Yet another weaselly reply from a mid-level bureaucrat, which I've been sitting on for a while, and now I've been sent a copy of the CEO's response to my MP's lobbying. There are a couple of interesting little glitches between the two, which I'll keep to myself for the present. Anyway, here's my draft response (it's Sunday evening here in Oz) if anybody wants to comment, critic the prose, feel free, please.

Ms Michaela Watson n/n xxxxxxxxx Street
Assistant Director RANDWICK 2031
ACCC 20 July 2002
GPO Box 3648
SYDNEY 1044

Ref: S2002/1/273638

Dear Ms Watson,

I have your letter of 11 June. I will not thank you for it, since it represents in my opinion a shocking dereliction of duty by the Commission and it's officers.

I have taken some time to respond for two reasons. The first was that I took some time to review the provisions and application of the Act.

The second, that I was awainting a response from the Hon. Peter King MP who, I knew, was pursuing this matter on my behalf with the Commissioner.

It is quite apparent from your letter that the Commission has conducted no research into the matters I raised, and your Chief Executive Officer's claim, in his letter of 7 June to Peter King, of "careful consideration" is quite disingenuous.

If the matter had been given 'careful consideration' you would have learned that not only does Hubbard, the author of the quack 'remedy' under discussion, make ridiculous claims about it's 'efficacy' in 'treating' the 'effects of drugs', he also claims that it is efficacious in 'treating' cancer.

"....I have seen a full-blown case of skin cancer turn on and run out on niacin dosages. So it appears that a person can turn on skin cancer with this, and if that should happen, the handling, by observable fact, has been to continue the niacin untl the skin cancer has run out completely." Hubbard 'Clear Body Clear Mind' Bridge Publications Inc 1990 p.103

Given your pointing to the Commission's action against another quack cancer remedy, I would have thought that your 'careful consideration' might have alerted you to the nature of this particular fraud. I was obviously wrong.

You repeat the claim that the 'Purification Rundown' is a 'service' and not a 'good' under the Act, and so may not be subject to withdrawal directions by the Minister. You, again, did not address my contention that the provision of the vitamin preparations is the provision of a 'good' as a component part of the 'service' and that in the context, is 'dangerous' within the meaning of the Act.

You assert that the falsity of the cult's claim that "...research has demonstrated that the single most destructive element present in our culture is drugs...." results in "...no significant public detriment." I assert quite the contrary.

The cult has been peddling this dangerous quackery for decades.

It is difficult to ascertain precisely how many persons have been subjected to this 'treatment', but my research indicates about 100-150 per annum, at a minimum, have been defrauded. How many of those suffered damage to their health in the process is, as yet, unknown. Who knows how many became a burden on public health programs as a result? I hope to be able to bring figures to your attention in the near future that will demonstrate 'significant public detriment.'

You assert that the cult's claims about the unique value of the 'Purification Rundown' "...even if regarded as something more than mere puffery are not likely to be representations that will be relied on without further inquiry...".

Quite to the contrary, such representations are just what will be relied upon by the kind of gullible individuals, impressed by the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook, whom the cult habitually targets.

Again, the absolute numbers involved are not the issue. The issue is the ruthless and calculated exploitation of people's fears and ignorance. The fact that the Commission undertook no research, gave no 'careful consideration' to these matters is glaring in this regard on a number of counts.

Firstly, the actual intent of the 'Purification Rundown' is not to do anything about any individual's 'drug problems' or 'spiritual condition'. It is simply to lure 'raw meat' (Scientology's own term) into Scientology, or, as their own 'scripture' has it, to "...get bodies into the shop."

That should have been obvious from the evidence I provided from the secret cult doctrine known as 'HCOB 29 Jan 1980 The OT Drug Rundown'.

That's as glaring a breach of Section 53(g) of the Act as could be imagined. I note that neither you, nor your Chief Executive Officer, chose to address that evidence.

Secondly, whether or not the claims are regarded as mere 'puffery' is germane to the issue - I direct your attention to the commentary by J B Heydon in 'Trade Practices Law: Restrictive Trade Practices, Deceptive Conduct and Consumer Protection.' Law Book Co 2001

"Puffs are less likely to escape liability where, though vague, they exploit human anxiety and fear.... it is obviously deceptive to suggest a product cures diseases it cannot cure... Non-disclosure is particularly likely to be held deceptive where serious harm may flow... Conduct may mislead because it suggests that a product provides solution to non-existent problems while in fact it provides no solution to real problems."

You claim in your letter that the breaches I brought to your attention, even if actionable, "...do not meet the priority criteria for enforcement action." The Commission has not, in any of it's correspondence, detailed what these 'criteria' may be. I repeat my previous questions:

Are you seriously telling me that it's in order for the cult to defraud and endanger people in Australia so long as they do it to only up to 25 people per annum? Or would the limit be set at some higher figure?

How, and by whom, would such a limit be set?

Finally, you mention that the Commission's supine stance does not impinge upon my "...right to pursue the matter privately."

