similar to the psychiatrist's couch, and you would sit there and return people into the past and-get very much involved in, for instance, pre-natal experiences, birth, and other areas of trauma. As I said, it was a do-it yourself psychoanalysis or psychotherapy.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. DeWolfe, do you personally -do you have firsthand knowledge of how the material that was obtained for the auditing process was used?
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes of course, everybody was told that the files were confidential, that they were treated as if they were files of, say, a doctor or a priest or an attorney. And they were, in the main, by most people, but -- it was quite inviolate. But of course, Dad and I had complete access to it.
And-one thing I ought to mention is that - it's kind of embarrassing to mention - I'm the one who originated the bugging of auditing rooms in the Hubbard Guidance Center in Washington, D.C. so we could pick up on what was going on in an auditing session. And what I told everybody at the-time was that most of the people that worked in the Hubbard Guidance Center -- the Hubbard Guidance Center was the auditing department. It was the -- where people got their auditing.
And -- but most of the people there were students of mine. So, I put the microphones in and the speakers, et cetera, and the tape recorders so that I could monitor their progress as students. That's what they were told.
But their files were used, as I said, for pressure, blackmail, and all these other -- some of those bits and pieces back in -- yesterday.
MR. SHOEMAKER: How how was the Fair Game
Policy created? Where was the origin? What -- what -
MR. DeWOLFE: The origin simply was that if anybody gave us any problem, any trouble, why, we'd just attack them. We had -- we were pretty successful at it.
And if you're talking about power and what have you, that was a lot of fun to take on the FBI, take on the IRS, take on the government, take on anybody and whip it out. And as I said, I'm twenty -- in the early twenties, and we're stomping the hell out of people and getting away with it. But the point -- that's pretty heady stuff.
But that's not -- what the Fair Game was is that again, it falls back to the same basic idea, which is total destruction: do whatever you -- was necessary to get the job done.
MR. SHOEMAKER: You had mentioned before that you
had actually created what was called at that point the grind policy.
MR. DeWOLFE: Yeah.
SHOEMAKER: What was the purpose of that policy where the students
were required to work long, extended periods of time?
MR. DeWOLFE: Well, we had a-lot to teach them, plus it was a very good control mechanism. Very tired people are very receptive.
MR. SHOEMAKER: I see. So, it's a control mechanism
MR. DeWOLFE: You see, we were controlling the body. If I had a walking microphone and you.had the time, I'd demonstrate it for you.
MR. SHOEMAKER: The
By the way, as a matter of example, anything I talk about,
I'm more than happy to demonstrate. .MR. SHOEMAKER: The -- the
other one, Mr. DeWolfe, I wanted to ask about here: In the - and
I know you've seen the outline - in the outline, there is an item
referred to "November 1968, racket exposed relating to the
listing of thirteen people" personally declared Fair Game by
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Would you explain that a little bit, what was involved in that and what that meant?
MR. DeWOLFE: That meant exactly what-it said. Well, it was written -- well, it wasn't written up, and I wasn't in Scientology at this particular time in '63, having left in '59. This is the same sort of thing that we would write out.
The Fair Game Policy in the fifty's was something
which was very verbal. One thing I -- maybe a point
I'd like to make here very quickly is that there are
two concurrent lives of L. Ron Hubbard going on at the
same time. You have the super-secret hidden, private
life of L. Ron Hubbard, which very few people knew,
and which is now, probably, as we go along through time
here -- will be discovered more of, because now that,
I guess, I talked, maybe other people will feel it's safe
The -- so, all of this was all verbal. And,, of course, he didn't have the power base he had in the fifties that he had later. So, it was kind of a secret thing. But this is precisely -- as you read it, it's exactly what was meant. It was not -- it was not done as an empty, hollow threat. And this means you were cut off from all people; if we could do something to you, we
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. DeWolfe - and this will be my last question - I know this is a difficult one to try to answer, but I think it should be asked.Obviously, you're under a great deal of duress to come here and to testify at this -
MR. DeWOLFE: No, I'm not under duress, sir.
SHOEMAKER: Well, I didn't -- that's the wrong word. I mean,
you've got a lot of -- you had to have had a lot of trauma -
MR. DeWOLFE: I would have walked here on my hands and knees.
MR. SHOEMAKER: I guess my question is why? That's what I'm getting down to.
MR. DeWOLFE: As I said, I happened to have acquired a rather strong like for constitutionality, laws, truth, and fact over the years. It's a very funny thing; I don't know how to explain the mechanism. Maybe somebody else can.
