Politech members reply to Scientology's copyright paper
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:50:13 -0400
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: FC: Politech members reply to Scientology's copyright paper
- From: Declan McCullagh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Previous Politech message:
"Scientology says it's threatened by 'unadulterated cyber- terrorism'"
And, showing that in seven years little has changed, here's an article I
wrote in 1995:
It begins: "A flamewar raging on the Internet over the Church of
Scientology's attempts to halt the distribution of its bizarre secret
scriptures has spread..."
Subject: latest Scientology snow job
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:27:34 -0400
I imagine your readers have found much amusement deconstructing the
execrable nonsense the Church of Scientology lobbed into your mailbox
under the guise of a "position paper" on copyright. After fumbling
the facts on the Google/DMCA debacle, this pile of PR fluff veers off
into irrelevant, melodramatic hand-wringing about "haters" and violent
lunatics -- at least two of whom were ex-Scientologists, by the way.
What is this completely unsubtle attempt at emotional manipulation
doing in a position paper on copyright and the DMCA, anyway?
To help set the record straight on Scientology's copyright thuggery,
here is one of the very first lies in Ms. Hight's document. She
writes that "An author has the right to determine whether his words
will be published, by whom and to what extent." Wrong. An author
does not have absolute control over the rights of another to quote his
work. The "fair use" provision of US copyright law, as set forth in
17 USC 107, lists a number of contexts in which this may be done, such
as for purposes of comment or criticism, without the author's
permission. The doctrine of fair use is backed by extensive case law,
as you well know. But you will never hear a Church of Scientology
spokesperson use the phrase "fair use", except perhaps to deny that
such a thing could ever apply to THEIR material.
If you look at the specific pages from www.xenu.net that Google was
asked to delist from its search engine (see the chart at
will find this page listed as item number 63:
This is a mirror of a web page of MINE, at Carnegie Mellon. You can
find the original here:
I am the author of this page. It contains fair use quotations from a
Scientology document known as OT III, in which the story of Xenu the
evil space alien is told. (This is Scientology's biggest spiritual
secret; their "wall of fire".) It also contains a scan of the first
page of the actual OT III document in L. Ron Hubbard's own
handwriting. The original is 20 pages long, so I'm quoting only 5% of
it. And according to the courtroom testimony of Scientology official
Warren McShane, under oath, this first page does not even contain any
of the really secret stuff! (McShane's testimony is quoted on my web
When Scientology complained to my university about this web page, they
were told that the document was considered "fair use", and that it
would not be removed. Scientology took no further action -- because
they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.
Yet several years later, the same document shows up in a DMCA
complaint to Google, alleging a copyright violation by xenu.net.
Scientology had made no attempt to delist my own copy of the page from
Google. It would be pointless, since I'd immediately file a
counter-notification if they did. But Andreas Heldal-Lund, the
proprietor of xenu.net, has no wish to subject himself to the
jurisdiction of US courts, so he cannot counternotify.
Items 64-86 in that same list of "infringements" are various versions
of an anti-Scientology leaflet that includes just a *portion* of the
first page of OT III. Again, this is clearly fair use.
What's going on here? Why would an organization that claims to have
put up 140,000 web pages' worth of information about itself object to
someone reproducing half a page of a 20 page document? You know the
answer: Scientology doesn't want people talking about Xenu. It
reveals the organization as a nutty UFO cult. It lets the great
unwashed in on what John Travolta and Tom Cruise are really up to when
they visit the Scientology Celebrity Center in Los Angeles: they're
communing with their space alien ghosts, through a Scientology process
called "auditing". Such disclosures are bad for business. Hence they
must be suppressed by any means available.
Remember, this is the same cult that once sued the Washington Post for
quoting a mere 46 words from their secret scripture! The judge in
that case, Leonie M. Brinkema, wrote that
... the Court finds that the motivation of plaintiff in filing this
lawsuit against the Post is reprehensible. Although the RTC brought
the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and
trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation
prevailed--the stifling of crticism and dissent of the religious
practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents.
See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/legal/brinkema-washpost.txt for
the full text of the judge's decision. Judge Brinkema awarded legal
fees to the Post, and for good measure, in a subsequent opinion
(Religious Technology Center v. Lerma) she retold the Xenu story in
her own words -- causing Scientology to try, unsuccessfully, to get
the opinion itself sealed!
For another example of Scientology making legal threats against me
personally to try to prevent revelation of their "spiritual trade
secrets", see here:
If the Church of Scientology wants to have a debate about copyright
issues and the Internet, let them start by explaining what they think
"fair use" means, and why it doesn't apply to them.
-- Dave Touretzky
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:08:52 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Paul Wouters <email@example.com>
Reply-To: Paul Wouters <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, Declan McCullagh <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [email@example.com: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by
I'm Paul Wouters, co-founder of Xtended Internet, the ISP that is currently
hosting http://www.xenu.net/ and has been threatened, called to court, faxed,
lied to, got its suppliers lied to, and was pushed into either violating its
customers freedom of speech or get completely cut off the net. For a more
elaborate story on this, please see:
I have some comments and questions for Linda. (I'm not on politech, please
CC any responses to me as well.
> CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL STATEMENT
> REGARDING COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS AND GOOGLE
> Scientology churches have always supported the Internet. The Church
> uses the Internet in its dissemination of the Scientology
> religion to the people of the world.
Sadly though, this attitude of "support" happened only after The Internet
proved the first (and only) resistant medium for voicing critical opinions
about Scientology. Please remember that it was Scientology who tried to
cancel alt.religion.scientology. Please remember that Scientology members
tried to spam the group into oblivion. Please remember that up to this day,
cancellations of articles is still exercised regularly into wiping out all
"resistance" to Scientology. This is not limited to battling (illegal or not)
copyright violations (illegally or not).
> We recognize the Internet as a
> brilliant technological advance in the field of communication; its
> benefits far outdistance any down sides.
I wish that you (or at least your Organisation) really believed this. If
they truly believed this, they would never try to force ISP's to break
national (and international) law, as Scientology has done in the past.
Unfortunately, the above statement is just a meaningless credo of your
> The latter are not inherent in
> the Internet but are the result of abusive or unlawful misuse of the
> Internet by particular individuals.
Your church (or some members at least) have an at least equal reputation
of performing illegal acts against its opponents. So we can leave individuals
breaking the law out of this discussion which is the real interest here,
namely the position of independents ISP's in a conflict of third parties,
and their responsibilities and obligations.
> The Church has established a significant multimedia Internet presence
> since its launch in 1996 of one of the largest and most
> technically advanced web sites.
That seems like unfounded boasting. Unless you mean the religious scriptures
of "Advanced Technology" (aka the notorious/famous OT works and others), I do
not believe the Scientology web presence has any innovating, outstanding or
distinguished technical merits.
As has been shown at: http://www.operatingthetan.com/google/ this "largest"
cluster of "web sites" are just part of a big linking scheme. Members of
your church are encouraged to use special "kits" that whips up a "web site"
in a few minutes. But in the end, it's just cloning the same content
In fact, Scientology's fear of uncontrolled information about them has
resulted in one major achievement that is indeed unheard of. If one starts a
web harvester on a Scientology, and one instructs the spider to download
every link it encounters, the spider actually finishes downloading, instead of
endlessly trying to retrieve the whole internet. Obviously, information
links to, is strictly mandated and under full control and censorship of the
organisation. The "largest and most technically advanced web sites" is in fact
a big farce, a blown up bubble waiting to burst. The fight over Google's
of www.xenu.net, a critics site, demonstrated this. But a diagram says more
a thousand words:
> Our sites comprise more than 140,000 individual pages of material
generated by a special website kit builder. Create instant websites positively
and approved by Scientology. Just add your name.
