Scientology Crime Syndicate

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,fl.general
Subject: *** The Emmons Report: 2nd Investigative Summary
From: mdallara@kcii.com (Mark Dallara)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:35:03 GMT

This is another document that I requested and received from the Clearwater Police Department. It is another summary of the Scientology investigation, but neither this document nor the first summary paper that I posted are dated, so it's not clear at this time which was filed first. This one is a bit longer and more detailed. As with the other posts, there are lots of OCR errors that haven't been cleaned up yet.










On March 21, 1983, this investigator was assigned to an investigative unit consisting of Steve Van Gura of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement; Howard Jehle, Investigator for the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office; Robert Somers, Chief Investigator for the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office; Marie King, Assistant State Attorney for the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office.

This unit was supplemented in August by the assignment of Sgt. John Seebach of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department. The purpose of the task force was to investigate the activities of the Church of Scientology.

The following ,ages are descriptive concerning the overall investigative effort of persons assigned to this investigation.


The investigation of SCIENTOLOGY and the attendant criminal violations that accompany policies and practices of this organization were pursued in the following manner.

The order of investigative procedures involving SCIENTOLOGY were purposefully chosen to make the practicality and possibility of prosecution of this organization under existing Florida State Statutes ultimately possible.

The first order of business in an investigation of this magnitude was to adopt a plan of action which was both meaningful and fruitful. Throughout the years, since SCIE;;TOLOG'I''S inception in 1952, various governmental bodies, law enforcement agencies, Federal and State prosecutors have gathered data on SCIENTOLOGY operations, methods, practices and procedures. This data has consisted of witnesses and attendant testimony, along with eye witness accounts of criminal events. Heretofore, this above mentioned documentation has not been collated into a prosecutable entity for a variety of reasons listed below.

1. Many witnesses that have come forward with testimony concerning SCIENTOLOGY practices and criminal events have a long tenure with the organization, serving in various capacities. As would have been shown during the prosecution portion of the SCIENTOLOGY investigation, the longer the tenure some members of this organization endure, the more probable it is that these potential witnesses have suffered psychological damage. These damages would preclude those persons from testifying in a court of law. One of the reasons why SCIENTOLOGY is able to control its adherents is by criminally misusing a person's inhibitors and motivators. These "keys and buttons," present in all persons, have been so manipulated by SCIENTOLOGISTS against their members that many potential witnesses and forcer members are psychologically damaged.

2. Many individuals have come forward with meaningful information about criminal violations and reported these violations years after these events have occurred. This late reporting of events has precluded any prosecution due to the ?imitations prescribed under Florida State Statute 775.15, entitled "Time Limitations." Although prosecution for these types of cases (criminal events occurring beyond the time allowable for prosecution) is impossible, the reporting of these cases has been important for another avenue of investigation and prosecution which will be explained later in this report.

3. The gathering of tangible data involving SCIENTOLOGY and witness testimony concerning criminal events appears to have been two separate processes which are simply housed together. In order to make prosecution in this case, or any other case achievable, the testimony must coincide with the documents offered as exhibits in the court proceedings.

The first step of this process was to examine the documents and exhibits that would have been offered for evidence for authenticity and accuracy in accordance with the source maker which is in all likelihood the person or persons being prosecuted. Part of this first step process would be an explanation to the prosecutor in written form explaining a particular document and deciphering its contents for the court's consumption. This process is necessary to enable the prosecutor to understand the document in question so he/she may make his presentation, enabling the jury to understand the intended message of the document in question. Then, the prosecutor is able to direct and elicit the correct testimony from the appropriate witness and, in general, the court presentation is not bogged down trying to understand the progress and intent of prosecution because of the complexity of the evidence presented. In this particular case in question, SCIENTOLOGY, this task was not an easy one as evidenced by the three sample documents submitted for your review (see Attachment "A")

The founder of SCIENTOLOGY has composed two dictionaries which explain his terminology and its application to the practice of SCIENTOLOGY. Many of the terms used in these documents are made up from L. RON HUBBARD'S thought processes. These terms do not have any other application in the English speaking world. Many SCIENTOLOGY terms and practices have evolved meaning from the original accepted English standard in accordance with the common reference material, i.e., Webster's Dictionaries.

In addition to explaining SCIENTOLOGY terminology is the added encumbrance of the writing style of the author of most of these documents, L. RON HUBBARD. Mr. HUBBARD uses a writing style that is disjointed, disconnecting and contradictory. Many of the documents may have a cohesive pattern for a few sentences or paragraphs and then ramble on about one or more subjects not connected with the purpose or thrust of the document in question. In short, all of the above obstacles must be overcome and presented to the prosecutor, hence to the court, in a reasonable fashion in order to have this case reach a successful conclusion.

As stated earlier, many investigative bodies have gathered evidence and testimony concerning SCIENTOLOGY; however, these information gathering systems have not carried the two entities together. This investigation began to undertake that task.

Witnesses and their testimonies were examined during the course of the investigation, and the documentation and evidence each witness can and could testify to were attempted to be linked together.

