From: Cambridge <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: The Clients of Michael Flynn
References: <MUD20EAP37677.2030555556@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <TGDQ1YZM37680.524224537@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
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: 11 Mar 2003 12:47:29 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1601895
On 28 Feb 2003 11:36:31 GMT
in Message-ID: <TGDQ1YZM37680.524224537@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
CL <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>First, Cambridge: I just want to extend my vote of thanks for your work,
>to you and all who contributed to it. It is a ~very~ valuable
>contribution. I very much appreciate all that's gone into it, and I can
>certainly use the information in it, and I believe a LOT of people can
Very kind of you to say so. There are many more revelations in the fullness
of the final study report which all of us involved hope will be of use. It
certainly has developed as a rich plot in which to dig, though the root
system is far more intricate and extensive than any of us could have
imagined, months ago, with the first spade turned.
>One person you don't list who I think DEFINITELY has GOT to be listed
>somewhere in this Flynn clusterfuck is John McLean. I don't know of him
>specifically ever being pinned down anywhere as actually being a
>"client" <SPIT!> of Flynn, but I think he was, jointly with
>McLean. (He also became a darling of the IRS in the CSC v. Commissioner
>case, which I'll get to.) You have Nan and Nell McLean listed on the
>"clients" list, and I don't know where Nell McLean fits in. But
>and son John were busy whooping it up, raising all kinds of holy hell
>against Scientology, as far back as November 1975--first somewhere in
>Canada (yes, yet more Commonwealthers), then in Clearwater--and wound up
>in a law suit together, which I THINK was being run by Flynn, but I
>never could nail that down totally.
We have had information on John McLean but I did not put him on the list I
posted because he did not testify in Clearwater for Flynn, and we had the
same problem you encountered: no actual affirmation that he had been a
client of Flynn. That was only part of the reason I expressed my misgivings
about posting the list at all. The record is cloudy in many places. McLean
was one of more than a few question marks still in our study that we felt
required more inquiry. Some of what you have provided us with concerning
McLean is remarkable indeed.
In fact, it has filled in several gaps for us, so I'd like to express our
appreciation for your contributions. As a result of your information, plus
some final confirmation of information on Hana Whitfield (a.k.a. Hana
Eltringham, another person I had left off of the list I posted), our study
may be published sooner than we had anticipated. I've been engaged in
helping to put together a draft of the study, which now has been completed
and sent out to several associates for review, commentary, and additions.
Although the study will not be as in-depth as we originally had
anticipated, we feel that we have reached supportable findings that must be
published. They always can be augmented with new data that becomes
>You may already be way ahead of me on this, but I have some things on
>the McLeans that I believe are going to plug into the "statistically
>unlikely network of past connections" part of your study, so I'll snip
No; we weren't way ahead of you at all on John McLean. Our concentration
has been on the clients we were most certain of. As I said, the root system
is extensive, and we have other names on various lists, all of which must
be further investigated at some point to understand their exact
relationship to the Flynn litigation. McLean was certainly one of them.
Hana Whitfield was one of them.
Whitfield, by the way, we have determined to be someone other than Chris
Owen who has had the transcripts from the Armstrong trial, as well as
copies of exhibits submitted in the case. She admitted as much in her
Clearwater testimony in the McPherson hearings, saying, "I left and began
to review the Gerald Armstrong court testimony," referring also to having
seen material "[i]n the Gerald Armstrong court exhibits." We would be
grateful if she would come forward with these very valuable documents,
since it seems that Mr. Owen is intent on keeping his copies suppressed.
There is a good possibility that Flynn, Armstrong, and the Lenskes
conspired to have the Armstrong court record erased. We are still trying to
determine this one way or another. They, along with Chris Owen and Ms.
Whitfield, may be the only persons in the world holding, and apparently
suppressing, copies of this evidence. It's rather amazing that they all
have elected to keep the evidence suppressed for these many years rather
than disseminate it on the internet. This leads us to believe that the
evidence in the transcripts is important indeed, but in ways that may well
be damaging to the persons who are suppressing the evidence.
Be that as it may, in light of all the information on McLean, and what we
now have confirmed about Hana Whitfield's connections with Flynn, we feel
that the central and most important Flynn players have been identified, and
we are comfortable with allowing some of the other possible leads to be
left unexplored for the time being, knowing they can be pursued at any time
in the future for an addendum or amendment to our report.
