CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMISSION HEARINGS RE: THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
(Whereupon, the hearing resumed.)
MR. LeCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the press, audience, consultants, Commissioners, we will present -- I'm very sorry to say that the Church of Scientology has not agreed to participate any more than they did this morning. We would have liked to have questioned their witnesses as to the background of L. Ron Hubbard, whether or not he is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor, did he, indeed, serve in combat did he indeed, heal himself of war wounds. We would have liked to have asked many questions of witnesses.
I will leave to Mr. Flynn, whom he has said is biased -- I will let Mr. Flynn speak for himself; he has a personal -- something personal in this case, and everyone in the city has a personal interest in this case. Many of the concerns he raised that should be raised by the State's Attorney -- well, maybe he will now. I have waited and the city has waited for seven years for this to happen. This information should be helpful to the State's Attorney for him to make the decision whether he should take further action in enacting legislation.
Concerning the legality of the trial -- these hearings, they've been operating like Mr. Johnson -- the questions he raised have already been presented to the Federal District Court in Tampa and they have found those questions did not prevail, and we were given the okay to proceed.
On cross examination -- we, on the City Commission, also, asked the same questions that you out there, you, the people, have been asking for many, many years. So, we deem that we did ask the right questions. Each witness has informed us, prior to Mr. Johnson's statement, as to how they would be characterized, in some cases the means, by information used in their confessional.
As to robbery and blackmail and kidnapping not being the concerns of the Commission, I feel that they are the concerns of everybody here in Clearwater.
The tax issue was not directly discussed. We took special care not to discuss the tax issue. The issue of religion was discussed indirectly, and we took special care not to discuss that. I just wish they had chosen to participate. As I said at the beginning of these hearings, the public has a right to know and they still have that right to know.
As far as the legalities of this hearing, I would like to ask Mr. Bustin, who is our City Attorney, to give us his views on the issue.
MR. BUSTIN: Mayor, the only thing I wanted to say is: I think you've got to, as was said before, get back and look at this thing for what it really is, and that is a legislative body looking into the factual data -- trying to gather factual data to decide whether or not to pass legislation. We cannot confuse the functioning of a legislative body with a trial.
We heard Mr. Johnson talk over and over again about: trial, trial conditions, criminal trial. No way in the world can you equate the two together, and if you do, you end up with a bad product. No way can a legislative body function using the same rules that you would use in a courtroom scene. It's just not possible. And I have never watched a legislative body function in that way: in Congress, in our state legislature, or anywhere else. He raises a lot of questions about our areas of concern. But I think what is quickly forgotten is that this is a city which has power co-equal, literally, to the State of Florida. Under the constitution of the State of Florida, you are given what is called home rule power, equal to the state, except where the state says you may not.
Now, within the constitution, it says that you are to be concerned with the health, safety, and welfare of everyone in the City of Clearwater. And it seems to me that -- within the parameters of the broad grants of power under the constitution that conditions affecting the education, possible crimes, possible criminal conduct, abuse of information -- all of this stuff goes to the health, the safety, and the welfare of the people who are residing or are in this city. It would be a weird legislative body or a weird local government that said, expressed no interest in things like this that might be going on or your informed are going on in the city.
I think if you look around, you'll see examples of cities looking -- well, the easiest example is with drugs. If you took the example that you became aware of a drug problem in your city and the only person you could turn to was your State Attorney to handle it, you would never solve any drug problem.
There are a lot of things that need to be looked at, and those are the power areas in which you look at them. I think this is a whole thing that's been forgotten.
It's not a question for the Commission what Mr. Flynn is doing or not doing. The question you have to decide is:
From the factual information that you have received in the last four days, whether that information supports the adoption of legislation. It doesn't matter that's what you're judging. You're not judging Mr. Flynn; you're judging that factual information. Does it support some type or types of legislation? And I think that has been obscured totally in the whole process.
In fact, I'm going to recommend that once the materials -- there's so much and it's so voluminous, that it be a transcript of it be prepared. Then, I'm going to -- in further assisting the Commission in deciding this legislative issue -- contact a constitutional scholar I have in mind from another jurisdiction who will look at the transcript, helping the City Commission make a decision based on the legislative aspect, if the Commission is so agreeable.
MR. LeCHER: Thank you, Mr. Bustin.
Before we start with Mr. Flynn -- and has up to two hours for summation, which is the rules of procedure that was set forth the first day of these hearings, I would like to give the Commissioners a short chance, and I hope that they do not belabor too much, to discuss what has gone on to now or discuss the presentation of Mr. Johnson representing the Church of Scientology.
So, as is our custom, we'll alternate, and I believe we start this time with Mr. Jim Calderbank.
MR. CALDERBANK: Well, I was just disappointed that the Church of Scientology did not enter into the record or participate in these hearings. Again, I reiterate that I always looked at them as an information in trial -- not in a trial manner, but in information gathering. And I can't believe that the opinion or the advice to the Church of Scientology would be: "Do not take advantage of your four days to give your side of the story or give the facts and bring the records forward." I -- there must be some reason for that, but that advice completely escapes me.
As far as Mr. Flynn -- in complex litigation, you need a specialist. And Mr. Flynn or that law office, at least -- and when we were going through looking at not only city attorneys, we did have Mr. Logan go over it before. But we needed someone that had the information all ready, the documents from Washington collated. We're not asking Mr. Flynn to make judgments; we're asking Mr. Flynn to present us with the facts and information, which I feel he did.
I'm surprised Mr. Johnson, being a local attorney, would make comments as far as our jurisdiction here in Clearwater and what the State Attorney's Office should and should not do. It's just like robbery, burglary, or even murder in this city -- we don't have jurisdiction over that. The police investigate it, they pick people up, but it's still up to the State Attorney's Office to try them for that crime. So, that was a moot point. And the comments about Mr. DeWolfe and Mr. Mayer, Mr. Berfield very well and very vigorously questioned Mr. DeWolfe about his recantation. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. DeWolfe told the Commission and told the audience, the viewing audience, that he, indeed, did recant part of his testimony to the IRS. However, what Mr. Johnson did not comment on was which parts he recanted, which were the personal opinions, not the facts, and number two, the harassment to his family, to his children, and the threats that he had received. So, yes, Mr. DeWolfe recanted, but under Mr. Perfield's questioning, I think the situation of the recantation was better known to the Commission. And I wish Mr. Johnson had stated that, also, for the audience.
In addition, Mr. Mayer, who was an IRS, quote, unquote, consultant -- he also stated that he was a consultant under our questioning et cetera, et cetera.
My only question would be how Mr. Johnson found out about the intimate, personal details that he mentioned about Miss van Schaick, who -- she came up of her own free will. How he found out about the psychological, or what he informed us was psychological and drug problems with regard to Miss Van Schaick.
Mr. Ray I can't understand where he would get such confidential information.
And the last thing I have to say is, and I think the Commission would feel the same way, that, with all the information we have seen over the years, 1 think it would be malfeasant, or we would be shirking our responsibility not to look into these areas. That's our job, both legally and morally, as far as I'm concerned. And if the -- some of the testimony was given that Scientology has changed, I really wish in the last four days that they had come up and shown it. And I just feel the record is a little less complete because of the advice not to participate.
And other than that, I think there were some emotional comments put on the record, but the Commission I don't think will consider that. When it gets down to the record, I think we'll be looking at the objective facts and see whether or not the record contains enough information to go forward, if there's enough factual evidence.
MR. LeCHER: Mr. Berfield, do you have any comments?
MR. BERFIELD: Yes, I do.
If there's been one moment of humor coming out of this whole thing, it's the comment of counsel that we have not cross examined the witnesses.
My office received a call wherein -- I was not present, but I was chastised very vigorously, almost to the point of being harsh with the witnesses. And this particular woman said that I should never run for Dogcatcher in the City of Clearwater because of my partiality to the people in the Church of Scientology.
So, it's kind of unusual that one minute we're being criticized for not asking strict questions or cross questions, and the next minute we're being chastised for it. I think we have a responsibility to the people of Clearwater, and that responsibility has come about from so many years of people asking questions: "What's going on?
I view these hearings -- not so much in light of all the testimony that was given but -- what patterns were established?
Were these patterns universal? Were they across the United States? Were they a corporate type of pattern?
Sometimes it seemed like I was redundant in asking the question whether or not this could happen in Clearwater as well as in Las Vegas, and the testimony seemed to substantiate that. As Mr. Calderbank pointed out here, we're concerned strictly with the facts. And those facts that come out of here, as counsel mentioned, we may not have any authority. But those facts should be related to the people that do have the proper authority.
My biggest concern and someone said it came out in my voice the other day, has been what Mr. Johnson chastised me for, and that was not proper coverage of this thing by news media. I had been truly hopeful that the news media would take every word verbatim and print it. If there was any concern about politics or people running for office, they could have deleted the names of the Commissioners and just put it down question and what the answer was, and let the people of Clearwater decide whether or not we have a problem. They have a lot of intelligent people here in Clearwater, and they wanted to know about it. And unless they were able to watch Vision Cable, they have not gotten the full story about this. And I think if there is any injustice that came out of this, there's where the injustice came.
MR. LeCHER: Thank you.
Mrs. Garvey, do you have any comments you'd like to make?
Mrs. GARVEY: There really isn't much that I need to say that hasn't already been said. Except one thing that Mr. Johnson mentioned was the personal financial interest of this law firm that we have, and it's my understanding that Mr. Johnson is paid by the Church of Scientology, so I would assume that's a personal financial interest, also.
MR. LeCHER: Mr. Hatchett.
MR. HATCHETT: Thank you I will take this time to say to the that these hearings were to listen for fraud and criminal conduct. Those are the basic areas. And I think we stuck to that very well. And anything else, like, attacks on their religion, we asked that to be deleted from the record. And I think a good job was done with that fact finding.
As Mr. Berfield stated, we were looking for situations of standard policy as a corporation, which you heard.
I don't know how you can find out whether anything is going on, since you can't put a policeman on every corner and everybody watching everybody else, you know.
How do you find out what illegal acts are going on? You find out when people step forward and complain; that's when you find out. And it's been stated before that it's our legal and personal responsibility as Commissioners to be on top of that, and I believe that.
This city has not made any determination of any testimony heard here today. And I was disturbed when Mr. Johnson stated that we are prosecuting in a sense. We made no determination of the facts we found; we haven't even filtered them out yet. We just listened.
Now, Mr. Johnson stated certain things he wanted to advise us before we went into the hearings. How would you know what any witness was going to say, and how are you going to advise us before that person has a chance to tell us about it?
MR. LeCHER: Good point, Mr. Hatchett.
MR. HATCHETT: How are you going to know what they're going to say? How are you going to advise us?
Our municipal concerns, I am for them, and I'm going to stick to that.
MR. LeCHER: Tony Shoemaker, the City Manager.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I don't really have anything to say. I think you've said it very well.
The thing that rather puzzles me is that if the City Commission and the city officials are not supposed to be concerned about the health, safety, and welfare of the city, what are we doing? I mean, what's our purpose of being here?
Also, I'd like to inform you, as I think you know, that, concerning criminal activities, the police department is going to be very active and very involved and very concerned about any types of criminal activities that occur within the City of Clearwater.
And I don't really have anything else to say.
MR. LeCHER: One other small comment that I want to make is one about Mr. Meister, his daughter who committed suicide, and it was very dramatic at the time. And Mr. Shoemaker mentioned the fact that we're not here to determine whether -- how she died or what caused her death, just -- that was not the issue here at hand.
To kind of narrow it down to what we're doing here: If a local church is running an illegal or a crooked or a fixed Bingo game in this city, we should investigate it. So, why not investigate something of a much larger scale?
Now, Mr. Flynn, you have been -- you are our hired consultant. You -- they have made a few personal attacks on you as to your motives, your financial arrangements made with the city, and the twenty-seven lawsuits.
You can comment on that or you can ignore that and get on to two hours of summation that was going to be given to us, frankly, four days from now, but it's going to be given a lot sooner than that.
MR. FLYNN: Mayor LeCher and members of the Commission, Mr. Shoemaker,
and Mr. Bustin, I would like to briefly respond to the attack against me
primarily, it has some relevance -- as much as the, as the other evidence
as I think
my outline is going to show you -- to all -- everything that you heard
for the past
four days, the four days during which we were in session. My outline is
take some period of time, and we're going to have to go relatively
slowly in order
to cover a lot of the points that I'm going to bring up.
With regard to my financial interest versus my personal interest, or whatever motivating factors motivate Thomas Greene, to my left, Thomas Hoffman, to my right, and Kevin Flynn, further to my left, so far we have filed a number of lawsuits on behalf of people across the United States. We have worked very hard trying to obtain other counsel to assist us, and it's been a very difficult job: litigation against the Church of Scientology as well as litigation against many, many lawyers paid by the Church of Scientology. To date, other than what we have received from the City of Clearwater and, perhaps, a very small amount from one client, of all the people that have approached us, we have received nothing. We anticipate litigation which could go for approximately five years. For the most part, I personally have expended all of my own funds to finance that litigation, probably, in excess at this point of three hundred thousand dollars.