The final thrust of this investigation was to bring new witnesses and new testimony before the investigators and prosecutors to update the old information, documents and evidence, and to add to this evidence and new information concerning criminal events occurring within the allowable prosecutable time frame.

To date, investigators have reviewed 85 documents and have made explanatory papers on each document.

The investigators have also reviewed witness testimonies and are in the process of collating these testimonies with the appropriate documentation. I recommended the following steps regarding the investigation of the organization known as SCIENTOLOGY.

A. Gather together all the documents pertaining to SCIENTOLOGY housed in this office and other law enforcement agencies, i.e., policies, procedures, operating instructions, messages and other pertinent documents for deciphering.

1. The deciphering process should consist of breaking down the documents from SCIENTOLOGY technical language to understandable English terminology.

2. Part of the deciphering process should make the distinctions between each document and the role the individual document plays in the prosecution stage of the investigation.

3. The documentation processes should include a reference mechanism to insure the presentation of these documents in case of prosecution is not a cumbersome and disjointed event.

a. The reference mechanism should be structured to include the capability of referring one Exhibit (document) to another Exhibit (document) for proper continuity and clarity.

NOTE: Example of reference of documents would be "FAIR GAME" and would be referenced to "ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY" and "DEPT. OF GOVT. AFFAIRS documents,


Both of these books will become exhibits themselves and used in the prosecution stage of this investigation.

B. The witness testimonies that have been previously rendered to various law enforcement agencies and governmental bodies were gone over with careful consideration given to tying in individual testimonies to Exhibits (documents.)

C. Develop organizational charts and link flow charts to indicate the mantle of authority and the distribution of finance.

1. These organizational link flows should be inclusive of the changes in the SCIENTOLOGY ORGA~IZATION from the past to the present.

D. Interview new witnesses and decipher any new documentation that come into our investigative arena for criminal violations.

1. New witnesses that can testify to the documentation already deciphered and indexed as Exhibits would be beneficial if they can testify to these "old" documents as still being part of the policies and practices of SCIENTOLOGY.

2. These "new" witnesses should have been able to establish the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY and its attendant affiliates and corporations are still engaged in criminal practices and abuses in violation of Florida State Statutes and/or Federal Law.

3. The collection of the above information should have enabled the investigators assigned this project to proceed against the organization known as SCIENTOLOGY and its attendant affiliates and corporations under F.S.S. Chapter 895.02.

I will attempt to digress and pick up this summary report beginning with the first day of assignment to the SCIENTOLOGY investigation.

During the months of March, April and May, my assignment concerning this investigation was to decipher and record various SCIENTOLOGY documents. These documents are policies, procedures and regulations of the SCIENTOLOGY organization.

Also during this time frame I began to receive some complaints concerning former SCIENTOLOG~STS who had paid fees in advance to the

SCIENTOLOGY organization for services not yet received. Most of these complaints centered around paying for course work and then the complainant would leave the organization under less than desirable conditions, i.e., ask to leave, expelled or simply disenchanted with the practice of SCIENTOLOGY.

In one of these cases a complainant named Faith Huxley was referred to this writer by attorney Michael Flynn on August 1, 1983. On August 11 this writer flew to Boston, Massachusetts, to consult with Mr. Flynn concerning this case. After consulting with Mr. Flynn, this writer then conferred with Marie King of the State Attorney's Office regarding the case. Ms. King felt possible fraudulent criminal violations may have occurred, provided investigators could prove the money extracted from Ms. Huxley by representatives of the SCIENTOLOGY organization had left the country or if SCIENTOLOGISTS never intended to pay the money back to Ms. Huxley. Ms. King also stated the other cases regarding the non-repayment of advanced fees could also fit under the fraudulent practices of the Florida State Statutes contingent upon the outcome of the Huxley case. The same reasons as cited in the Huxley case, i.e., the transfer of monies from one SCIENTOLOGY organization and corporation to deny payment of monies to the rightful owners would also apply to other similar cases.

This investigator made arrangements with Mr. Flynn and Ms. Huxley to fly to Florida for official testimony purposes on or about the week of August 20, 1983. Ms. Huxley failed to arrive or notify this investigator on the appointed date. This writer had a Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit member of the San Jose, California police go by the Huxley residence to check on her welfare. I had information Ms. Huxley had entered the SCIENTCLOGY headquarters in Los Angeles in a last ditch effort to collect her money, about $325,000. The San Jose police officer contacted Ms. Huxley and she called me. Ms. Huxley stated she collected from SCIENTOLOGY and as far as she was concerned the matter was closed. This action, in effect, nullified any action that may have been taken by the State Attorney's Office regarding the Huxley case or any other similar case regarding the payment of advanced fees for courses and services by SCIENTOLOGY members.