Although I don't want to dwell here on Hana Whitfield, I did mention, in a
recent post, a fatally flawed $1 billion class action suit that was filed
shortly after the Flynn global settlement with Lawrence E. Heller, acting
on behalf of Lenske, Lenske & Heller, which occurred on 5 and 6 December
1986. In that earlier post I said that the class action suit was filed on
or about 1 January 1987, but in fact I've learned on further review that
there is a media story on the filing of the suit that says it was filed on
Wednesday, 31 December 1986.
Not only did I wish to correct the date, I also wanted to mention that Hana
Whitfield, who had submitted a declaration in Flynn's Armstrong case, was a
party to the class action suit, and, according to her testimony in
McPherson, the suit originally had been drafted by Flynn himself, but then
was turned over to another attorney, Lawrence Levy, who filed the
abominable and suicidal complaint. In a fascinating coincidence, this
hopeless suit was the only one in the entire Flynn battery that named
Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), even though CST had been in existence
for over 4 years by then.
Now as to statistically unlikely: I've spent some time with our
statistician going over what you posted, and I believe that, statistically,
it all goes beyond what even you thought. It certainly has exceeded by far
anything we could have imagined when we entered this study.
>>Further tracing of the paths and histories of these individuals began
>>to draw such a statistically unlikely network of past connections
>>amongst so many of them, that a good portion of the findings of our
>>study is devoted to documenting these remarkable coincidences of
>>prior location and activity, all preceding their apparently discrete
>>and independent later association with Flynn.
>Okay, THIS is DEFINITELY the category where the McLean-O-Rama has to go,
>and if you don't already have this, you might need to expand your
>concept of "statistically unlikely," because the first McLean incident
>have, which comes in February of 1971, not only makes my flesh crawl, it
>makes it crawl OFF, and across the room.
>Before I can even get to that, though, I've got to establish some VERY
>relevant background concerning IRS, and what ~those~ slimy fucks have
>admitted they were doing during 1971--and had been doing from at LEAST
>1969, and continued doing until at LEAST 1975 (that's what they were
>willing to admit to, anyway). So here's that background, as admitted by
>the Tax Court. (They used "respondent" for IRS and "petitioner"
>so I've replace those so it's easier to follow. If they don't like it,
>fuck 'em--they can sue me):
> "IRS formed and maintained special intelligence units to
> collect information about certain taxpayers, apparently
> selected by essentially political criteria... . Two of these
> units, the Special Service Staff [SSS] (at first called the
> 'Activist Organization Committee') and the Intelligence
> Gathering and Retrieval Unit [IGRU], were part of IRS's
> National Office. The third unit, the Case Development Unit,
> was part of the Los Angeles District Office. All three
> collected information about CSC."
>So now, with a FULL understanding of that background of crawling covert
>IRS "intelligence units," here is this first McLean incident. And
>speaking of "statistically unlikely," when you give this first entry
>your statistician, I strongly recommend that you break it
>gently--otherwise it might give her whiplash:
> 19 February 1971
> A plane leaves Los Angeles bound for Madrid via New York.
> Three (or four) of the people on the plane are destined for
> the Apollo, which is in Tangier, Morocco. The known three
> are: John McLean, Gerry Armstrong, and Susan Meister. (There
> is probably a fourth, who might be Nancy [Nan] McLean.)
> Gerry Armstrong has just come from a Scientology ship, the
> "Bolivar," in San Pedro, where he has done part of an "Able
> Bodied Seaman" checksheet, and which also happenes to be
> where Scott Mayer is. In New York, Foster Tompkins boards
> the flight, which then proceeds to Madrid. The five recruits
> are met at the Barajas airport in Madrid on 19 February 1971
> by Mike Douglas (later to be husband to Kima Douglas). Mike
> Douglas is the Deputy Ship Captain, direct junior to Captain
> Norman F. Starkey. The recruits are taken to the "Mission
> European Agency" (MEA) apartment in Madrid and briefed prior
> to traveling by train and ferry to the Apollo.
>Okay, so in one happy day in February 1971, we've ALREADY got
>Flynn-to-be clients Gerry Armstrong AND John McLean AND Mike Douglas
>(and most likely Nancy McLean as well), ALL in one place at one time
>WITH Susan Meister, who within five months will be found in a cabin of
>the Apollo with a bullet in her head, and whose father will then become
>a witness for Michael Flynn at the Clearwater hearings. And all of them
>are all up in there with the Lenskes' handmaiden Stormin' Norman
>Starkey, and Armstrong just fresh from a few weeks on the "Bolivar"
>spent with Flynn-to-be witness Scott Mayer--whose FATHER, just BTW,
>according to Mayer's own Clearwater testimony, is "Intelligence Aide
>the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon." And just to
>round out our profile of Mayer, he says in his testimony that he,
>himself, had "extensive intelligence and...counterintelligence
>activities in the armed forces," going on to boast, "I've worked
>intelligence, Naval Intelligence."
>Not ONLY all of ~that~, but later, beginning on 10 November 1980, BOTH
>Scott Mayer AND John McLean will end up being ~key~ people FOR the IRS
>in the CSC v. Commissioner case: McLean will give KEY "testimony"
>leading to the Tax Court ruling against CSC, and of course Mayer sits in
>court holding the hand of IRS's counsel Martin D. Cohen, Mayer being
>PERSONAL consultant to the fucking COMMISSIONER of IRS. (And you thought
>I was ~kidding~ about the flesh crawling thing.)
>How are your "statistically unlikely past connections" doing now?
It seems that we not only have crossed the Rubicon, but Styx as well. We
stand in uncharted darkness. We have long since left the comfortable
familiarity of statistical probabilities, traversed the sparse desert of
statistical possibilities, and crossed over into statistical Hades.
Pursuant to the 19 February 1971 incident above, we're working on seeing if
we can get a reasonable estimate of the number of Sea Org members around
February of 1971 to submit to some algorithms for modeling, clustering and
time-series analysis, but numbers can never tell the complete story on the
sort of confluence of vectors and connections you've just described. Like
Cinderella's shoe, none of the statistical models of probability and chance
can be made to fit it. It speaks eloquently of guiding sentience. It is a
heteroclite deviation of clearly purposeful proportions.
I'll go on with your timeline of John McLean, which I'm reproducing for the
purpose of some discussion I'd like to add, so I hope you won't mind that
I've taken the liberty of excising much of your commentary:
> 22 April 1971
> Gerry Armstrong and John McLean are both working in Division
> 4 of the Flag Ship Org on the Apollo. Armstrong is "Boats &
> Transport I/C," McLean is "Construction Officer, Carpenter."
> 18 June 1971
> John McLean has been sent on a mission requiring him to
> carry an unknown quantity of cash. On this date he reports
> the cash has been stolen.
> 25 June 1971
> The Apollo is docked in the Moroccan port of Safi. At 7:35
> p.m., Susan Meister is found lying across a bunk in the
> locked cabin of Chief Officer Amos Jessup with a bullet from
> Peter Gillham's .22 target revolver in her head. (Susan
> Meister's father later testifies: "She was lying there with a
> bullet hole in her head. Her arms were crossed on her chest,
> and in the middle of her breasts on her arms--or underneath
> her arms was this .22 caliber, long-barrelled revolver. How
> could anybody shoot themselves in the head and then put the
> gun on their breast, being between two clasped hands--how do
> you do that? How can you shoot yourself in the middle of the
> head with a long-barrelled revolver, holding it out like
> this?") [NOTE: Amos Jessup will later be on the mission
> involved with Morocco's security chief, Oufkir, when Oufkir
> attempts a failed coup against Hassan II.]
I must enter a comment here: the "NOTE" in the entry above refers
to the 16
August 1972 Oufkir coup attempt against Hassan II, after which Oufkir
himself was assassinated. That is the coup that is associated with the
mission that included John Bragin, Amos Jessup, and Liz Ausley, concerning
e-meters and sec-check training for the Moroccan security forces.
However, one thing that we came across in our research, which caused
considerable confusion for some time, is that there was another attempted
coup in Morocco against Hassan II earlier than Oufkir's 16 August 1972 coup
attempt, and it came very shortly after the Susan Meister incident: on 10
It was Oufkir's efforts in the defense of Hassan II during this earlier
1971 coup attempt that helped elevate Oufkir's standing in the security
forces, leading to his own fatal coup attempt just a bit over a year later,
on 16 August 1972. The 10 July 1971 attempt resulted in televised
executions of some of the military officials involved, and it was in the
wake of this that George Meister arrived in Morocco. The often
undistinguished references to these two very different coup attempts
against Hassan II during this turbulent time period from 1971 through 1972
has tripped us up several times in attempting to sort it all out, and I
thought I should mention it as a caveat to others.
> 1 c. September 1972
> Ken Urquhart, "LRH Pers Comm" (LRH Personal Communicator)
> puts L. Ron Hubbard "on a plane to New York."
> 7 September 1972
> Allegedly, an "HCO Policy Letter" is written on this date
> titled "Repayment or Due Money Collected for LRH Personally."
> No surviving copy of this alleged "Policy Letter" exists. It
> creates the post of "LRH Accounts Officer," and is signed:
> "LRH Accounts Officer and LRH Pers Comm by order of L. Ron
> Hubbard FOUNDER." (The "LRH Pers Comm" was Ken Urquhart.
> There is no record of who the "LRH Accounts Officer" was who
> wrote the PL with Urquhart creating the post itself.) This
> policy letter is CANCELLED two days later [see entry for 9
> September 1972], but is later quoted IN FULL by the Tax Court
> in CSC vs. Commissioner of IRS as primary evidence, saying
> that this policy "clearly establishes that payments, other
> than salary and royalties, were being made by [CSC] to L. Ron
> Hubbard under the guise of debt repayments." The Tax Court
> goes on: "Additionally, it is obvious from this policy letter
> that the so-called debt repayments were not just for money
> advanced by L. Ron Hubbard to [CSC] but were also
> compensation for L. Ron Hubbard's past work in developing
> Scientology and for the use of his name." Although CSC
> "objects" to this HCO PL being used as such "evidence,"
> course the Tax Court rejects those arguments with the
> following: "John McLean...credibly testified that, during the
> fall of 1972, statistics were posted aboard the Apollo each
> week showing the amount of weekly payments to L. Ron Hubbard.
> According to McLean, the weekly payments to L. Ron Hubbard
> which were posted pursuant to the policy letter of September
> 7, 1972, ranged between $7,000 and $22,000 per week. We
> credit McLean's testimony on this point."
> 9 September 1972
> An HCO PL is purportedly written, "LRH Income," which
> purportedly cancels HCO PL 7 September 1972, "Repayment or
> Due Money Collected for LRH Personally," which had been
> written two days earlier by Ken Urquhart and an unknown "LRH
> Accounts Officer." There is no record of who wrote this
> policy letter, and no copy of it is in any of the OEC Volumes.
This is extraordinary. The 7 September 1972 policy letter is not unlike the
"magic bullet" in the Kennedy assassination. And if I understand this
correctly, there is no record that there ever was an "LRH Accounts Officer"
at all. It appears that the entire incident of the creation and subsequent
almost immediate cancellation of the policy letter could have been effected
by Ken Urquhart acting alone, providing the complete, if fraudulent,
foundation for John McLean's later uncorroborated testimony for IRS.
One thing not included in your timeline, which I understand, since there
are so many parallel timelines connected with these issues, is the
proximity of the creation of that policy letter to the Kima Douglas mission
to Ghana to incorporate Religious Research Foundation (RRF) and the other
corporations she and Fred Hare created in late October or early November
1972. Surely such a set of corporations had to have been in planning for
some time prior to their mission, so it seems likely not only that the
planning was in progress by the date of the 7 September 1972 policy letter,
but that Ken Urquhart necessarily would have been involved in all such
planning and the flow of information concerning it.
One can only wonder why Urquhart never revealed his unique personal
knowledge of such an important set of data.
> 15 c. November 1975
> Quoted from GO "Chronology" of Gerry Armstrong attached to an
> Armstrong legal filing: "Gerry has just earlier been on leave
> to visit and handle his family. Found they had been getting
> entheta from the McLean articles. His mother is antagonistic
> to both him and to Terry [sic: Terri Armstrong, Terri Gamboa]
> at first, but this does eventually get handled. Also during
> this visit there is a letter given to Gerry by his mother,
> from a former girlfriend who apparently still carries the
> torch - though she has been married herself for 3 years.
