From Dandar's closing argument
V. ATTACKING OPPOSING COUNSEL IS AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS PRACTICE OF SCIENTOLOGY.
Scientology has a history of attacking its critics and their attorneys. In evidence are Scientology documents ordering the "manufacture" of evidence, using suits to harass, and evidence of attacking other attorneys, both physically and with allegations of suborning perjury.
A. Other Cases of Church Disqualification Motions.
1. Entire United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Wollersheim case.
2. Entire Los Angeles Superior Court including the two trial judges, Swearinger and Margolis, in the Wollersheim case.
3. Graham Berry in the Fishman case.
4. Graham Berry in the Aznaran case.
5. Graham Berry in the Cipriano case.
6. Graham Berry in the FACTNET case.
7. Dan Leipold in the Wollersheim case.
8. Charles B. O'Reilly in the Wollersheim case.
9. Walt Logan in the Cazares case.
10. Robert Hayden in the McLean case.
11. Michael Flynn in multiple suits.
The ESTATE does not imply from the above list that the list is exhaustive.
Interestingly, Scientology also sought from Attorney Michael Flynn and his counsel the "amount and sources of fees paid." Flynn v. Church of Scientology International, 116 FRD 1 (D. Mass. 1986).
The complaint alleges a written conspiracy by Hubbard and his individual and organizational agents and employees "to destroy" Flynn. This conspiracy was carried out, it is alleged, by various named Scientology organizations and individuals over which Hubbard has absolute authority. The torts alleged to have been committed at Hubbard's direction are: malicious abuse of process;
malicious prosecution; intentional infliction of emotional distress;
trespass; conversion; interference with contractual rights; invasion of privacy; unfair or deceptive practices in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 93A; assault and *1086 battery; and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68.
Flynn v. Hubbard, 782 F.2d 1084 (1st Cir. 1986).
Of particular importance is the case of United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118 (1st Cir. 1988), an extortion prosecution of Scientology private investigators, where the Scientology private investigators were targeting attorney Michael Flynn as an enemy of the church. This decision notes that Scientology's top private investigator, Eugene Ingram, suborned perjury against Flynn. This is the same Eugene Ingram found in Minton's Harassment Time line, in evidence, and the same Ingram who Moxon used to suborn perjury from Cipriano against attorney Graham Berry.
Geoffrey Shervell was put in charge of the Church's investigation.
Shervell, who testified as a government witness in this case, oversaw the investigation in his capacity as Director of Scientology's Investigation Section. The Church ran advertisements in several major newspapers, including the Boston Globe, offering a $100,000 reward "for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the forgery and attempted passing of [the] check." Shervell employed private investigators to look into the check scheme. Some evidence was adduced at trial that these investigators, particularly Eugene Ingram, suborned false statements from various persons in order *120 to implicate Flynn himself in the check forgery. The statements against Flynn were given substantial play in the Church's newspaper, Freedom.
The Church also publicized these allegations in a number of press conferences.
Shervell was removed from the check scam investigation for several months due to his "ineffectiveness" in procuring information, but was reinstated by the Church in August 1984. At this point Reservitz, the actual mastermind of the check scheme, became a cooperating witness and operative of the government. Reservitz testified that he approached Church investigators to see if they would attempt to procure false testimony from him. In effect, he was to be bait for possible illegalities by the Church. Church investigator Ingram did in fact try to get Reservitz to implicate Flynn.
Reservitz, while wearing a body recorder provided by the FBI, negotiated with the Church investigators about how much he was to be paid for his incriminating statements.
At 119-120.
We reject the idea that Kattar's asserted "agreement" with the Church could constitute a "legitimate entitlement" to the reward money. Any contract that was entered into between Kattar and the Church that Kattar would be paid $100,000 for false information, so that that information could be used to defame, ridicule and discredit Michael Flynn, is an illicit and unenforceable pact. Even if Kattar had some sort of claim to the money, such cannot be said to have been a "legitimate entitlement."
We therefore conclude that any threat of pecuniary harm used to obtain the money would have been "wrongful," and thus a violation of the Hobbs Act. If the jury found that Kattar threatened to blow the lid on the Flynn incrimination scam unless paid the $67,000, then conviction was appropriate on a theory of economic extortion, even though there may have been an agreement to exchange the money for Kattar's false statements.
At 124.
There, the court also noted that the government acknowledged Scientology's illegal practices and "Fair Game" policy. 127-128. The criminal actions took place in 1984 with the conviction in 1986, while Miscavige is running all of Scientology and the Office of Special Affairs, Department 20, is in full swing.
ENEMY -SP Oder. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
Ex.. 165, HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Penalties for Lower Conditions
272 2 Q Now, Mr. Oliver, what does the term dead agent 3 mean?Frank Oliver, former OSA agent, July 15, 2002....
12 BY MR. LIROT:
13 Q In the context of that letter, what did you 14 understand it to mean?
15 A I understand it to mean that it would -- that the 16 DA information that would have been found on this subject 17 would have been used to try and reverse a decision in some 18 court case that they had been involved in, where they had 19 given testimony.
280 11 A Yes. I know of a specific instance where 12 information was gathered on a subject, that I was certain 13 wasn't used for litigation purposes, because of its nature.
14 I won't go into specifics, I guess, because that's not what 15 you want to hear.
16 BY MR. LIROT:
17 Q Well, without mentioning any name, can you give 18 the court some specifics as to what the information was?
19 A It tried to paint an individual who was in a 20 position of -- an executive position in an organization, 21 whose views were different than that of Scientology, in an 22 unfair light, as having been involved in some kind of adult 23 entertainment industry, when in fact it wasn't the case. It 24 was just a -- you know, somebody said this, so, "Okay.
25 Yeah. We're going to use that." And it wasn't true about 281 1 the individual.
2 Q Did you ever see any of the information that -- 3 that you had developed or you knew of people in OSA 4 developing against individuals used in handbills and things 5 like that?
6 A Yes. It was information on some subjects that I 7 did some surveillance on when I was out there, and 8 information was gathered from these individuals and was 9 later explained to be something it was not. It was 10 explained to be deprogramming, when in fact it wasn't.
283 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. Yes. To dead agent 5 someone or to put out information on the individual 6 based on intelligence that had been gathered by -- 7 BY MR. LIROT:
8 Q So you had -- we talked about the one document 9 that had, basically, the points for local -- local stats, 10 national stats -- 11 A Mm-hmm. Local attacks, national attacks. It was 12 you attacks, who attacks; you know, different statistics 13 that were based on different things on either individuals 14 that were identified as attackers and individuals that were 15 identified as attacker that you got information on. It 16 breaks it down into 10 different stats. And however much 17 information was actually gotten, you know, was worth 18 something. And then if it was actually used -- if it was 19 used in litigation, there was -- actually -- a litigation or 20 getting the person convicted of some crime, it was worth 21 more points, if you will.
22 And it's laid out in the -- in the description of 23 the statistics.
286 10 BY MR. LIROT:
11 Q Now, we have talked about the policies and the 12 cancellation of the policy referred to as fair game. Were 13 you familiar with other policies in your OSA training that 14 also required -- and I'll use the terms of the policy 15 itself -- lie, trick, sue or destroy? Are there other 16 policy letters that indicate those are part of what your 17 responsibilities were?
18 A There were several, I believe. And we 19 introduced -- we introduced a couple of them. I can't 20 remember the exact ones. But they said in essence the same 21 thing. Or I think in another policy letter, that statement 22 is also made, but I can't -- I can't tell you for certain.
23 You'd have to -- 24 THE COURT: You're talking about ones that 25 have -- you have already -- 287 1 THE WITNESS: Correct.
2 THE COURT: -- looked at here?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.
4 BY MR. LIROT:
5 Q And were all four of those different categories 6 part of your responsibilities in OSA?
7 A Well, it was -- it was known -- having read the 8 policy, and understanding it, it was part of what was known 9 to be within my job description, if you will, and I guess an 10 expected practice.
11 Q Were you ever instructed that -- that, in keeping 12 with the work product doctrine, that you weren't supposed to 13 lie, trick or destroy people; that you were just supposed to 14 do things relative to suing them?
15 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your 16 Honor.
17 THE COURT: Sustained.
18 BY MR. LIROT:
19 Q Were you ever told to focus simply on the sue or 20 the litigation nature of those directives?
21 A No. I was never told that specifically.
22 Q Was it encouraged that you go beyond those -- just 23 simply the litigation aspects of OSA's policy letters that 24 you were supposed to familiarize yourself with?
25 A Gathering information on an individual to use in 288 1 any way possible, as, you know -- as dictated with the hat;
2 you know, it said gather information to be used with PR, 3 legal or -- you know, I didn't know what it was used for.
4 So anything was gathered, anything we could gather on the 5 individual was subject to a report and to be entered into 6 the machine, if you will.
7 Q All right. With your familiarity with the dead 8 agent caper or dead agent doctrine, I guess I'll call it, 9 was that simply focused on litigation or were you encouraged 10 to go beyond that, to try to DA a person?
... 22 BY MR. LIROT:
23 Q Were you encouraged to go beyond litigation, to 24 try to achieve the DAing of a person?
25 A Yes.
289 1 Q In what way?
2 A I was sent out to DA an individual that -- I 3 believe I testified to this. I was sent out to DA an 4 individual that had been speaking out critical of the 5 organization. And what I was asked to do couldn't be 6 indicated -- at least I couldn't see how that would have 7 anything to do with legal. I was to go out and try to 8 discredit this person in a public place, and hand out 9 Scientology literature about this -- you know, this man and 10 this -- the organization that he was talking about. Didn't 11 have anything to do with legal. I mean, I had to go out 12 there and try and discredit this man in a public place and 13 give out literature that would counter anything that he had 14 said at this meeting. That wasn't in any way, to me at 15 least, indicative of anything having to do with a legal 16 case.
Contrary to Ben Shaw's testimony and counsel for COSFSO, "Fair Game" is a continuing practice of the Church of Scientology. Wollersheim and U.S. v.
Hubbard, 474 F.2d 64 (D.C. 1979). Other cases also address "Fair Game":
A. United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118, 126 (1st Cir. 1988), which noted:
The Church, according to the U.S. Attorney, "launched vicious smear campaigns ... against those ... perceived to be enemies of Scientology." The Church's methods for this included the subornation of perjury.... The memo also acknowledged the existence of the Fair Game doctrine as the active animating philosophy of the Church. More significantly, in a footnote, the government alleged that the Church "continues to pursue" (in 1986) the Fair Game Policy, "as the action against Flynn, Sullivan and others referenced in the text attests."
This directly contradicts Shervell's testimony, and in fact strongly suggests that the Fair Game Policy was in effect as to Michael Flynn during this time period.
B. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917 (2nd Dist. 1991),
A. Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, 57 Or.App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (OR App 1982),
B. Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 (CA 2nd 1993),
C. Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. 381 (1984),
D. Allard v. Church of Scientology, 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., May 18, 1976),
G. Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 535 F.Supp.
1125, 1141-1142 (M.D.Mass. 1982), where the court stated:
Finally, taking plaintiff's complaint as a whole, Count XI, which alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress through the Fair Game doctrine, does state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Van Schaick alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Game doctrine, agents of the Church engaged in a course of conduct, including slanderous telephone calls to her neighbors and employer, physical threats, and assault with an automobile, which was designed to dissuade her from pursuing her legal rights.
In Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917 (2nd Dist. CA 1991), Armstrong left the church and took church documents in fear of retribution from Scientology. The trial court's evidentiary finding that the church's "Fair Game " policy was implemented against Armstrong in 1981 and 1982, (well after the policy was canceled per the church), was upheld on appeal. "[T]he court also determined that Armstrong's conduct was justified, in that he believed the Church threatened harm to himself and his wife, and that he could prevent such harm by taking and keeping the documents." 1063-1064. The trial court also found credible the evidence of Hubbard shredding of court ordered documents and Scientology's practice of "persons attempting to leave were locked up." 920-921.
The American Lawyer magazine ran an investigatory article on Scientology litigation tactics.
In addition, the church wrote nine letters of complaint to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers about Flynn alleging unethical conduct -- one complaint based upon drafts of documents church detectives found by rummaging through Flynn's trash.
Outside trial lawyer Earle Cooley, who joined the church's legal team two years after the last complaint was filed, defends the church's method of gathering information: "Trash retrieval has been [upheld] by the Supreme Court of the United States."
Cooley insists that at least one complaint against Flynn was justified. "Flynn had a corporation called FAMCO in which shares were sold to lawyers throughout the country to participate in a nationwide program of civil litigation against the church!" he exclaims. Drafts of a plan for FAMCO (purportedly found in Flynn's trash) were provided to The American Lawyer by Cooley, who says he "assumes" it became operative. Regardless, according to a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, Flynn has never been the subject of a disciplinary action.
Plaintiffs lawyers Charles O'Reilly claims he became a target for retaliation after he won a $ 30 million jury verdict against the church on behalf of former Scientologist Larry Wollersheim in 1986 in California superior court. (The verdict was reduced to $ 2.5 million and finally affirmed on appeal this March; the church petitioned the California Supreme Court for review on May 29.) Wollersheim had alleged that the church's fair game harassment tactics and coercive religious practices, such as auditing, exacerbated an existing mental illness. O'Reilly contends that, in the years following the verdict, he was questioned by the California state bar for substance abuse (the inquiry was eventually dropped), by the IRS (an investigation in ongoing), and by the state franchise tax board (no charges were ever brought). The evidence of church involvement in these matters is circumstantial -- and thin. O'Reilly points to documents filed in federal court by church lawyers during the Wollersheim case seeking records from substance abuse treatment centers relating to him. "I've never been in any of those facilities," he says. O'Reilly presents no other proof of church involvement. American Lawyer, at n.24, attached as Appendix E.