During the course of my assignment, I spoke to Assistant State Attorney Marie King concerning the deciphering of SCIENTOLOGY policies and documents. At first the State Attorney's Office was very receptive concerning the work this writer was doing regarding these documents. I got the impression the reason for the decoding of these documents was to ultimately show the practice of SCIENTOLOGY in total was a fraudulent enterprise for the monetary benefit of L. RON HUBBARD and a few select top officials of SCI~NTOLOGY. During the conversations with Ms. King concerning the Faith Huxley case and the other cases of advanced fees, Ms. King expressed the policies decoded would probably never be used in court because their introduction of same would possibly cause questions regarding First Amendment violations. Ms. King wanted the documents decoded because it would be a good intelligence source, but not for prosecution. Ms. King stated the wishes of the State Attorney's Office was to find prosecutable cases on a case-by-case basis building up to violations of the R.I.C.O. Statutes and not to prove the SCIENTOLOSY organizations are not religious. Ms. King did not want any portion of the investigation to be introduced which might pose possible questions of First Amendment provisions.

On March 25, 1983, Gerald Armstrong and his wife, Jocelyn, cane to Florida to give testimony regarding various practices of the SCIENTOLOGY organization and its leaders. Mr. Armstrong testified to being assigned by L. RON HUBBARD to collaborate with a writer named Omar Garrison because Mr. Garrison was commissioned to write a favorable book about HUBBARD. The purpose of the book was to place HUBBARD in a favorable posture to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

During the course of this assignment, Mr. Armstrong discovered the claims made by HUBBARD concerning his background and education were fictitious. Mr. Armstrong began to have doubts about the true mission of SCIENTOLOGY. Mr. Armstrong also testified about financial transfers of monies to benefit HUBBARD, particularly about a mission holders' meeting held in San Francisco in 1982. During this meeting, several high ranking SCIENTOLOGISTS discussed payments to HUBBARD for copyright transfers and how the payments could be made without detection or discovery from any investigative body, namely, the I.R.S.

On September 20, 1983, this writer contacted lawyer Julia Dragojevic and asked her if it was necessary to have a Grand Jury impaneled in order to gain access to information under Judge Cole's province. This investigator explained to Dragojevic that Gerald Armstrong was deposed in accordance with her suggestion formulated in her letter dated May 6, 1983.

Ms. Dragojevic did not feel the judge would require the investigative steps be inclusive as to impanel a Grand Jury, as long as Mr. Armstrong's statement had been taken. Dragojevic instructed this investigator to list the statements of Armstrong as part of any Motion filed in Judge Cole's court to retrieve documents and taoes contained in said court.

Ms. Dragojevic had recently completed a Motion for lawyers in Portland, Oregon, regarding the Julie Christofferson case, to be presented in Judge Cole's court on October 6, 1983. Ms. Dragojevic stated any Motion contemplated by the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney should be accomplished as quickly as possible to enable Judge Cole to hear both Motions on the same date, October 6, 1983.

Ms. Dragojevic is going to send this writer a copy of the Motion she completed in the Christofferson case to serve as a guideline in case we decide to enter a Motion to release evidence testified to by Gerald Armstrong in March 1983 at the State Attorney's Office.

Ms. Dragojevic told this writer that if any agency desires the documents and evidence in question, a request should be made for them now as the lawyers for SCIENTOLOGY and MARY SUE HUBBARD are continually filing Motions for the return of these documents and tapes back into the hands of SCIENTOLOGY. Ms. Dragojevic feels one of these Motions may attract the judge's attention and the evidence returned back to SCIENTOLOGY, hence lost forever.

Ms. King's interpretation of Judge Cole's ruling was as follows.


TO:     James T. Russell
	Doug Crow
	Bob Somers

FROM:	C. Marie King

DATE:	May 16, 1983



We received from Flynn's co-counsel on the Armstrong case in California, 1) transcript of hearing of September 24, 1982, on SCN's Motion for preliminary injunction to prevent dissemination of material in the possession of Armstrong which the Church was bringing suit to recover, 2) the court's order of October 4, 1982, granting preliminary injunction, 3) transcript of hearing of December 8, 1982, on SCN's Motion for clarification of that order, and 4) the court's order of December 23, 1982, setting out the procedure for viewing the material by the parties and by others.

As it affects us, the December 23 order requires:

1) a party in another lawsuit

2) to file a Motion in this action to initiate discovery

3) with a description of the documents sought to be discovered

4) which Motion shall be reviewed by a Special Master, to be paid by the moving party, to identify all documents falling within the request

5) the Special Master then notifies all parties of the documents identified as relevant to the discovery request

6) the parties have 14 days to file objections with the Special Master

7) if all objections are filed, the documents are made available to the moving party

8) as to documents for which objections are filed, the moving party must tile a motion to compel discovery to be heard by the Special Master; costs of this hearing are charged to the losing party.

As to the requirement of no. 1 above, that the moving party be a party in another lawsuit, the court said during the hearing of December 8 that "Other courts have to be able to order -- to make a ruling on a motion for disclosure." (T 2) But the court added that the disclosure "shouldn't be allowed just willy-nilly." (T 3) The court was upset with Armstrong's counsel having revealed the contents of some of the documents in describing them in a federal court proceeding. That counsel mentioned to me over the phone the fine line between describing the documents sufficiently to fulfill no. 3 above without being held in contempt for revealing the contents. The court wanted to permit parties in other actions "to be able to defend themselves against the Church's forays." (T 4, and see T 3 and 5.)