> Gerrys mother is asked to pass the letter on to Gerry in
> 'your usual discreet manner.'"
> 8 March 1976
> "Ex-Scientologists: City is World Base--John McLean, a former
> third mate in Scientology's Executive Sea Org., said in an
> interview on WTVT TV that the Fort Harrison Hotel is
> definitely the world headquarters of Scientology." Clearwater
>Well, now, for SOME fucking reason, Canadian John McLean, who apparently
>has LEFT Scientology and been spreading entheta in Canada, NOW just
>HAPPENS to wend his way down to Clearwater, Florida, JUST when the Flag
>Land Base is being established there. For WHAT? We have NO ~fucking~
I have to say that I find this as perplexing as you. How extraordinary that
McLean would go to all the trouble to travel from Canada to Clearwater just
to be able to advise the media that Flag had been established there as a
headquarters. I have much to add to this, which I'm not going to include
here, but I believe you will be more amazed still at the crossroads of
other Flynn clients that converge here around this time period.
I will mention only in passing that it appears that John McLean's arrival
in Clearwater appears to have been eerily soon after the departure of Kima
Douglas for Washington, D.C. (via New Jersey), purportedly in the company
of L. Ron Hubbard, who allegedly was fleeing from the possible effects of
his own indiscretion about his identity to a tailor in Tarpon Springs,
Florida. The whereabouts and activities of Scott Mayer, Gerry Armstrong,
and Laurel Sullivan also provide an interesting counterpoint to these 1976
events, but that is in our study report.
> 21 March 1976
> "Defectors Paint Unnerving Picture of Scientology--Interview
> with Church dissidents Nan & John McLean." Clearwater Sun
> 28 March 1976
> "Critics and Crowd Loudly Denounce Scientology Group--A
> meeting held by broadcaster Bob Snyder in the Fine Arts
> auditorium of the Clearwater campus of St. Petersburg Junior
> College was attended by a crowd of approximately five hundred
> anti-Scientologists who gave standing ovations to Snyder's
> two guest speakers, former Scientologists Nan and John
> McLean." Clearwater Sun
> 13 April 1976
> "Scientology Tax Talks Indicated--Former high ranking
> Scientologists Nan McLean was to meet with State Attorney
> James Russell in connection with his investigation of the
> Church's request for tax exemption." St. Petersberg Times
> 14 April 1976
> "Critic of Scientology Meets With Russell--Scientology critic
> Nan McLean spent more than five hours with State Attorney
> James Russell discussing Scientology. McLean was also served
> with a subpoena to give a deposition for the Scientologists
> in their one million dollar civil rights suit against
> Cazares." Clearwater Sun
> 28 April 1976
> "Station Looks to Scientology Debate--Scientology spokesman
> Fred Rock challenged radio personality Bob Snyder and former
> Scientologists Nan McLean to a debate." Clearwater Sun
> 19 October 1976
> "Scientologists File Slander, Libel Charges--The Church of
> Scientology filed a $300,000 libel and slander suit against
> Nancy and John McLean." Clearwater Sun
>so what's the next we hear of John McLean? Well,
>we have to come all the way up to 1981, to the United States Tax Court
>in Los Angeles, to roughly March 1981, JUST before Norman Starkey and
>Terri Gamboa "hire" Lenske, Lenske & Heller, and we enter the
>conditioned ambience of the Tax Court and find our old friend and Naval
>Intelligence officer Scott "Scotty" Mayer--Flynn-to-be witness,
>personal consultant to the IRS Commissioner--sitting in the IRS pew
>holding hands with IRS counsel Martin D. Cohen. And the witness, John
>McLean, is called to the stand. And he gives all his damning testimony,
>about which the Tax Court gives the following glowing review:
> 1 c. March c. 1981
> "The most sterling witness among the many former
> Scientologists who testified was John McLean. [CSC] tried
> very hard to impeach his testimony since he had damaging
> things to say. He told about orders to falsify records,
> direct payments to L. Ron Hubbard, the removal of money from
> secret Swiss bank accounts and the Church's heavy emphasis on
> making money. [CSC] tried hard to impeach three collateral
> aspects of McLean's testimony: (1) that McLean travelled to
> join Flag in 1971 with a man named Foster Tompkins; (2) that
> Flag kept statistics on 'paid completions' in May 1971; and
> (3) that McLean's salary was suspended for a time as
> punishment. The impeachment failed."
