Let's Sell These People a Piece of Blue Sky: Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology (63 page)

The stepfather already had an enormous amount of material,
much of which he could not use in court. His solicitor felt that the 1,500 page
transcript of the Clearwater Hearings was inadmissible in an English court. The
father, a convinced Scientologist, had insisted that he did not practice
Disconnection. I was given three letters he had written to his business partner
in 1983, Disconnecting from him, and suggesting that a screen be put in their
office to avoid even visual contact with his Suppressive partner.

Paragraph removed in accordance with the Order of Deputy Judge
M. Bethel, QC, in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division in Margaret
Ishobel Hodkin v. Jonathan Caven-Atack, 1993 H. No.2412, 18 May 1995. This is
the only paragraph removed from this book.

Then there were Hubbard’s own published statements. I found
references to Fair Game, a passage where Hubbard called non-Scientologists “raw
meat,” and much more.

Of course, Church members are forbidden by Policy from
making any public criticism of either Hubbard or Scientology. The strength of
this taboo is shown by the criticism I received from some Independents for my
wholehearted involvement in the case. The future of the children, and their
future happiness, was less important to them than maintaining a Public
Relations shield for Hubbard and Scientology. This attitude stems from the
belief that the Tech is a world-saving force, and that if anything is awry it
won’t help to broadcast it. It has to be emphasized that public admissions of
wrongdoing, apologies, and steps to prevent repetition are foreign to the
mentality instilled into Hubbard’s converts.

The case concerned the custody of a 10-year-old boy, and an
8-year-old girl. To quote from the judgment
¹
:

At the heart of the mother’s case is the contention
that if the children remain in the care of the father they will be brought up
as Scientologists and will be seriously damaged... It is important, indeed
essential, to stress from the start that this is neither an action against
Scientology nor a prosecution of it. But willy-nilly Scientology is at the center
of the dispute of what is best for the children. The father and his counsel
have stressed that they are not here to defend Scientology. That is true in the
strict sense that the “Church” of Scientology is not a party to the proceedings.
But they have known from the start what the mother’s case is. It is plainly set
out in the Affidavits ... The father’s solicitor is a Scientologist. He has
been in communication with the solicitors who act for Scientology. There has
been ample time and opportunity to assemble and adduce documents and evidence
in refutation of the mother’s allegations. None has been adduced. Why?

Because the mother’s case is based largely on
Scientology’s own documents and as the father’s counsel ... candidly albeit
plaintively said “what can we do to refute what is stated in Scientology’s own
documents?”

 ... The parents were married in 1973 and late that
year B [the son] was born. G [the daughter] was born in December, 1975. The
parents separated in November, 1978. In December, 1978 and January, 1979, the
parents signed agreements by virtue of which the father had custody of the
children and the mother access ... In March, 1979 the father filed a petition
of divorce on the ground of the mother’s adultery with the stepfather.

In September, 1979 ... by agreement, custody was
committed to the father. The divorce was made absolute in November, 1979. The
father and step-mother married. The mother and step-father also went through a
ceremony of marriage believing that they were free to do so. In fact, the
step-father’s divorce had not gone through... In May, 1980 there began a
hearing by the Scientology “Chaplain’s Court” concerning the custody of the
children. The decision, inaccurately described as an “Agreement,” was that custody
should remain with the father.

The mother and stepfather subsequently left Scientology and
decided to take the matter to law. Justice Latey continued:

As to the separation in 1978, the father said in his
Affidavit that this was caused by the mother’s relationship with the
step-father. In his oral evidence the father accepted that he had drawn up what
in Scientology language is described as a “Doubt Formula” [“Doubt” is one of
the “Ethics Conditions”] in which he said that he considered himself the
mother’s intellectual superior, that he had doubts about the wisdom of the
marriage and that separation had been discussed on a number of occasions ... It
is scarcely surprising that with a husband who so regarded her, she became
attached to a man who held her in full regard and affection.