> The potential of the Internet to link individuals from all corners of
> the world and unify diverse cultures and nationalities makes it a
> priceless resource for improving understanding among peoples.
You are suggesting that people "freely link". Your members don't freely link,
or else one member, somewhere, even if only once, would actually link to
some non-scientology approved side (and the web harvester would spend an
eternity downloading the whole internet). Your opponents who link to
materials, even if done legally, in accordance with national (eg Dutch and/or
US) and international law (eg Bern convention based laws) get either
sued, sued again, or get their ISP severely threatened (or dragged to court)
The internet has been the one and only medium that has kept Scientology
criticism alive. For the first time ever, people have been able to combine
knowledge and publish without (high) costs.
If you would truly want to "unify diverse cultures" and "improve understanding
among peoples" over the Internet, then you wouldn't want to sue (or harass)
every single critic. If you truly believe that people can have different
opinions, then please point out one single web page on the Internet that
speaks out against your religion, and which you haven't tried to silence. That,
and only that, would convince me that you indeed see the "potential of the
(And I'm not even asking you to link to this criticism site!)
> The freedom provided by the Internet is open to abuse, as the
> experience of the last decade has shown.
Technology has no opinion, only uses.
> Unless certain rules are applied on the Internet, our desired global
> to communicate and exchange information will be corrupted by
> that often masquerades as free-speech activism.
There should be no "certain rules" that need applying to a new technology, such
as the internet, that have no special bearing on new issues and possible
of such a new technology. There were enough laws for all the conflicts
issues such as copyright violations, fair use, publishing, libel, terrorist
discrimination, telecommunications (common carrier principle) and even
the law as a tool (SLAPP). From a legal point of view, the only thing the
can be said to have done, is to make the above mentioned possible (ab)uses
The DMCA tried to fix this problem, but sadly introduced more problems then it
fixed. It has degraded into a tool to use against legitimate users and ISP's.
> Thus, limitless "tolerance" of abuse
> will inevitably bring on over-regulation if a few dishonest
> individuals are allowed to flout the law and corrupt this communication
> medium for everyone. In any event, those who were victimized or saw
> their rights violated will sooner or later rise to defend themselves and
> lawfully restore their interests.
If only that was the complete picture. Unfortunately, some of those who were
"victimized or saw their rights violated" have no money to fight against a
big money machine such as Scientology, which can afford sue someone into
oblivion. They have even trademarked the term for this, "Dead Agenting", and
informed one of my clients (and my former upstream provider) that mentioning
"fair gaming" is infringing on their rights.
To quote you, "Thus, limitless 'tolerance' of abuse OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM
will inevitably bring on massive violations of normal copyright law if
a few dishonest corporations/religions are allowed to BUY the law and corrupt
this legal framework against everyone.
> 1. Violations of the Church's intellectual property rights
As long as your church purposefully keeps misrepresents these alleged
hardly anyone will take these allegations seriously. And it's not that some
things are so incredibly difficult to understand. Why are Scientology lawyers
continuously trying to "proof" that non-Us based ISP's and individuals are
violating "Federal law"? Why is Scientology continuously claiming the ownership
of certain texts or photos by "proving" it was published in one of their
Don't they know federal from national and international law? Don't they know
publishing something doesn't mean a thing as to who owns the copyrighted?
Yes of course they do. Your lawyers willfully misrepresent the entire situation
by issuing heavy duty letters to anyone they can find. Sadly, this bullying
practice has been rather effective.
> 2. Hate speech that advocates violence against the Church or its
Pots, kettles, black? I'd say http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/ is
one of YOUR hate speech sites. In fact, if that site was really trying to be
so objective, why did it never publish my response to their "Corporate Appeal"
I've submitted a response numerous times, but no one ever bothered to reply.
not even to tell me why they didn't remove their "hate speech request"
company, nor publish my "corporate defense".
> While these are separate issues, they do have one notable factor in
> common: neither one involves ~protected~ free speech. How ironic,
> therefore, that more often than not, when a Scientology church moves to
> remedy such a wrong, these unlawful infringements are immediately
> redefined as "free speech" issues.
Just as you just redefined "fair use" to "violations intellectual property
Again, I find it extremely unlikely that every Scientology critic is violating
the law. Please point out one side that you've encountered that was negatively
of Scientology, quoted your church in a legally "fair way", which even though
you didn't like the content, didn't find illegal. Please. Just one site on
your lawyers list of authors that "legally criticized" Scientology.
> The determination to protect copyrighted works from unlawful
> copyright violation has nothing to do with whether the infringing work is
> critical or laudatory of Scientology.
There are exceptions of course, as the recent changes of a government's policy
has made clear. Germany finds the religious believes (in particular the
parts where they believe the Scientology religion can and should do anything
in its power (legally or not) to overthrow the current governments and
in favour of a complete Scientology domination, and that anything is allowed,
even breaking the laws of the government they would work for) too dangerous to
allow your members inside the government. Indeed, this part, if true (and which
the German government thinks is true) would redefine your "religion" into
nothing more then a terrorist organisation.
> The same holds true for the second phenomenon: hate speech that
> advocates violence.
If you would only sue the users who advocate such hate speech, instead of
the providers, then I might believe this is indeed your true goal.
Unfortunately, I've personally experienced this is not the case. Your
church has justified all means for its goal, again like a terrorist
organisation. Our company has been called to court, and had its US based
supplier terminate our contract "without reason, but nothing to do with
Scientology" while our customers, known with full name and address by
your church, has not even bothered to sue them. Why? I have clearly shown
the pattern by now. Scientology is not untested in free speech. Not
from its members nor from its critics. Scientology strives for a complete
Totalitarian entity that is state, religion and corporation blended into
one. And just like all totalitarian (wannabe) regimes, they are doomed.
> Threatening speech or expressions calculated to incite hate enjoy no
> protection under the Constitution.
I agree. I do not agree that as an ISP, we should be the judge of what
is hate speech or not. We, as an ISP, are not capable of such judgments.
The DMCA was supposed to fix this. A party who wanted some content removed
could send a DMCA notice to the ISP, which would then temporarily censor
the questionable material, creating a time-window for a normal lawsuit to
resolve the issue. The resulting ruling could then simply be applied by
the ISP, who would have then stayed neutral throughout the entire conflict.
Unfortunately, practice differs from theory. US based ISP's thought they
would be better of putting a 'catch all' clause in all their contracts,
giving them supreme power over the legal system. "We can immediately cut
you off, without reason, in our sole discretion" is a clause that's in
every contract I've seen so far. Over and over again, have I explained
that the ISP is better of not having the choice, and the responsibility
that comes with it. It's far better to have an official policy of "we are
not capable of ruling in your conflict, bring us a court ruling, so we can
So first individuals were cut. Now a few ISP's have been cut. And those
ISP's are moving up the food chain, now that telecommunication prices are
falling dramatically in the post dot.com era. There is no upstream ISP to
cut anymore, since even the small ISP is now at least peering nationally
with all other ISP's. The RIAA/MPAA has recently sued the Tier-1 ISP's,
the biggest of the backbone ISP's. If the music lobbying industry wins,
we're in for some great surprises. Massive censorship is technically next
to impossible and too expensive to be feasible. There will either many
ISP's (partially) cut off the net, or the big Tier-1's, already in
massive financial problems to begin with, will die out. If the latter
happens, the backbone will scatter into many baby ISP's. Suing will
become more difficult. The result will backfire.
> Robust critical speech should
> always be sheltered by the First Amendment, as long is it does not trample
> the boundaries created by law and jurisprudence in an effort to
> protect the people from improper verbal abuse and its adverse consequences.
I already pointed out that ANY criticism against your church is always labeled
by you as "improper". Please show me a side with "Robust critical speech"
against your church.
> The Church's own creed states that "all men have inalienable rights
> to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and
> to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others."
The time, money and effort I've spend as an ISP to try and stay a neutral
common carrier, have most definitely not been honoured by this Credo of your
> Enshrined in the United States Constitution, and preceding the First
[ ... ]
> The Constitution authorized Congress
[ ... ]
> The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
[ ... ]
Please. There is a world outside the United States as well.
> When it became obvious during the last decade that copyright owners'
> determination was being tested
When the printing press was invented this was the case. When the Xerox machine
was invented this was the case. When the copier and printer was invented this
was the case. Now, when the hyperlink has been invented, this is the case.
There is nothing new, except for the speed of the possible violations.
a fixed version of your DMCA law, and a fixed version of the EUCD (The European
version) will one day address these issues correctly.
> landmark lawsuit brought by two Scientology-affiliated organizations,
> the US District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with
> their contention that ISPs may be liable for contributory copyright
> infringement once they are made aware that infringements are maintained on
> their systems.
This is exactly what I've been saying here as well. However, note that we
differ on the "once they are made aware that infringements are maintained"
part. Your church sending me hundred's of pages of faxes of mostly masked
apparently copyrighted texts does not constitute "made aware". In fact,
when we faced your Church with our defenses over time, and showed you
that we couldn't act on your believes and your (biased) interpretation of
law your church has always chosen to drop the issue with us instead of
suing our customer and present us with a ruling we could act upon.
Instead, your church always went for our suppliers. Sadly, it actually
worked once, and not only one of our customers freedom got infringed,
but ALL of my customers freedom, including our own, and my personal
freedom got infringed upon. And what worries me most is not your
church being trigger happy with lawsuits and being successful. My
biggest worry is that our company got censored, not for a belief, not for
a religion, not for a valid legal reason. But for profit.
> This notice-and-takedown procedure became an important aspect of the
> Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It provides the copyright owner
> with a remedy and absolves ISPs from responsibility for content and
> liability if they remove infringing materials, while depriving the
> violator of the means to perpetrate his unlawful activity.
It has also brought, as can be seen in the Scientology-Google case, a
safe heaven for censoring any non-US citizen by putting down a DMCA
notice on a US based ISP/company. As is common with the US, they try
to dictate law to other countries, outside international treaties. So
to counter a DMCA notice, you have to agree to submit to US law, even
if the alleged offense itself is happening in a non-US country, and is
not even a crime in that non-US country, and worst of all, is not even
a crime in the US. Simply the fact of needing to come to the US to
"surrender" under US law violates a non-US' citizens rights. It reduced
the DMCA to a tool of the right and powerful. It reduced the freedom of
US based ISP's and through that, it reduced the freedom of its citizens.
> IV. GOOGLE CHILLS
> In March 2002, acting according to the provisions of the Digital
> Millennium Copyright Act, the Church asked Google to remove their links
> to certain specific copyright infringements.
The DMCA which you seem so fond of EXCLUDES using the DMCA on "search engines".
Google should have dismissed your DMCA notice, and instead you should have
served that notice to the ISP hosting the material in question. However, that
company was our company, and is located in the Netherlands, and is (as long
as the EUCD has not been accepted, approved and ratified, which in its
current state it should never be) not violating any applicable Dutch or
> However, this time the often unpredictable currents of the Internet
> pushed Google out of the routine and into a storm of protest. Taken
> aback by this reaction, Google rapidly moved to put the Church's cease and
> desist letters up on a public website. If the intent of this action
> was to appear "politically correct" or to chill the Church's dedication to
> defend the copyrighted works of the Scientology religion, no adverse
> affect has been created.
So why are you mentioning this here? Of course something was achieved by
mirroring all of their DMCA notices on a public website. It means you
can search for the link of the questioned and censored and/or alleged
documents WITHOUT their search engine. It puts you back to where you
should legally go. In the US, that means sending a DMCA notice to an
ISP, and not a search engine. For outside the US this mostly means
suing the actual user and bringing the ruling to the ISP in question,
provided you win your case. And as our defense on the xenu.net case
(and your church's unwillingness to sue the user or his ISP) showed,
you have no clearcut case at all, and according to people with more
legal knowledge on these matters, not much of a chance to win.
> We are scarcely alone in utilizing the DMCA to protect our
> intellectual properties. Considering that hundreds of cease and desist
> letters are generated by copyright owners every day, it is oddly
> disproportionate that so much attention has been focused on the handful
> sent out by Scientology churches.
It's a lot more then a handful. It's also filled with inaccuracies, falsehoods,
dubious claims, and intensionally misleading claims (see the aforementioned
link on the xenu.net case to get some crystal clear examples of this).
> Record companies have used copyright law to halt the pirating of
> Digital Video Discs.
And withheld the rights of people to play the music they legally bought on
their own devices, such as mp3 players, Linux, etc.
> V. FREE SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH
> It has long been an established legal principle that open incitement
> to violence against another is not protected by the First
> Amendment, neither on nor off the Internet.
So is your church then committing an offense with "Dead Agenting"? Do remember
that in your church's last letter to us, they claim copyright on that. This
makes your church either the same thing it loathes so much, or they hand
in bogus copyright claims (which is getting pretty damn close to perjury)
Which of the two is it?
> If an individual shouted from his rooftop that he was going to throw
> a bomb through his neighbor's window, no one would accuse the
> intended victim of attempting to stifle free speech when he called the
If an individual shouted from the pub, when drinking his 10th pint of beer
that evening, that he was going to throw a bomb through his neighbor's window,
no one would him seriously. Keith Henson joked about a "Cruise Missile",
obviously referencing your member Tom Cruise in a joke on an internet
Your church "called the police". As a result, this American has now been
political asylum in Canada. I would say that America should demolish their
Statue of Liberty, as it has clearly been replaced by the God of Profit, but I
fear that such a joke might now be called Terrorism by you.
> It has been necessary to take legal action on several occasions due
> to threats and actual violence against our churches. Hate speech and
> extremist propaganda on the Internet have repeatedly driven unstable
> individuals to commit felonious acts against Church members and Church
> property, as in these examples:
[ 6 examples without any context quoted, making verification of these
claims impossible ]
For similar statements of violence by your church see:
This page provides links to reports alleging that Scientology is breaking
the law. The links are grouped by type of allegation:
false imprisonment 25 reports 1968 - 1996
assault 14 reports 1978 - 1998
practicing medicine without a license 5 reports 1975 - 1995
threats 5 reports 1978 - 1995
fraud 18 reports 1975 - 1998
extortion 9 reports 1978 - 1996
invasion of privacy 11 reports 1975 - 1994
child neglect 8 reports 1975 - 1991
coerced abortions 2 reports covering several cases 1975 - 1993
weapons violations 1 report 1991
conspiracy to murder 2 reports dates unknown but probably 1970s
commission of criminal acts 2 reports one from 1987
interference with the US Mail 2 reports one from 1978
slander, libel, and defamation 2 reports
dates unknown, one from the 80s falsifying information or conditions to
2 reports 1978 and 1982
obstruction of justice 2 reports 1989 and late 1990's
violation of labor laws 11 reports 1973 - 1996
And of course the most prominent violation is the murder of Lisa McPherson,
For a bigger list of alleged murders/deaths see:
> If these acts are carried out against U.S. citizens by Al Qaeda, it
> is called terrorism.
