From: Cambridge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Call for Volunteer Chris Owen, 3rd request
References: <F40PANCD37674.5313310185@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <3E578B9F.1ECB@mpinet.net>,
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
Date: 25 Feb 2003 02:22:11 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:59:14 GMT
in Message-ID: <3E597B5E.5CFB@mpinet.net>
Beverly Rice <email@example.com> wrote:
>Well, to my knowledge, none of the transcripts that you mentioned have
>ever been posted, unless I just missed them, have they?
Not to my knowledge. I felt I addressed that in my last message, the one
you are replying to.
>Have they even been seen by anyone else,
Not to my knowledge, other than perhaps by the parties and their attorneys,
which certainly would include Lenske, Lenske & Heller since they were
controlling all litigation concerning Hubbard at the time.
And of course Mr. Owen has a set.
>or are they sealed?
>If they are sealed I could understand it.
No, they are not sealed.
>Can it be that hard to find where they were obtained from?
So far we haven't determined who the court reporters were for the trial. It
was twenty years ago. That's what I asked Mr. Owen for help with, since the
court reporters are identified in the transcripts he has. He won't respond.
>Aren't transcripts kept in the districts where the hearings took place?
Transcripts are not part of the case files. They are made by court
reporters and sold by court reporters.
>Where specifically did the hearings take place?
Armstrong I took place in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Judge John J.
Cole originally presiding. Not being in Los Angeles is part of the handicap
in getting the information we need to track down a copy of the transcripts.
If anyone interested in seeing the Armstrong transcript published is in or
near Los Angeles and can help us locate a copy, we will acquire and publish
them as quickly as possible.
The Christofferson trial took place in Portland, Oregon. We are hindered by
the same handicap of being in a different location. Christofferson was not
a Flynn client, but the Flynn cases and the Christofferson case were all
settled at the same time, on 5 and 6 December 1986, all negotiated by
Lawrence E. Heller of Lenske, Lenske & Heller, and many of the Flynn
clients and witnesses testified in Christofferson. We believe that there
are many interlocking connections between the Flynn cases and the
Mr. Owen obviously has transcripts from both cases because he gives the
following references in "Piercing the Corporate Veil":
Schomer in Christofferson:
pp.3597-8, 3605-11, 3621, 3718, 3791, 3628-9, 3718, 3773-4
CSI v. Armstrong:
volume and page numbers -
GA4, pp. 511, 519.
GA10, pp.1588-90 (ff), 1651.
GA11: pp.1777, 1781-2
GA19A: pp.3047, 3069, 3121, 3126, 3130
GA19: pp.3365, 3386
GA20: pp.3430-5, 3448-9, 3455, 3457-8, 3478, 3490
GA21: pp.3689, 3699-3702, 3689
GA24: pp.4228-9, 4237, 4263-4
GA25: pp.4492-3, 4496, 4512-4, 4530-1
I believe the page numbers that he cites says all that need be said.
>> The study of the Flynn clients will be posted regardless of whether
>> Mr. Owen elects to remain in his self-appointed Sophist Office of
>> Censorship or not.
>Now, ~THAT~ is something I am really looking forward to seeing.
Depending on the difficulty in obtaining the Armstrong and Christofferson
transcripts, we may publish our study without benefit of them, then expand
it on it once the transcripts have been made public.
It's something I can't answer at the moment. We would much prefer to have
the transcripts before completing and publishing the study because all
indications are that they will answer many important questions currently
outstanding in our research.
Even when we get the transcripts, our first priority will be to publish
them pro bono publico, and then we will have access to them for expanding
our study at the same time that everyone else has them.
>Do you have a list of who all the Flynn clients are?
That is one of the first questions we tried to answer and has proved to be
among the most difficult. The short answer is no. The list has changed over
the course of our research and there are still question marks. You may find
this difficult to understand, as we certainly did, but apparently there was
a good deal of effort expended, and not just by Flynn, to keep the exact
number of cases and clients he had unknown, or at least uncertain, and
likely inflated. We found one person suggesting that Flynn had something on
the order of 50 clients engaged in anti-Scientology litigation, a number
for which we can find no foundation or evidence whatsoever, but it's
indicative of the urban legend quality of what passes for information on
>If so, could you list them at least?
Because of the factors I just stated above, I, personally, am loathe to do
that at this stage. But having conferred with and secured the agreement of
the people I am doing the research with, yes, I will. We certainly are not
in the business of suppressing information, even though we feel the study
is woefully incomplete.
I will post it separately if you don't mind, because I can't post it
responsibly without some exposition and explanation of the inherent
difficulties in attempting to answer your question and provide such a list.
I also want to include at least a brief overview of the study so people
will know how the list came about, and will understand the caveats with
which it should be approached pending further research and verification.
I will title the separate post "The Clients of Michael Flynn." It's
pedestrian and utilitarian but descriptive.