As to the custody agreements in 1978 and 1979: The
father naturally attaches much weight to them. The mother says that throughout
she wanted the children and believed that it would be better for them to be
with her. She was a committed Scientologist at the time. Scientology forbids
recourse to the law courts of the country save in special circumstances with
permission ... The mother says that she agreed to the father having custody
because of the pressure brought to bear on her by the father and the
Scientologists concerned. The father accepts that she agreed very
reluctantly...

At the time of the separation B was aged just 5 and
G not quite 3. Had the dispute come to court one cannot be sure, of course,
what the decision would have been, but it is not unlikely that children so
young would have been put in the care of a good and devoted mother as this one
is and always has been.

... As to the “Chaplain’s” decision: There were
written submissions and some oral hearings. It is noteworthy that from start to
finish the father’s submission is couched in Scientology terminology and
stresses all he and the step-mother have done for Scientology, how correctly
they have complied with Scientology “ethics” and how the mother has offended
against those “ethics.” The Chaplain of course was a Scientology official.

Both the mother and step-father wanted to come to
Court and in about May, 1980 she was given permission to do so by the
“Assistant Guardian” on condition that Scientology would not be involved. But
the father intervened with the Guardian and the permission was withdrawn.

In the summer of 1982, the children stayed with the mother,
and she decided to keep them, despite the previous “agreements.” She fled to
the United States, and the father followed her, taking the children back to
England with him. Justice Latey continued, having admitted that were it not for
the father’s adherence to Scientology he would have ruled that the children
stay with him:

What then is the Scientology factor and what weight should be
attached to it? “Horrendous.” “Sinister.” “A lot of rotten apples in it.” Those
words are not mine. They are the father’s own words describing practices of the
Cult and what it does to people inside it and outside it. “A lot of villains in
it.” “Dreadful things have been done in the name of Scientology.” These words
are not mine. They are the words of the father’s counsel.

 Justice Latey went on to describe Scientology as he saw it,
and added:

Some might regard this as an extension of the entertaining
science fiction which Hubbard used to write before he invented and founded the
cult ... But in an open Society, such as ours, people can believe what they
want to and band together and promulgate their beliefs. If people believe that
the earth is flat there is nothing to stop them believing so, saying so and
joining together to persuade others.

He then quoted the evidence given by Dr. John Gordon Clark,
an American psychiatrist, during the trial:

Auditing is a simple, thoroughly designed means of
concentrating the mind to a state of a controlled trance. The aim and result is
progressively to enforce loyalty to and identification with Scientology to the
detriment of one’s natural awareness of divergent ways of thinking and outside
cultural influences. Love and allegiance are more and more given to Scientology
and L. Ron Hubbard.

Justice Latey further wrote that “In blunt language
‘auditing’ is a process of conditioning, brainwashing and indoctrination.”

Justice Latey compared the truth about Hubbard with the
Church’s published claims:

To promote himself and the cult he has made these
amongst other false claims:

That he was a much decorated war hero. He was not.

That he commanded a corvette squadron. He did not.

That he was awarded the Purple Heart, a gallantry
decoration for those wounded in action. He was not wounded and was not
decorated.

That he was crippled and blinded in the war and
cured himself with Dianetic technique. He was not crippled and was not blinded.

That he was sent by U.S. Naval Intelligence to break
up a black magic ring in California. He was not. He was himself a member of
that occult group and practiced ritual sexual magic in it.

That he was a graduate of George Washington
University and an atomic physicist. The facts are that he completed only one
year of college and failed the one course on nuclear physics in which he
enrolled.

There is no dispute about any of this. The evidence
is unchallenged.

... Hubbard has described himself as “Dr. Hubbard.”
The only doctorate he has held is a self-bestowed “doctorate” in Scientology.

... Mr. Hubbard is a charlatan and worse as are his
wife Mary Sue

Hubbard ... and the clique at the top privy to the
Cult’s activities.