The same applies to your church and the list and url's I just mentioned.
> Ultimately, the only guarantee of safeguarding the Internet's
> potential resides with all who use it.
The Internet is just a tool for communication. Ultimately, the only guarantee
of safeguarding our communication resides with all who use it, and those who
prevent its abuse.
> We share the responsibility of
> ensuring that abuses by a largely lawless minority are not permitted to
> burden all of us with over regulation.
We share the responsibility of ensuring that abuses by large corporations
are not permitted to suppress the fundamental freedom of individuals.
> We submit that had it not been
> for a few lawless individuals, online copyright regulation would not even
> have been necessary; ample copyright law already existed.
I'd say ample copyright law already existed, and has nothing to do with a
few lawless individuals.
> It is up
> to the law-abiding majority to ensure the Internet remains truly free.
It's up to the law to make sure that barratry and other misuses of the law
by rich corporations and "religions" are stopped.
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:02:55 -0500
From: scott <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CC: email@example.com, kady <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Response to Linda Simmons Scientology Internet position paper
This email is in response to Church of Scientology Media Relations Director
Linda Simmons Hight's email to you seen here:
I belive Dave Touretzky replied to some of the other sections, but we've
chosen to address a single section, namely, the proviced examples of
'internet hate speech'.
In her email she provides numerous examples of how 'hate speech on the
internet' has driven 'unstable individuals' to commmit felonies against the
church. Predictably, however, the examples she cites contain no evidence
whatsoever that 'hate speech on the internet' (or for that matter even
simply 'hate speech') was a responsible motivator for the acts she lists.
In only two examples is the internet even mentioned - in one example, the
facts are famously disputed and the other is yet another vague and
unverifiable accusation. And even more telling and typical is the fact that
at least two of the acts she lists were committed by *Scientologists*.
We dissect the Church of Scientology's examples below in more detail.
It has been necessary to take legal action on several occasions due to
threats and actual violence against our churches. Hate speech and extremist
propaganda on the Internet have repeatedly driven unstable individuals to
commit felonious acts against Church members and Church property, as in
(1) A Scientology Church was fire-bombed twice with a dozen molotov
cocktails doing extensive damage to the front of the church.
There was a recent case of vandalism of a Palm Beach Church of Scientology
that seems to match this deliberately vague description. Although it is not
clear that this was, in fact, the incident described in the piece, if this
is the incident in question, it is, at present, still an open
investigation. While the Church of Scientology has made every effort to
steer the police in the direction of some local critics, there is no
evidence whatsoever that the vandalism was anything more than unrelated
youthful hijinks, entirely divorced from anything that might occur on the
Internet and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best, but more likely
a craven attempt to exploit the still prevelant skittishness towards
terrorism that is part of the American psyche.
(2) A staff member was stalked and shot at.
This is impossible to verify without more information, such as the date and
location that the alleged incident took place. The contention that this
attack, if it did, indeed, occur as described, was in any way related to
"hate speech" on the Internet is entirely without foundation, and given the
propensity that the Church has already demonstrated to attempt to exploit
genuine tragedy in an effort to attack its perceived enemies, it cannot be
given much credence.
(3) A crazed gunman went into a church and shot a pregnant staff member
whose unborn child suffered fatal birth defects and later died. The woman
is now paralyzed. He then set fire to the building and took another female
staff member hostage.
What is disingenuously omitted from this example is that the shooter in
question was a Scientologist. From a Portland Oregonian article
at the time:
"He came form Kenya in 1979 to 'accomplish something in America,' he said,
his hopes fueled by high expectations from friends and family. But Jairus
Godeka felt his dream fade to 'gloom and doom,' after he was introduced to
the Church of Scientology in 1980, he told police.
"They said he and his estranged wife, Christina, met while he was a
student. The two married in Vancouver and lived there for three or four
months before moving to Portland. About five years into the marriage, they
said, Godeka found Scientology. A month after he did, the in-laws said,
Godeka sold his belongings, including a stereo the couple owned, and left
"'The Church of Scientology told him he had to cleanse or purify himself
and to leave her,' Christina's mother said. 'He was fine until he got
involved with that church.'
Using Linda's reasoning, the rest of the world is responsible for
protecting Scientology from the people that they themselves drive insane.
Another article on the incident can be found here:
(4) Individuals became inflamed by venom spewed online and then sent out
Again, this is a vague claim, and one that is, one suspects, deliberately
worded to be nearly impossible to disprove. However, it must be said that
the notion that "venom spewed online" can "inflame" otherwise stable,
well-adjusted and peaceful individuals to commit acts of violence and
aggression is one that does not correspond with general societal theories
on responsibility, legal or moral. To put it more simply, if someone reads
a webpage on environmental destruction, and takes this as an impetus to go
out and shoot employees of the corporation responsible for said
destruction, this is a tragedy that, while regrettable, cannot be "blamed"
simply on the mere availability of critical information online. There were
unstable individuals who resorted to violence before there was an Internet,
and it is sophistry to blame the medium, or, indeed, its users, for the
actions of any and all individuals who make use of it.
(5) An individual was convicted for threatening and intimidating
Scientologists through the Internet. He then fled the country to avoid
The individual in this case, Keith Henson, has been profiled at length both
on this list, and by mainstream media outlets. A page detailing exactly
what occured in his case can be found at www.operatingthetan.net. As is
extensively discussed on this website, which provides up to date
information on Henson's situation, the "threats" in question were ambiguous
at best, and in no way should have resulted in his conviction. Henson has
also never been found to have committed any violent act against any
individual, Scientologist or otherwise. In fact, the Church of Scientology
has engaged in considerable direct harassment of both Mr. Henson and his
family both before, during and after the incident that led to his flight to
(6) Police intercepted a man with explosives in his van, who, it was
discovered by the officers, was enroute to assassinate the president of a
Church of Scientology.
This incident, which occured in Bakersville, California in 1996, in fact
involved yet another disgruntled former Scientologist, Jim Enteman, who had
been a fulltime staff member at the Washington DC Church of Scientology
during previous years. In June 1996, Enteman pleaded guilty to three
felonies related to both the explosive material in the van and a subsequent
standoff with police that occured after Enteman was stopped by police.
While it was never made clear exactly why Mr. Enteman, a resident of
Oregon, was driven to take such potentially violent action against his
former church, it was never implied, by either the prosecution or the
defence in the case, that it had anything to do with outside influence. In
fact, in a story that appeared in the Bakersfield Californian quoted a
former girlfriend of Mr. Enteman, who said that Enteman "felt that (church
members) were involved in the programming and deprogramming of his mind."
It would appear that in this case, the impetus that led to Mr. Enteman's
attempted action was internal to his relationship with the Church, and in
no way related to outside criticism of Scientology, whether on the Internet
or anywhere else.
(7) A man constructed a mail bomb and hid it in one of our churches. It was
detected and defused before it went off.
Although there are few identifying details given here, an incident that
meets the description was reported by Reuters News Agency in March, 1997.
According to the news report, which was based on French 'police sources,' a
"member of the Church of Scientology found and defused a powerful bomb
Friday in a church in the western town of Angers." No one was ever arrested
for this crime, and no group or individual ever claimed responsibility. It
is, clearly, a leap of logic for the author of this list to suggest that
this in any way implicates anyone engaged in online criticism.
As can be seen seen through even a cursory analysis of these claims of
"cyberterrorism", in most incidents involving violent acts towards
Scientologists or Church property, the perpetrator is, in fact, far more
likely to be a disgruntled Scientologist with a personal grudge than an
individual somehow inspired to violence solely by the existence of online
In fact, you could even argue that disgruntled ex-scns are *less* likely to
become unstable and violent if there is a critical community in which they
can participate because it channels that resentment and hostility into
positive efforts. Also, if you look at the timeline, the most violent
incidents occured relatively long ago by netstandards - 1996 & 1997 - which
does not support the assertion that online forums for scientology criticism
provoke such incidents.
Scott Pilutik and Kady O'Malley (mostly Kady O'Malley in this case ;)
From: Tim Meehan - OCSARC <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 01:36:02 -0400
Organization: Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis
> The freedom provided by the Internet is open to abuse, as the
>experience of the last decade has shown. Unless certain rules are
>applied on the Internet, our desired global freedom to communicate and
>exchange information will be corrupted by cyber-terrorism that often
>masquerades as free-speech activism.
What a pantload.
I would respond by saying that unless certain rules are applied to the
tax-exempt status of groups formed by really bad science fiction
writers intent on parting people from their wallets for nefarious
purposes, our desired global freedom to communicate and exchange
information will be corrupted by terroristic cults that often
masquerade as some kind of "church."
Tim Meehan, Communications Director
Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis
firstname.lastname@example.org * http://www.ocsarc.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:52:20 -0700
From: Don Marti <email@example.com>
To: Linda Simmons Hight <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Declan McCullagh <email@example.com>
Subject: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated
Dear Ms. Hight,
Following Google's removal of xenu.net from their index, I led
the Mountain View, California Xenu Independent Study Group in a
personal visit to Google HQ in Mountain View. I have a question
regarding the DMCA statement that you recently submitted to Declan
McCullagh's Politech mailing list.
> In March 2002, acting according to the provisions of the Digital
> Millennium Copyright Act, the Church asked Google to remove their links
> to certain specific copyright infringements. Google responded by
> eliminating the links. These actions on both sides were routine and
> carried out pursuant to the DMCA.
This "routine" letter included the URL of the xenu.net home page,
not just the URLs of excerpts from Scientology documents.
Google promptly admitted that their action in removing the xenu.net
home page was a mistake. The home page contains no potentially
DMCA-actionable material but only a summary of views critical of
See "Google Restores Church Links" at
What is the Church of Scientology's current position on this attempt
to censor the xenu.net home page? Was this a mistake or a deliberate
attempt to use the takedown provision of the DMCA to make criticism
(By the way, congratulations are due to your webmaster for taking
back the number 1 spot in a Google search on "Scientology", which
xenu.net has held for most of the time since the March censorship
http://zgp.org/~dmarti Help spread accurate information
firstname.lastname@example.org about Xenu and the Church of Scientology.
<a href="http://xenu.net/">Scientology</a> on your web site.
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bryan Taylor <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by
Two responses to the Scientologists...
First, the abhorent part of the DMCA is the anti-circumvention provisions. The
notice-and-takedown provisions, while they are easily abused and could
definitely be improved to prevent this, are nowhere as draconian. So long as a
user is truly commiting copyright infringement, I don't think there is any
problem with the law .
Second, is the legally inaccurate characterization of "hate speech". There is,
in fact, a big distinction between "hate speech" and "incitement to violence".
In fact "hate speech" IS protected free speech in the US. A famous example of
this is Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) in which an arrest of a KKK
leader who advocated illegal acts was struck down. The court held: "Freedoms of
speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force
or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
Similarly in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (505 US 377), the Supreme Court struck
down an arrest for cross burning as facially invalid under the First Amendment.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZO.html . Yet another example
is the recent Yahoo case where a US judge refused to uphold France's punishment
for selling Nazi propaganda on Yahoo's auction site.
Linda Hict states that "Hate speech and extremist propaganda on the Internet
have repeatedly driven unstable individuals to commit felonious acts against
Church members and Church property." The fact that acts of violence have been
perpetrated against some of its members, while it does warrent criminal
prosecution for the perpetrators, does not provide exception to the above
standards. The KKK is the epitome of "hate speech and extremist propoganda",
yet their speech has repeatedly been ruled protected, even while racist
violence has plauged society. The key word in her statement is "driven", which
implies a Charles Manson like influence over another. I am highly skeptical
this leader-follower relationship actually exists here. The First Amendment
cannot tolerate scape-goating critics for the actions of others when there is
not a personalized intent to incite the attacker's violence.
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:39:15 -0700
From: Lizard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
However, if one wishes to prove fraud, one has to be able to quote the
fraudulent documents. Scientology is attempting a Catch-22 on its critics:
If you criticize Scientology w/out ny backing from their own 'scriptures',
Scientologists will just claim you're "making stuff up".
If you criticize Scientology by quoting their scriptures, Scientologist
claim 'copyright violation'.
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:56:12 -0700
From: "Da'ud X Mohammed" <email@example.com>
Organization: Oregon Coast News Signal
Re: Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated cyber-terrorism"
Perhaps in the Scientology case we're talking a matter of privacy rather
than free speech, copyright protection and/or "cyber-terrorism"; just as in
the White House making their case FOR war in the name of any "terrorism"
you name rather than keeping secret a not-so-secret plan for White
House-blessed (U.S.) corporate control of oil (and water) world wide...
Don't cults have a privacy rite, uh, right? Maybe they can't function
without privacy and secrecy. See the priveleged uppards insiders (inside
the White House) that seem hell-bent on secrecy and making war somewhere in
the name of anti-terrorism instead of making peace somewhere, even
domestically. (Also see: Portlanders protest Bush policies on cutting down
all the trees as a means of preventing forest fires).
Peace is a more complex matter than war. In war all you hafta do is go out
and kill a bunch of people and take their control of their oil away from
them. In peace you hafta develop real alternatives to dependence on
(whoevers') oil in the first place. Human dependence on water is a
In (so-called) "religious" cults, developing follower dependence on the
cult is THE secret. Again, no matter if it's power (control) or money
they're after, don't they have the right to privacy? And while (I say) the
cult does, (I also say) at taxpayer expense the war mongrels in the White
For their own secret agenda(s), both Scientology and the White House
opportunistically use and abuse what is at the very heart of true terrorism
and/or true freedom fighting in order to perpetuate the status quo.
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:59:29 -0500
To: Declan McCullagh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Well I must say I am TOTALLY confused?
I am assuming the COS is considering itself a religion. So, if they believe
in free speech, why are they hiding behind copyright?
If someone wants to make thier case, they would state it and use whatever
publication or document as a reference point. That, I think, is a
It would be no different if somene quoted an article from The New York
Times provided they gave due credit. If they were copying and selling their
literature for a profit, I could see the COS's point. (Just as much as if
the NYT had an issue as well.)
But let me point out again, they are a religion, right?
I guess COS will go down in history as the first COPYRIGHTED religion then.
I mean, I don't see catholics and other religions suing atheists over DMCA
issues because they qouted the bible to prove their points.
Nor Jews or Muslins suing over DMCA issues because the Talmut or Koran were
qouted or posted on the net.
I think personally the COS needs to get a life. It is either a religion or
not. If it is, then it should have to follow the same fair use rules as
everyone else. If not, declare yourself a business, renounce your 501c3
status, and let the marketplace rule and sue into the stars whoever crosses
(OOps! I forgot, they do that already don't they?)
Or other groups might have to be allowed to make Jihad every time they are
quoted on the net. And if that still stands, maybe Christians can sue Italy
for all those unfair attacks from those nasty lions!
Mick Williams' Cyber Line
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:00:45 -0700
From: "James J. Lippard" <email@example.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: FC: Scientology says it's threatened by "unadulterated
A few quick comments on the Church of Scientology's position paper.
1. The Church of Scientology has clearly made some major mistakes in its
campaign to protect its secrets. These include:
* Attempting to remove the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup from
Usenet on January 10, 1995.
* Raiding the private property of individuals twice in 1995, using
and trade secret law (RTC v. Netcom and RTC v. Lerma; the Church's
Technology Center ultimately prevailed in both cases, the former being
settled out of court). What I characterize as a mistake here is the
over-reaction of raids.
* Sending out legal threats against individuals for quoting two lines from
the OT7 materials. These two lines were eventually quoted in the New
Times and the Washington Post. The Washington Post was a defendant in
the RTC v. Lerma case, but won on all counts.
for a contemporary account of these events that was published in
_Skeptic_ magazine. The events were also chronicled in Wendy
M. Grossman's book _net.wars_ (NYU Press, 1997).
The Church of Scientology also used other measures to try to disrupt the
alt.religion.scientology newsgroup. These included a plan (attempted,
with little success) to flood the newsgroup with pro-Scientology postings,
to flood it with anti-psychiatry postings, and according to ex-Scientologist
Tory Bezazian, the Church was behind the "sporgings"--mass posts of gibberish
forged in the names of the regular contributors to the newsgroup, which
greatly reduced the usability of Usenet archives like DejaNews.
(See Tony Ortega's story on Tory Bezazian from the Los Angeles New Times
2. Linda Simmons Hight gives a list of threats and attacks on the Church.
Some of her descriptions leave something to be desired.
> o A crazed gunman went into a church and shot a pregnant staff member
> whose unborn child suffered fatal birth defects and later died.
> The woman is now paralyzed. He then set fire to the building and took
> another female staff member hostage.
This was Jairus C. Godeka of Kenya, who engaged in this assault
against the Portland office of the Church of Scientology in September
1996. Godeka was a disturbed individual who stated that his problems
began when he started taking Scientology courses--the crazed gunman
was himself a Scientologist.
> o An individual was convicted for threatening and intimidating
> Scientologists through the Internet. He then fled the country to avoid
This was Keith Henson--many believe that, in context, the Usenet postings
which led to his conviction were not threats. He regularly picketed the
Church of Scientology's Hemet, CA location. The specifics may be found
online at http://www.holysmoke.org/kh/kh.htm
Jim Lippard email@example.com http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
From: "Joel J. Hanes" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Declan McCullagh <email@example.com>
Subject: Scientology "threatened"
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:49:15 -0700
The most litigious organization on the planet.
As an excercise, I invite you (or someone you know
with Lexis/Nexis access) to look up Scientology's
legal history in the US -- literally tens of thousands
of lawsuits over the last 25 years.
Allow me to deconstruct for you two of the points
in Ms. Simmons-Hight's lovely letter. (You _did_ notice
that she carefully left out all specifics of names, dates,
places, etc. that might allow you to independently verify
her claims, right?)
o A crazed gunman went into a church and shot a pregnant staff member
whose unborn child suffered fatal birth defects and later died.
The woman is now paralyzed. He then set fire to the building and took
another female staff member hostage.
[ This would be Jairus Godeka, in, I think, Seattle.
Godeka was mentally ill, and was at that point a failing member
of the "Church". There is no detectable connection between his
acts and the Internet. None. ]
o An individual was convicted for threatening and intimidating
Scientologists through the Internet. He then fled the country to avoid
[ This is Keith Henson, a founding member of the L5 society.
His "threatening and intimidating Scientologists" consisted
of first peaceful picketing, then making a joke on the Usenet
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, and more peaceful and
legal picketing. The conviction was a travesty. A little
Googling on the keywords Henson Scientology should be enough
to acquaint you with the actual specifics of the case.
EFF's site has some Henson background material.
It is true that Henson fled to Canada before sentencing. ]
Anyone concerned with copyright law and the Net ought to read a little
about how Scientology was able to use the pre-DMCA copyright laws to
sue and harass former high-ranking member Dennis Erlich.
Defense work by EFF and Morrison-Foerster (before Erlich settled for
undisclosed damages) left a fine set of legal documents.
and, of course, you should know that Scientology lies about everything,
as policy, and is frequently caught at it.
See the Bonnie Woods case in the UK
or the Casey Hill case in Canada
in which Scientology paid the largest libel judgement
in Canadian history.
enjoying your blog
Santa Clara CA
Here's an admittedly one-sided but factual backgrounder on Scientology
that I wrote some years ago, during the five-year span that I followed
alt.religion.scientology every day. The links have rotted, but at one
time they substantiated every claim made.
To the best of my knowledge, every statement in this post is factual.
If any person, Scientologist, critic, or bystander, can provide
evidence that any of these statements are false, I will retract and
change this article before (someday) reposting.
Scientology started out as pseudo-medical quackery, and only
incorporated as a "church" to evade regulation
by the FDA and taxation by the IRS.
Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, stated
initially that Scientology was _not_ a religion;
that it was instead a set of precise scientific
techniques discovered through research.
Only after Hubbard's grandiose claims for medical and
psychological benefits were show to be false, and with
fraud prosecution by the U.S. Federal government
looming, did he reorganize Scientology as a church.
Scientology breaks up families.
When a Scientologist's family members or friends express
concern about the personality changes that are often seen
in new members, or about the extreme amounts of money
suddenly being "donated" to Scientology, the member's
Scientology "case supervisor" often strongly advises
"disconnection" from "suppressive" family and friends.
Disconnection means complete cessation of contact.
Many parents, brothers, sisters, and ex-spouses tell
of spending years, even decades, with no communication
whatsoever from a loved one ensnared in Scientology.
Scientology explicitly teaches its representatives to lie.
Scientology has an official training routine,
"TR-L", that is used to teach its public
spokespersons to lie convincingly, and without
Lying defamation of enemies is standard policy in
Scientology, and is termed "dead agenting":
In 1995, the "Church" of Scientology Canada paid the
largest libel judgement in Canadian history,
$1.8 million, to the Hon. Casey Hill, because their
official spokesmen continued to maliciously "dead-agent"
Hill when they knew their claims to be lies.
In 1999, British courts awarded 155,000 pounds
to ex-Scientologist Bonnie Woods after she was
libeled in a leaflet distributed to her neighbors
by a Scientology organization. Scientology's lawyers
were compelled to read in court an apology and
acknowlegement that their clients had knowingly
and maliciously lied.
In 2001, a Berlin court awarded 100,000 Deutschemarks
to Bob Minton in a suit brought against the Church of
Scientology in Germany and German OSA head Sabina Weber,
after Minton was libeled in "Freheit", the German-language
version of Scientology's "Freedom" magazine.
Scientology has several times publicly announced a "religious"
crusade to destroy the psychiatric profession, and
to remove psychotherapists of all kinds
(except Scientology's own "auditors")
from "the face of this planet".
Yet Scientology itself refuses to offer help of any
kind to persons suffering from schizophrenia,
autism, bipolar disorder, depression, or any other
mental or emotional disorder.
Scientology strongly condemns all medication taken for
psychiatric conditions (such as Prozac, Zoloft, Zanax,
lithium, Paxil, Ritalin, Wellbutrin, Luvox, Tegretol,
Celexa, Lorazepam, Effexor, Serzone, Anafril,
Klonopin, Valium, etc.).
Through its front-group CCHR, Scientology seeks
to make these medications unavailable to anyone.
Scientology maintains dossiers ("PC folders") of potentially
damaging admissions confessed by adherents, and uses
them as a threat to control members, and to smear
During "auditing", the person being audited ("the PC")
is hooked up to a crude lie-detector (the "E-meter"),
and is asked a long series of detailed and intensely
personal questions about their sex life, illegalities
they may have performed, anything they may regret or
be ashamed of.
All responses are carefully recorded in the PC folder.
Persons attempting to leave Scientology have been
threatened with public disclosure of the contents
of their PC folder; ex-members who have made trouble
for Scientology have had these threats carried out.
Scientology has a secret police.
The Office of Special Affairs ("OSA") is the current
Scientology organization chartered for intelligence,
propaganda, and covert operations.
These covert activities were formerly the job of the
Guardian's Office ("GO"); the GO was reorganized into
today's OSA after eleven top GO officers were jailed
in U.S. federal felony convictions.
Scientology has a gulag.
Scientology's paramilitary elite, the "Sea Org",
maintains re-education camps, known as the "RPF",
at several locations. The lowest levels of RPF have
all the characteristics of a gulag work camp --
involuntary confinement at hard labor; psychological
manipulation; continual harassment; inadequate
food, sleep, and sanitation; gross overcrowding.
Scientology pressures some female members to have abortions.
According to a written policy known as "Flag Order 3905",
women joining the Sea Org must make that work their
absolute priority, and must not become pregnant.
If they do conceive, they are pressured, and have
in some cases been coerced, to terminate the pregnancy
Scientology has repeatedly fostered felonious conspiracies.
* Operation Snow White
In 1978-81, eleven high-ranking Scientologists were
convicted of felonies, fined, and sentenced to terms
in US Federal penitentiaries for their roles in
"Operation Snow White", a conspiracy to infiltrate
and burglarize U.S. Federal government offices,
to steal and destroy government files documenting
some of the ugly facts about Scientology.
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology,
was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in this case.
Faced with overwhelming evidence, the Scientology
defendants agreed to stipulate in advance that they
had in fact committed a long list of crimes:
The convicted include Jane Kember, the "Guardian"
(head of the Guardian's Office, then the second-highest
office in all of Scientology after Hubbard
himself), and Hubbard's third wife Mary Sue.
Despite Scientology's claim that these criminals have
been ousted, several of the convicted felons,
including Duke Snider, Henning Heldt, Mo Budlong, and
Dick Weigand, are still active in Scientology.
Kendrick Moxon, senior attorney for Scientology,
was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in this case.
Today, the bankrupt California Scientology organization
maintains its offices within Moxon's law firm; Moxon
was the lead attorney in Scientology's successful
campaign to sue the Cult Awareness Network ("CAN")
into bankruptcy and receivership.
In July 1992, the Church of Scientology was found guilty
of infiltrating the Toronto Police, and the offices of
Revenue Canada, the Ontario Attorney General, and the
Ontario provincial government.
Thousands of files had been stolen.
* Scientology's Guardian's Office criminally harassed
Paulette Cooper, author of the early critical book
_The_Scandal_of_Scientology_, by stealing her personal
stationery with her finger prints, forging bomb threats
to themselves, and then reporting the "threat" to the
FBI; by stealing and making public the confidential
patient records of Cooper's psychotherapy; by spreading
false and discreditable information about Cooper among
her neighbors; by instigating fourteen separate lawsuits
against her; and much more.
* In "Operation Keeler", just one of a long list of
"ops" against Gabe Cazares, then Mayor of
Clearwater, Florida, the GO damaged Cazares'
political career by staging a faked hit-and-run
accident, and then "leaking" the incident widely
just before the next mayoral election. (Cazares
had opposed the virtual occupation of his town by
Scientology's "Flag Land Base".)
In 1977, in the enormous FBI raid of Scientology sites
that led to the Snow White convictions in Canada and
the United States, documents were seized that planned
for future criminal activities by the Guardian's Office:
Operation Snapper: A plan to discredit California
Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Tapper, and to
force him from public office, by fabricating
circumstantial evidence that Tapper was trafficing
in drugs and had fathered a child out of wedlock.
Operation Juicy Clanger: A plan to pressure the IRS
into granting Scientology tax-exempt status, by
threatening to disclose information gleaned from
individual tax records stolen from IRS files.
Tax records found among the seized documents
included those of singers Frank Sinatra and
Doris Day, California Governor Edmund Brown, and
Los Angeles mayors Tom Bradley and Sam Yorty.
Operation PC Freakout: planned further harassment of
author Paulette Cooper: sending forged bomb threats
to Arab consulates in Washington DC, and to Henry
Operation Quaker: a plan to spirit material witnesses
out of the country.
Operation Street-man: a deep background investigation
of Clearwater mayor Gabe Cazares, with the intent of
finding discreditable facts or material suitable for
Heber Jentzsch and Warren McShane were officials in the
Guardian's Office, under whose auspices these felonies
were planned and carried out.
Today Jentzsch is the president of the "Church"
of Scientology International, and McShane is the head
of the Religious Technology Corporation ("RTC"),
which presses "copyright" lawsuits against journalists
and critics on behalf of Scientology.
* Greece: all Scientology organizations have been
ordered closed by the courts, in the aftermath of
a 1995 raid that found the Greek branch of OSA in
possession of classified Greek military documents,
and exposed evidence that Scientology operatives had
penetrated the Greek Secret Service, KYP, between
1993 and 1995.
* France: in 1979, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted
(in absentia) of fraud, sentenced to four years in
prison, and fined 35,000 francs. Three other
principals of Scientology in France were given lesser
fines and sentenced to terms from 1 to 3 years.
In 1996, 14 Scientologists were convicted of fraud
in a Lyon court; the former head of the Lyon Scientology
organization, Jean-Jacques Mazier, was found guilty of
manslaughter, fined 500,000 francs, and sentenced to
18 months imprisonment, and an 18 month suspended sentence.
In 1999, Xavier Delamare, former head of Scientology's
branch in Marseille, and five other Scientologists were
convicted of fraud in a 10-year-old case. Delamare was
sentenced to two years in prison.
* Spain: in 1988, Spanish police raided a Scientology
conference and nineteen Scientology offices in seven
cities, eventually resulting in thirty-seven arrests.
Scientology President Heber Jentzsch was one of
seventy Scientologists initially held on suspicion of
coercion, fraud, tax evasion, forging of public documents,
and embezzlement. Jentzsch was soon released (as were
fifty-nine others, including all non-Spaniards). Eleven
Scientologists, deemed "undesireable aliens", were ordered
to leave the country. In 1994, Jentzsch and twenty
Spanish Scientolgists were finally indicted on twelve
different felony counts, and were required to post a bond
of about 1.1 million dollars.
Scientology has systematically stolen and destroyed library copies
of critical books, magazines, and newspapers, including:
_A_Piece_of_Blue_Sky_, J. Atack
_The_Road_To_Xenu_, M. Wakefield
_Bare-Faced_Messiah_, R. Miller
_Religion,_Inc_, S. Lamont
_L_Ron_Hubbard,_Messiah_or_Madman_, B. Corydon
_The_Scandal_of_Scientology_, P. Cooper
_The_Road_To_Total_Freedom_, R. Wallis
Boston Herald, March 1, 1998
First Prize, Investigative Reporting 1998
New England Press Association
"Do You Want To Buy a Bridge?", Mark Ebner
SPY Magazine, February 1996
"The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power"
Time Magazine, May 6, 1991 page 50 (cover story)
"The Scientology Story" (in six parts)
Los Angeles Times, June 24-29, 1990
"The Prophet and Profits of Scientology"
Forbes, October 27, 1986
"Scientology: The Sickness Spreads"
Reader's Digest, September 1981
"Scientology: Anatomy of a Frightening Cult"
Reader's Digest, May 1980
"Scientology Brings Four Years of Discord"
and thirteen other related investigative articles
by Charles Stafford and Betty Orsini
Winner, 1980 Pulitzer for national reporting
The St. Petersburg Times, December 1979
"Scientology: A Long Trail of Controversy"
and six other related investigative articles
Los Angeles Times, August 27, 1978
A Growing Cult Reaches Dangerously Into the Mind"
and "Scientology. A True-Life Nightmare" by Alan Levy
Life Magazine, Nov. 15, 1968 pages 99-100 and 100B-114
Scientology is enormously litigious.
The "Church" of Scientology has an in-house legal
department, and has amassed an incredible history
- Against legitimate news media, such as _Time_,
The Readers' Digest, and the Washington Post,
in a partially-successful attempt to stifle accurate
reporting of its history, actions, policies,
- Against individuals or organizations that use any
part of Hubbard's "technology" outside the
auspices of Scientology.
- Against ex-members who seek to make public
Scientology's systematic and continuing abuse of
its members, its critics, and of the courts.
- Against the US Internal Revenue Service, when
that organization originally (and quite
rightly) ruled that Scientology was *not* a
non-profit charitable organization, and was
thus not entitled to tax-exempt status.
Scientology is legally structured as a bewildering tangle of
dummy corporations and shells, which serve as a shield
against legal accountability.
On December 5, 1995, dedicated young Scientologist
Lisa McPherson was pronounced dead on arrival
at a hospital north of Clearwater, Florida.
According to the coroner's report, Lisa's body was
severely underweight and exhibited numerous bruises
and insect bites; the cause of death was listed as
a blood clot caused by extreme dehydration.
On November 13, 1998, the Church of Scientology's
Clearwater "Flag Service Organization" was indicted
on 2 felony charges in Mcpherson's death.
Lisa's family has brought an additional civil suit
for wrongful death. The family claims that
Scientology's "technology" damaged Lisa's mental health,
and that after she attempted to escape Scientology
control, Flag Service personnel recaptured her and
confined her, sometimes drugged, for seventeen days
without adequate food, water, or medical care.
Konrad Aigner, Patrice Vic, Noah Lottick, and Susan
Meister are four other young people whose lives were
tragically cut short by their involvement in Scientology.
A few WWW sites for the beginning researcher:
Critical introduction to Scientology:
Index to Scientology's own web site:
Well-researched, documented, and well-written essays
about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard:
First person narrative of one person's career in Scientology:
The first critical Web page, and still good:
More detail, well organized:
A fine example of Scientology dead-agenting on the Web
Operation Clambake, the all-round best critical site:
The Sekret Skripchurs
Canonical list of all Scientology Web resources:
From: "ßobÇat" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <email@example.com>
Subject: Freedom Magazine Church of Scientology Int. edition - The Internet
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:58:23 -0400
The position paper from Linda Simmons Hight mentions Freedom Magazine, the
CoS zine. Politechers might like to read what they have to say about
hijacked IP and free speech, and other horrors of the Net.
A fairly-used quote from "A Crime by Any other Name":
"The child pornographer who seeks new children to exploit, the prodigious
criminal who "fixes" a radio contest, the child and wife abuser who turns to
misappropriating copyrighted works - all have shown continuing flagrant
disregard for the law and have simply moved their activities onto the
information superhighway in their mistaken belief that they would not be
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:29:19 -0400
To: Declan McCullagh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Arnaldo Lerma <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Arnie Lerma replies to Scientology's Internet position
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Also... you may use this [ there are so many lies and half-truths in that
thing, I know other folks are pointing those out to you....] this is my
recent letter to Senate Judiciary cmte:
Open letter to
Members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
There is an organization that, that regardless of which corporation its
members work in, encourages and supports the following:
1) A plan for the best apparent performance monetarily on a weekly basis,
compare to planning for the next quarterly report versus planning for the
2) Saying publicly that its members must obey the law, while turning a
blind eye if those members manage to accumulate vast sums of money. -
Example - Reed Slatkin, the perpetrator of a 1/2 billion dollar ponzi scheme.
3) That hold's its goals above those of law, and whose operating
headquarters, being tolerated and allowed to flourish in the United States
is by our toleration of it, causing distrust and consternation amongst
allies around the world.
4) An organization which extorted the IRS to give them tax exempt status
under a sealed, secret settlement, by the filing hundreds of nuisance lawsuits.
5) An organization that has forced its own members to have abortions
6) An organization that was party to the largest conspiracy to infiltrate
and burglarize government offices and whose leaders were convicted and went
to jail in 1982.
7) An organization that has been convicted of "breach of the Public Trust"
8) An organization whose founder has been convicted of FRAUD in France.
9) An organization whose members are encouraged to "Make it go right"
without reservation, to bring in money.
10) An organization who is represented by the same law firm that once
represented both the USSR and the American Communist Party.
11) An organization that to this day lies about its own founder's military
record as part of its plot to deceive young people and minorities who do
not have access to the voluminous documentation on the world wide web.
12) An organization with a long documented policy of abuse of our court
system, specifically, "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage
rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough
harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing
that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his
professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." (as
quoted by Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema in RTC Vs Lerma)
14) An organization with an immutable and totalitarian policy to
infiltrate, influence, and dominate American communities and government.
15) An organization the breaks up families with a written policy of
disconnection from troublesome sources of information.
16) An organization that runs veritable gulags for the disaffected so that
they might never be witness against them.
17) An organization whose founder states "Someday, someone, will say this
is illegal.. let's make sure that by that time we are the ones who say what
is legal or not."
Would you not be motivated to ACT?
Now what if this organization were called Scientology,
would you lose your will to act?
There are those who have not, and we desperately need your assistance.
Founder: Citizens Against Corruption, 6045 N 26th Road Arlington Virginia
exposing the con
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?qÞclan
CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays: http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.html
Return to politechbot.com