Date: 26 Feb 2003 23:28:51 -0000
From: Cambridge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: The Clients of Michael Flynn
References: <MUD20EAP37677.2030555556@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <email@example.com>,
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
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:45:43 GMT
in Message-ID: <3E5C3862.firstname.lastname@example.org>
grouchomatic <email@example.com> wrote:
>Would it be fair to say you are only counting suits that were directed
>against Scientology for some perceived damage incurred by a current or
If you mean in our cursory review of civil suits prior to the Flynn cases,
yes, that's what we started looking for, since that was the category of the
Flynn cases against which we sought some form of comparison. But we did not
arbitrarily rule out any extrinsic civil suit, and we still don't. If you
know of any you think we should be aware of, please cite them.
>Otherwise, there were numerous--
"Numerous" is all I need to hear, thank you. If you have specific
please provide them and they will be duly and responsibly considered. My
quota of generalized assertions has been filled for life.
My statement was precisely as follows:
"In fact, civil litigation against Hubbard and Scientology organizations
prior to 1979 seems to have been so rare as to be considered, for our
practical and comparative purposes, non-existent."
The statement is qualified, and no one is trying to whitewash the 1950-1979
period or make any claim that there were absolutely no civil suits. We
aren't doing a minute study of the entire history of Scientology related
litigation, and if you would like to do one responsibly, we would welcome
it and of course would incorporate your results into a new comparison of
our own study. That was not and is not our primary thrust. We looked at the
record available to us to get at least some idea if there was any precedent
whatsoever for the extreme concentration of anti-Scientology civil
litigation that began on 13 December 1979 with the filing of the Van
Schaick suit. We found nothing remotely similar over the course of 29
years, which is why I further said:
"To graph the history of civil suits against Scientology and its
principals is to draw a virtually flat line across the bottom of the
graph from 1950 to 1979: for 29 years. At 13 December 1979, with the
filing of the Van Schaick suit by Flynn (two days before the execution
of the first Will of L. Ron Hubbard drawn up by Sherman Lenske), the
line starts upward. It climbs through the February 1980 disappearance of
L. Ron Hubbard to reach vertigo-inducing heights in the span of a few
short years, only to plummet abruptly to near zero again on 6 December
1986, and to continue from there as a nearly flat line."
That is our finding to date in our incomplete study, and if you have
specific evidence, not vague or generalized assertions, that effectively
counters it, then present it.
We also know that there were at least some extrinsic suits against
Scientology organizations and pricipals post-Flynn. One of particular
interest is a hopelessly flawed $1 billion "class action" that came
immediately after the Flynn global settlement, on 1 January 1987, and which
named, among others, both Author Services, Inc. (ASI) and Church of
Spiritual Technology (CST), which was the primary beneficiary of the
Hubbard estate. Of course it was roundly, and predictably, thrown out of
court. That case alone is tempting to study, because it appears to have
been crafted with loving care to fail infamously. But our study is not of
Nor is our study of unsupported assertions that begin with "numerous."
have no interest in any cooked "data" in any direction.
My quota of IIRCs has also been filled. Cite or quit.
>In addition to all of these brushes with various civil courts,
All what brushes? You haven't cited one yet. The only brush in play is the
broad one you are splattering allegations against the wall with.
>Hubbard had several encounters with the criminal courts and I would like
>to know if you're counting these?
I see. You only wanted to use our work as a bulletin board for your own
worn, faded, tawdry scandal sheets, for pinning up your own maligning
fastiches plucked from the works of the Flynn clients and his firm.
No, we haven't taken up the aborted Hubbard biography. We are doing a study
of the civil cases of Michael Flynn, which is why we also have not looked
into the phenomena surrounding the aurora borealis, male menopause, or
claims of rat hairs in fast food.
I am, however, familiar with the two incidents you are referring to (which
you choose to generalize with "several"), because they were sensationalized
in some of the works we are studying that have their genesis at the same
time as the Flynn cases, and rely heavily on Flynn's clients, witnesses,
and consultants as sources. Unlike you, I seem to know that one of them,
the alleged 1948 "petty thefts - checks" incident, is contested:
FROM THE FILES OF THE FBI 307
Telephone 543-1550, EXT/ 231
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA - 93401
February 6, 1973
I, RUTH WARNKEN, County Clerk of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of
California, in and for said County, hereby certify that I have searced
[sic] the index to the Criminal Register of Actions in and for said
county, and that I have found no record of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard as a
defendant in any criminal action during the years 1948-1949 inclusive.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said
Superior Court, this 6th day of February, 1973.
RUTH WARNKEN, County Clerk
By [signed] Helen Finn
The other, of course, was the December 1952 Philadelphia incident
surrounding the Wichita bankruptcy and Purcell, and of course Hubbard was
not convicted of any criminal offense--something else you chose to omit.
But coattailing on our study with your own efforts at defamation, not
accuracy and equity, was your only purpose in writing, wasn't it?
>What about litigation instituted by Scientology entities against others?
>Are you counting those?
Counting them in what? We are studying the cases involving Michael Flynn
and his clients, and yes, as I've explained several times now, that
includes the claims and counterclaims filed by Scientology factions against
Michael Flynn, some of his clients, and some of his other associates,
notably his brother, Kevin Flynn. In fact, part of our study explores the
singular circumstance of the litigating bellwethers on each side of the
conflict, Michael Flynn and Sherman Lenske, each having attorney brothers,
Kevin Flynn and Stephen Lenske, working closely with them.
Our study also encompasses the curious involvement of Boston attorneys
Earle C. Cooley and Harvey Silverglate, the latter having effected the
dismissal of the Van Schaick suit by Boston Superior Court when he filed "a
'mock' complaint that transmogrified the plaintiff's claims into claims
implicating the cognate practices of the Roman Catholic Church (the judge's
religion)." (The National Law Journal September 11, 1995 "Free Exercise
Revisited," by Harvey Silverglate.)
Our study embraces many tendrils and involutions of the Flynn era that have
been entirely buried in the acres and mounds of filth and manure produced
by Flynn's cases and clients, some of which you came to spread here.