At the initial hearing of September 24, the court said: "When a court involved in any other litigation makes a determination that these documents are useable, discoverable, or whatever, in other litigation and either of you bring me proper evidence of that, then I will let it be inspected there. But the documents are filed here and if they want them to be used for judicial -- I am saying now they can only use it in this case. Period." (T 18) The court also said:

"If there is other litigation in which a court of competent jurisdiction has declared that this documentation is subject to discovery, then upon giving this court competent evidence of such determination by another court, an appropriate order may be made allowing counsel in that other litigation to similarly inspect and (sic) use the information." (T 17)

The judge did clarify that he was not restricting Gerald Armstrong from revealing anything about the documents that he knew without actually seeing them at the time. Obviously, information from him could be used to determine what documents were wanted and how they could be described.


I believe that at a minimum the California court would require a State Grand Jury investigation and a court's determination that specific documents (or types of documents) were relevant to that Grand Jury's investigation to meet no. 1 above, that the moving party be a party in another lawsuit. This minimum, however, might not be enough to satisfy the California court that there is another litigation.


As can be shown by the two examples offered by Ms. King and this investigator's conversation with Ms. Dragojevic, a difference of opinion existed concerning Judge Cole's ruling and the availability of the documents in Judge Cole's court in Los Angeles. Consequently, the documents were never retrieved.

During the course of this investigation, this investigator met twice with James Barton, assistant to the Attorney General of the State of Florida, concerning SCIE~:TOLOGY. During the first meeting With Mr. Barton in June of 1983, this investigator along with Steve Van Gura presented many documents and affidavits for his review. In September, I traveled to Lakeland and discussed the material with Mr. Barton, along with the avenues of possible prosecution under the provisions of the R.I.C.O. Statutes of the State of Florida. Mr. Barton emphasized a civil R.I.C.O. violation was extremely remote because the intent to defraud ex-SCIENTOLOGISTS of their monies would be difficult to prove.

Mr. Barton stated he did not want to get into the documented policies of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, as they were extremely complex and it would be doubtful a jury could understand their full impact, even when the documents are explained. Mr. Barton stated because the understanding and explanation of these documents are so complex, errors might be made and First Amendment rights would be violated.

Mr. Barton also said he and the State of Florida would not be put in a posture of proving the CHURC~ OF SCIENTOLOGY is not a religion, and any venture into the explanation of SCIENTOLOGY policies and practices would automatically place prosecution into a precarious position of hedging on First Amendment provisions. Mr. Barton told me if we could show any crimes committed within the Statute of Limitations period that are more traditional in nature, such as murder, extortion, etc., which fall into the provisions of the R.I.C.O. Statutes, we would have a far better chance of getting the State of Florida Attorney General's office involved.

Mr. Barton returned to me all the documents and materials given to him at the June meeting and stated if he could be of any further assistance at a future date, to contact him.

In April 1983, Chief Investigator Robert Somers, Agent Steve Van Gura and other officials of the State Attorney's Office held a meeting with members of the Federal Attorney General's office in Tampa. I was not in attendance at this meeting, but found out in October 1983 from Agent Van Gura that the Federal Government was not terribly interested in investigating the SCIENTOLOGY organization due to manpower and monetary restrictions.

In August 1983, writer and Agent Van Gura met F.B.I. Agent George Kraut and Federal Attorney Fitzgibbons at the airport office of the State Attorney. At this meeting the Federal people were presented with documents and other materials involving SCIENTOLOGY. Mr. Fitzgibbons and Agent Kraut stated they would examine the documents and schedule another meeting to discuss Federal involvement. Prosecutor Fitzgibbons was extremely critical of the lack of manpower devoted to the current investigation conducted by Mr. Russell's office. He took particular notice of the fact that a lawyer was not assigned on a full-time basis. He commented that an investigation of this scope should have at least two lawyers and two accountants assigned along with at least six investigators.

On Thursday, September 29, 1983, this investigator and City Attorney Thomas Bustin discussed the encompassing investigation concerning the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY with Federal prosecutor Fitzgibbons and F.B.I. Agent Kraut.

Mr. Fitzgibbons asked this writer many questions concerning the SCIENTOLOGY investigations. I explained the interpretation of SCI~~TOLOGY policies is an integral part of the investigation, as these policies show a pattern of financial rewards for getting new people into SCIENTOLOGY. These policies, coupled with SCIENTOLCGY'S current practice of delaying repayment of advanced fees to disgruntled ex-SCIENTOLOGISTS, might show a pattern of organized fraud.

I explained the investigators on a local level were unable to do a complete follow-up concerning advance fee payments at this time.

The reason for a lack of follow-up is due to the fact that the monies are ultimately wired out of the country and into foreign banks in Europe. In order to prove the intention of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY to not pay back monies to the rightful owners, we would have to do a complete financial analysis. The cooperation of Federal investigators is vital to this type of investigation, as local officials lack the connections in foreign countries to trace and track these financial money flows. Also, I posed the question about standing in an investigation such as SCIENTOLOGY, because monies are collected in California for SCIENTOLOGY services, transferred to Clearwater (Flag Headquarters) and according to our best sources, ultimately transferred to European banks; is this a Federal inquiry as to any criminal violations? The monies in question are transferred across various State lines and then on to foreign banks.