Also, the Plaintiff filed a declaration of Robert Cipriano, who alleges that Scientology, through Kendrick Moxon, suborned Cipriano's perjury against Graham Berry. Mr. Moxon then informed this court that there were several declarations of Cipriano filed subsequently that recanted the declaration filed by the Estate. Moxon then filed those declarations.
What Moxon failed to tell this court is that Moxon took a subsequent deposition of Cipriano to attempt to clarify the several declarations. In that deposition, Mr. Cipriano is adamant that it is Mr. Moxon who suborned his perjury to attack Graham Berry.
In the case of Michael Hurtado v. Graham E. Berry, in the Superior Court of the state of California for the county of Los Angeles, Case # BC 208 227, Robert J. Cipriano discusses in his August 7, 2000 deposition conducted by Kendrick Moxon the following:
1. As he arrived for his deposition, Cipriano met Moxon outside and shook his hand. He informed Moxon that he had had enough and was "here for the truth. This is an atrocity; that I am not for or against Berry. I am not for or against Mr. Moxon and that I have been privy to documents in the last four weeks....I just want an end to this and the truth to come out as I see it..." Page 53-54.
2. He was visited by private investigator, Eugene Ingram, retained by Moxon &
Kobrin or the Office of Special Affairs. Mr. Ingram had penetrated Cipriano's highly secure condominium complex and when Ingram knocked on his door, Ingram flashed a Los Angeles police badge, identifying himself as a police detective from that police department. Page 65.
3. Ingram told Cipriano that his attorney, Graham Berry, had done illegal things in Los Angeles with regard to his practice....and involved in "some seedy sexual occurrences." Page 68.
4. Ingram told Cipriano that he knew Cipriano had an arrest warrant issued against him in New Jersey, he was a "fugitive from the law" and wanted on "numerous charges both in New York, New Jersey, and other places. Page 71.
5. He was also led to believe that if he did not cooperate, Cipriano would take him back to New Jersey for arrest. Page 72.
6. Ingram had told Cipriano that if anyone attacks Scientology there is a term used called "Fair Game"...to "discredit them so that they're attack (sic) upon whatever organization is weak by finding credibility problems with the person." Page 202.
7. During a "number of conversations" Ingram said Berry was subject to Fair Game and that "If Mr. Berry would just go away, quit litigating against his boss, then he would live a free and easy life." Page 202.
8. Later Ingram told him they plastered Berry's neighborhood with "hate flyers" and "we grabbed his bank accounts." Page 202-203.
9. Moxon paid cash to and for Cipriano, including his apartment, security deposit, rental car, paid off final judgments, and paid him to sign a declaration against Berry by disguising it as a donation to the Day of the Child Foundation. Moxon also paid him to sign a recantation affidavit. Pages 154, 155, 157, 159, 160-163, 166, 167-177, 189, 195, 197, 210, 211.
10. The declaration that Cipriano signed as prepared by Moxon and given to Cipriano by Ingram was false. It was not what Cipriano had said. It also had exaggerations in it which Cipriano told to Ingram and Moxon.
Nonetheless, it was used against Berry. Pages 100-103.
11. Ingram and Moxon talked of filing a bar complaint against Berry.
Page 110.
12. Flyers would be circulated to Berry's clients. Page 114.
13. Moxon had also paid another fact witness to testify against Berry, Anthony Apodaca. Pages 113-120.
14. Moxon referred Cipriano to Gary Soter, the same attorney referred to Minton by Moxon. Page 140.
15. "There were conversations which I carefully let Mr. Moxon know that most of this declaration of May '94 was an exaggeration by Ingram." Pages 146-147.
16. Moxon told Cipriano "not to say anything about the exaggerations."
Page 156.
Not only was perjury suborned, but Mr. Moxon leased a car and apartment for Cipriano and paid him to sign false declarations. This multi-volume deposition is filed as further evidence of the criminal nature of the established business practice of Scientology. It is filed under separate pleading due to its late discovery and Plaintiff requests that it be admitted in evidence for the Plaintiff in support of the Plaintiff's claim of extortion herein and the routine of attacking opposing counsel.
Go Back
to Shy David's Scientology Page.