Amicus Curae

This is to say that I fully support Larry Wollersheim in his case against the "Church" of Scientology of California.

My name is Allan Tierney. I am a British Subject and am currently residing in the town of Milngavie, Scotland.

During the years 1970 to 1984 1 was an active follower of Scientology. For two periods of two years in that period I worked on Scientology Organisation staffs. Between times I borrowed money from Banks to finance Scientology Processing and Training and worked and saved to pay these off. During my staff work I held the following positions:

Personality Testing I/C (In Charge) Dissemination Secretary Auditor (Processing both Staff and Public to Grade IV level)

When I worked for Scientology I was aware of the materials relating to Scientologys status as a "church". Although I believed 100% in the Founder and the Technology and was quite happy to believe that we were a "church" of some kind, (although not the orthodox image of a "church"), I did not believe that the reasons for making Scientology a "church" were for any other purpose than legal benefits and good public relations. As far as I am aware this was the view of most if not all staff at the Hubbard Academy of Personal Independence, the name of the Scientology ""church"" where I worked.

There was a ministers course in the list of Scientology courses. There was only one individual who ever did that course at our organisation and he would have had to travel to East Grinstead in Sussex to do it. That was the LRH Communicator. He was the 'Press Officer' if you like, of the organisation. He also wore a dog collar at times. I, as an active practicioner of Scientology never had to do any ministers course and was never asked to wear a dog collar. We heard about auditors in the States having to do this and we were collectively appalled. Orthodox "religion" and its accoutrements were anathema to us. In fact I recall reading a Technical Bulletin or Policy Letter by L Ron Hubbard where he ridiculed "religion" in general and the idea of a Supreme Being in particular. It was very obvious from this material and other jokes and asides that characterised Hubbard's approach to "religion" that he held it in contempt and we felt comfortable with this view on his part. The aforesaid gave me the distinct view that taking on the mantle of a "church" was a regrettable necessity, though I don't think many of us felt completely happy with this subterfuge having come into Scientology with the ambition to live more of our lives in truth. Having said that we were far too devoted to the man and his works to give it much thought.

I think Hubbard's using the mantle of being "church" is fairly typical of his methods (the end justifies the means). His own economy with the truth in relation to his past I feel bears this out. I know we all believed in him as he was when we got into Scientology but I do know that for me and many others some of the stories of his past at times strained our blind faith quite far. (As far as that is possible with a devotee).

When there were a sufficient number of good and honest people in Scientology in positions of power it was rather a pleasant organisation on the whole (I feel) and at that time it could be described as an experimental (if fairly derivative) psychotherapy. Now with so much blatant coercion and censorship it has, I feel lost the right to even this status. I feel it is no "church" in any honest meaning of the word. Please, let it be truly accountable for its actions. Let it confront the truth.

Go Back