programme, to protect
>and insulate the non-profit status of SCIENTOLOGY in the time period [?]
>to 1983 from any close public or government scrutiny, and to protect the
>payment of monies "off-shored" to L. Ron HUBBARD. Documentation is [?]
Documentation is sought
>from as early as January, 1972 because of the [?] of the Toronto G.O.
the participation of the Toronto G.O.
>prior to the SNOW WHITE programme in the commissions of criminal
commission
>offences described above in paragraphs 85 to 116 and thereafter in Ontario.
>
>The E-Meter and above described publications to be searched for from
>police investigation including direct observations of Source #2 and #3
Sources
>will afford evidence of the offence #3 including actual value of same
>compared to their retail value and the use of the said materials to
>direct the staff of SCIENTOLOGY Toronto toward income earning and the
>distribution of profit to the personal benefit of staff members. It is
>further believes that the said materials will afford evidence that
believed
>SCIENTOLOGY is not operated exclusively for a purpose other than profit,
>including those groups referred to as affiliated groups in paragraph 15
>according to Sources 2 and 3.
>
>The informant for this warrant has reasonable grounds to believe and
>does believe that the things to be searched for, above described, are in
>the said premises to be searched from police investigation including
>direct observations of Sources #1, #2 and #3.
>
>_Night Execution_
>
>The informant hereby makes further application pursuant to Section 444
>of the Criminal Code of Canada that this warrant authorize execution by
>day and night and my reasons for requesting this are as follows:
> a) SCIENTOLOGY has numerous staff members which attend on a daily
>basis at 696-700 Yonge Street. These staff members have all been alerted
>to the fact that the police may execute a warrant on the premises and a
>"Raid Drill" has been implemented. The Raid Drill consists of delaying
>tactics, particularly with regards to an attempt to search the Guardian
>Office where, as in the search in 1977 in the U.S.A., all of the files
>stolen from various agencies were located.
> b) In addition, the Guardian Office staff U.S. have received
>instructions to immediately remove any incriminating files [?] the "Red
files via the "Red
>Box" method believed to be in [?] the equivalent of Guardian Office
>directions re: "Z" traffic materials, described in paragraph 130, obtain
>such files and depart the org immediately.
Org
> c) The premises at 696-700 Yonge Street is a nine-storey building
>at which Scientology presently carries on business on the first four
>floors, the basement and the seventh floor. However, there are, in this
>building, several other businesses run independent of SCIENTOLOGY, but
>by members of SCIENTOLOGY. These offices could be used as places to
>which such files could be covertly removed and concealed.
> d) It is further believed that the execution of the warrant itself
>will extend beyond the hours of the "day" as defined in Section 2 of the
>Criminal Code of Canada.
>
>_The Offences_
>
>_#1_
>
>The diversion of SCIENTOLOGY profit to the personal benefit of Lafayette
>Ronald HUBBARD through the Religious Research Foundation (R.R.F.), the
>management fees paid to higher level Orgs, and the pyramid-like
>distribution of Org profit to the personal benefit of staff members is
>contrary to the Letters Patent of the Church of Scientology of Toronto.,
>inasmuch as SCIENTOLOGY declares that it is a Corporation to be carried
>on without the purpose of gain for its members. The informant has viewed
>a certified copy of the said Letters Patent showing the Church of
>Scientology of Toronto as incorporated in Ontario September 2, 1967 and
>as a corporation to be carried on without purpose of gain for its
>members (See Copy of Letters Patent, Appendix VII, pages 137 to 143)
>
>The non-profit status of SCIENTOLOGY in the Province of Ontario enables
>the Church of Scientology of Toronto to enjoy tax exemption under the
>Federal _Income Tax Act_ S.C. 1970-71-72, c.63 (as amended), Section
>149(1)(l), and under the _Corporations Tax Act_, R.S.O. 1980, c.97,
>Section 49(1)(b).
>
>The Church of Scientology of Toronto, as shown by a letter dated
>February 4th, 1981, presented to the provincial Minister of Consumer and
>Corporate Affairs, has, in fact, taken advantage of the tax exemption
>offered by the _Ontario Corporations Tax Act_, Section 49(1)(b).
>
>The informant has made inquiries with the Ministry of Revenue, Province
>of Ontario, and has found that the Church of Scientology of Toronto,
>from 1976 to 1982, has taken advantage of the tax exemption provided for
>by the _Ontario Corporation Tax Act_, Section 49(1)(b) resulting in an
>exemption from the payment of any corporate taxes. The informant has
>made inquiries with Revenue Canada and also found that SCIENTOLOGY has
>taken advantage of Section 149(1)(l) resulting in an exemption from the
>payment of any corporate taxes from 1976 onward.