Again, you demonstrate that no research has been undertaken by the Commission, else you would have been aware that no individual can possibly undertake an action against this wealthy and unscrupulous organisation, renowned internationally for it's ruthless and relentless abuse of the law and legal processes in pursuit of the goal of silencing it's perceived enemies.

Since the Commission is unwilling, or unable, to fulfill the provisions of the Act which it exists to administer, you leave me no choice in the matter.

My research, and copies of this correspondence, will be placed in the hands of the national media. That the Commission and it's officers might thereby be exposed as ineffectual, at best, derelict, at least, or intimidated, at worst, is no concern of mine.

Yours faithfully

Thomas J Best

Message-ID: <3D3ABC61.F2194CB6@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 06:51:29 -0700
From: barb
Subject: Re: QUACKERY PROSECUTED - Not - the Feds chicken out

Thomas J Best wrote:

A cursory scan finds only 2 errors of the text below. Your spelling of 'critique,' above, is not germane. Excellent letter. Perhaps you should include a copy of Jerry Whitfield's affidavit, which I've pasted in below your letter.

Affidavit of J. Whitfield
Testifying re: Narconon
Registered Charity # 107760142RR0001

February 27, 1998.

My name is Jerry Whitfield. I live at 119 SE 43rd Lane in Cape Coral, Florida. I am over eighteen years of age and if called to testify in a court of law, I could do so in a competent manner.

From 1974 until 1977, I worked at Narconon, a front group for Scientology. At that time, we took our orders from the Guardian's Office United States (GO US) which in turn took its orders from the Guardian's Office Worldwide (GO WW) which answered solely to Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. Mary Sue answered only to L. Ron Hubbard according to the information we received at Narconon.

(Mary Sue Hubbard and ten other high ranking Scientology officials were put in prison for conspiracy against the US Government. They were involved the biggest conspiracy against the US Government in the history of the US.)

We were required to write weekly reports each Thursday by 2:00 PM and sent in our weekly statistics by that same time each and every week of the year. I was in charge of collecting statistics from each staff member at Narconon, El Paso, Texas. One of the statistics I had to collect each week was number of new Scientologists made this week.

Additionally, a percentage of our gross income was sent to the Church of Scientology each week. I did not work in the accounting department, but I was told on numerous occasions that 10% went to the GO US and 10% went to GO WW. I did, however, participate in the weekly financial planning of the money taken in for the week, and how it was to be spent. So I feel that the 20% figure sent to Scientology each week was accurate. I heard from the Treasury Secretary that checks were made out each week and sent uplines to Scientology. I doubt that I would have been lied to about that for over three years. Especially since there was often a change in Treasury Secretaries and the story stayed the same. Moreover, I worked at Narconon El Paso and Narconon United States, and the percentages were the same in both organizations as told to me by various Treasury Secretaries in both organizations. I served on the Finance Committees for both organizations so I was privy to this information.

We used L Ron Hubbard's techniques for getting people off drug dependency and turning them into Scientologists if we could. We were told by Dick Talbert, a Guardian Office staff member, to tell people that Narconon and Scientology were different corporations and not affiliated.

-6

Dick held the post of Narconon Director, GO US. I held a lower position simultaneously which was Executive Director Narconon US. In that position, he was my direct senior, or my boss. I, as a Narconon staff member at Narconon US, was taking direct orders from a Church of Scientology staff member daily. This was no secret to me or anyone else who worked there. (In fact, to work there required the attitude of a dedicated Scientologist. Non Scientologists would not remain under the intolerable work conditions.) Every day I worked less than twenty feet from Dick Talbert's desk. I had no time to do the things I wanted to do to create my job; I had to follow the orders of Dick who had to follow the orders of Laurie Zurn, another Church of Scientology staff member who worked for the GO US. She was head of Bureau 4, the Social Coordination Bureau of the GO US. Her orders came from the head of Bureau 4 in GO WW at East Grinstead, England, where Scientology was managed.

The Guardian's Office (Dept.20) is now known as Office of Special Affairs (Dept.20). Bureau 4 was later known as SoCo for Social Coordination. It has now been renamed A. B. L. E., Association for Better Living and Education.

The purpose of Narconon was to make the works of L Ron Hubbard and his name acceptable to the public. That was part of Narconon's written Admin Scale, an overview of what the goals, purposes, policies, and plans of the organization were.

ABLE is now overseen by a Scientology entity known as International Management. ABLE oversees Narconon, Crimanon, Applied Scholastics, and The Way to Happiness Campaign. WISE, World Institute of Scientology Enterprises is on the same level as ABLE. Both are licensed by Religious Technology Center, RTC, holder of the copyrights and trademarks of Scientology. Both are managed by International Management.

One can easily verify the order of command channels by inspecting the Command Channels of Scientology as issued and copyrighted by the Church of Scientology in the late 80's or early 90's.

I swear to the best of my knowledge that the above is true.

Jerry Whitfield
Cape Coral, Florida
USA

Go Back