But I spent years having no real, honest, commonly understood ethics or legality. And the laws were something tb be used; they were a weapon. A court or anything else was used as a sledgehammer. I didn't have any of those. They didn't mean anything to me; life
didn't mean anything to me. It wasn't something to be loved and cherished and nurtured. It was -- people were robots to me; people 'were nothing but raw meat. And over the years, I've suddenly started getting my head sorted out.It wasn't until 1978, late 1978, that the last vestiges of all of the Scientology-nonsense and Hubbard nonsense got out of-my skull. But there's nothing worse than, say, a sinner who has become a preacher, because he knows every in and out of the whole thing. He believe in these things, and he -- everybody like you -- so many people like you, they take the constitution simply for granted because, as kids, it was just there. And there was -- too many people take too much for granted. But, as I said, I don't take.any of that for granted, and that's why I'm here.I think -- and again, I think I'm, considering myself personally -- my being here all not -- not all that totally necessary. And so, that's why I'm here, just to help it out.I've always tried to be one of the things my father taught me - I still follow some of these rules which is try to be effective and efficient. And so, this is a
good forum to say all these things that I haven't
been able to get out. And I've tried for years to try to say things to people to try to tell them, and they laughed at me a great deal because they think that some of the things I say are as a far out as my father's science fiction.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. DeWolfe, just one other question: At the time you were in the Church of Scientology, did they have the Guardian's Office?
MR. DeWOLFE: No.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Did they have any
It was a do-it-yourserf organization.
I mean, we didn't have a complete department called the
Guardian's Office. It was done by L. Ron Hubbard, by
Mary Sue. It wasn't -- as I said,. it wasn't something
that was hung up there on the org. board.
MR. SHOEMAKER: When you say "it," what do you mean by it?
MR. DeWOLFE: The Guardian's Office. We, you know
MR. SHOEMAKER: Yes, sir. But what was done by Mr. Hubbard and Mrs. Hubbard that the Guardian's Office does now?
MR. DeWOLFE: The same things. What I'm trying to say - - do you mean, specific Incidents?
MR. SHOEMAKER: No, I accept that. What was being done then that you can relate to what is being done now by the Guardian's Office?
MR. DeWOLFE: The -- well, there's something referred to earlier, just rapid expose -- the attacking of any enemies of Scientology, the pumping out of this information, the Guardian's -- the protection of Scientology, the protection of the organization itself.
MR. SHOEMAKER: I want to ask
MR. DeWOLFE: That's anotherany Scientology
organization to me is callad organization.
MR. SHOEMAKER: I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but what you're saying --are you saying
that these are the same types of practices, whether
legal or illegal, that were done then -
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes.
MR. SHOEMAKER: -- to protect the organization?
MR. DeWOLFE: That's correct.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Thank you.
MR. LeCHER: Two quick ones: You have said that your entire youth was spent in Scientology in the planning stage: forumulating, writing, plotting, along with your-father who was the Founder.with all this study and all this planning and all
this effort, has it left you with any marketable skills at age forty-eight?
MR. DeWOLFE: Marketable skills?
Has it prepared you for a job after Scientology?
MR. DeWOLFE: No. I didn't know what to do. I've held probably a couple of dozen jobs at least over the years.
I didn't have any skills that -- what you would call marketable skills, so I had to learn them. I had to learn how to work. It's incredibly difficult to--in the very beginning like that to try and get back into some kind of routine and work nine to five. I wasn't used to receiving a paycheck or even how to earn a paycheck. But it took me quite a number of years.
After all, you know, with six children, you better get something or you're passed.
MR. LECHER: Thank you.
question: Do you -- can you tell me everything -- tell me
something about radiation?
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes. I find this kind of funny, I know that many people don't, but I happen to have a thirty-two-year view of the thing. There's a book called All About Radiation
that came out in the mid-fifties. And at the same time, he came out with a product -- we sold a product which was vitamins and-minerals called Dianazene. And the Dianazene had huge amounts of niacin in it, nicotinic acid.
The processes and the.-- accompanying the book, All About Radiation, and the Dianazene -- its purpose its stated purpose to the membership and to the public was "We now have the ability to erradicate or" - in Scientology terms - "run out all of your old tracks or past-track radiation experiences." That means that all of the space-opera wars you were into where they set off H-bombs seventy-four trillion years ago and all that, that these processes have this product called Dianazene, which was, simply, as I said, vitamins and minerals with huge amounts of niacin in it, which would produce these wild flushes.
Now, if you take a great deal of niacin, you get these incredible flushes, like a rash. You get hot, flush, your body would turn red in spots or over the whole thing. And this was proof -- this was proof that you were running out or erradicating all of your entire space-opera, old- track radiation. And -- and the Dianazene and following the directions in the book made
you -- guaranteed you proof against any radiation. That means, if somebody dropped An H-bomb today and you followed all of that, that you were proofed against radiation; it wouldn't hurt you.And -- so, that is, I think, one of the major one of the major frauds in the mid-fifties concerning Scientology is about the radiation. All it does is -- it was niacin.
MR. LeCHER: I have two quick ones the attorney would like me to ask.How was the money carried out of the country? And in the organization, was it Hubbard's - excuse me policy to have all the writings bear his name?
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes. He was Source. That must have been repeated fifty million times. "L. Ron Hubbard is Source. L.- Ron Hubbard is Founder. L. Ron Hubbard is Creator." It is his game. "It is my game," he would say.., "This is mine; it belongs to me." And everything that was written by anybody else -- and there are many little bits and pieces that were written by other people, and many of the processes and training drills and et cetera that were written and invented and created by other people --. but at all times it was L. Ron Hubbard. That was the only name attached to it. Even if we wrote
policy letters and he would review them and, then, put his name on it. So, everything was -- that was his -one of his first, basic, standard orders at that time.
MR. LECHER: How was the money taken out of the country?
MR. DeWOLFE: There were several ways of doing it. The very first one that I know of was in late 1952, when he went to London where Diane was born, September 24th, he opened up, through permission of the Bank of England, what is called in England a Dollar Account. That means that it was a special account that you could -out in and take out dollars.
MR. LECHER: Was that carried out in a shoebox or
Yeah. Well, they were carried out in checks; they were carried
out in shoeboxes. I took a valise over one time, as I said, full
of money that went into the account.
.Now, while other people may -- apparently, have been signatories and directors of other U.S. corporations the only one that could sign on the Dollar Account was L. Ron Hubbard. So that this was a way in the early fifties for the money to be siphoned out of the various organizations in the United States to England. And once it was there, he had absolute and total freedom to
use it because-of the nature of the account and the fact that he was the signatory on it.
MR. LECHER: Thank you.
Mr. Calderbank, do you have some questions?
MR. CALDERBANK: Yes.
during the time that you were with your father from '48 up until
159, would you describe yourself as probably his closest person?
Or were you, as his son and as a, would you say, co-founder in
the various Dianetics and Scientology teachings
MR. DeWOLFE: I would say I was very close, but I was not a co-founder. But -- there is only one Founder.
But as far as being close is concerned, yes. It was not from '48, though. It would have to be from the summer of 1952 is when it was incredibly close. Of course
MR. CALDERBANK: You were his right-hand man and knew your father probably better than anyone else?
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes, that and Mary Sue. We were probably the closest workwise and even, as I said, livinq together in many different areas of the country.
MR. CALDERBANK: You said you weren't co-founder, but all during your testimony you said that -
MR. DeWOLFE:. Well, that's a very special term.
CALDERBANK: Many of the -- correct. But many of the
MR.-DeWOLFE: I did a lot of the things, but, as I said, just answering your questions, the name of L. Ron Hubbard is on it.
MR. CA.LDERBANK: Right. But why -- if many of the policies and ideas were yours and you came up with them, why are they all copyrighted to L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. DeWOLFE: Because he owns them. What I mean is
There's only one Source, one Founder. He always insisted
on that.. that regardless of whatever was done was him.
And it really didn't make an awful lot of difference to
me. If you look at it within the context of the time,
it was rather.,-immaterial to me.
MR. CALDERBANK: During Dianetics, the era of Dianetics, prior to it becoming the Church of Scientology was auditing then the -- a major money producer?
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes.
MR. CALDERBANK: And -
MR. DeWOLFE: That and Dianetic courses.
MR. CALDERBANK: Then, in 1953, it was changed to Scientology, and you went from Dianetic auditing to
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes.
MR. CALDERBANK: What was the
Well, actually, Scientology auditing started or occured, as I
said, in the summer of 1952 when he could no longer do anything
with Dianetics again. That's where it started to become
Scientology; it would be the summer of 1952 in Phoenix, Arizona.
MR. CA.LDERBANK: And my question is: The Dianetics auditing was guaranteed? It was scientific research, et cetera, et cetera?
MR. DeWOLFE: That's correct.
CALDERBANK: What was the difference between Scientology auditing
and Dianetic auditing
MR. DeWOLFE: Nothing at all -
MR. CA-LDERBANK: -- in the beginning?
-- except I would say the greater inc . reasing emphasis on space
MR. CALDERBANK: Back in the Dianetics era, were was your father using the confidential information to have people-pay up for their courses?
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes. If people didn't pay, that was a fairly actionable offense, according to Dad.
MR. CALDERBANK: And he told them then, also, that
it was in confidence that the auditing was taken?
MR. DeWOLFE: Oh, yes.
MR. CALDERBANK: And he utilized it?
If you had a copy of the Auditor's Code, that Auditor's Code is
virtually the same.
MR. CALDERBANK: The main -- I guess the main reason that I see for you coming here is: We've heard testimony that many of the -- or, at least, one person spent up to $35-or $40,000.00 in the belief that your father was a nuclear physicist, et cetera.
On what do you base your knowledge that he was none of these?
MR. DeWOLFE: By conversations with him and by conversations with my grandfather, my mother, my grandmother, other family members. Actually, our family, if you wanted.-to spread it out a little bit, is pretty well all over the United States. Plus, I have seen a variety of documents over the years, both his and others obtained.
For instance, not being a nuclear physicist -- I've seen his transcript a long time ago, many years ago.
MR. CALDERBANK: And in addition to auditing, when it was used as a Dianetics procedure, what guarantees were given then, the same that are given now? In
Scientology, it was guaranteed as a science to relieve and cure various cancers, various ailments.
MR. DeWOLFE: That's correct. Of course, some of the terminology changed, but I'm talking about actual -- de facto.
MR. CALDERBANK: During this time, did auditing or Dianetics ever pay taxes in the fifties when this was being used?
MR. DeWOLFE: If we did, we should have fought it. No, I don't think so.
MR. CA-LDERBAINK: And a statement on the -- recently
in the media, Reverend Wilhere, I believe well,Reverend
Wilhere said that your father's, again, spent
years and years of research in this auditing, and'it's
based on case histories and years of research.
Just to I -sum it up, you're saying that none of
this research existed: there's no data, no case
histories? And, as the person that knew your father
the best during the evolution of Dianetics and Scien
tology are sitting here and saying that what he's
printed in books and what has brought many people to
pay for it into Clearwater is untrue?
MR. DeWOLFE: That's corzect.
MR. CALDERBANK: No more questions.
MR. LECHER: Mr. Berfield.
MR. BERFIELD: Mr. DeWolfe, if I understood your earlier testimony yesterday, the allegations or statements as to your father's education, you answered "No" to most of those; is that correct?
MR. DeWOLFE: I'm sorry, sir, I can't hear you.
BERFIELD: Yesterday, a list of schools and studies that your
father had undertaken, you answered "No" to them. And
if I could read for you -- it's a book called Dianetics, on page
138. It refers to your father having studied science and
mathematics at George Washington University, graduating from
Columbia College, attending Princeton University, and attaining a
degree as Philosophy -- Doctor of Philosophy from Sequoia
Your answer was "No" to each of those; is that correct?
MR. DeWOLFE: The -- it was "No" to the point of Sequoia University. As I explained yesterday, Sequoia University was a diploma mill and you just wrote to them.
MR. BERFIELD: And Mr. Calderbank just got through asking you about another one, All About Radiation. On the flyleaf of it, it makes reference to "L.-Ron Hubbard, one of America's first nuclear physicists."
MR. DeWOLFE: That's not true.
BERFIELD: All of these would be lying in with the exception of
Doctor of Philosophy?
MR. DeWOLFE: That's correct.
BERFIELD: So, if I relied upon his ability to render service to
me based upon this, that would be a falsehood; is that correct?
MR. DeWOLFE: Correct.
BERFIELD: in other words, it would be more or less a fraud upon
the public; is that correct?
MR. DeWOLFE: Correct.
BERFIELD: Let me ask you a few other questions here.
Now, like Mr. Hatchett said, your story here sounds so interesting it sounds almost like Howard Hughes.
MR. DeWOLFE: That's a very close analogy there, believe me.
MR. BERFIELD: Have you ever testified before any other groups, any governmental agencies or groups similar to this, legislative groups?
MR. DeWOLFE: No, I haven't, sir. I just testified for the IRS in the sixties. I don't have the date, but it was
MR. BERFIELD: I was trying to find it here, and
I cannot confront you with it, but somewhere that you
had given-or sworn an oath or testimony and then reneged
on it; is that correct?
MR. DeWOLFE: That's correct. Yes, that's correct. That's -- I was talking about 1971, 1972. That's where I had signed a statement which, at the time, I did not believe. But anyhow, that was that.
I didn't feel -- in my own mind, I didn't feel that I was able to recant something I had put under oath without the recant itself being equality under ~--he law, and it wasn't equal under the law, as far as I was concerned - the recant.
MR. BERFIELD: All right. What I.'m tryinq to get in my mind is: If you testified under oath before, what assurance do we have that you're not going to recant on this? Was there some undue pressure
MR. DeWOLFE: I'm not going
MR. BERFIELD: -- put on you or something?
MR. DeWOLFE: Huh?
BERFIELD: Was there undue pressure put on you or something that
caused you to recant that?
MR. DeWOLFE: Yes.