I have spent a great deal of my time in the last three years. The cases are on a contingent-fee basis, as has been reported in the press on numerous occasions. My clients have no money; there is simply no other way to prosecute those cases. Without a contingent-fee arrangement, I could not motivate any other lawyer to prosecute those cases. The Church of Scientology has filed an affidavit recently in a case in Los Angeles, in which they state they have paid their attorneys some four million dollars to date to defend the cases that we have brought. In connection with the Mary Sue Hubbard case, upon information and belief, I understand that some three to six million dollars was paid to those counsel in those cases. So far, Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Greene, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Flynn have received virtually nothing, except what we received from this city. And we have withstood three years of excessive abuse, harassment, lawsuits -- probably now numbering in the range of nine, of which probably five or six have been dismissed -- unending Bar complaints. My wife just received a telephone call late the other evening, in which the individual said, "Is Michael there," to which she said, "No," and then she said -- and then the caller said, "Thank you, dear," and hung up.
Well, those -- that is just a microcosmic view of the type of things that we've withstood for three years. And whatever motivating factors are within each -- all four of us and the other lawyers that are involved, they may be complex, but I can state for myself that the primary motivating factor is what this proceeding and all of those lawsuits will be about, and that is, what the truth is.
The nature of this proceeding, as the nature of any proceeding involved with the tripartite system that the United States enjoys: the executive, the congressional, and the judiciary, is to determine what the facts are and then to make decisions based on the facts available. And all three branches of government do that, and the State of Florida does that on a daily basis.
This proceeding is to determine whether there is facts for this Commission to proceed on actions that are vital to the City of Clearwater. They are not vital to Las Vegas or vital to Los Angeles, but vital to the City of Clearwater with regard to an international organization that has deposited itself under guise in your city, and is conducting operations of the type that many witnesses have described, including Mr. Mayer.
The international facets of the organization are of vital interest to the city, because there are people internationally coming to your city, paying millions of dollars based on policies, representations, publications, basically, all of which have been issued by Mr. Hubbard and distributed by his organization across the United States, which as -- for instance, in the situation of Mr. Hartwell, lured him into the organization.
And when he was shown pictures of Clearwater andwent out and looked geographically to determine where Clearwater was -- and he ended up on a desert and then almost was separated from his wife and subjected to Fair Game Doctrine and has lived through a horror for the last two or three years -- that is of some interest to the city, because, your city was held out by this organization, upon which Mr. Hartwell relied. It so happens, he ended up in a desert, and that's just one story out of thousands, perhaps. But it has some peripheral connection to the issues.
Mr. Bustin has basically covered the nature of these proceedings. I also did not have the opportunity to cross examine if the Church of Scientology produced its witnesses. I have tried a number of complex cases, and I have utilized the tool of cross examination in the past, including cases involving the Church of Scientology. And I forsook that opportunity so that not one but seven people, seven people, from this city, who are the elected representatives of the people of this city, at least in five cases, would have the opportunity to ask those questions.
If an ombudsman was selected to ask those questions, I'm sure that Mrs. Garvey, Mr. Hatchett, Mayor LeCher, Mr. Calderbank, and Mr. Berfield would have had many questions that they would have liked to have asked but might not have had the opportunity to, given the time constraints. And it would have been since this is an investigative proceeding -- a severe in my judgment, at least -- diminution of the opportunity of your -- of the people of the city to find out the truth of what the organization is, because its elected representatives would have been, for the most part, denied the opportunity to ask the questions that the people of the City of Clearwater elected them to ask.
Similarly, if I had conducted a cross examination in a non-judicial proceeding -- or in an investigative proceeding, a legislative proceeding, which is nonjudicial -- you people, also, would have been denied the opportunity to ask a lot of questions that you may have asked. Now, Michael Flynn may have asked questions that Michael Flynn was interested in that he thought would have brought out the truth, but this is investigative, and the people of Clearwater, I'm sure, would have wanted their elected representatives to ask the questions that they elected them to ask, for which purpose they elected them.
Now, the truth of a particular issue can come out in many ways. It can come out in the press; it can come out in a judicial proceeding; and it can come out in a legislative proceeding upon which ordinances can be enacted.
The Church of Scientology was given an equal forum here and, yet, the Church of Scientology, at least, I submit my personal judgment upon, from reading the newspapers, has for many years had the opportunity to conduct its own public relations campaign. And I would, submit that if there has been adverse media attention to this organization in this city and elsewhere, it is because of the conduct of that organization that has led reporters to report what they had. But this was an opportunity, as I said in my opening statement, for them to come forward and present evidence or facts which would rebut what has been published in the press, if the press is inaccurate, and give them the opportunity to present to you people and to the City of Clearwater, since it's on Vision Cable, what the nature of their organization is.
Well, I submit, they chose not to participate because, after the evidence that you heard, there is no way that the Church of Scientology could put a witness on a witness stand and face seven people and keep his basic integrity and look in the eyes of seven people, as my witnesses were required to do, and answer the questions that you people would have asked. If you put one exhibit on the transparency/overhead projector, just one of many, many exhibits on criminal activities -- Mr. Johnson said there was no evidence of criminal activities.
Well, we simply did not have the time to go through the hundreds of documents, which were submitted to you people, which are just unending criminal operations in the City of Clearwater. There was nothing on the video tape, perhaps, some reading or things concerning breaking and entering, larceny, smearing, framing, perjury, like TRL, which you may recall is how to teach a witness to lie, and things of that nature. I'm not sure that he even saw the video tape. But there are many, many exhibits, that are before the Commission.
But in any event, if any one of those witnesses appeared before you people and just one exhibit you can almost take any exhibit that's been introduced; take any exhibit concerning the confidentiality of auditing and you put that on the overhead projector, and you simply said to that witness -- and I submit, this goes on every piece of evidence that's been introduced -- you simply said to the witness:
"Mr. Witness, assuming that is true -- we're not telling you that it is true, we're just telling you that we've heard some evidence, we've heard from some people where auditing information has been specifically used against people and has been used in, at least, a manipulative way, perhaps, extortious, perhaps, blackmail, but, at least, manipulative and slight -- a little bit coercive -- would you have paid money, Mr. Witness, or would you have provided services, Mr. Witness, to the Church of Scientology, if you had known for the past fifteen years, if you want to make that assumption, that the organization has been doing those things?"
Well, the witness, obviously, would have had to have said, "No, I wouldn't have done it," otherwise he would be participating in a conspiracy. He would have to have said, "No." As soon as one witness said, "No," to one question of that type, you would have your fraud case proved by their witnesses.
They could not produce witnesses. Instead they chose to conduct what they've always conducted: a PR campaign to further deceive. They don't fight their battles in the courtroom; they don't fight their battles in an investigative proceeding. They fight their battles in the courtroom to delay the cases, I personally submit to you, in my judgment.
We would go into court with any Scientology case tomorrow morning if we had the opportunity. But we won't get into some of the judicial problems.
In any event, in this morning's newspaper and I understand in yesterday's newspaper and in other news publications, the Church of Scientology chose to publish a full-page ad, at least in the Clearwater Sun, on what the Church of Scientology says is what its program and the nature of its organization is.
And it says: "The Church of Scientology wishes to thank L. Ron Hubbard on the thirty-second anniversary of his bestseller," etcetera, etcetera.
Well, their current open house, which we'll get into, and their publication of something like this is their response, not only to you people but to its membership and worldwide, PR campaign. It's not subjecting witnesses to seven people to cross examine. It's more of deception.
And, specifically, I refer to, in this particular advertisement, the following: "Walter Winchell first hailed Dianetics prior to its publication." Well, since it's prior to its publication, it would be sometime in the 1950's; I would assume that it was sometime prior to 1950, a day or so before the publication. And I don't know how much Walter Winchell knew about Dianetics at the time, but, perhaps, he, also, was deceived. But, anyway, they published the following quote: "There is something new coming up in April called Dianetics, a new science which works with the invariability of physical science in the field of the human mind." Well, one of the last exhibits, perhaps, the last I put before the Commission was the case of Article or Device, in which the Article or Device case said, in essence: In any publication in which Dianetics, auditing, Scientology, at cetera, at cetera is referred to, in eleven-point leaded type, you have to put in that all those things are not capable of curing any disease, preventing any disease, at cetera, et cetera. And I won't dig up the exhibit from that time, but that's basically what it says. And eleven-point leaded type is large type.
MR. CALDERBANK: Is that disclaimer on there?
MR. FLYNN: There is no disclaimer in this publication.
Mr. Johnson mentioned the Kristofferson case in Oregon and he said that was one of my cases. I have nothing to do with the Kristofferson case. That case started before I ever heard of the Church of Scientology.
I have absolutely nothing to do -- and if I was sworn in by Mrs. Williams, I would so state under oath that I have nothing to do with it.
The Kristofferson case has been reversed and, remanded for a new trial, based on the Article or Device case, which Mr. Johnson did not tell you. He also didn't tell you that the Article or Device case was first tried before a jury and the Scientologists lost, and though I give their lawyers and their ability to hire lawyers I give that whole program incredible credit, because they get very, very talented lawyers that they pay large sums of money to who do a tremendous job. They succeeded in getting that first Article or Device case reversed and remanded for a new trial. And there was a second trial, and the Scientologists lost again. And it went back up to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for the second time, and they lost again. And the warning that was one of the last exhibits that I -- the judgment, including the warning, was one of the last exhibits that I filed before you in these proceedings -- was the end result of that case. So, that case, through the talents of their counsel, was also reversed and remanded and retried.
And Nathan Dodell, the individual for the government who participated in those proceedings, could give you what -- the five years of horror he lived through to litigate those two cases, one case but two trials. And, perhaps, someone on this Commission should contact Nathan Dodell in Washington, D.C. and ask him what he went through to litigate Article or Device. The Article or Device case is of obvious significance to this Commission and to the State of Florida. And as you have seen in something published this morning, there was no such disclaimer. I suggest to you the deception continued right up to the publication of this in the Clearwater Sun edition this morning and right up to the failure of the Church of Scientology to present any person before you under oath to answer your questions. That is also a form of deception in conjunction with this type of a publication.
One other point that was brought up was the fact that somehow Mr. Johnson had information concerning Mr. Ray and Ms. Van Schaick's brother-in-law, and he made reference in his remarks to the psychiatric background of those people and he suggested to you that Ms. Van Schaick"s brother-in-law, apparently, he says, had committed suicide. I would suggest to you that that statement, although Mr. Johnson was not under oath, has at least inferentially, proved our case. Where Did Mr. Johnson get that information?
Where did he get that information?
Where did he get the information about Miss Meister's background?
He -- apparently, he's just been hired. He filed a lawsuit one week before these proceedings began, although the lawsuit could have been filed when the report was presented. And he told the court that he didn't have -- he told the press that he didn't the opportunity, to present a defense because he had just come into the case one week beforehand.
Well, if that's true, I admire Mr. Johnson's investigative talent, because I've been investigating the Church of Scientology for three years at a great deal of cost and I don't have the ability to come up with that kind of information that quickly, when a witness is on the witness stand just a few days before. And he has covered the information quickly enough to present it before you at nine o'clock on Monday morning. And, also, included in there was Miss Meister's background and Mr. Ray's background and, I believe, there was reference to one other.
But in any event, I would seriously scrutinize that type of statement as to where that information came from.
Let's assume that there was a psychiatric background. Well, if there was a psychiatric background and any of those individuals, including Susan Meister, was subjected to any of this processing in which a disclaimer was not given, your case would be further proved, not disproved. If, in fact, that person was ill and they were subjected to R 2-45 or any other such things and that had any degree of inducement or motivation in the suicide of that individual, that would be a matter for your serious scrutiny, because, then, you would also be getting into the unlicenced practice of medicine if the person was ill.
There are many such questions that have to be answered in detail about the nature of this organization. And when we present our final analysis, all of the facts that are specific, non-hearsay facts on this record -- and I submit to you, those facts, as we will list them, will be overwhelming in my personal and professional judgment. You may have heard a lot of hearsay. And you heard four days, and you may have thought that there was some in some instances a lack of specificity, in some instances testimony was too vague.
I submit -- and I think, perhaps, even some reporters alluded to that fact -- I submit that to make that judgment you have to know the issues, both the legal issues and the factual issues in some detail, and study them for, perhaps, a couple of years to determine whether or not the specificity is there. Someone like Mr. Walters getting on the witness stand and starting his testimony, you could hear him and your minds could select facts as the reporter's mind could do as he listened to him. But you may miss very pertinent facts, which four days later, after you -- the city and you people got a little education -- because it was your first opportunity, because you people had the courage to do this -- it was your first opportunity to get educated. When you go back and look at some of his testimony in the light of what you learned four days later, you may see a lot more specificity than you thought.
In -- just one little for instance comes to mind. Miss Taverna testified that she observed -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong, and the video tape will correct me if I'm wrong, and the written record will correct me if I'm wrong -- she observed a nine year old child sick, who couldn't lift his head. And she observed the Medical Officer pull out a book =- it was a medical textbook -- to see what's wrong with this child. And then there was some discussion about whether his ethics were in or out, if I recall correctly. And the Medical officer treated the child from a non-licensed -- this Medical Officer, not a medical doctor, prescribed treatment for a child who couldn't even lift his head.
To me, that witness observing that fact is a pretty specific piece of evidence, small piece but specific. I believe she also testified that she saw children carrying files throughout the day around the organization in the age of ten to thirteen. And the record could correct me if I'm wrong. It's a small, little piece.
But the rapidity all of the -- the speed with which all of these witnesses testified in the four days in which they tried to get out pieces of information, I think, will show that there are many such hundreds of little pieces, such as these children throughout the day carrying around files, working for the organization when they should have been studying.
The next day in the newspaper there was a statement, I believe, that said something to the effect there was no evidence. Well, that's just one little piece of evidence. And I'm not saying that the reporter even necessarily was -- "On those subjects there was no evidence," I believe, was the statement. I'm not suggesting that that reporter was unfair. I'm simply suggesting that he heard what he heard, at the level of education that he was on about this subject, which, maybe, if he heard it after studying it for two years, he would have been listening a little more attentively. And the mind tends to select -- particularly, certain parts of our society, namely, the media -- and I'm not attacking the media, I'm just saying it's the nature of things.
In the nature of things, the more educated you are about a subject, the more you know about it, the more you will hear the details and the more you will key in on the details and the significance of them. The less you know about the subject, the more you'll tend to seek out high-profile items and report those.
And I suggest to you that some of the most significant testimony that's been heard in the last few days was something that has never even been printed or mentioned.
Some of the most significant testimony -- Mr. Mayer was obviously high in the organization and he knew a lot about the organization. He was a particularly appealing witness for that reason because he knew it from the top, and he gave you a lot of facts which he knew. But some of the most significant evidence came out of kids, like Kelley and Ray, and very, very small items, which, when all put together, should give you a picture of what this organization is, what it has done, what its policies are, and how you can predict how the policies will be implemented in this city in the future that you have to deal with.
Some of the most significant evidence came from individuals in the beginning of the hearings which was put in a better light or a proper perspective as the hearings progressed. But the facts, as we will go through in a very limited degree today -- and I stress extremely limited degree, because we don't have the tapes; we don't have the audio tapes or the video tapes and we have a transcript. And just from our own notes, we put together, both what we expected them to say and what they did say.
Witnesses in a judicial proceeding can be led by a lawyer on direct examination. If this was a trial, I could have gotten up and led any one of those witnesses through the examination; it's called the direct examination. I could have asked each witness as to very specific areas -- and as Mr. Bustin and Mr. Berfield being attorneys particularly know -- I could have led them through questions on very specific areas, and I would have keyed in on the issues that I wanted to key in on. And I submit that that would have been an enormous advantage for me in the presentation of this case. I did what most lawyers will never tell you -- or will tell you not to allow your witness to do, to just get up there and tell it like it is and subject himself to seven people, and whatever comes out comes out.
Now, in a direct examination, I could have shaped the testimony a lot more. I specifically chose to just allow the witness to get up there, and if the witness lied, that's the witness' problem. The witnesses were told not to lie. If the witness made a mistake, then, that's the witness' problem. If the witnesses had discrepancies or inconsistencies and you people brought out those discrepancies or inconsistencies, then, they're on the face of the record. But as I suggested to each one of you before these hearings began, all witnesses, every witness, will have mistakes and discrepancies of some nature in his testimony. It's the nature of things; the mind is simply not perfect. You will always have those items.
Your job is to -- as any -- you're not really triers of fact here; you're basically here to determine whether there is enough facts to determine whether you should do something about legislation which may be needed in this city.
You're not specifically finding facts, although, in this case, we will suggest that you do. But the law does not require you to do that. But in this particular case, to be more protective of Scientologists' interests, we will do that, but it's not required. When you sift out that evidence, based on your scrutinization of the individual who appeared before you, as human beings using your common sense, you draw many inferences, receive many facts, determine whether you think the person may be shading that, lying about that, telling the truth there, more open here, less open here, you see all those little nuances. And, in fact, there are seven of you who are seeing all those little nuances. It's even more protective of your city than as if one person, a judge, saw all those little nuances. So, in sum, on those -- on the basic issue of the nature of the proceedings, I would submit that the Scientologists had a fair shot. They chose, for the reasons I suggested, not to participate. And you people scrutinized the witnesses that I produced. You'll have the record. You'll find the inconsistencies and discrepancies, and you'll come to your own conclusion. I would point out one further fact on one of Mr. Johnson's statements. In most jurisdictions, as Mr. Bustin and Mr. Berfield know, there is an exclusionary rule of evidence. And I can't speak for Florida because I'm not precisely familiar on this specific item of Florida evidentiary law, but in most jurisdictions there is a psychiatric exclusion of medical -- of psychiatric records in a judicial proceeding.
If LaVenda Van Schaick's brother in-law or Susan Meister had a psychiatric condition, in a judicial proceeding in most jurisdictions, that would never have come into evidence. And, yet, he stood before you and raised that issue.
And I bring that up because that is a very important point on a cross section of everything that you've -- on a cross section of issues on everything that you've heard. And that's the fact, in all the issues, relating to the confidentiality of auditing.
With regard to this signed confession of Mr. Ray for criminal activities and drug usage, well, I wonder where they got the signed confession? One of the issues that has been presented is the fact that before people leave they have to sign their life away: theysign releases, non-disclosures, waivers, all types of document like that. They sign documents which they don't know the contents of when they come into the organization, and they sign documents such as Tonja Burden signed on December 17th, 1977, which are in evidence, after she was taken to Las Vegas -- from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, locked in a room, put on the E-Meter, and signed documents to this day she's not even sure what they are and how many there are, which we are trying to procure. Some of those types of documents have been put into evidence, and I won't go over them all now because I -- we simply don't have the time, but in my final analysis I will. But I personally know from my three years of investigation -- and I suggest to you that that evidence that I presented will show you -- that anyone who leaves the organization signs so many documents, releasing and waiving everything, saying that he's the one responsible -- he's the one who committed crimes. It's a regular, routine, everyday occurrence in that organization when anyone tries to leave. It's of very important interest before this Commission, because, when David Ray tried to leave, I know -- and he probably doesn't even realize it -- I know from the policy of the organization, which we have put into evidence, that he signed things and said he did things, which, as an eighteen-year old child, he probably, to this day, doesn't know the contents of.
And I would submit to you that a logical inference would be that David A. Ray would not have signed such a document that Mr. Johnson has said he's got in any other proceeding. He'd only sign it for this Church. That in itself is a legal issue of great significance to this Commission, because what that individual did, according to Mr. Johnson, is sign a statement that he was involved in drug use and theft. And he signed it for the Church in order to get out of the Church, and the Church brought it in here before you and told you about it.
Perhaps, if the Church, as Mr. Johnson suggests the Pinellas County State's Attorney would be the appropriate individual to hold hearings or to convene grand juries or to do whatever within his jurisdiction it is to do, he should have brought the document to him. And one other point: I believe Mr. Mayer told you he was an IRS consultant. And I believe that Mr. Johnson said that that fact could have been brought out on cross examination.
Now, what we will do is we will -- I'm not sure what time we started, so if you could just let me know how much time we have left. We will get into, just very peripherally, and I have to again =-
MR. LeCHER: You have about an hour and-a-half, sir.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Mayor. I have to very much emphasize that this presentation of some of the evidence that we're going to go over and, perhaps, some of the legal conclusions that can be drawn therefrom is intended to be a very peripheral framework and outline of what the interests of the city are, what the city should inquire into in connection with the evidence, and what ordinances can result from the evidence. It's only intended to give you some idea of the areas that you're -- you could be looking into, and to collate and present to you some of the evidence as it correlates to each other, to different pieces of evidence.
MR. LeCHER: Do we need the overhead --
MR. FLYNN: It basically will depend on the time; we may need it. If I have enough time, I'll start putting things on. I tried to conduct our portion as expeditiously as we could. I mean, there are hundreds of documents that could be put into evidence, any one of which -- for instance, the document on drills and how to commit larceny, burglaries, and breaking and entering -- we could spend -- it's a multi-page document -- we could spend four days on that document.
Now, in the final two hours that we've been allocated, the two hours is both argument and the presentation of further evidence under the rules. And, in fact, if the Scientologists had chosen to present further evidence, then, I would have chosen to present further evidence, also. In fact, I have a witness who I held for that purpose, which I'm not going to take the time to go into because, I would suggest to you, that there -- in our investigative efforts in the last three years, there are another fifty or a hundred such witnesses if they had the courage to come forward, who would come before you and testify, also. But I am going to put in a few more pieces of evidence.
Now, one of the items is a book called What Is Scientology? And we're going to offer this into evidence. And we'll do it when I conclude my presentation for a number of different reasons pertaining to the confidentiality of auditing, the disclaimer that is required from Article or Device, the representations that are made to the members of the Church of Scientology. There is an extensive biography in here of Mr. Hubbard.
Now, it's pertinent because this particular volume is one of their largest collections of information about what the organization is and how it presents itself. And already in evidence, you have some biographies about Mr. Hubbard, which is going to be one of the first areas I'm going to address. You already have some evidence on that subject and this is going to give you a little more. I would submit that the biographical outline of Mr. Hubbard in this document, as it has been changed through the years to conform to specific facts in prior biographies -- which are still published, but aren't published as much or disseminated, perhaps, as broadly as this one -- will show you what the organization has done as they have learned about some of the representations about Mr. Hubbard's background. In the last thirty years, I would suggest to you the Guardian's Office is a particularly skillful intelligence gathering operation. And I would suggest to you that they have learned some facts, which, at, perhaps, another Commission hearing or at another date, could be delved into -- gone into in considerable detail. But I would suggest to you that the organization itself over thirty years has learned something about Mr. Hubbard. And I would suggest that the few biographies that we put into evidence, together with this biography which we saved, will show you how skillfully they have rewritten their latest biography. And, yet, all of the suggestion and all of the inferences that are made and the facts that are set forth -- the way the sentences are put together -- will show you that they are suggesting the same things that they said in biographies years ago that are already in evidence: namely, that he was a graduate of George Washington University, Princeton University, four year combat veteran who healed his war wounds, that he was crippled and blinded from the war and he healed those wounds through the power of Dianetics and auditing, that he's a nuclear physicist, that he has years of research and case studies in his preparation of Dianetics, and that those -- all those facts can be relied on. I would suggest to you that the earlier biographies specifically make those statements.
The later biographies put the sentences together in such a way as to suggest those statements and those inferences. And as the witnesses testified on briefing courses, of which, unfortunately, we don't have the video tapes -- they're shown to people in briefing courses that a number of witnesses testified about, including Mr. Walters -- on briefing courses, they are told those things. But the public doesn't get the briefing courses.
They're told specifically -- and it is common knowledge among Scientologists. As Mr. McKee said, he gave him some poetic license because he's got an engineering background, and he's a fairly mature, sophisticated man. But you take an eighteen-year old kid who's over at the Fort Harrison working seventeen, eighteen hours a day for nine dollars and sixty cents a week, and the inferences that he may draw as opposed to those that Mr. McKee may draw are significantly different. And that's an important fact for this Commission to consider.
In addition to that, just the very pattern of change can suggest to you deception. And in courtrooms across this country, it's done every day in a judicial proceeding. Among the things that this book says right beginning is what is called Standing Order Number 1. Lori Taverna testified on the SO 1 line. Well, at the time, the SO 1 line, I'm sure, went over everyone's head. The SO 1 line, as some of the documents will show, is Standing Order Number 1. Standing Order Number 1 of the Church of Scientology is that everything that is written to Ron is received by Ron, and it is designed to induce and to motivate that individual to believe that L. Ron Hubbard, the scientist, nuclear physicist, the man of great training and skill who has developed this technology is always there, will always help, will always correct, and will see to it that everything he's represented is true.
And one of the very first pages in the book is Standing Order Number 1: "You Can Always Write to Ron." In every org. you go in, including the Fort Harrison, you'll find that right in the lobby, probably. I've never been in the Fort Harrison, but I know it's in every building. "All mail addressed to me shall be received by me. I am always willing to help. By my own creed, a being is only as valuable as he can serve others. Any message addressed to me and sent to the address of the nearest Scientology service listed in this book will be forwarded to me directly." Well, on the very first page, I would submit to you, that that's deception.
I would submit to you that L. Ron Hubbard doesn't know Tonja Burden -- well, did not know that when Tonja Burden was complaining, as her affidavit states, which is an exhibit in this case, of the conditions in the Cadet Org. in Los Angeles in 1973, where the milk was laden with maggots, and she wrote as a thirteen-year old child, as her affidavit says, on SO 1, I submit to you that Ron didn't do anything about it, as her affidavit shows, which is in evidence. In connection with the creed to which Mr. Hubbard referred Mr. Hoffman has just indicated to me -- and this is not on file in the proceedings, but we will file it to you -- in one case they filed an affidavit, saying that SO 1 is not quite accurate; the mail doesn't go to Ron. And we will file that to you and mark it as an exhibit.
Some of the things that Mr. Hubbard refers to in his creed are the following: "That all men have an inalienable right to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others."
Well, there's many things in this creed -- and I'm not going to go through them all because I don't have the time, but they're all of a similar type.
But on just that one, I would submit to you that you heard from Paulette Cooper on her ability to write freely. With regard to Mr. Hubbard's background, we've heard a lot of evidence -- I think, virtually every witness testified that to some degree or another they relied on it or that they would have not -- that they would not have joined if they knew that it had been falsified. Some said -- some gave testimony of more specific reliance than others. Some people, like Mr. McKee said he gave him poetic license.
Well, I wonder you know, that was from Mr. McKee and that was twenty-four years ago when he was a lot younger.
And memory tends to lapse a little bit, but we'll take his testimony on its face, and, you know, maybe he felt the poetic license over the years, maybe he relied on it a little more strongly when he was younger than he did now. And I would suggest to you that that is an area for which you scrutinize every witness. Just because they are witnesses presented by the consultant doesn't mean you can't scrutinize as to whether or not his memory twenty-four years ago would have been a little bit better, whether it supports what the consultant is alleging, or whether what the Scientologists had failed to allege in coming before you would prove. From both sides of the fence, as I think I tried to instruct you at the outset, you can look at this evidence impartially from many different directions, not just as to whether it proves that Scientologists have done a certain thing.
But I believe most witnesses, Taverna, Kelley, Pace, and Ray, Van Schaick, Peterson, Mayer, and Dardano, either testified that they specifically relied on it, that they generally relied on it, or that they would not have done it if they'd known that it was false.
Now, his credentials about being a war hero -- well, let's take being a war hero. Now, the chronology that we put into evidence of Mr. Hubbard's Naval background shows you his duty stations. It shows you where he was every time he changed duty throughout the war. And we didn't have the time to list them one by one in every three month change, but if you take the time and you read through them, you'll see where Mr. Hubbard was. You'll see that he was not Commander of Corps Vettees in the South Pacific, as he says in one statement; you'll see that he was not battling submarines in the north Atlantic, as he says in another statement. Just that simple little document will show you where he was during the time he was in the Navy.
With regard to his wounds, we're going to put into evidence a Veteran's Administration physical examination of Mr. Hubbard that will give you his physical history and what he suffered from while he was in World War II. He didn't have any combat wounds.
He had a duodenal ulcer, primarily, for which he was treated at the Oak Knoll Military Hospital, at least, on the face of the records, for three months at the end of the war, shortly after he was discharged from duty twenty-four hours after the Coke bottle was found on board the USS ALGOL, which a few days later, as I suggested to you, and I would further say -- and at this point we have not put into evidence anything as to where the ALGOL went; I'm not sure it's even important.
But in any event, what is important is he was discharged from duty twenty-four hours later after he found the Coke bottle. And shortly thereafter, he ended up as an in-patient for three months in a hospital.
And then shortly thereafter -- or some -- well, actually, it would be a couple of years thereafter -- which in itself is of significance -- he wrote a letter to the Veteran's Administration saying he was mentally ill.
There are all types of issues as to how long he was mentally ill, how mentally ill he was, and how much that affected his judgment, not only during that period of time but subsequently when he was writing Dianetics and when he did his "thirty years" of case studies.
All of those pieces of evidence have many different inferences that could be argued about. Inferences could be drawn, legal inferences could be drawn and presented to the trier of fact in a judicial proceeding. As an investigative body, it's not even necessary. But it gives you some indication, some specific facts upon which you can draw inferences to derive some knowledge about his background.
And I'm not suggesting that Mr. Hubbard's background is the most important issue in this -- in these -- in this proceeding. It's one of the more important issues because everything stems from him. But I would suggest to you that there are more important issues. But the evidence that we've introduced, together with DeWolfe's testimony -- well, DeWolfe recanted at some point under duress, which he says, under duress. Well, legally, under duress wouldn't even be a recantation, if, in fact, it was under duress, which is a separate issue in itself. But even if you assumed that it wasn't under duress and it was a retraction, then, you would have to look into what he retracted.
Well, we didn't -- we haven't even bothered going into that peripheral issue because it's so peripheral in light of everything else. But I would -- I've read the retraction, and I will say no -- nothing more about it. I'd hoped the Church of Scientology had walked into -- and presented evidence on the retraction. And we left the issue open so they could present the retraction to you, which they chose not to do, so you could read the retraction and see what it is, as Mr. Calderbank very incisively pointed out what the retraction was. And we'll leave that issue there.
But I suggest to the Church right now, if they're listening, bring the retraction over.
MR. CALDERBANK: Would you enter that retraction into evidence?
MR. FLYNN: If you people would like to see it, we'll put in the retraction.
MR. CALDERBANK: Since the --
MR. FLYNN: Since it's been raised as an issue. I would suggest to you, in light of everything else, it's relatively peripheral. But we'll bring the retraction in. That even if he had retracted, there are issues as to -- well, as in any judicial proceeding, you can believe all of his evidence or none of his evidence; you can believe part of it, accept part, discard part. The issue for you with regard to --
Mr. DeWolfe, looking at him, listening to him, where he openly told you that he had made a retraction under oath, is to determine whether what he said you thought was basically true. If he had mistakes in dates, he had mistakes in dates. If he had mistakes in subject matter, he had mistakes in subject matter. If he didn't, he didn't. Weighing it against everything else, it's for you to correlate all those things and just determine whether, basically, the thrust of his testimony that his father was a fake was true or false in conjunction with all of the other evidence. And as you may recall, he said ninety-nine percent of it was false.
And as I previously suggested, there are a number of exhibits in evidence which corroborate -- very specifically corroborate his testimony. In some cases it's of importance; in other cases it's of less importance. And for the record, I would specifically refer to Exhibit 20, Exhibit 21, Exhibit 22, and Exhibit 23.
One other point: The reason that -- as I suggested in my opening -- Mr. Hubbard's background is of significance is because Scientology, as you have seen from the mouths of the witnesses and from some of the publications, is not presented to the people here in Clearwater as, I would suggest to you, a belief in a mystical religious subject. And I'm not going to get into religion here. I was just picking up this particular news coverage this morning, this publication. It's presented with "the invariability of physical science." That's how it's presented.
And Mr. Hubbard's background is designed to be promoted in such a way as a nuclear physicist and, as I suggested to you before, inferentially, a medical doctor, at least inferentially. But definitely a nuclear physicist.
In the -- this book, What Is Scientology?, if I took the time to read it, would show to you the presentation is one of science, that these are specific items that have been researched, evaluated, correlated, and through the scientific method, demonstrated to be scientifically accurate upon which scientific representations and guarantees and promises are made. Therefore, the links in all of the publications about the subject matter is irrevocably tied to Mr. Hubbard's background.
If they had someone from an ashram in India who had never been to school in his life and who felt that if you believed in whatever you want to believe in you'll be cured, I would submit to you that that's none of our business. But if you present an individual falsely to induce people to think that it's not belief but it's science upon which you can rely and upon which guarantees can be made, then, that is something, as the Article or Device case specifically says, you can deal with and you can correct.
Also, Mr. Hoffman has pointed out to me, in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, purchased by someone within your city in the last -- now, probably seventy-two hours or, perhaps, three or four days ago -- the opening page after the outline or the table of contents has the following statement: "Dianetics is an exact science and its application is on the order of but simpler than engineering --
MR. HATCHETT: Pardon me. What page is that on?
MR. FLYNN: That's on page Roman numeral nine; it's the first page after the table of contents, which is the synopsis of the book.
And I would suggest to you that in the book, which is an altogether additional issue, are many case studies, which I don't have the time to go into. But it's filled with case studies: years and years of case studies, which --
MR. LeCHER: Mr. Flynn, is that published by Valiant Press, by his own publishing company, or by a recognized publisher of books?
MR. FLYNN: Most of the publications are by the Church of Scientology of California. This particular publication is by Bridge Publications, Inc., wholly owned by the Church of Scientology in Los Angeles, California.
Regardless of who published it, it's disseminated and sold by the Church of Scientology of California in the City of Clearwater without the warning required by the Article or Device case.
MR. CALDERBANK: We had testimony that Paulette Cooper was sued for her book because they alleged that it was false, misleading, et cetera, et cetera. why can't that Bridge Corporation be sued, also?
MR. FLYNN: Well, Paulette Cooper was sued and her book was taken to England by the Church and she was sued there. And both she and her publisher did not have the financial wherewithal to defend it. So, to this day the books are not on the market.
There were many lawsuits, as she testified, filed against her. She could not financially withstand them and the book did not, -- the publisher did not continue with the publication of the book.
If that book had, in fact, been published and people knew for the last thirty years -- or in this -- well, in her case in the last twelve years or fourteen years what this organization was about -- the book twelve years for the last twelve years what this organization was about, then, I would suggest to you that there would be a lot more truth on the subject of Scientology than was suppressed by all the lawsuits that prevented that publication from being published.
To answer your question directly: It was sued by the Food and Drug Administration and Nathan Dodell. And the Article or Device case did originate from that publication among others. And if you read the Article or Device case, which, I believe, for the record, is, 333 F. Supp. D.C., 171 -- if you read that case -- you will see there's an appendix in the back of the case, and I believe, and the record will correct me if I'm wrong, that the first exhibit, the first exhibit, to pass on the court's opinion is Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and representations contained therein, which resulted in that warning which was put in as an exhibit. I But to stop you, Jim Calderbank, or the City of Clearwater, or LaVenda Van Schaick, or Paulette Cooper, or George Meister, or Jack Clark, or someone, Brown McKee, would have to bring a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, pay the lawyer to bring the lawsuit to challenge the publication. And you heard testimony about how much money the organization earns. You can draw your own inferences as to your ability to fight an organization with that money, that kind of money. And, also, as I suggested to you before, you can contact Nathan Dodell in the Food and Drug Administration and find out from him personally what it took to litigate that one case.
With regard to the confidentiality of auditing information, which, in my professional judgment, is at least, from the point of view of basic human rights one of the fundamental issues before this Commission, it may not be as concrete as whether there are ten or fifteen or twenty five people in a room. But in terms of what I suggest to be the insidiousness of this organization and what I suggest to be the level of deception practiced by this organization, it's one of the most fundamental issues to be considered by the Commission and scrutinized as to what the Commission can do to inform people who come to your city that their auditing information -- over the last whatever number of years the evidence shows -- has been used for the purposes the evidence shows it has been used for, aside from the issues of -- the monetary issues, the money that's extracted, based on the representations of what auditing does.
Aside from those issues, the information that is on deposit about human beings over in that organization and what that organization has done with that information is a very significant issue for this city to consider. I have seen, and the evidence is -- I put in some documents in evidence to show you people the types of things that are in this information. And some of the documents pertain to, as you will see, some political figures, not in this city and not even in this state.
But when an individual is subjected to E-Meter auditing or a security check and he's required to disclose every crime that he knows that he did, that his mother did, his father did, his brothers and sisters did, his uncle did, his best friend did, and at any point in time that information becomes useful for either investigative purposes by the organization or for direct review, they can go investigate the uncle, the brother, the sister. And if the information is given in specific enough detail by the individual who's being audited, all they have do, is go to those documents. So, if they want to find out whether or not Paul Hatchett's cousin, God forbid, did something in 1972 at such and such a location, all they have to do is go to that auditing information and then go check that place at that time for whatever purpose they're looking into.
The possession of that kind of information in an organization that uses it the way it uses it is a very substantial issue before this Commission. There are highly respected members of the clergy, and there are churches throughout the United States, and there are psychiatrists throughout the United States, and there are doctors throughout the United States, who are -- and there are lawyers throughout the United States, who are given highly confidential information that is protected by very specific laws, wherein the lawyer, the doctor, the psychiatrist, the clergyman cannot disseminate that information without the permission of the individual.
Well, this organization in this city, through laws, I submit, in this city, which can be enforced directly in this city to deal with this particular problem, which is -- as you heard from that -- nature of the income that's being derived in this City, at least equal to every other organization around the United States, is of paramount concern to Clearwater as opposed to Las Vegas, Nevada, or Boston, Massachusetts, or even New York City, or even, perhaps, Los Angeles, California.
If, in fact, the evidence is true that the income in Clearwater is equal to every other place in the United States, including Los Angeles, the magnitude of the problem that you are deliberating upon becomes apparent. And the bulk of information possessed by the organization in this city about people around the world, who are paying money in this city, becomes apparent. And the use of that information and the way that it's used, as has been demonstrated in very small degree, I suggest, in the evidence that we presented -- and there's a lot of evidence, but based on the evidence that could have been presented, I suggest to you it's been a very small degree -- something has got to be done. Something has got to be done to protect a nineteen-year old David Ray, when he wants to leave the organization, to not be required to sign a statement saying he did all these things to either lure him back in, into what could at least -- at least be described as indentured servitude. Or if he wanted to get out and he wanted to come to Mayor LeCher or the Consumer Protection Officer in the City of Clearwater, he should be able to come and say, "This is what the organization did to me,"' without fear that that organization or its attorneys are going to walk in before an official body and say, "This is what David Ray is."
The manipulation of people to prevent them from exposing the truth, whatever peccadilloes are in their background -- when the truth of what an organization is much more significant and substantial than some minor peccadillo -- are two competing interests that this city has got to substantially weigh.
Take, for instance, the testimony of Mr. Mayer. He was sent out on eighteen missions, if I remember the testimony correctly. And he read from a telex. He described a situation in Manchester, England where he went to a medical doctor and blackmailed him; that was basically what he said. If you go back over the record, I suggest that that's what it will tell you.
He went to Scotland; he went to Hawaii and blackmailed some woman with threats of bestiality that he had from her auditing folder to get her to do a particular thing. In some cases, I think, there were some instances -- evidence to raise the stats, to get the income up.
Well, I would suggest to you, common sense would indicate that if you are in charge of raising the Stats in Hawaii and someone of Mr. Mayer's ability -- Mr. Mayer's ability or whoever else runs this organization now comes to you with that type of information -- and it's all or else type of thing and you're already working fifteen to seventeen hours a day -- maybe you would be induced to be a little more vigorous to make a little more misrepresentation or to do anything, like, convince him he's loony to get money into that organization.
The suggestibility factors alone on that issue, with an operative like Mr. Mayer or some of these other skilled people coming with that information to a person to get them to be a little more aggressive in their solicitation practices in the collection of income, is a substantial issue before this Commission, aside from all the other issues with regard to the use of the information for purposes of extortion, blackmail, manipulation, or whatever. In order to give you a flesh and blood example of what this type of thing does, we specifically correlated our evidence so that some people would be before you such as Ernie Hartwell. Well, I heard Mr. Johnson say, "What does Las Vegas, Nevada have to do with Clearwater, Florida?" Well, I think it's quite apparent.
If they are making five hundred thousand a week during one period, or a million dollars a week during another period, or 2.3 million dollars at least once here for auditing, based on slave labor -- which is -- we'll get into at a later point in time -- then -- and they're using it in the way that I suggested -- if you can see a flesh and blood example of that, then, you will begin to realize that you're dealing with human beings and not just pieces of paper, as one exhibit -- the one exhibit on this issue we put on the transparency shows.
I mean Ernie Hartwell is someone who was told that he was going to come to Clearwater, Florida, and he ended up in the desert giving them auditing information.
And when he realized how significantly he had been duped and he tried to fight back to the degree that Ernie Hartwell could fight back, you saw what -- you heard from him what happened to him. You heard from Janie Peterson, as an operative. And she was only, I suggest to you, a GOPR, Guardian's Office Public Relations, which is probably the most neuter branch of the Guardian's Office. That's like Mr. Wilhere. I mean, those are the people who go out and show the public what nice guys we are. And the Guardian's Office B 1 Intelligence Gathering Division -- because of the high degree of compartmentalization, one, generally, has no idea what the other's got. They are just told: "Go do this and go do that with it." But you heard Janie Peterson testify how, not only in the case of the Hartwells, she went out and used that information or the organization, not Janie Peterson, the organization went out and used that information, took it to the Las Vegas Review Journal, issued a press release saying that he was a murderer -- which is another whole issue which we don't have the time for -- taped his conversations, edited the conversations, and then tried to use those against him.
Took Tonja Burden's auditing files, which were, according to her affidavit, as you will see, for some two years and three or four months taken here in Clearwater, Florida, while she coded and decoded telexes as a fifteen-year old child for the GO, and put on L. Ron Hubbard's pants, as her affidavit shows, and took off his pants, without his shirt on, and walked around collecting his ashes, as her affidavit shows. And in the interim, when she wasn't doing that, she was coding and decoding telexes for a criminal conspiracy, only they were double- and triple-coded so she didn't even know what they were.
And now their coding process works is another whole issue, and one of our exhibits is "The Correct Use of Codes."
But they took Tonja Burden's auditing information and telexed it from Clearwater, Florida and sent it out to the GO in Las Vegas. And the GO, as Mrs. Peterson testified, used it out there, and, also, LaVenda Van Schaick's. Well, with regard to the Hartwells and Van Schaick, those people appeared before you. They told you what they did.
Then, you saw them, and you saw the GO operative and what the GO operative did with it. That's a real example, totally correlated as to how the information is used.
But I would suggest to you that that example is not just the -- as an investigative body, one of your responsibilities, together with all the other information in evidence before you, would be to infer from that how widespread it is based on the policies, one of which was introduced into evidence by Mary Sue Hubbard to use the information. And I think you may recall the policy says to use all Ethics, personnel, processing files. So, that is just one example, and a very significant point, very significant: Brown McKee testified that up in Connecticut, per policy he sent the files to Flag. And he didn't know what they were doing with them. And if he'd known, he wouldn't have spent twenty-four years in the organization, or paid whatever amount -- I don't believe he testified how much he paid; I happen to know but -- whatever he did pay, assuming he did -- you can draw the inference from what other people paid.
Some nineteen-year old child in Clearwater, whose auditing files -- he began in Los Angeles, like, David Ray, who didn't get that much auditing fortunately. But I would suggest to you that, perhaps, Casey Kelley coming from Oregon, LaVenda Van Schaick coming from Las Vegas to Flag, and all of those auditing files being sent from Las Vegas to Flag when she came here and now in the possession of this organization here to be used in the way they were used against Van Schaick, all of those issues demonstrate what's being done with those -- that auditing information. And then --
MR. HATCHETT: Pardon me, please. Didn't Mr. McKee say he stopped sending those from Connecticut?
MR. FLYNN: I believe he says now that he has stopped sending them. For a long period of time, he testified that he did. But he now doesn't. He is now, as he testified, disassociated from the organization. He wouldn't be sending anything to them now. But for he -- I believe, he specifically testified for many years that he did, but he's stopped now.
And I think he did say that he'd burn them now before he would send them, now that he knows what he knows, which is, of course, the whole fundamental issue of deception, which is the fundamental issue underlying the two ordinances that we have proposed dealing with consumer fraud and charitable solicitation of funds.
And on that point, as our very minimal case study shows -- or our preliminary case study shows, the Supreme Court has constantly said over and over again -- and they just said it in connection with this Minnesota case involving the Unification Church and the case in New Mexico and the cases that are set forth in our preliminary report, particularly, the Shoenberg case -- the Supreme Court said over and over again: When you're dealing with charitable solicitation of funds in purported religious organizations on their face, you can't -- if the record -- if the organization makes one hundred misrepresentations -- or makes one hundred representations, of which ten are false and ninety are accurate, you can't completely shut down all of their solicitation; it's too broad. You can't simply vest in a public official the right to not grant the permit to solicit. Cantwell v. Connecticut and every case since has repeatedly stated you deal with the fraud; you don't ban the entire solicitation practice or their right to solicit until after an adjudication, and you deal with the fraud. If the fraud permeates the entire solicitation practice -- after an adjudication -- well, that's what you'd be dealing with.
So, we have drafted our ordinances to comply with the Supreme Court cases that deal with the fraud, not to simply vest in a public official the right to deny a permit, which is what every other Supreme Court case, when they have struck down ordinances of that type, have done. In the League of Mercy case in Jacksonville, when they went to enact an ordinance -- I submit to you, it's been upheld by the Florida courts. And, yet, in our professional judgment, that particular ordinance is also unconstitutional.
But an ordinance, as Cantwell v. Connecticut says, Shoenberg -- every case virtually says: Deal with the fraud. Don't ban completely the practice by simply allowing a public official to say, "No, you can't do anything." Deal with what is fraudulent.
With regard to some of the issues, the legal issues, that deal with the confidentiality of auditing information, in terms of criminal activity, it permeates extortion, blackmail. In terms of some civil responsibilities, it permeates issues concerning invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and all of those issues. Most of those things can be dealt with in a consumer protection statute.
If there's a consumer protection ordinance that specifically says you can't do it, you can't tell someone that it's going to be held in confidence and then not hold it in confidence, and then, if the person does it and you have a lawsuit against him and an adjudication punishable by a fifty-, a hundred-, and hundred and fifty-thousand dollar fine, whatever is warranted, based on the degree of harm or the degree of wrong, then, every time it's done that penalty is imposed. That's a very simple thing to regulate.
Then, arises the issue of some type of injunction: if they do it in any pattern per policy, then, you can prevent it possibly all together if there's strong enough evidence perhaps, placard right behind the registration desk, Just like a warning on a cigarette package, just like a warning in the Article or Device case, that the organization has a practice of doing it, and every time they do it a fine is levied, where everyone who walks in the door sees in large, capital letters, "This organization from such and such to such and such has done the following with your auditing information," or, perhaps, in a more legalistic manner.
And as our audit suggests, all of this would not be simply vested in a public official to go do it, which would probably be unconstitutional, although, in some instances it may not be, depending on various standards that could be used, but it could easily follow an adjudication. And if the issue is compelling enough to the community, as, I suggest, this issue is compelling enough, perhaps, it could be treated expeditiously in the legal process so that some corrective measures and remedial processes can be invoked.
I would suggest to you that if that type of deception, along with the other types of deception that we've talked about, is one of the ways they make money, it may have some impact.
With regard to the evidence on this issue, Iíve already gone over a little bit of it: there's a lot of it in the exhibits, there's been a number of witnesses, all of whom have testified that if they had known they wouldn't have given the information or that they wouldn't have paid the money. There is substantial evidence -- and we intended it to be so on that issue for that reason.
But even Mr. DeWolfe testified, if you wanted to believe him, that as far back as 1954, his father was bugging the auditing room. In terms of pattern, that pattern, I would suggest to you, has been taking place from 1954 right up to, at least, Janie Peterson's testimony. And maybe, maybe, right up to today, if David Ray's information came from where I at least, I would suggest it came from.
MR. CALDERBANK: Can we have Mr. Ray back to give sworn testimony as to the information he put in the auditing files, since he is not aware? Or can we take a deposition --
MR. FLYNN: I think that's a much --
MR. CALDERBANK: -- on the west coast to find out if Mr. Ray in fact, indeed, gave this information? That would show the pattern, if one existed, up to the present day, today, May 1982.
I'd like to request the Commission to take the steps to have Mr. Ray's deposition concerning this issue.
MR. FLYNN: I would suggest to you that that level of persistency is what will cure the problem.
MR. CALDERBANK: Mr. Flynn, you mentioned about the auditing and the -- if the evidence and transcript and record shows, indeed, there's a pattern or a need for some kind of consumer protection, how do we -- after hearing the testimony, how can we ascertain whether or not the auditing or confidentiality is being broken on a regular, day- to-day basis?
MR. FLYNN: I would suggest to you that the more openness that is injected into this entire operation -- the more people are made aware that there is someone to go to, the more they're made aware that things are not as clandestine and secret as they're led to believe, the more that the truth can penetrate on whatever way it can penetrate -- maybe it would start with a Paulette Cooper, then, maybe it would go to a LaVenda Van Schaick or a Nan McLean, and then to Janie Peterson, who, in my opinion, was one of the most courageous witnesses for reasons known to me to appear before you.
MR. LeCHER: That's Jani Peterson. Commissioners -- you you have just a limited amount of time to speak, sir. And I would rather -- I would prefer that we allow you the time, and if we still have questions of you, we can ask it of you after your concluding remarks when the time is ours.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Mayor. I would suggest to you that more of Scott Mayer's, as he suggested to you -- and on that point, Scott Mayer, when he testified, dragged out some -- Scott Mayer is a very thinking person, I would suggest. And he dragged out some outlines and things that he thought you should do. And Mr. Berfield asked him whether he had discussed it with us in advance. Well, I tell you -- and I would go under oath -- that I had no discussion with Mr. Mayer in advance about his particular outline, but I was happy to see that he had thought through some of those things and presented them to you.
But there may be, if more truth is injected into this situation, which, for at least seven years in this city, has basically been a matter of media attention -- if more truth was injected by whatever manner in whatever way into this situation, there'd be more Scott Mayers and more Janie Petersons and Tonja Burdens and LaVenda Van Schaicks who have the courage to come forward. So, in response to Mr. Calderbank: You may get kids more willing to walk across the street in a little less state of fear. Or maybe, if there was a little less state of fear, they wouldn't even be there.
And if there was a notice behind a regging desk or the cramming room that those legal options existed -- a notice posted by this city -- maybe they'd begin at least to look at it and to think about it. And the regger or the crammer may say, "That's just a legal problem. Forget about it; it's got nothing to do with us." Well, he may think a little more, just a little. And that one little thought at some point may induce him to come forward.
Now, we're on our third area; there's, I think, twelve. We'll have to move quickly.
With regard to deception of the overall nature, purposes, organizational structure; what the organization is, what is Scientology to someone who is first presented with it, there are just unending issues. There are issues concerning, primarily, I would suggest, the Fair Game Doctrine. Well they say they cancelled it. You saw a cancellation. This policy letter -- this -- "What we're not going to do anymore is we're not going to put on Ethics Orders that the Fair Game Policy exists." That's what it said: "We're not going to put it on Ethics Orders." In other words, "We're not going to put it in writing." It causes bad public relations.
"This policy does not cancel any treatment of an SP," that's what it says. And I suggest the Church of Scientology come in here right now with their version of the cancellation. And I suggest to you that some of the exhibits we put in, such as Exhibit 4 was a Fair Game Declaration with a policy date in it, and the policy date is 1965. And the second one -- there are two. There's a long Fair Game Policy and a short one; they both integrate with one another. They're Exhibits 1 and 2, as you'll see. The cancellation is in 1968, two years after those two were adopted. The Fair Game Declare that we put into evidence is dated 8 June 1979, referring to the policy in 1965.
I suggest to you that any common sense interpretation would tell you that it hasn't been cancelled. Then, you get into the issue of conduct. Now, those are pieces of paper, their own pieces of paper. Then, you get into the question of conduct and the inferences to be drawn from conduct, and the inferences to be drawn --from Operation Snow White to penetrate every national agency across this country, which is one of the exhibits, and that took place in the 1970's. The cancellation was in 1968. Or Operation Normandy, or Operation Tacoless, against your former mayor, or Operation Speedy Gonzales, or Keeler 1, or Keeler 11. Those took place in the '75, Ď76, Ď77 era. Merrill Veneer, pursuant to one of those operations, penetrated his -- your former mayor's law firm in the seventies.
Or what they did to Tonja Burden, to LaVenda Van Schaick through the use of auditing information -- I mean, the inferences to be drawn from what was done to them as late as 1980, in terms of lying, cheating, or destroying. There are very clear cut legal inferences, as any trier of fact could find, from just the conduct alone. And the conduct is substantial, right up to David -- Mr. Johnson appearing in this room here today with David Ray's information, if you decided to draw that inference.
Most witnesses, I believe, testified that they wouldn't have joined the organization if they knew the criminal operations were taking place. So, whether Fair Game is canceled or not canceled, there's no question that these criminal operations -- eleven people have been convicted are in -- ten of whom are in jail, and the eleventh, I'm sure, will -- it will be quite immediate where she will go to jail.
Every witness, I believe, testified, or almost every witness, that they would not have joined the organization, paid money, provided labor, did whatever they did, move beds for sixteen to eighteen hours a day, took invoices like Casey Kelley did, whatever services provided or monies paid, they wouldn't have done it if they had known that this organization was breaking into places, pursuant to their operations on how to break in, or infiltrating the Clearwater Sun, or conducting all these other hundreds of operations that have been put before you. They wouldn't have done that if they had known the organization had a policy to do such things.
And I believe, specifically, McKee of twenty-four years gave some evidence on, at least inferentially, on that issue, Kelley of three years, and Ray of six months. That covers a long time span. If they knew that those criminal operations were taking place, they wouldn't have joined that organization.
That in itself is an organizational deception. What the GO does, what it has done, what it continues to do, the written policies, it's got to do is all organizational deception.
With regard to just some of the peripheral links to Clearwater, you've got all of the operations in Clearwater which we haven't even discussed. And you've got Project Owl, which came from Clearwater, originated by Mitchell Hermann. You've got Burden's auditing files going out to -- from Clearwater to Las Vegas, the Hartwell enticement to come to Clearwater. All of those are types of deception, which, had they known about the nature of the organization -- it's goals, purposes, at cetera - -they would never have joined.
Some of the financial issues, involving "It's a crime to give anything away, Make money, make more money," the price lists, that Kelley testimony that nothing was given away, all of those would suggest to you that there is not a charitable purpose here. You can't give, for instance, auditing, which is alleged to be for spiritual travail, to a terminally ill person, if you remember the testimony of Lori Taverna. I mean, that would give you some inferential suggestion as to the charitable purposes of this organization or whether it's just to acquire money and what it does with its money.
If Casey Kelley thought that the money was being used to infiltrate the City Commission's office as opposed to all the things that he thought it was being used for, there's a level of deception that has been practiced right there, which this Commission can consider. There's a level of charitable purposes right there, which this Commission can consider. And those types of things go all the way down the evidentiary chain.
One specific example is Mr. Kelley couldn't get a typewriter, but Mr. Mayer could travel to Hawaii and accuse some poor victim of bestiality in order to get her to raise the income. Or Janie Peterson couldn't get paper, but Gary Clingler could be sent to Boston to tell LaVenda Van Schaick that her husband was having an affair, that her lawyer was going to be disbarred.
I would suggest to you that all of that evidence would show you what the priority of the use of funds was in deciding whether the priority related to charitable purposes or other purposes. And the legal significance on a potential charitable solicitation of funds ordinance is broad ranging and will be discussed in whatever follow-up report we present.
Then, you have issues concerning the use of telexes, the evidence of crimes already before the Commission, both documentary and testimonial, involve extortion, blackmail, larceny, burglary, bugging, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, smuggling, false swearing, perjury, violation of IRS laws and Immigration and Customs laws, to state a few.
Civil torts involve fraud, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duties, and potentially the minimum wage laws, to state a few.
The Article or Device warning has already been discussed to some degree. It's a fundamental issue in the case. It has very specific legal significance. I won't go into it in any more length at the present time. I think every witness testified that if they had known there was no scientific basis for this thing they wouldn't have become involved, basically.
And the Article or Device warning, which is in evidence, specifically requires that in eleven-point leaded type to do that, which in some publications they do, in some publications they do something narrower. But in no publication that I have ever read have they ever done it in full compliance with the court order. And in this particular publication, What is Scientology?
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Flynn, I might point out that within the last year or two years a personalized copy of that was given to each one of the City Commissioners, to myself, as well as Mr. Bustin, the City Attorney.
MR. FLYNN: So, they were --
SHOEMAKER: It was before you came along
MR. SHOEMAKER: It was a couple of years ago.
MR. FLYNN: I believe that the warning says on the cover page or the title page. Well, the cover is the cover, and the title page is there. That's the title page.
And you can ask people that are familiar with publications -- I used to be the editor-in-chief of a law review, so I know a little bit about publications. But you can ask, perhaps, the reporters what the title -- what the cover page and the title page is?
And then you turn to this page, and you see the size of the print. And stuck in here -- and I think you can see the size of it -- it -- "The E-Meter is not intended or effective for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of any disease."
Well, that is probably one-third, number one, of what the warning said should be put in, and I won't dig out the warning now, but it's a number of sentences and it goes on in detail. That's a very shortened-down version; it's not in eleven-point leaded type; it's not where it's supposed to be. And I suggest to you that the level of deception perpetrated by this organization in placing it where it placed it, on this particular page where they give the printing dates --
MRS. GARVEY: Not too many of us read those.
MR. FLYNN: -- is something that inferentially you can consider.
The legal documents issue is an issue that we could talk for two hours on.
There is evidence -- we put them on -- on releases, waivers, freeloader's debt, things like that.
Kelley testified that he thought that he would only have to pay the freeloader's debt if he tried to get back in. Well, even that has some legal significance. Ray testified that he was told he had a six thousand dollar freeloader's debt. As the exhibits will show, Tonja Burden, after December 17th, 1977, when she was made to sign these disclosures, releases, and everything else she signed, was sent a freeloader's debt. She was out of the organization; she was not trying to get back in the organization. She was out, and she was told that she pay it.
And I suggest to you that if these hearings -- if this Commission investigated it further and brought in many witnesses on this particular issue -- you'll see affidavits on the issue that we submitted and you'll see documents that have been signed and have been introduced as exhibits along this point. But you will find, I would submit to you, that ninety percent of people getting out of Scientology who were staff members and received services, believe that they owe that debt.
So, that alone is a legal issue that has serious consequences in a consumer protection ordinance. The Kelley marriage license, although, a small item, is of some significance, because it relates to the Disconnect Policy. And the attitude -- and you've seen the Disconnect Policy on the overhead transparency, that you must divorce someone who is PTS to you, someone who is against Scientology.
Well, they have a legal obligation -- if they marry people as ministers, as they hold themselves out to be -- to file with the clerk of this city -- I would suppose, I'm not precisely familiar --
MR. BUSTIN: The county.
MR. FLYNN: -- the county, that the marriage has taken place. Well, in Kelley's situation, it didn't. Well, that was one witness out of fifteen. Now, how many more people do we know who've been married or not married? I don't know. Maybe many more witnesses would have a similar experience. There was some testimony that there were many quickie marriages in the Church.
And the legal significance to the county or the city on that issue alone is important. It also demonstrates to some degree the effectiveness of the Disconnect Policy, which is a whole issue in itself.
There is a whole issue upon which no evidence has been submitted on organizations, like ASI, Applied Scholastics, Narcanon, the elderly society, Gerus, et cetera, et cetera, their purposes and what they do. But intertwined with all that is the question of -- if these women are having children and are married or not married, the legal consequences to the children. There are issues pertaining to whether or not -- who's supporting the children, who's legally responsible to support the child, whether they go on the welfare rolls.
In the City of Boston, because of our own particular investigatory efforts about how the staff lives in the City of Boston, we have determined from many former staff members how they live in terms of food stamps, welfare, unemployment, and things like that. That issue hasn't even been addressed in these proceedings and the potential consequences to children, or to the particular welfare program who are dealing with children.
Things like that permeate all of these legal considerations with regard to the way the Church treats the WOG world and the legal requirements of the WOG world. Then, for instance, to perpetrate the level of deception that, I would submit, the evidence shows on individuals, such as David Ray, and make him sign a release and further perpetrate the deception that the release is binding so he's afraid to go -- of even going to a lawyer. He doesn't even think of going to one because he thinks he's signed a release. I mean, this is a nineteen-year old boy you're talking about. Most of those kids, they wouldn't even know how to go to a lawyer. And they think they've already signed a document where all their rights are lost anyway. And we're not talking about a document that gives them the right to get into heaven or hell; we're talking about a right to bring a lawsuit, pursuant -- essentially, through a consumer protection ordinance over here in the Pinellas County Courthouse to get their money back.
The conditions in the Fort Harrison building have broad-ranging consequences for a lot of different reasons. In some -- if there are four hundred staff members -- and it takes four hundred staff members to work sixteen to eighteen hours a day, at nine dollars and sixty cents an hour or seventeen dollars and twenty cents an hour, whatever, to keep the organization going --
MRS. GARVEY: A week.
MR. FLYNN: A week, pardon me.
-- to keep the organization going -- well, if there was an enforcement of an ordinance that said you could only have 1.1 rooms -- persons per room or two persons per room, and those people had to go elsewhere, or they had to buy more buildings to house them, and they didn't get such cheap labor to house them, because they now had to have more buildings and more everything else, or reduce staff, I think the financial impact, which deals with the issue of deception, becomes apparent.
The testimony on that is significant. I believe every year, right up to 1981 -- right up to the summer of 1981, is covered. I believe Mayer testified that he erected the bunks; Kelley, from '77 to '80, lived in a room with fifty people; Van Schaick was here in '77 with eight to ten people; Taverna and Pace were here in, I believe, '79, June to December '79, with eight to ten people; Ray was here in the summer of 1981. You heard him describe the conditions -- in let alone the staff wards -- in the RPF.
And I submit to you that one inference that could be drawn as to the purpose of the RPF is even cheaper labor. The guys that can't get their -- maybe the staff -- some staff members, like Ray, moved the beds; maybe the guys in the RPF cleaned the toilets so, if they had less people in the RPF because they couldn't house them where they house them, maybe, they'd have to house them elsewhere and pay more money to house them elsewhere so they can get people to clean the toilets.
MRS. GARVEY: Well, they don't even pay for the RPF.
MR. FLYNN: No. I was not relating it so much to wages, which is an altogether -- another issue. If they paid them the wages, they wouldn't have the labor force to do it.
But even if you enforced an ordinance that says you could only have two people per room, where would the labor force go? And if the labor force is reduced all of the support technology that keeps this million dollars a week flowing may be affected.
One -- one point of interest is that, in 1981, I believe, David Ray testified, in the summer, he was over -- he was over at the Fort Harrison. At that time, and this is from my memory -- the Scientologists, at least with regard to the Bank of Clearwater building, were erecting on it -- outside their building at some point during that period -- to try to spruce up their image, their PR image, while David Ray was chest-deep in garbage and living in a room with eight to ten people. I would suggest to you, that may have something to do with deception of this city.
With regard to -- and this is really not specifically relevant because it's the organizational policies, not necessarily Hubbard's. If Hubbard adopted them in the chain of command, that's for your consideration. But if the organization was doing them on an organization wide level, that's all you need, regardless of who wrote them.
But there is the SO 1 line, the Sea Org. -- the Standing Order Number 1, where people like Tonja Burden and Taverna and others could be made aware of the terrible conditions. There is the Hartwell testimony where they were on the ranch with Mr. Hubbard where all the terrible conditions persisted. And that goes right to the top of the organization. The inferences that could be drawn there are of significance.
The medical issues are of obvious significance. It's a whole area which could be investigated in itself. Perhaps, it's appropriate for the AMA or for your local investigative agency to do so.
There has been testimony, for instance, from Van Schaick that she had to drink alcohol for the hepatitis epidemic. There is the Affidavit of Garritano that he was here; he got hepatitis. If you want to go up and take his deposition or pay for him to come to this city, that could be done.