This is another extraordinary entry. As you point out earlier in your
timeline, McLean was "Construction Officer, Carpenter" on the Apollo,
was on an undescribed mission involving some undetermined amount of cash,
which he reported as having been stolen. There is no mention of who might
have stolen it or how or for what purpose. Everything relevant is omitted.
Yet here he is reported by the Tax Court as testifying on behalf of IRS
about transfers of cash from Swiss bank accounts in a way that the Tax
Court insists is credible, all with the absolutely surreal coincidence of
Scott Mayer in the very same courtroom as an important part of the IRS
Commissioner's litigating team. It is all simply beyond human ken.
> 2 May 1982
> "Sect still scrapping in five local lawsuits...Nancy and John
> McLean vs. the Church of Scientology--Formerly high-ranking
> church officials, the mother and son filed suit against the
> church in Tampa federal court in February 1981. The suit
> contends the church harassed them with lawsuits and invaded
> their privacy. Hubbard and his wife, Mary Sue, are named as
> defendants in the case." Clearwater Sun
I consider this very significant. This, combined with what you provide
later in your timeline concerning the "mock trial" gave us a valuable
and we found the following report, oddly enough, in a Los Angeles Times
article of 19 September 1986 concerning the Wollersheim case:
"In Tampa, Fla., recently, it was disclosed that the Church of Scientology
had reached out-of-court settlements in four multimillion-dollar civil
suits, but the details of the settlements were ordered sealed by U.S.
District Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich.
"The settlements were reached in suits filed by former Clearwater, Fla.,
Mayor Gabe Cazares, who now is a Democratic candidate for Congress; Tanja
[sic: Tonja] C. Burden of Las Vegas; Nancy McLean of Ontario, Canada, and
Margery Wakefield, whose address was not available.
"...The McLeans sued in 1981, alleging invasion of privacy and malicious
prosecution, and as in the Cazares case, a slander suit filed by the church
was dismissed as frivolous."
We pursued this further still and finally were able to link together
several other media reports we located from Associated Press (AP) and
United Press International (UPI) of 16 and 17 August 1986, and have
determined to our satisfaction that 16 August 1986 was the date of
settlement of the John and Nancy McLean suit, and that the attorney
representing them was a Flynn associate named Walt Logan.
It took quite a bit of piecing together because, as we have found to be so
often the case in reports of the Flynn litigation, the record is cloudy.
But the combination of all the evidence, including the use of the plural
"McLeans" in the stories, and the affirmation that it was indeed the
that had been filed by John and Nancy McLean in 1981, has finally resolved
this long-outstanding question for us. It must be observed that there very
obviously was a good deal of effort expended keeping John McLean's name out
of all of the press in connection with Flynn. Having studied all the media
accounts there is no doubt whatsoever of an intent to keep the connection
between Michael Flynn and John McLean suppressed.
We feel that this is a very significant closure in our study.
You were speaking about statistically unlikely relationships in this study,
and although I have no idea what it is going to take to statistically
compute the 19 February 1971 incident (if it is even possible, and being
perfectly content to leave that to the person whose problem it is), your
having raised this issue of John McLean brought into sharp focus another
statistical anomaly that came to our attention during analysis, and I'd
like to share it. Here it is as a chart of sorts:
SUBSETS OF CLIENTS OF MICHAEL FLYNN:
FROM CANADA FROM NEVADA
John McLean Ronald DeWolfe
Nancy McLean Tonja Burden
Nell McLean Adell Hartwell
Gerry Armstrong Ernie Hartwell
Laurel Sullivan LaVenda Van Schaick
This is another statistical spike that simply goes off the scale. The
combined effect of these statistical anomalies has been utterly to
eradicate any possibility that the links and connections between the
parties involved was other than by premeditated and coordinated design.
Our conclusion is unanimous: there are no statistical models for natural
probability that can hope to approach all of these data.
>And wait ANOTHER second! Aren't there a few OTHER people in Clearwater
>right around this VERY same time, during the Clearwater Hearings, at
>least ONE of them being too shy and unassuming to make an appearance.
>Why, YES, there are! It's these folks:
> 9 May 1982
> According to the affidavit of Lavenda Van Schaick, Gerald
> Armstrong delivers approximately $5 million dollars worth of
> stolen intellectual property, belonging to L. Ron Hubbard, to
> attorney Michael Flynn on or about 9 May 1982, having
> transported the stolen property across the country and
> therefore across state lines. 9 May 1982 is the date on which
> the affiant, LaVenda Van Schaick, testified in the Clearwater
> hearings referred to in her affidavit.
>Well, HELL! This is like "19 FEBRUARY 1971 REUNION." The gang's
>here! (Well, not quite--Susan Meister couldn't make the party, and Mike
>and Kima Douglas haven't joined quite yet.) But, heck! It's like old
Gerald Armstrong's prior connections with many of the Flynn clients and
associates became its own separate section of our report findings. Accounts
and records of his encounters with Flynn clients and witnesses prior to
their association with Flynn accumulated to stand out so glaringly that we
found it required its own section.
>But our story is about Clan McLean, and we hear no more of Clan McLean
>until nearly four years later, in one of the WEIRDEST twists on this
>you'll ever want to encounter, anywhere, any place, any time. Like a
>chapter out of "Through the Lookin Glass," here is a newspaper account
>of two "mock trials." I swear. I couldn't make this up. And one
>the one that most of the story is about, is a KNOWN Flynn client, Tonja
>Burden, so I can only assume that the other case discussed--Clan
>McLean--is, too. If I paraphrased this nobody would believe me, so here
> "A six-member jury at a mock federal court trial has
> recommended Tanja C. Burden, a Las Vegas cocktail waitress,
> receive $325,000 damages from the Church of Scientology.
> "The two-day trial before U.S. District Judge Elizabeth
> Jenkins that ended Tuesday was designed to allow lawyers and
> clients on each side of the suit to see how their case would
> fare in a full-blown trial, thus encouraging more
> out-of-court settlements.
> "Jurors did not know their decision was not binding.
> The two sides now will seek to work out a settlement rather
> than go through a time-consuming trial.
> "In siding with Burden, the jury said it would have
> awarded here $225,000 damages for breach of contract, and
> $100,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
> "But the jury denied her request for nearly $45 million
> in punitive damage from the church, its founder L. Ron
> Hubbard and his wife Mary Sue Hubbard.
> "Burden joined the Church of Scientology with her family
> in 1973 when she was 13.
> "She said in the suit the church promised to promote
> family unity, free her of mental and emotional problems and
> even enhance her intelligence but instead was separated from
> her parents, put in forced labor and fed restricted diets and
> punished for lapses in performance.
> "She left the church headquarters in 1977 and filed
> suit in 1980.
> "In a similar mock trial earlier this month, a jury
> recommended the church pay $775,000 to former members Nancy
> and John McLean of Ontario, Canada, for falsely suing and
> invading their privacy."
> March 26, 1986
> Regional News
> DISTRIBUTION: Arizona-Nevada, California
> DATELINE: TAMPA, Fla.
This ties back in with the Los Angeles Times story I quoted from above
regarding the McLean settlement, then to the other stories we located. The
Times mentions the "mock trial" of the McLeans that is reported here,
saying in its story that prior to the actual undisclosed McLean settlement,
a "federal jury in Tampa recommended a $775,000 settlement in a
non-binding, abbreviated trial similar to that of Burden."
That tied all the strings together.
>I hope this contributes something to your study, and, if you'll excuse
>me now, I am going out to find a HazMat team and ask them please to hose
>me down. I can only take so much of this shit at a time. I don't know
>how you guys deal with it.
You contributed a great deal. Your contributions were very valuable indeed.
How we deal with it is at arm's length. We deal with it as one would deal
with any investigative effort. It requires a certain degree of detachment,
good associates with good intentions, a desire to achieve the satisfaction
of knowing one has arrived at the truth, and a healthy regimen of entirely
unrelated other interests and activities, of which I enjoy many.