>
>The exemption is confirmed by a letter from D. HAY, an Accountant, to
>SCIENTOLOGY, on 25 April 1979, which stated that he had secured tax
>exemption from the Federal Government for SCIENTOLOGY Toronto, Ottawa,
>British Columbia (Vancouver), the Annex (Montreal), Mission of
>Vancouver, Mission of Edmonton, Mission of York (Toronto) and Mission of
>Calgary.
>
>The informant for this warrant accordingly believes that SCIENTOLOGY has
>contravened the Articles of Incorporation in the Province of Ontario by
>distributing, at least in part, monies or profit to the personal use of
>L. Ron HUBBARD and to other persons at Toronto and elsewhere, thus
>defrauding the Province of Ontario of a sum exceeding two hundred
>dollars, Contrary to Section 338(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and
>also did defraud the Government of Canada of a sum exceeding two hundred
>dollars, Contrary to Section 338(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada,
>between January 1, 1976 to February 15, 1983.
>
>The above described offence is stated to take place from the period
>January 1st, 1976 through to February 15th, 1983 on the basis of the
>following sources of belief:
>
>a) the observations of documents and the operations of Scientology by
>Source 2 and 3 at 696-700 Yonge Street reported directly to me,
>
>b) the governing books or manuals in force at Scientology today were
>issued as a re-edition in 1976 and have governed the operations of
>Scientology since that time,
>
>c) the period of the fraudulent conduct with Scientology and the
>prosecution of L. Ron HUBBARD in France,
>
>d) the period of the indictment in the United States in the prosecution
>of Mary Sue HUBBARD et al and the intense application of the SNOW WHITE
>Programme to protect taxes and status in R.R.F. in the United States
>from 1976 onward.
>
>In addition to the grounds of belief set out in Chapters 1 to 5 above as
>to the involvement of L. Ron HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD and the CHURCH OF
>SCIENTOLOGY, TORONTO in the commission of the described offences, the
>informant, for this warrant, has reason to believe that the following
>persons are involved in the commission of offence as described more
in the commission of the offence
>particularly below:
>
>Garry JEPSON (President, since December 20, 1981), Dan CROCINI
>(Secretary, since May 21, 1982), Armelle PEARSE (Treasurer since
>December 20, 1981), Kathy WHITMORE (Past Secretary to May 31, 1982),
>Nicole CRELLIN (Assistant Guardian Toronto in January, 1982), Scott
>CARMICHAEL (Assistant Guardian 1982), Hilarie ROCKL (Assistant Guardian
>1981), William O'MEARA (Deputy Guardian, prior to May, 1982), Marion
William O'MEARA (Deputy Guardian Canada since May, 1982), Marion
>EVOY (Deputy Guardian, prior to May, 1982), and the informant believes
>that the reason for naming these persons in this information are as follows:
>
>(1) he has examined the 1982 return filed with the Companies Branch,
>Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to which is attached to a
>certified copy of the Letters Patent of SCIENTOLOGY dated September,
>1967 and finds that the said persons held positions, during the time
>period shown in parentheses above:
>
>(a) Garry JEPSON holds the position of President on the Board of
>Directors for SCIENTOLOGY Toronto, in addition, he is also the Executive
>Director, and in charge of the entire Toronto Foundation Org and as such
>he exercises control of SCIENTOLOGY operations in Toronto,
>
>(b) Armelle PEARSE holds the position of Vice-President on the Board of
>Directors for SCIENTOLOGY Toronto, and in addition, she is also the
>Executive Director and in charge of the entire Toronto Day Org,
>
>(c) Dan CROCINI holds the position of Secretary on the Board of
>Directors for SCIENTOLOGY Toronto, and he is also the Assistant Guardian
>Legal Bureau for the Toronto Guardian Office,
>
>(d) Kathy WHITMORE, the Past President prior to CROCINI in 1982, and was
>on the Board of Directors for SCIENTOLOGY Toronto, and until recently,
>she was also Assistant Guardian Legal Bureau for the Toronto Guardian
>Office. Presently she holds a staff member position with F.O.L.O.
>
>The Toronto Org is governed by the three member Board of Directors as
>listed above, and by virtue of their roles on the Board of Directors for
>SCIENTOLOGY Toronto, have responsibility for organizational actions
>listed in Chapters one to five.
>
>Nicole CRELLIN, Scott CARMICHAEL, Harvey SCHMIEDEKE and Hilarie ROCKL,
>having been Assistant Guardians in the Toronto Guardian Office, have had
>control of the activities of the Guardian Office and, by virtue of this
>post, have also exercised control over the Toronto Orgs, in the relevant
>time period.
>
>Marion EVOY and William O'MEARA, past and present Deputy Guardians of
>Canada, have, by virtue of their post, had control of all Guardian
>Offices of Canada, including Toronto; and a further source for the
>information in this paragraph, and its subheadings (a) to (d) above, is
>supplied by Source #2 and Source #3.