Those epidemics and those problems should not be treated by Medical Officers. The city should be aware that they exist, and they should be given proper treatment.
And as someone testified, there wasn't enough money to go to the doctor. I believe it was David Ray who was told that by the Medical Officer. There wasn't enough money to go to the doctor, but there was enough money to infiltrate and steal documents from agencies all across the country, including, as the extensive exhibit shows, documents in this city.
The education and the care of the children issue is of significance. The testimony by Miss Van Schaick about the death of that child, which is currently under investigation, deserves to be looked into. I will state and this is not to be taken as part of the factual record but only in terms of your consideration for pursuing the investigation on this subject -- we do have other evidence that has nothing to do with LaVenda Van Schaick about that situation. And when LaVenda Van Schaick testified about it, for your information, we didn't even know that she was going to testify about it, and we didn't know that she had that information because our information comes from other sources. And we were quite surprised when we heard it.
The things, like, telling children and thirteen- and fourteen-year old Cadet Org members that the U.S. government nerve gassed Jonestown people is of significant concern, when those same twelve and thirteen-year old children are working day and night -- are working all day and playing video games at night and not receiving an education. Miss Taverna testified that in another city her child didn't receive the proper education.
There's testimony to some degree about what some of these children were doing here. The ideal testimony would have been from a teacher who had been in the City of Clearwater. We have that evidence in Los Angeles, and we are -- we have hard, concrete evidence. We don't have anyone who would come forward that was anywhere close to a teacher or a nanny in Clearwater that we could have presented to you. We do have that situation, and we presented an affidavit on it with regard to the person's knowledge of the conditions in Los Angeles. And you've got Tonja Burden's testimony that she was here -- in her affidavit -- for all those years and she never received any. And you have Rosie Pace's testimony and Lori Taverna's testimony, which relate to some degree to the issue, at least, enough to, perhaps, suggest to you that there should be some investigatory effort made in that area.
We are going to have to -- there are the issues of restraint, physical versus psychological. There's some evidence of -- probably more evidence of a psychological type of restraint. But there is some evidence of actual physical restraint, and I believe the record will bear that out. David Ray got into a fist fight because he wanted to go out for one day. Taverna was asked to go with her Ethics Officer to physically restrain someone. But I believe the bulk of the evidence shows more of a psychological restraint than a physical restraint, but there is some evidence of the latter.
The whole family disintegration issue, et cetera, is an issue of broad-ranging consequences. To me, personally, I would -- and professionally, I would view it as an area of extremely vital concern.
Scientologists would claim that it, perhaps, invades their religious practices, so we won't pursue that -- for the time -- for the present time.
The financial issues are, of course, significant.
The testimony -- I've already referred to some degree as to how much they made. One of the reasons we brought someone like Kelley, for instance, is because he actually received the invoices. That's pretty hard evidence in terms of accounting procedures and the type of evidence that often can come into a judicial proceeding, which this is not, on trying to prove how much money they get. They could publish things in their -- on their bulletin board, whatever, as, I believe, Taverna testified to, that she saw some publication about one million per week.
But Kelley's testimony was pretty hard testimony because he actually received the invoices and he knew exactly what was coming in during the period that he was doing that. And there was corroborative evidence on the 2.3 million dollar week.
Mayer testified about the twenty-five percent seventy-five percent breakdown and how Hubbard tries to keep the expenses down to twenty-five percent. The rice and beans issue, the labor force issue, the nine dollars and sixty cents per hour or seventeen -- per week: or seventeen dollars and twenty cents per week are all issues that have to be considered in terms of the deception, the ordinances, both charitable and consumer protection, and the impact -- as I've previously discussed -- the impact on controlling to some degree, through proper ordinances or enforcement of zoning provisions or whatever, how that labor force lives would have -- could have a significant impact on financial considerations.
The Clearwater connection has a lot of very specific items of evidence. I believe the overall -- and I could run through them all. I believe they'll all be borne out in the record, when it's created, and the legal inferences to be drawn therefrom.
I suggest to you, as 1 suggested at the outset, the primary consideration is the organization, not the individuals -- not Hugh Wilhere or Janie Peterson or even L. Ron Hubbard. The primary consideration is the organization, whether the organization has got policies doing the types of things that some of these witnesses have testified about and what can be done to deal with those policies in your City to prevent them from happening again, and, perhaps, even to correct abuses that have been inflicted upon people in this city in past, but possibly to give them some degree of remedial protection.
MR. LeCHER: Does that conclude your summation, sir?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, it does, Mayor.
MR. LeCHER: You were fifteen minutes early. Ladies and gentlemen, we would -- I'd like to take a break for lunch and then come back, and I'd like to have us, the City Commission, decide what they want to do, if anything, with respect to what has happened here today.
And so, we will take a break and come back -- do you want to come back in an hour, please -- come back at one o'clock. It is now five minutes after twelve.
We are recessed until one.
(Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)
MR. LeCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Staff, consultants, and press.
Welcome back to the Clearwater City Commission Hearings, i.e. -- excuse me -- i.e., the Church of Scientology -- we have heard close to five days of testimony. And to the extent that these hearings had been an attempt to find out to what extent the organization, in this instance, the Church of Scientology, should be permitted to engage in questionable business practices without being restricted by city government. In the past, there's been an assumption or justification the Church was operated in their secular conduct, operated within a code of ethics that required very little supervision by government.
However, for the past five or six years, we have heard louder and louder rumblings that the Church of Scientology has disregarded such ethics, has violated numerous city codes, as well as the basic rights, has been engaged in profit- making endeavors for the personal gain of individuals within the Church.
It was because of these charges that your Commission took it upon themselves to conduct these investigations with regard to secular conduct to determine if further legislation is needed. Failure to abide by basic and just codes of human safety, health, and welfare, failure to cease activities that appear at this point to be fraudulent and deceitful, leave the City of Clearwater with no alternative but to work within the framework of existing ordinances and those that are contemplated as further guarantees for all our citizens' well being, including the Scientologists who are here for certain periods of time.
I had hoped that the Church would appear here today to refute the testimony that was presented this past week. The Commission had hoped that there would be sufficient evidence submitted by both sides as would require much serious thought and discussion on the part of the mayor and the Commission.
Since the Church of Scientology has not seen fit to appear here to address the issues being investigated against itself -- and there have been many serious charges that have been levied against them in the past five days -- they leave your Mayor and Commission no alternative at this present date but to go to Step III.
I want to reiterate that this Commission has been careful in refusing to listen to testimony that speaks of the religious dogma of the Church of Scientology. We were only interested in those practices that may adversely affect both the people who reside and visit Scientology facilities in Clearwater, as well as those accusations, which, if found to be valid, have been used to fraudulently dupe and deceive members of this Commission, who are sworn to defend the laws of this country, the State of Florida, and the Clearwater Municipal Code.
Nowhere, in any of those laws, is there an exemption granted to an individual or a group because of it being religious rather than secular. We will see that our laws are enforced in a manner wherein everyone is treated equally; no one or no one group will be given any special treatment.
So, I hope that when the dust finally settles, we will let our actions speak clearly. We consider each and every citizen of Clearwater to be equal, and we expect every citizen of Clearwater and every organization within it, with respect to secular conduct, to adhere to the same set of rules, ethics, and protection of Clearwater and its citizens.
That is my comment on these hearings.
And we will be gathering further information as to exactly what we should do about this. It will be studied, disseminated, and dispersed to other agencies.
My fellow Commissioners, if you have any final thoughts or questions, I would like to yield to you at this time.
MR. CALDERBANK: Mrs. Garvey --
MR. LeCHER: Mrs. Garvey.
MRS. GARVEY: I really don't think very much needs to be said, except to thank the consultants for doing a very, very good job. And I think they laid the groundwork exceptionally well.
And, of course, also, thanks for the witnesses who appeared. Without them -- without their courage, we would have gotten nowhere.
And, I guess, the only question I have is: What's our next step?
MR. LeCHER: Mr. Hatchett, do you have any parting words?
MR. HATCHETT: I'm grateful to Mr. Flynn and his staff. I feel grateful to this City Commission. I want the general public to know that it took a courageous step to make that decision, and it's not going to haunt me. And I'm going to hang with it so long as it's legal and I know it's right. I have a responsibility to this charter and to the State of Florida to pursue it.
Thank you, again.
And the same as you, Mrs. Garvey, I'm going to hang in there and ask for the next step.
MR. LeCHER: Before we get to Mr. Calderbank, I just want to praise the Commission and the staff. These hearings could have gotten out of hand. Someone could have used it for personal gain or to monopolize it. I think this Commission was very fair in the way they conducted themselves in the investigation and, also, the way they conducted themselves personally and professionally here at this podium.
MR. CALDERBAINK: I was -- just to comment briefly on our consultants: I read many, many times about the brash attorney that was pulling in eighty thousand dollars or thereabouts. And I think the citizens of Clearwater should know what the eighty thousand dollars went for: upwards of five attorneys working three straight months in Boston. That went for not only their expenses, but for the payments of secretaries, reprinting of voluminous materials, documentation, collation of everything that was -- had something to do with Clearwater. And there was a lot of question in the city as to where that money and -- why that sum of money. And I think it was well spent. It was a little over one percent of our total budget, but, I think, that was probably the best percent that I've seen spent in a long, long time.
We stayed away from belief and religion, and we, as the Commission, recognize the freedom of belief in a religion or exercise thereof is absolute, but the conduct is not. And the Civil Liberties Union is out there. And I think the hearings showed that, perhaps, there are more civil liberties that may be being violated than just what was reported in the paper, maybe the civil liberties of some of the people in the Church.
And it's not the City of Clearwater against the Church of Scientology at all. The way I see it is: There are a thousand people, staff members, in that building over there or in buildings in the city that are citizens of Clearwater. And I look upon these hearings as trying to protect them from the superiors or, perhaps, the policies that are making them work twenty hours a day, seven days a week, as testimony showed, for only nine dollars and sixty cents, try to protect them from contagious disease and get them good medical care, get them good, sanitary living conditions. So, I don't see it as city versus Church. I see it as us doing our responsibility to even protect the staff members themselves.
And I'd like to see us move forward with the next phase.
MR. LeCHER: Mr. Berfield, do you have any parting comments?
MR. BERFIELD: Just a couple here: To these people that appeared as witnesses, I would just hope that they would leave not thinking that I was an adversary out to cook their goose or anything like that. I think that we, the people of Clearwater, owe them a debt of gratitude that they would have the tenaciousness in putting themselves and their families on the line the way they did and come forward and testify.
As to Mr. Flynn, I had not met him before this hearing, and I read a great deal about him. This morning, I think, he was unduly criticized for what appeared to be some ethical conduct of his in coaching the witnesses. As an attorney, what Mr. Flynn did was probably the most dangerous thing that any attorney can do and that's just let your witness go free. If you want to get killed in a court case, just give them a narrative and they'll kill you.
I also noticed that Mr. Flynn -- and I was watching very closely to make sure that the people and the people of Clearwater were assured of all the facts out of this each time he would put his hand over the mike, it seemed to relate to a question that might affect either pending litigation or something that pertained to religion or something along that line. And I could not hear exactly I what he said, but he wanted to ensure that justice did prevail here. So, I think, in that sense, Mr. Flynn, we owe you a debt of gratitude, too.
I think the biggest thing we have to keep in mind is that -- and Mr. Calderbank hit on this -- is that we have a heavy responsibility to all the people of Clearwater, whether they live in the Fort Harrison or they're just citizens here -- I shouldn't say, "just citizens" for their health, safety, and welfare. And that was the purpose of these meetings.
And I think if there had been other situations that have happened here in the United States -- that had hearings been conducted on them -- people would have not said, "How could that have happened" in whatever city it was.
And I think that was the biggest responsibility: to make sure that something doesn't happen here in Clearwater.
MR. LeCHER: Thank you.
Before we get to final comments here from Mr. Shoemaker and any thoughts that Mr. Bustin, the City Attorney, would like to leave with us as possible instructions or his point of view from a legal perspective, I'd like to waive the rules -- and the Commissioners can overrule me, if you want to, but -- I'd like to have Mr. Walters -- he asked me for permission to address the Commission at this point.
So, unless there's any objection from my fellows, I would like to have Mr. Walters come up and take the microphone, sir.
MR. WALTERS: I just wanted to say -- I consider myself still under oath -- that I just wanted to know, want to let you know, the citizens know, the great change that's occurred for myself and the witnesses. I'm speaking for Janie and the Hartwells. We talked about this this morning and again just having lunch in a nearby place, where there were citizens coming up to us, two, three, one time surrounded us, telling us -- thanking us for coming here.
We came here scared. We've been dealing with the harassment a long time, and we didn't know if you'd believe us. We -- it was very hard for us to come here. Janie Peterson almost didn't make it to the plane. We got here. We found the accommodations very nice. We were put under protection, which otherwise, we would not have come here. The policemen that we met were exceptional young guys, well trained.
I'd like to thank the Chief of Police for the selection of the People. I can tell you if they were not as good as we saw, we would have left immediately. The hotel treated us pleasantly, courteously. If that's a sign of the rest of the hotels you have here, you've got better hotels than Las Vegas. So, all in all, we came here scared. We end up leaving with a little bit of courage and, let me tell you, with a lot of respect and admiration for Mayor LeCher, Mr. Calderbank, Mr. Berfield, Mr. Bustin, Mr. Shoemaker, Mr. Hatchett, and Mrs. Garvey. You have a lot to do with giving us the courage to speak out.
We -- meeting the people today outside -- I can say last night I went out on the beach for the first time without protection and met your citizens. We are developing a fondness for the friendly people of Clearwater. You have a great city, a city that cares. And it was our privilege to be here.
MR. LeCHER: Thank you very much.
I'll waive the rules on applause at this point, too.
Mr. Shoemaker, do you have any final, parting words for us?
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mayor LeCher and members of the
Commission, the city at this time doesn't have a commitment to Mr. Flynn and his associates of
eighty thousand dollars, we have a commitment to seventy thousand
You had an awful lot of information given to you in a very short period of time. There were a lot of documents I know you haven't had a chance to look at yet that were introduced in evidence.
I don't know whether you wish to proceed at this point in terms of going ahead and asking Mr. Flynn to go ahead and complete that Phase III, but it would be my recommendation that you do so. I think --
MR. LeCHER: Would you --
MR. SHOEMAKER: -- he has done an excellent job.
MR. LeCHER: Mr. Shoemaker, would you just exactly tell the People what Phase III really is?
MR. SHOEMAKER: Phase III is actually researching all of the volumes of testimony, as well as the documents that have been introduced into record, and preparing those in a form where they can be used as facts of evidence and be used for the development and the actual passage of the related ordinances that the Commission will be considering in the future concerning, basically, consumer protection and charitable solicitations ordinance.
MR. LeCHER: Thank you.
I'd like to give the floor now to Mr. Bustin, who has been sitting here, occasionally passing me notes and grabbing my arm when we or I got too far into the religious beliefs. He has kept the City Commission kind of on an even keel here to do our job much more effectively and more correct than we may not -- may have done. So, I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Bustin, who has been the City Attorney for seven or eight years now, at this point for comments.
MR. BUSTIN: Well, first, does Phase III include a complete transcript of all the testimony?
MR. SHOEMAKER: It would -- I've already it does include the expenses, so that would, in fact, be related. It's the seventy thousand -- it's the total of eighty thousand dollars, plus expenses and the expense of the transcript.
MR. BUSTIN: I think that transcript, that documentation, is going to be important to the Commission to be here for your perusal individually, because I don't see how you could --
MRS. GARVEY: Remember.
MR. BUSTIN: -- remember everything.
MR. SHOEMAKER: That's a very good point. We should, also, instruct -- or I will instruct, based upon the Commission's decision, to have this actually typed up as a written transcript. That's a good point.
MR. BUSTIN: My only parting comment is that:I think -- it's my observation for whatever it's worth -- I think the Commission has tried very hard to stay away from anyone's beliefs in this proceeding. And I think they have, in the main, done a very good job of it. I think if everyone looks at the kind of conduct -- and I've been saying this over and over again, that we're only interested in conduct. When you really get down and look at this thing close and look at the type of conduct we've been talking about that's been brought to you in these proceedings, I think you can see why the city would have an interest in from a lawyer's perspective -- health, safety, and welfare arise by reason of that conduct. I think it would almost be dereliction of duty to this city if we ignored it.
There was an interesting little point raised, and I have to go back over it just a moment, because it stuck me when Mr. Johnson said something about the proceedings and Mr. Flynn sitting there with the witnesses and talking to them.
The Procedure was laid out quite well in these proceedings, and a copy of that procedure was provided to him. And the very same procedure that he criticized Mr. Flynn about was made fully available to Mr. Johnson. In fact, he would have had the same opportunity to sit at the table with his witnesses and talk to them. There's no -- if anyone looks at the documents, there is no restraint or constriction whatsoever.
MRS. GARVEY: He would have selected his own witnesses.
MR. BUSTIN: Right, exactly.
There was no -- it just struck me. In fact, that document went out to him on April 13th. And when I heard that, it just struck me kind of funny.
MRS. GARVEY: At this point we'd be derelict in our duty if we did not go on to Phase III?
MR. BUSTIN: Yes.
MR. LeCHER: All right.
Do we need a motion to --
MR. CALDERBANK: So moved.
MR. LeCHER: -- go on to Phase III and --
MR. CALDERBANK: I make a motion to continue on to Phase III and have the city consultants, Mr. Flynn and his associates, prepare the record and the analysis to bring to the City Commission at --
MRS. GARVEY: I --
MR. CALDERBANK: What's the closest possible date?
MR. HATCHETT: Give us a time span.
MR. FLYNN: Well, I will endeavor to produce it as quickly as I can. It's a -- it's a rather large task, simply because of the legal issues applied to the facts -- and as most lawyers know, that's a very significant job -- and then applying that in such a way to create ordinances that will both be effective, remedial, and produce the desired result.
In terms of a time frame at the present time, I'm reluctant to give it. We will do it as expeditiously as we can, as we did with the report and the preparation for these hearings. I believe we produced the report within about two months or so, which was some two hundred pages long and in length, and we produced these hearings within about two months or so. And we worked, I'll tell you, virtually non-stop with a large staff to do that.
And, in fact, we started preparing in advance of that, because we learned that the city most likely was going to go forward -- and we knew they wanted to go forward quickly -- so we took it on our own to just start collating some of the evidence to make sure that we could go forward as quickly as we could.
I'd like to make a couple of final comments, if I could?
MR. LeCHER: Yes, sir. You have the floor.
MR. FLYNN: With regard to -- I didn't address the issue of -- that Mr. Johnson addressed of speaking to my witnesses during the testimony. Of course, in congressional investigations, it's done all the time and there's absolutely nothing uncommon about it.
Secondly, as most of you Commissioners know you probably heard what I said to the witness, which was most of the time just "Tell the truth," or "Explain that," or "Confront that," or something of that type.
In one instance, I directly and quickly covered the microphone when Mr. Mayer was testifying, and it was just as about -- if you go back and check the video tape -- Mr. Mayer was about to give the name of an individual. And as you can imagine, there are many individuals who are quite fearful of having their names brought out in connection with just these investigations. And I thought he was going to refer to a particular individual who had expressed serious concerns to me about his safety, and I thought -- because of my knowing who Mr. Mayer is and who he dealt with in the organization -- he might mention that person's name, who I have had dealings with and who has specifically requested that his name never come out, at this point in time at least.
And at that one point in time, I believe, if you go back and check the video tape, you'll find that Mr. Mayer, I thought, was about to mention the name. As it turns out, it was a different name, and he went forward and said it.
Other than that, I think, as most of the Commissioners know, who have been sitting in front of me, I've just told the witnesses, "Explore the area; Don't explore it for constitutional grounds; Explain it," whatever.
And lastly, I'd like to thank each and every Commissioner for giving us the opportunity to give you what we perceive to be the facts.
I would particularly like to thank my associates, Mr. Hoffman, my brother Kevin, and Tom Greene, who -- the four of us have just worked unendingly for a long period of time, and we've all worked together on an equal basis and have put in an equal amount of time and effort into our investigation of this organization, both on behalf of you people and on behalf of our clients.
And most of the time, in the media, it's "Mr. Flynn this" and "Mr. Flynn that," and most of the time next to an eighty thousand dollar figure. And you don't see the backdrop of what took place to produce those hearings. I'm sure most of you realize now after seeing them that it took a great deal of effort. And that effort was expended on the part of all four of us and other staff personnel back in Boston, but mostly on the part of the four of us. And all they see is my name.
And so, I personally want to thank the three of them, because I know how much they did. And in some instances, I'm sure, that they did more than I did and, yet, they see my name in the newspaper. Fortunately, it's also my name next to the figure, and so I get both the attack and the criticism. But they did a great deal of work, and they deserve a lot of appreciation for it.
And lastly, I'd simply like to say that there can be something done. The facts show it. If the truth is brought to bear on this organization and the organization is exposed for what it is, the city can do something. And remedial ordinances will be effective and it will help people that have been harmed by this group, and the deception can be stopped.
And I firmly believe -- and I wouldn't have worked for three years on this project if I didn't think that something could be done. And I think that more and more people that are seriously interested can find the issues raised by the Church of Scientology, and the areas of deception that we've raised will in itself cause something fruitful and productive to be accomplished by curing those problems and negating those abuses here in the City of Clearwater. And I firmly believe it can be done.
And I hope the Commission and the people of the City of Clearwater feel strongly enough about the issue to pursue it.
MR. LeCHER: In conclusion, I'd like to thank the people.
We have a motion on the floor.
MRS. GARVEY: I second it.
MR. LeCHER: And seconded.
MR. CALDERBANK: A little discussion, too: I'd like to -- as the record comes out, I'd like specific recommendation on some areas that are not our jurisdiction and would be federal jurisdiction --
MR. LeCHER: Yes.
MR. CALDERBANK: -- as to put together either a complaint or a report or a compilation of data and who we send that to.
In one instance, a person told us of being signed up as a minister to avoid the draft; in another instance, we heard of less than minimum wages and telexes for criminal activities.
I'd like to see, as part of the record as part of Phase III, specific analysis of those areas that are federal in nature and how to bring it to the agencies that are responsible for it.
MR. LeCHER: We would assume that that would be included, right, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: It will be.
MR. BERFIELD: Mr. Shoemaker.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Yes.
MR. BERFIELD: One thing along that line: one of the questions that was asked of me, and that would be whether or not -- and assuming the person were willing to pay for it -- copies of the transcript could be obtained?
MR. SHOEMAKER: Oh, absolutely.
MR. BERFIELD: And I think the other thing is we need to do something along the same line that we did with the original report and that's out it in the library, so people can go in and see in full.
MR. SHOEMAKER: That will certainly will be my plan, and we'll also have another copy down at the city clerk's office for anyone that wants to peruse it.
Absolutely, once we get a copy of it, anyone who certainly, they'll have to pay for the cost of it but anyone who'd be interested in receiving it, would be more than welcome to have it or just excerpts of it --
MRS. GARVEY: Yeah, just parts, sections.
MR. SHOEMAKER: -- can have it.
MR. CALDERBANK: And, in addition, I'd like -- I don't know whether this would be the time or the motion to make sure that we do get the sworn statement from Mr. Ray regarding his criminal activities that were purported by Mr. Johnson here at the table today and his psychiatric analysis, and whether or not that information was given under confidentiality to the Church, so that we may know whether or not, indeed, 1982, today, the last day, it's being used in the same type of pattern that the record tends to show.
So, I'd like to see the sworn statement from Mr. Ray be gotten as quickly as possible.
Also, Mr. Flynn said about his associates and on the Commission, each Commissioner has gotten a lot of credit because we did something that, perhaps, has been festering for years. But I think there is something that the citizens ought to know, too, that Mr. Bustin, Shoemaker, and the entire staff have been under just as much fire as us and they don't get the same type of credit.
The people will remember, a year ago, Mr. Bustin was roundly criticized in the paper and attacked many times. And I think that the people ought to know, like the budget and everything else, that staff work is a great -- it's a large deal of the work that goes on here. And without Mr. Shoemaker and Mr. Bustin becoming personally involved and committed to finding out the truth, this hearing would not have come off today.
And I want to thank them.
MR. LeCHER: We've come a long way since the days of late last year when there was a campaign calling for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any dishonest politician by the Church of Scientology.
We -- prior to the hearings beginning, we were criticized by such groups as the ACLU, which, I believe, has defended the American Nazi Party, we've been criticized by the National Council of Churches, and other groups whose names escape me at this point; they're technical names.
And I want to thank the people of Clearwater, who, apparently, have been behind us on this issue. I want to thank everyone out there for watching.
MRS. GARVEY: Just one comment.
MR. LeCHER: Go ahead.
MRS. GARVEY: I wanted to remind the public, the citizens of Clearwater, that this is only the beginning and we've got a long ways to go. And, hopefully, it'll whittle out and have an effect.
MR. LeCHER: Did we --
MR. BERFIELD: No. We --
MR. CALDERBANK: Call for the question.
MR. LeCHER: On the motion, which is --
MR. HATCHETT: Phase III.
MR. LeCHER: -- Phase III, to enter Phase III, all those in favor say "Aye.
(Whereupon, the motion was voted upon by the Commissioners and was carried unanimously.)
MR. LeCHER: The motion carries. This hearing is concluded.
(A book, entitled What is Scientology?, was marked as Exhibit No. 60, as of this date; A copy of a Veteran's Administration physical examination of L. Ron Hubbard was marked as Exhibit No. 61, as of this date.
(Whereupon, the hearing was concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Karen E. Rizman, a certified court reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing hearing transcript of the City of Clearwater Commission Hearings Re: The Church of Scientology, pages 4-141, is a true and accurate transcription of my, dictated tape recordings of the proceedings taken at the Clearwater City Hall, Clearwater Florida, on Monday, May 7, 1982
Karen E. Rizman