Scientology Crime Syndicate

AFFIDAVIT of Paul Grosswald in PADGETT custody case
11 Apr 2000 09:15:29 -0700
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com> <Arnie_member@newsguy.com>


I, Paul Grosswald, of Long Island, New York, testify to the following as truthful and factual.

On May 6, 1994 1 testified in the Hopkins Circuit Court (Madisonville, KY) for the Padgett vs. Padgett case. I was impelled to do so for the following reasons:

1. Julie and Beau Padgett's freedom, constitutional rights, and future are endangered by Scientology.

2. As a former Scientologist, I have direct knowledge about Scientology and its policies.

3. 1 know Scientology to be a very dangerous organization. it enforces policies which require its members to sever ties with their families.

4. Scientology uses destructive psychological techniques to intimidate followers into compliance. Scientologists are taught how to lie and deceive.

5. Many people are afraid to speak out against Scientology for fear of its widely demonstrated retaliatory methods.

6. 1 was not there to testlfy for Tom Padgett. I did not know him.

7. 1 was not there to testify against Laura Padgett. I did not know her.

While on the stand I observed the following (which I believe is on videotape also):

1. The attorneys of Julie and Beau's father (Thomas) attempting to reveal the truth about Scientology's destructive policies, by asking me about my experiences and-knowledge.

2. The commissioner favored Julie and Beau's mother (Laura) by not allowing Thomas' attorney to ask me if I felt Scientology was harmful to children, even though the answer to that question was paramount to the case.

3. Laura I s attorney, Mr. Halleyburton, attempting to insult and intimidate me with comments that had no bearing on the case or my testimony. He degraded my profession, and implied that I was incapable of making a decent living, even though I have an excellent school and work history. His comments provoked laughter from the commissioner, who made no attempt to scold or discipline Mr. Halleyburton for stepping out of line.

At the conclusion of the hearing Mr. Halleyburton slandered me in f ront of the Commissioner, suggesting carelessly and irresponsibly that I had come to Madisonville to "kidnap" the children. This outlandish accusation was made off the record, after I had left the stand, thus, not giving me an ample opportunity to respond to it. The truth is I have never been involved in kidnappings or any other criminal activities, I have no criminal record, nor do any of my family or friends. This underhanded attempt to smear my good reputation in front of the commissioner is a direct reflection of the Scientology organization which Laura belongs to. Scientology uses a "Fair Game Policy," which tells Scientologists to destroy their critics by making up false accusations against them.

I have since read the commissioner's recommendation on the Padgett vs. Padgett case. I find the following sad and irresponsible:

1. The commissioner makes a reference to the fact that I did not know any of the Padgetts. This reference is irrelevant, because I do know that the* same trance- inducing, thought-stopping techniques of Scientology that were once used on me are also being used by all Scientologists, including Laura. In fact, I witnessed Laura using one of these techniques (a "communication" exercise called TR-O) while I was on the witness stand. I also know that these techniques are extremely harmful to children and adults alike. Therefore, the commissioner should have heeded my warnings that the children are in danger, even though I may not know them personally.

2. The commissioner claims that Thomas has failed "to develop proof to show that his children are being adversely effected by Scientology," but neglects the fact that the psychologist, appointed by his court, failed to study the Scientology issue, thus, denying Thomas the opportunity to obtain his proof., This point was brought out by Dr. Davis. The commissioner acknowledges Dr. Davis' testimony in his report, but then fails to incorporate it into his decision. He also ignores my testimony, in which I described how Scientology recruited me. At first, I found Scientology beneficial; the negative affects did not emerge until some time later. Even if the commissioner found. that the children are not currently being harmed by Scientology, it is utterly irresponsible to place them in an environment where the risk of future harm is so great.

3. The commissioner addresses the Scientology issue by defining it as a religious freedom issue, and saying that he has no right to allow religion to affect his ruling. But I testified that when I first joined Scientology, the organization did not consider itself a religion. Rather, it was marketed as a "self-help" group. There is no constitutional protection for self-help groups that engage in dangerous and unapproved mental health therapy. Thomas has every right to be concerned about his children's mental health, and the

therapy they are receiving, and the commissioner had every right to incorporate that concern into his ruling.

