date: May 10, 1992 This brought a few things to mind which occurred during my own brief activities in 1989 which aided OSA in Munich: namely, that OSA represents Missions and other Scientology establishments in court, legally represents Missions and carries out PR campaigns for them, conducts surveillance and gathers information on critics and Scientologists in the vicinity of the Missions, and then sends bills for their activity to the Missions. It runs practically the same as the Mafia: the Missions, according to OSA directives, have the duty of reporting to OSA any criticism or press negative to Scientology in their area. Without asking permission from the Missions, OSA then takes over the role of 'Guardian' for the Missions, raises a cloud of activity and pretext against the alleged 'enemy,' then submits a bill for a horrendous sum to the Missions for its own activity, whereby the Missions are then indebted to and dependent upon OSA, and, of course, able to be pressured any time by OSA in the event that the Mission no long remains loyal and 'on lines.' And in case OSA actually does not have any money or, for instance, has to run off 500,000 copies of an issue of 'Freiheitsspiegel' to inform society about Scientology's enemies, pressure on the Missions is simply increased with the same argument that is used by the IAS (International Association of Scientologists). Moreover, IAS works together with OSA and directly coordinates the 'fund-raising operations' with the 'guardian operations' by OSA. The arguments of IAS and OSA are always the same 'or else your Mission will be closed and you can no longer be free.' The parallel to the 'protection money' coercion method of the Mafia is always the same ... Besides that, I was assigned as staff member in the Ethics Department of the Scientology Church Bavaria out of Munich. The name of my post was 'Ethics Officer Administrator' - in plain language, administrative assistant to the ethics officer. It was my mission to put ethics folds of staff as well as publics of the organization in alphabetical order. In doing that, I also had to file individual reports and descriptions about the so-called HCO auditing, that is an auditing which has nothing to do with 'Bridge auditing'; the staff member is checked out on the e-meter as to whether they have done something which could be a danger to the organization. Since I was a part time staff member, I got to eyeball these descriptions as I filed them in the ethics folders. As someone who was not involved, it was no problem for me to read about the most intimate revelations of the staff and customers. Auditing reports were also received there which included one from a female staff member who, while being checked out in the Ethics Department, had to tell the auditor whom in the organization she had and was having sexual relations. In that report the staff member even described each individual act, with the exact location, time, form and precise duration of the experience. And I could read X number of such reports by staff, almost like porno books, even though these were very personal descriptions which really had nothing to do with me and with which I had nothing to do.... I would be happy to state and repeat this at any time under oath or before a court.

Go Back