>
>Other persons at present unknown held Director posts and position of
>control prior to 1981-82 and since January 1, 1976 and as such are
>reasonably believed responsible for the commission of the said offence.
>
>The informant, for this warrant, has reason to believe that the offence
>described above as Offence No. 2, has been committed as described on the
>basis of the sources of belief set out in this information. The charge
>for a course such as Staff Status Zero, compared to the benefits
>receivable for the course, given the substance of the subject matter
>dealt with, is misrepresented and overvalued to the point of being
>fraudulent. In addition, the E-Meter and the Purification Rundown are
>marketed with the above described misrepresentations giving the
>informant grounds to believe that the courses and materials marketed by
Informant
>Scientology are intentionally deceiving in order to produce income for
>Scientology. Persons buying such courses or materials rarely, if ever,
>complain of Scientology's fraudulent activities because:
>
>1. They are promised the benefits of the next higher Scientology course
>and pursue that objective after writing a success story about the course
>just completed, thereby committing themselves to a statement of facts
>that the course had value and was not deceitful;
>
>2. The use by the Guardian's Office of the pre-clear folders and folders
>containing personal information on persons who have taken courses which
>can be used against them should they become critical of Scientology.
>
>With respect to the time period of the offence and those persons
>involved in the offence, reference may be made to earlier chapters in
>the Information and to the contents of paragraphs 460 to 462.
>
>_#3_
>
> From the sources and grounds of belief set out above in the
>Information, and in particular in Chapter 3, the Informant, for this
>Warrant, has reasons to believe that there is an ongoing agreement or
>unlawful conspiracy between the persons described in the offences
in the offence
>described in Offence No. 3, to undertake criminal activities such as
as Offence No. 3 [I think]
>theft and break, enter and theft, when it is perceived necessary by the
>Guardian's Office to protect the interests of Scientology, economic and
>otherwise. Overt acts in furtherance of such a conspiracy, involving
>criminal activities in themselves, have been detailed above. In
>addition, there continues to be documentation in the Guardian's Office
>which indicates currently that the Guardian's Office is promoting covert
>and clandestine operations and a continuation of the SNOW WHITE
>Programme which was exposed in the prosecution in the United States, to
>involve the commission of criminal activities in furtherance of the ends
>of Scientology. The informant believes that this unlawful agreement has
>existed from January 1, 1972 to the present on the basis of information
>received from sources #1 and #3 and the overt acts discovered which have
>been described above.
>
>With respect to the stated duration of the offence and those persons
>involved in the commission of the offence, reference may be made to
>paragraphs 450, 461 and 462 above.
>
>_General_
>
>The informant for this Warrant further states that based upon the
>criminal activities of Scientology in France and the United States, the
>information received from Source #2 and #3, the fact that 696-700 Yonge
>Street is the corporate offices of Scientology Toronto, the lack of
>voluntary compliance of Scientology with Ontario inquiries or studies,
>the protective role of the Guardian Office, the Guardian Office raid
>protection mechanisms, and because Scientology itself is name above as
>having committed the said offences that there is no reasonable
>alternative source or method of obtaining the information sought.
Android Cat
It's too bad that the prosecution didn't take it as far as the investigators
seemed to want: fraudulent bait'n'switch courses, the purification rundown,
the skimming of money from the low level organizations to feed higher up the
pyramid, etc.
Mind you, even on the easy charges that CoS was caught red-handed on, they
dragged it out for ages. The rest of it could have shut Scientology down
completely, so they might still have been going around and around in the
courts.
Lucky for Scientology that Hubbard died, or they would have had the tougher
fight of it. (And the IRS was moving in on him too.) Very, very lucky for
Scientology and DM.
>>The informant, for this warrant, has reason to believe that the offence
>>described above as Offence No. 2, has been committed as described on the
>>basis of the sources of belief set out in this information. The charge
>>for a course such as Staff Status Zero, compared to the benefits
>>receivable for the course, given the substance of the subject matter
>>dealt with, is misrepresented and overvalued to the point of being
>>fraudulent. In addition, the E-Meter and the Purification Rundown are
>>marketed with the above described misrepresentations giving the
>>informant grounds to believe that the courses and materials marketed by
>
> Informant
>
>>Scientology are intentionally deceiving in order to produce income for
>>Scientology. Persons buying such courses or materials rarely, if ever,
>>complain of Scientology's fraudulent activities because:
>>
>>1. They are promised the benefits of the next higher Scientology course
>>and pursue that objective after writing a success story about the course
>>just completed, thereby committing themselves to a statement of facts
>>that the course had value and was not deceitful;
>>
>>2. The use by the Guardian's Office of the pre-clear folders and folders
>>containing personal information on persons who have taken courses which
>>can be used against them should they become critical of Scientology.
This is great stuff, it's a shame that it was lost for so long like a lot of
Ontario Snow White stuff. (I'd love to get a copy of David Miscavige's turn
testifying as the leader of Scientology.)