4. The commissioner attempts to degrade Thomas by calling him "overzealous." At no time does the commissioner acknowledge that Thomas' concerns are justified, even though my testimony demonstrates they are. The commissioner even admits that Scientology "may have been bad" for me, but he does not say why he feels it may have been bad for me. This is a significant oversight, because if he had outlined the specific policies and procedures of Scientology that were "bad" for me, he would have had to admit that those same policies and procedures could also be potentially harmful to the children. The father has every reason to be concerned about his children's safety. If a father showing concern for his children is considered "overzealous" then perhaps every parent should be as "overzealous" as Thomas.

5. The commissioner pointed, to the fact that both children expressed a preference towards living with their mother. He did not acknowledge my testimony which stated that Scientology employs techniques of mind control, which takes away a person's free will to make choices for themselves. He seems to have overlooked the possibility that the children, who are living with their Scientologist mother, could be choosing their mother over their father because of the influence of mind control, and not because they have freely chosen it.

6. The commissioner awarded sole custody to Laura, arguing that the "animosity" between the parties made joint custody impossible. He fails to acknowledge that all the animosity came from Laura and her attorney. The questions that were raised regarding Scientology, were not raised out of animosity. While Laura may have been offended by Thomas' criticism of Scientology, the criticism was directed at the unethical practices promoted by the organization, as well as the exorbitant amount of money that it cost, and it was born of a genuine concern for how those practices and loss of income would affect the children. The attacks on Scientology were not intended to be personal attacks on Laura, nor did anybody suggest that Laura does not have the right to believe what she wants. The animosity I witnessed came when Laura's attorney tried to intimidate me both on the stand and off, insulting my profession and accusing me of plotting to commit a felony, namely kidnapping.

The animosity directed at me by Scientology with regards to this case has continued since the hearing. On June 12, 1995, 1 was involved in a peaceful protest outside the Scientology center in New York. The New York President of Scientology, John Carmichael, approached me and said, "You're in over your head, Paul. You bombed out in Kentucky and you'll bomb out here, too." He was obviously making a reference to the Padgett vs. Padgett case. When

I asked him how he knew about the case, he responded, smugly, "We've got friends everywhere." On November 5, 1995 I was in Cleveland attending a conference for the Cult Awareness Network. A stranger engaged me in conversation, and when I told him my name he began to smile and said, "Oh, I've heard of you. Perhaps if you had kept your cool in that courtroom things might have turned out differently." Once again, he was obviously referring to Padgett vs. Padgett. He introduced himself as Ian Mann, from Minneapolis, and I quickly learned that he just happens to be one of the highest ranking Scientologists in the. world (they call him an OT 8.) Between these two incidents I detected the following:

1. I, Paul Grosswald, am considered an "enemy" of Scientology.

2. Thomas Padgett is considered an "enemy" of Scientology.

3. This is a big case for Scientology. It is fair to assume that Scientologists all over the world are following it (at least highranking Scientologists. ) It could potentially be the first custody case on record in which sole custody is awarded to a Scientologist parent, making it the first time that Scientology's "disconnection" policy has ever been sanctioned by the courts!!! (The disconnection policy states that Scientologists should sever all ties with their loved ones when the loved one expresses disagreement with Scientology and its policies.)

I feel deeply for Mr. Padgett's plight. I know where the true source of "animosity" comes from, and I know the true harm that can be done by raising children in Scientology. I regret that the commissioner has refused to acknowledge these truths. I regret that Laura Padgett has been deceived and exploited by Scientology. I regret even more what will happen to Julie and Beau Padgett.

I, as a former Scientologist, know what it is like to realize you have been deceived and manipulated. I had two strong parents that helped me to see this. I hope the day will come soon when Julie and Beau will share this appreciation with their father. I do believe Mr. Padgett is- mature and responsible enough to realize that Mrs. Padgett is not a bad person, rather she is just another one of Scientology's innocent victims, and therefore he will not allow these children to turn against their mother.

I report this for Julie and Beau Padgett.

X Paul Grosswald -

Paul Grosswald No ry Public BARBARA MASSEY

Notary Public, State of Now York No.4518467 Qualified In Suffolk County



I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.

The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers

The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's

http://www.lermanet.com/ - mentioned 4 January 2000 in The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"


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.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank