Wed, 19 May 1999 21:50:26 GMT
Bob@minton.org wrote:
Church of Scientology International
May 12,1999
Mr. Jorgen Pedersen
Fax No. 011-45-33-184461
Re: Your Upcoming Television program on Scientology
Dear Mr. Pedersen:
Following, our most recent telephone conversation today, I have given
considerable thought to what we discussed concerning your upcoming
television program on the Church Scientology.
Initially, I would like to point out that the Church has cooperated
extensively with the production staff in the making of this program.
Our staff and parishioners in Denmark have provided interviews, footage of
our church facilities and tried to answer all of your questions.
While I understand that to some degree the program will be
controversial, I am grateful that the Church has had the opportunity
to present you with sufficient material to portray the Church of
Scientology in a balanced, even-handed fashion. And I truly hope that
your program will ultimately reflect that balance. We are not seeking
to exert editorial control over your program; your journalistic integrity
deserves to be respected.
However, knowing what we know about Jesse Prince, we do object to the
fact that he is being given the prominence of your television program to
violate his contractual obligation.
In the final analysis, I fail to see what could possibly be gained by
providing a Church spokesperson to engage in a televised debate with Jesse
Prince. Mr. Prince was removed from any position of authority in the
Church more than 10 years ago for his inability to attend to his duties in
an honest, ethical fashion. He has no current knowledge of any of our
Churches or activities. Thus, nothing he could possibly say on your program
will improve your viewers' understanding of Scientology at all.
As to any past knowledge he may have had at one time, Mr. Prince admitted
in a documented interview with Church counsel that such knowledge did not
include any of the areas of expertise that he is now pretending to be an
expert, such as Church legal affairs. For example, in August of 1998, Mr.
Prince filed a declaration in a copyright infringement case involving the
unlawful copying of approximate 2,000 published works by L. Ron Hubbard.
In it, Mr. Prince pretended to a knowledge of copyright procedures which he
did not possess. Once this lack of knowledge was exposed in a deposition of
Mr. Prince taken on August 19, 1998, the defendants in that suit, who hired
Mr. Prince were forced to settle the case for a permanent injunction and a
$1,000,000 damages award against them rather than face a trial with Mr.
Prince as their witness.
Worse than merely being uninformed, Mr. Prince has amply demonstrated that
he will say anything for money. Indeed Mr. Prince conceded in his August
19, 1998 testimony (excerpts of which were provided to you) that he had
received several thousand dollars and a new car for testifying against the
church, and that his paychecks would continue as long as he continued to
speak out. This money is his only regular source of income beyond some
occasional work as a handyman.
Before obtaining this windfall, Mr. Prince was unable to keep a job and, as
a result declared bankruptcy in 1997. After declaring bankruptcy, he then
sought to have the Church purchase his silence in exchange for large
amounts of money. After the Church refused to cooperate with this attempted
extortion, Mr. Prince took up the mantle of as a "professional"
anti-Scientologist. Having collected his thirty pieces of silver to betray
his faith, he continues to appear in the press, picket Churches, and harass
Church staff both to earn his pay and in the hope that the Church will pay
him money to go away. That is what he is attempting to do now, and I see no
reason for the Church to aid him in his efforts.
Further, you were provided with evidence concerning Mr. Prince's long,
unchanging pattern of unethical conduct. These included court records of
arrests and convictions for lewd conduct and for driving while intoxicated.
This conduct continues to the present. You were provided these materials
for a specific reason: Mr. Prince intends to come on your program and pass
moral judgement on my Church. His fitness to make moral pronouncements is
thus directly relevant. It is my view that Mr. Prince's conduct renders him
unfit to judge Scientology or anyone else.
Finally, we have presented you with the contract Mr. Prince signed when he
left Church staff in which he agreed never to disclose any of the
information he learned while on Church staff. This contract was entered
into precisely to avoid the circumstance of Prince inventing allegations
which force the Church to disclose private internal matters to disprove his
lies. Mr. Prince is contractually bound to the Church in the amount of
$10,000 for each breach of this contract. As he is penniless, and as your
program is paying his expenses to enable him to fly to Denmark and appear
on your show in violation of his contractual obligations, the Church will
hold your production company and any of its employees or agents who
induced Mr. Prince to breach his contractual obligations fully responsible
for any violations.
Thus, if you sincerely desire to have your program reflect the amount of
effort you and your staff appear to have put into it, and not to have it
degenerate into a tabloid-style forum for the airing of lies which have
been bought and paid for, I urge you to seriously reconsider using Mr.
Prince at all.
Whatever you decide, you will not have a Church representative sitting
opposite him in a live-on-tape debate; that we will not do. You do have
our views, though, in this letter, and I would request that those views be
accurately communicated to your viewers.
If you wish to communicate about any other matters concerning your program
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kurt Weiland
Church of Scientology International
Santa Klaus <tirnanog@my-dejanews.com> said:
"we are not trying to tell you what to say..."
"but if you say things that make us look bad we will be
very upset..."
Hey Kurt - I am sure that it has not escaped your tubby little mind
but Prince's contract was signed in the USA - I doubt that your threats
to a Danish broadcaster have any value whatsoever.
Also a non-disclosure document doesn't cover things like you described
- if, indeed, Mr Prince is fabricating things then those "fabrications"
are not covered under an NDA - an NDA covers not disclosing confidential
information learned while one was an employee. It does not cover a whole
host of other things - like, for example, talking about public
information. It also does not proscribe reporting illegal activities to
the authorities.
It is interesting that, once again, the church is trying to claim that
someone who was as high in hierarchy as Mr prince was, in fact, a loser
who could not hold a job etc etc - if Mr prince, with this terrible
track record could rise so high in your organization, Weiland, what does
that say about you? After all Mr Prince was your boss was he not?
Bluster and braggadacio seems to be your only stock in trade Mr
Weiland. Did you point out to the Danish producers that you yourself had
been sanctioned by a court in germany for your efforts in Munich?
--
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Further facts
about this criminal empire may be found at
Operation Clambake and FACTNet.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
Office of Special Affairs
Net Productions
Kalvebod Brugge 35-37
1519 Copenhagen V., Denmark
Where warriors go..
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate:
XENU.NET
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.
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. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.