Should the F.B.I. have a vested interest in any investigation which might take place?

Mr. Fitzgibbons intimated he did not want to get into policies involving the CHURCH OF SCI~NTOLOGY, as he felt these policies would possibly fall under the provisions of the First Amendment rights. Mr. Fitzgibbons stated the SCIENTOLOGY documents were extremely complex and it would be doubtful if a lay person would really understand the impact or meaning behind the documents. Mr. Fitzgibbons also stated a training period would be necessary to indoctrinate the Federal investigators, prosecutors and accountants about SCIENTOLOGY. Fitzgibbons said it would Se doubtful if the superiors in Washington would approve such an expenditure. "r. Fitzgibbons felt sure his superiors in Washington, ~.D., would not cross the bridge between SCIENTOLOGY and its religion.

Mr. Fitzgibbons stated as far as the problem concerning the collection of advanced fees and sending the monies to Florida, this activity should be investigated by officials in California. I told Mr. Fitzgibbons I have contacted many agencies in California concerning SCIENTOLOGY and as far as I know, no agency is conducting any type of investigation.

Mr. Fitzgibbons then asked if we wanted to be tied up in a financial investigation for two or three years, because the tracing and tracking of back accounts is extremely time-consuming.

Mr. Fitzgibbons stated he was going to author a memo to the Federal U.S. Attorney, Robert Merkle, regarding our conversation and the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY material given to him at an earlier meeting with P.D.L.E. Agent Steve Van Gura, Chief Investigator of the State Attorney's Office, Robert Somers, and myself. Mr. Fitzgibbons warned Mr. Bustin and myself not to be too optimistic about Federal involvement in the investigation of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, as ~e felt no crimes had been committed by this organization that warrant a Federal investigation. Mr. Fitzgibbons told us that manpower and First Amendment considerations would be the prime drawbacks for a Federal commitment. Approval for an investigation on the scale necessary to adequately pursue this endeavor would have to come from Washington and Fitzgibbons was extremely doubtful this approval would be given.

I mentioned to Fitzgibbons the possibility of going to Canada and reviewing the documents taken in the search warrant of the CHURCH OF SCIE~TOLOGY organization in Toronto. These documents, coupled with tapes and documents held in Judge Cole's court in Los Angeles in the Gerald Armstrong case, might give the Federal prosecutors an avenue to pursue. Mr. Fitzgibbons suggested not to bother looking into those documents or taking any trips to view same, as it would be extremely doubtful the justice Department would change their minds about entering into the investigation of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY based on the same reasons as cited above, i.e., lack of manpower, expenditures, etc.

On October 17, 1983, I was informed by Chief Investigator Robert Somers that he was going to ask Mr. Russell to terminate the SCIENTOLOGY investigative unit. Sgt. Seebach had been re-assigned to Sheriff Coleman's staff; Steve Van Gura, F.D.L.E. Agent, had been re-assigned another case and the investigators from the State Attorney's Office had all been re-assigned to other duties. I explained this chain of events to Chief Klein who, in turn, re-assigned me to the Clearwater Police Department.

As of this summary, I have included the manpower and equipment allocation by the Ontario Provincial Police on their investigation of one single org in Toronto.

During this investigation I was the only actual full-time investigator assigned. The other persons formally assigned to this investigation either did not take an active role or dedicated part of their time to the investigation.

The Ontario Provincial Police manpower report is as follows.

Ontario Provincial Police
Ministry of the Solicitor General
90 Harbour Street
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2S1

File reference: 965-15-37-83

Oct. 19, 1983

Clearwater Police Dept.
644 Pierce Street
Clearwater, Florida


Re: Your Request for Information regarding the Investigation of Scientology by the O.P.P.

I have outlined in point form on the following pages the items requested by you in our telephone conversation of last week. I do not have a dollar figure to give you regarding the cost to date of the investigation but I can assure you that the costs have been high.

I trust that this information will be of some benefit to you and if we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to get in touch with myself or any of the others working on this investigation. As the investigation is expected to continue another 13 or ?4 months I cannot give you even an estimate of the expected costs.

Wishing you success in your endeavour.

D.A. Ormsby
Detective Sergeant,
Anti Rackets Branch



Investigation into Scientology

- Undertaken on a full time basis in 1980, with 6 police officers assigned.

- 1 further officer assigned in February 1981.

- Search warrant executed March 1983, using 129 police officers.

- 904 boxes of materials seized.

- 2 more police officers assigned full time to project in March 1983.

- 5 police officers on loan to project from March to July 1983, inclusive to stamp seized material with a location identifier number.

- August 1983, 7 additional police officers assigned to read, analyze an3 correlate the seized material.

- Accounting firm retained and 4 accountants assigned full time July 1983.

- Possible completion date of project-December 1984.

- Total Costs unknown at present time.

Areas of initial concern were:

- Office accommodation and equipment.

- Storage facilities.

- Security on office space and storage location.

- Computer terminal for inventory.

- Word processing equipment.

- Automobiles.

- Communications equipment.

- Telephones.

- Funding to pay for books, literature and courses purchased from Scientology during the investigation.

- Time involved-preparation of the information to obtain Search Warrant took 1 year and resulted in a document in excess of 1,200 pages.

Areas of Secondary Concern

- Secure storage facilities for volume of material seized.

- Personnel to examine seized documentation and conduct follow up interviews.

- Members of Scientology attending daily at storage location to examine and record seized documentation (permitted by Court Order). Requires 1 police officer assigned to monitor this operation.

- Motions before the Supreme Court to quash the Search Warrant and to seal material from the Pre Clear folders which is claimed to be confidential.

- Means of completing a comprehensive inventory and filing system to enable documents to he located and retrieved without difficulty.

In reference to the statement made by this writer to Mr. Fitzgibbons regarding other police agencies' involvement with the investigation of the Scientology organization (page 19 of this summary), on September 22, 1983, this investigator contacted the following police agencies and divisions in an attempt to ascertain if any law enforcement or investigative body was investigating the affairs of the Church of Scientology:

        Los Angeles Police 
	Organized Crime Bureau 
	Captain Fink - (213) [xxx-xxxx]

Captain Fink told this investigator the Organized Crime Bureau was not conducting an active investigation pertaining to the organization known as Scientology. Captain Fink referred this investigator to the Terrorist Division.

A spokesman for the Terrorist Division of the Los Angeles Police told this writer his division was not conducting an investigation pertaining to the organization known as Scientology. I was referred to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Fraud Division. A spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Fraud Division, told this writer his agency was not engaged in any investigation of Scientology. This spokesman referred this writer to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, Fraud Division.

A spokesman for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, Fraud Division, told this writer his agency was not engaged in the investigation of Scientology. When this writer told the spokesman, "You might be concerned about some problems in this organization," the spokesman said he was not interested and hung up the phone.

The investigation into the activities of the organization known as Scientology has reached a juncture which needs to be discussed at this point.

As previously mentioned in this report, investigators assigned to this endeavor have offered materials, affidavits and other evidence to officials of the Attorney General's Office of the State of Florida, to prosecutors of the Federal Middle District of the State of Florida, to investigators of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and to the prosecution staff of the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office, all with the same results.

All these entities believe the investigation into the activities of the Scientology organization is a long and costly endeavor which could tie up the persons assigned to this case for a long extended period of time. It is further believed any prosecution of Scientology would ultimately be a test of the First Amendment provisions of the U.S. Constitution. This test would be extremely exacting and involved for those persons attempting to prove Scientology is not a religion, but a fraudulent enterprise. Based on these reasons mentioned and the attendant statements by representatives of the governmental bodies previously referred to, it is unlikely any investigation involving Scientology would be fruitful. On this level, at this time the investigation of Scientology is clearly beyond the abilities of this agency or any other agency acting upon its own to conduct. I can only quote Mr. Fitzgibbons at a meeting held at the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office with Robert Somers, Steve Van Gura, F.B.I. Agent George Kraut and myself:

"The investigation of Scientology is a far-reaching enterprise involving at least 2 lawyers, 2 accountants and several investigators, just to start." At the September meeting in Tampa with Mr. Fitzgibbons, Mr. Bustin, City Attorney for the City of Clearwater, Agent Kraut and myself, Mr. Fitzgibbons made the statement:

"The financial investigation of Scientology is a tremendous undertaking which would involve 2 to 3 years of litigation just to get evidence into court. Lawyers would have to criss-cross this country to get subpoenas, quashing other subpoenas, and attempting to obtain records. we just don't have the ability to do so at this time."


The future investigation of the Scientology organization is contingent on a variety of variables:

1. As previously discussed, any investigation of Scientology has to be a joint federal, state and local endeavor, with the proper number of investigators assigned. Equipment, clerical staff and professional help such as lawyers and accountants are extremely important.

2. The total staff committed to any investigative effort would have to be trained in Scientology practices, policies and procedures.

3. The selection of an investigative staff would be based on each individual assigned having demonstrated by past experience a total commitment in tackling virtually impossible ventures. The persons assigned to this type of investigation would have to have a scholarly background and on an individual basis, willing to take on extreme challenges.

It cannot be overemphasized that an investigation such as Scientology must be staffed with the proper amount of people who possess the expertise in the various aspects of investigative prosecution steps, or the investigation of this organization is merely perfunctory in nature.

4. Money should be no object. If the scope of the investigation of Scientology is predicated on a limited budget expenditure that is conservative, the investigation should not commence.

5. The U.S. Constitution was conceived to protect the citizens of this country, and not for individuals to hide behind. Determinations concerning the possible court challenges and problems involving First Amendment provisions should Se made in court. Prosecutors shy away from possible court challenges because they are time consuming and the possibility of winning these challenges is a 50/50 proposition.

If the prosecutor is well-versed in Constitutional law or is willing to educate himself in these areas, he or she should not be hesitant in taking court challenges on a win-or-lose basis.

We will never know if we can win in court until we try.

Possible future avenues of ultimate prosecution of Scientology are as follows:

1. The Ontario Provincial Polite are currently engaged in collating and cataloging boxes of material seized in the execution of a search warrant of the Toronto org. This process is very time consuming and will probably not be completed until April or May of 1984. Some of the documents seized in the aforementioned search warrant are referenced back to the International Flag Headquarters of Scientology in Clearwater, Florida. A determination has not been made as to the scope of possible criminal violations emanating or directed from International Flag Headquarters located in Clearwater, Florida.

[Footnote:] * A total of 904 legal size boxes of material was seized.

2. The Federal Government, i.e., federal prosecutors and the F.B.I., have not formally refused to De involved in the investigation of Scientology. In all the discussions with federal officials, these officials have stated not to be too optimistic about federal involvement; however, a final review of the Scientology case has not been conducted by the Justice Department in Washington, D. C.

3. The Arizona Attorney General's Office is currently conducting an investigation into some of the activities of the SCIENTOLOGY organization.

4. The Consumer Affairs Division of the City of New York are currently engaged in an investigation of SCIENTOLOGY, exact status, unknown.

5. The City of Clearwater has instituted an excellent avenue of redress for Scientology citizens who have exact complaints against this organization in the form of the Charitable Solicitation Ordinance. This ordinance, No. 3091-83, entitled the "Charitable. Solicitation Ordinance", will encumber SCIENTOLOGY in the following fashion.

Page 2 of the ordinance reads:

"The fraudulent diversion of funds collected within the boundaries of Clearwater, Florida, the illegal or unreasonable invasions of privacy of the citizens of Clearwater, the fraudulent failure to abide by pledges made to contributors, the improper use of schemes to or obtain money by means of fake statements or representations, the false concealment of identities of organizations on whose behalf solicitations for monies were made, the false representations to the residents of Clearwater that contributions made by them would entitle them to a federal or state income tax deduction, the wrongful use of illegal threats or intimidations to obtain contributions and other improper, illegal or fraudulent practices, all to the detriment of the citizens of the City of Clearwater."

Scientology has engaged in every practice enumerated by the foregoing.

Of particular interest would be the I.R.S. tax case which is about to be decided in a Federal Appeals Court. Part and particle of this ruling will be the non-profit charitable status of SCIENTOLOGY. If the Appellate Court rules SCIENTOLOGY is a profit-making organization, members will not be able to deduct "contributions" from their individual state or federal income tax forms.

On pages 5 - 9 of the ordinance entitled Registration with the City Clerk, SCIENTOLOGY will be unable to comply for the following reasons.

Subsection C reads as follows:

A reference to all determinations of tax exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States and law of any state, and laws of any county or municipality.

As previously discussed, SCIENTOLOGY may have their charitable non-taxable status because of the current Appellate case now being decided in Washington, D.C. SCIENTOLOGY has already lost the local County Property Tax Case for the years 1978-81.

Under Section 100.05, entitled Prohibited Acts, the section that particularly applies to any future investigation of SCIENTOLOGY by the Clearwater Police Department acting solely upon its own, should De Subsection F, on Page 10.

Subsection F reads as follows:

Falsely promising any person that a contribution will be refunded upon request, and thereafter failing within 60 days to make a refund that has been requested in writing and within a reasonable period of time.

This investigator has received many complaints from persons who have paid advanced fees for courses and have been unable to receive refunds. Many of these claims extend well beyond the 60 day period set down in Subsection F.

The Police Department and the City Attorney's Office should work together in a cooperative effort to process claims for refunds or any other violations of the Charitable Solicitation Ordinance to insure violations of this ordinance by SCIENTOLOGY is brought into the publics' view.

This investigator, along with elements of the Vice and Intelligence Division, is currently in the process of collating and cataloging all the information concerning SCIENTOLOGY that is currently housed in the Clearwater Police Department. This process involves indexing and categorizing each piece of material into the various classifications such as:

        Investigators Work Produce 
	Intelligence Files 
	Open Investigations 
	Closed Investigations

The files will be indexed and collated to insure easy retrieval of information of persons, places and objects.

These files will be available to any authorized law enforcement agency or governmental body investigating the practice and policies of the SCIENTOLOGY organization.


The SCIENTOLOGY organization has been in existence since 1952 and in Clearwater since 1975. Since its inception, SCIENTOLOGY has flourished and prospered despite setbacks in Australia, France and in 1977, Washington, D. C.

Many governments throughout this country have expressed an interest about SCIENTOLOGY and its practices and these governments have launched local inquiries into this organization. The conclusions of these independent investigations have also been the same, an open investigation without a definitive direction or purpose.

The SCIENTOLOGY organization is a multi-faceted, extremely complex organization, purposefully designed to encumber any one investigation conducted on a local level. Added to this encumbrance is the fact SCIENTOLOGY claims to be a religion and therefore, protected under the provisions of the first amendment, The SCIENTOLOGY organization exploits every opportunity to hide behind their so called religious status. This posture is epitomized by a SCIENTOLOGY document entitled, Level O Checklist. In the Level O Checklist, instructions are given to SCIENTOLOGY members who are approached by medical doctors while these members are attempting to employ SCIENTOLOGY methods and practices to patients in hospitals and nursing homes. The Instructional Guide states the SCIENTOLOGY member is to claim religious status when approached by a medical doctor if the doctor is disturbed or displeased with the SCIENTOLOGISTS administering medical treatment to the patient. If the SCIENTOLOGY Member is arrested, a lawyer will be provided immediately and a suit is to be instituted in excess of $100,000 against the doctor and anyone else that it might be advantageous to sue for violating the SCIENTOLOGIST'S first amendment rights in practicing religion on the patient.

As can be shown by this one rendering of a simple document, Level O Checklist, the SCIENTOLOGY organization has prepared itself against outside intrusions regarding its practices. In the Level O Checklist, the instructions are for SCIENTOLOGY members to safeguard against inquiries about the quasi medical practices veiled to assume religious connotations. The SCIENTOLOGY Organization and L. Ron Hubbard have authored hundreds of documents and policies which are all designed to protect SCIENTOLOGY from investigation and ultimately, prosecution.

One of the operations of SCIENTOLOGY is to engage in harassing law suits designed to forestall and negate any inquiry into their practices. This coupled along with other SCIENTOLOGY practices of "Fair Game", "Attack the attacker", "The Black PR Doctrine", (which is designed to find out damaging information about SCIENTOLOGY detractors and make this information public), and other SCIENTOLOGY practices designed to protect this organization at all costs causes a great deal of concern among potential investigators and prosecutors.

As shown in the investigative portion of the report, prosecutors are reluctant to properly investigate and prosecute the SCIENTOLOGY organization for some of the reasons mentioned above. Also, new prosecutors know from previous experience relayed to them by investigators and prosecutors that have attempted to investigate SCIENTOLOGY, a large legal staff is necessary to answer subpoenas in various parts of the Country and file motions for Discovery of Evidence in other parts of the Country.

Various prosecutors, namely Mr. Fitzgibbons of the Federal Middle District of the State of Florida, and Marie King of the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office, have expressed Court appearances as a large problem when conducting a meaningful investigation and prosecution of SCIENTOLOGY.

The SCIENTOLOGY organization is a large, complex corporation with many, many sub-corporations inclusive into its structure. Once again, this corporation and sub-corporate designs were devised to hamper any investigation into SCIENTOLOGY practices. A particular problem associated with this organization and its many corporations, is the tracing and tracking of financial flows of monies and credits.

The organization has many bank accounts throughout the world (mostly in European Banks) that are virtually impossible to monitor without the aid of Federal assistance. A local investigator or prosecutor in Florida does not have the wherewithal to flow a financial investigation from beginning to end because money transfers within SCIENTOLOGY are done on an interstate basis and from Country to Country.

In summation, the investigation of SCIENTOLOGY should take on the proportions displayed by our law enforcement brothers of the Ontario Provincial Police in Toronto, Canada or an overall investigation should not begin. On page 22 through 24 of this report, an accounting of men and materials to date that has been committed to the investigation or a single SCIENTOLOGY ORG is included for your review.

In 1977, the F.B.I. arrested Michael Meisner for burglary of a Government Office. A Grand Jury was impaneled in Washington, D. C., and indictments were handed down for the arrest of eleven SCIENTOLOGISTS, including Mary Sue Hubbard. A search warrant was executed on the SCIENTOLOGY ORG in Washington, D.C. This search warrant yielded volumes of SCIENTOLOGY policies, practices and rules in document forms. Of particular interest was information seized pertaining to burglaries, extortion and other crimes.

The documents were in the form of Guardian Office Operations such as Operation Taco-Less, Operation Keeler I and Keeler II, Operation Choke, Operations against the news media in Pinellas County and the Operation against Paulette Cooper. All these documents came to the attention of both the Federal and local law enforcement agencies without results. The ideal time for a complete investigation into illegal SCIENTOLOGY practices would have been immediately after the revelation of these before mentioned documents in 1977-78-79; before the Statute of Limitations took effect over the attendant crimes mentioned in the seized documents.

The City of Clearwater and the Clearwater Police Department are placed into the position of investigating Violations of the Criminal Statutes by SCIENTOLOGY members on a case by case basis because of manpower restrictions. Any future criminal violations should be referred to the State Attorney's Office on case by case basis as mentioned before. A total investigation of the policies and practices of SCIENTOLOGY is completely out of the question when this investigation is conducted on a local level.

Violations that are affected by the Charitable Solicitation Ordinance should be referred to the City Attorney's Office after mechanisms for referral have been instituted.

The records and files contained at the Clearwater Police Department should be available to any authorized law enforcement agency or governmental body investigating SCIENTOLOGY.

The investigation of the practices of SCIENTOLOGY should be a complete investigative effort, properly staffed and with the conviction prosecution is possible or not attempted at all.

In closing, I have submitted a newspaper article which appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on Sunday, November 20, 1983, This article is a follow-up concerning the Rev. Jones and the Johnstown suicides. The portions of the article which should be noticed are set apart by parentheses.



The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.

This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.

Further facts about this criminal empire may be found at Operation Clambake and FACTNet.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank