Title: *** The Emmons Report: 2nd Investigative Summary
Author:
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.


--BEGIN QUOTE--


CONTENTS

	SUMMARY OF SCIENTOLOGY INVESTIGATION

	SCIENTOLOGY INVESTIGATION 

	SCIENTOLOGY INVESTIGATION CONCLUSION             

	CONTACTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES

	FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS         

	CONCLUSION



SUMMARY OF SCIENTOLOGY INVESTIGATION

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.



SCIENTOLOGY 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 e>rhibits
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,

NOTE:  The deciphering process was accomplished by the use of the book
"MODERN MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY DEFINED - L. RON HUBBARD" and "DIANETICS AND
SCIENTOLOGY TECHNICAL DICTIONARY - L. RON HUBBARD,"

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.

MEMORANDUM
----------

TO:	James T. Russell
	Doug Crow
	Bob Somers

FROM:	C. Marie King

DATE:	May 16, 1983

SUBJ:	SCN DOCUMENTS IN ARMSTRONG, CALIFORNIA CASE

--------------------------------------------------

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.


CONCLUSION

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.

CMK:skj


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

Lt. Roy EMMONS 
Clearwater Police Dept. 
644 Pierce Street
Clearwater, Florida 
33516

Roy:

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

DAO/jt

Encl.

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."


FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS

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.


CONCLUSION

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.

--END QUOTE--

--
Mark Dallara                        ATG exposed:
mdallara@kcii.com                   www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG
*** BANNED by $cientology's Internet filter! ***