Further on Justice Latey spoke of “Confessional auditing”:

Contrary to the assurance of confidentiality all
“auditing” files are available to Scientology’s intelligence and enforcement bureau
and are used, if necessary, to control and extort obedience from the person who
was audited. If a person seeks to escape from Scientology his auditing files
are taken by the intelligence bureau and used, if wished, to pressure him into
silence. They are often so used and uncontroverted evidence of this has been
given at this hearing.

... It is no surprise that to escape from the clutches
of Scientology calls for great courage and resolution. The stranglehold is
tight and unrelenting and the discipline ruthless. And of course there is the
anguish of conscience in the escaper after usually many years of commitment to
Scientology.

Justice Latey went on to read “TR-L” (“Training Routine –
Lying”) into the record. This is a drill used in the training of Guardian’s
Office staff members. Its purpose is to enable the trainee to tell a lie in a
convincing fashion.

Much of a Hubbard Policy Letter, of 15 August, 1960 was read
into the record. It contains the statement: “If attacked on some vulnerable
point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture
enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace ... Don’t ever
defend. Always attack.”

Then Justice Latey read from a Guardian’s Order of March 9,
1970, headed “Re: Successful and Unsuccessful Actions.” Under “Successful” we
find:

Prosecuting Traitors-

1)
   
In the US
finding evidence of a crime and handing it over to the police or vice-squad.
This is any crime.

2)
   
In the UK -
Finding evidence of a crime against the org, and having a representative of the
Church press charges for a prosecution.

The Order describes a cross-filing system used to keep track
of information on “traitors” (such as myself, I suppose); then successful
methods for the discovery of information through phone calls, rather than
through a personal visit:

Contacting the secretary or aide of the person you
are interested in and chatting them up. Note this is very successful in getting
tricky information that is not available in other areas...

Invent letterhead of some organization that is
spurious, i.e. have it printed up and use it to make queries ... Of these using
a phony News Agency is the most successful.

Using 2D [2nd Dynamic - sex] on someone high up in
the government to seduce them over to our side. This particular action was not
started as an Int[elligence] action but was more personal...

Infiltrating an enemy group with the end to getting documents.
These can be either about their own plans or what they have on us.

Covert third-partying [character assassination] with
forged or phony signatures. Anonymous third-partying. Particularly the Internal
Revenue Service appears to follow up every tip off they get. Getting
information out of files ... Direct theft of documents.

Of life inside Scientology, Justice Latey had this to say:

Discipline is ruthless and obedience has to be
unquestioning.

Scientologists working on the staff are required to
work inordinately long hours for their keep and a pittance...

Scientology must come first before family or
friends. Much evidence has been given and not disputed of how it leads to
alienation of one spouse from another, of alienation from children and from friends.

Another witness, Mrs. B, was a Scientologist from
1972 and rose quickly in the organization. She had a three-year-old daughter.
Nonetheless, for a period of months she was required to work from 8.30 am to 1
am. She was allowed only 15 minutes daily to put her daughter to bed. On one
occasion when the child broke her arm and she took her to the doctor she was
directed to work all night as a penalty.

In January 1982, Mrs. B was made Commanding Officer
of the Organization, Saint Hill UK Foundation. At around this time the Commodore’s
Messenger’s Org ... in the United States were originating an increasing number
of international directives which seemed to her wrong or bad. She wrote a
report addressing it to L. Ron Hubbard. 8 days later in November 1982, she was
removed from her post and assigned to the “RPF” (Rehabilitation Project Force).
She was refused counseling, required to do at least 12 hours physical work a
day (shifting bricks, emptying bins etc.) [sic] and to communicate with no-one,
except to receive orders. The work aggravated a chronic back condition. When
she protested she was threatened with being declared a “Suppressive Person” ...
Her time with her children was limited to one half hour per day.