ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

About the MCCS (Mission Corporate Category Sortout) tapes...

Discussion in 'Important documents' started by Caroline, Sep 19, 2019.

  1. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    From: Gerry Armstrong <[email protected]>
    Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
    Subject: MCCS meeting transcript
    Message-ID: <[email protected]>
    X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    Lines: 624
    Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:13:02 GMT
    X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
    X-Trace: pd7urf2no 1173661982 (Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:13:02 MDT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:13:02 MDT
    Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
    Xref: alt.religion.scientology:304454

    I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
    as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
    reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).

    In seeking possession of the MCCS tapes, which had been held by the
    Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court following the 1984 trial in
    the Scientology v. Armstrong case, the IRS had submitted a partial
    transcript to the U.S. District Court to demonstrate a crime-fraud
    exception to the attorney-client privilege. The MCCS meeting that was
    recorded involved of course a number of attorneys for Hubbard and
    Scientology, as well as Sea Org and GO staff members working on MCCS.
    Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard ordered MCCS, and current cult head
    David Miscavige operated the mission.

    I have never seen what transcript the IRS used, and I did not give the
    IRS any transcript at any time. I wrote the note that precedes the
    transcript in 1982 and my ex-wife Jocelyn transcribed the tape. If the
    IRS used it, the Service did not get it from me, and I do not recall
    to whom I may have given it besides my attorneys, but I obviously gave
    it to someone because it has now come back to me.

    Because of the ongoing investigation of Scientology cult fraud, I am
    posting this now, and I am grateful to whoever sent it to me. If
    anyone knows if this is the partial transcript that was central to the
    U.S. v. Zolin cases I would like know. The published opinions and a
    number of other documents relating to MCCS are webbed on my site at:

    The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its ruling:

    The IRS denied that the transcripts were made using tapes obtained
    from the Superior Court or from any other illicit source. Agent​
    Petersell declared: "The partial transcripts were not prepared by the​
    United States from the tapes in the custody of the Superior Court for​
    Los Angeles County, California, nor from copies of the tape now in the​
    custody of the Clerk of this Court. The transcripts were obtained from​
    a confidential source by another Special Agent prior to the issuance​
    of this summons. The source was not a party to Church of Scientology​
    v. Armstrong, No. 410153, nor an attorney for any party in that​
    proceeding." See Declaration of Agent Petersell in No. CV85-0440-HLH​
    (Tx) (March 21, 1985). As the District Court made no finding of​
    illegality, we assume for present purposes that the transcripts were​
    legally obtained.​

    My note:

    Transcript of tape recording made 29 September 1980 at a meeting of
    Scientology legal personnel, MCCS Mission personnel and attorney's of
    Scn, LRH and Gold or New Era Pictures the film crew co.).

    When I have been able to identify the speaker I have noted his or her
    initials beside the statement. When I have not been able to identify
    the speaker there are no initials.

    The following people attended the meeting:

    CP: Charles Parselle, then DGL WW.

    AW: Alan Wertheimer, attorney for LRH who worked closely with Laurel
    Sullivan and the MCCS mission, attempting to have LRH retain control
    without liability or responsibility.

    LS: Laurel Sullivan, LRH Personnel PR, and I/C of the Legal mission,
    MCCS, which was attempting to shield LRH.

    LB: Lisa Britowich, Laurel's junior on MCCS. Now kicked out,off
    staff. Was in the GO at the time.

    JM:James Murphy, LRH's tax attorney. He worked in the same firm as
    Alan Wertheimer, - Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman in Beverly Hills. I
    believe Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman have been dropped by the
    organization. Wertheimer I know for sure has been dropped, Murphy I'm
    not sure of.

    DS: Dick Sullivan, Laurel's husband,and junior on the MCCS mission.

    MC: Melanie Cook, attorney at Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman, who did a
    lot of work on trademarks, etc.

    Ron Fujikawa, worked on the film deals. Part of MCCS's actions was to
    work out the legal arrangements for LRH to get paid for the films, and
    I believe retain copyrights for them, plus work out distribution lines
    with Pubs DK, and other related matters. Fujikawa is an attorney in
    Century City.

    I was given this tape by Barbara DeCelle, secretary on the MCCS
    mission, in late 1981. Barbara had transcribed the various tapes and
    gave me the cassettes for my use.

    Some of the statements, particularly regarding RRF, eg. see p. 8 and
    9, are very interesting.


    The transcript:

    I have gathered a fair amount of information on this and I have been
    quoted by people who actually do documentary work of $22,750.00 for a
    script for a half hour educational film.

    It's low.

    The numbers are low.

    In part because documentaries and educational films are methods for
    writers, directors and other talent to break into the business and
    therefore (inaudible). So, I guess one of the problems then is that
    anything you pick that is even reasonably on the high side is subject
    to challenge because they will definitely be able to go and find other
    people to work for < inaudible >.

    CP: Right. So it could be as low as three.

    It could be as low as three. There are other services that are
    involved here in addition just to writing the script.

    AW: And L. Ron Hubbard is not an unknown quantity. He's not somebody
    trying to break into the business.


    CP: That's right.
    Just the economics of making a half hour or an hour of educational
    film is such that they can't afford to pay someone a great deal of
    money. Certainly not the amounts that were originally contemplated or
    have actually been paid in this particular arrangement.

    CP: Right. That's right. Thereof one has to look at the fact that he
    trained an entire crew for the Church. All those people are now
    available to continue film-making for the Church if the Church wishes.
    Plus the scores. All on their account. As far as we were concerned, he
    trained them up. They are Church employees, they're Scientologists and
    they are probably going to go on making films for Church purposes. But
    even so, if we look in - I mean, I just did my little calculation and
    it came out to just 1/2 a million. That's 33 times 15,000 and if you
    add on bits for film scores and bits for the work for training and
    something for the fact that he's not a newcomer trying to break into
    the field as far as we are concerned.

    LS: He also is the only person in the world who could ever write these
    ... the way they were written.


    LB: Yeah.

    LS: There's that.

    CP: That's right. It's the score. I mean, it would have been really
    impossible for CSC (Church of Scientology of California) to have gone
    to another author for those films because they are entirely technical
    films. He's the only chap who could have done it. But...

    LB: He's also I think a ... there's more significance on the fact that
    he was the author and what would the Catholic Church pay the Pope, for
    instance to do that; or if Jesus Christ was alive today, what would
    they pay for a lecture? You know.

    LS: We're talking about a non-unknown quantity ... in the field.

    LB: Yeah. There's a significance that's attached that makes his words
    extremely valuable - priceless - to the Church that is different than
    you are talking about you are just going to pay somebody to direct an
    educational film. Well, you're going to pay Professor Joe Schmoe in a
    University to be the lecturer for that film or if you are going to
    hire, you know, a <inaudible> person to do it. There's going to be a

    AW: You have two problems and you raise an interesting point in what
    Jesus Christ would charge or what he would get paid. But ah, the two
    things that are going on is that LRH does not want to be accountable
    for all of the acts of the Church of Scientology since some of those
    could be slightly out of bounds and he doesn't want to be in a
    position where he is held accountable, on one hand. On the other hand,
    the Church is attempting to maintain a certain tax exempt status and
    they are worried that the status of the Church can be characterized as
    nothing other than an alter ego for L. Ron Hubbard whereby certain
    profit-making things are done in the name of the Church. So, with
    those two things going on, what we're trying to do is have some sort
    of structure whereby as much of those two things will continue as long
    as possible. And I am not trying to say that what he has done is not
    worth 2.1 million dollars <inaudible>... but you are talking about a
    jury of 12 people who may have to decide whether L. Ron Hubbard is
    sufficiently interwoven in the affairs of the Church to be held
    accountable for some astrocity that should happen in the future.

    LB: I understand. I just want to make sure that in a deal -if we're
    going to have to deal with LRH - that it's due; I think Charles
    <inaudible> are attaching a significance to


    that. Well as long as we are going to attach a significance to his
    contribution to the film-making, it should be, you know, <inaudible>.
    male - Well, at some point you draw the line, I don't know if it's
    worth 5 million dollars and I don't know if it's...

    LS: Well, lets just look at his idea of it. His idea was that he
    didn't want it... (someone entered the room)... The other point was
    that LRH did not want any significance put on any services that he
    provided the Church unless it was absolutely necessary... and this was
    his instruction. He didn't want to be paid for anything other than the
    goods that he actually delivered. Now, over the last few months, Mary
    Sue has changed that because we have to justify the 2.1. She has said
    we will count that now as an advice from a different period of time
    and now we look at it again and that's why we are now considering
    assigning significances to his abilities to edit film, shoot film,
    create sets, music, etc. So, we don't want to go overboard on
    assigning significances to service. We just want regular assets which
    is the purpose for even assigning values to the services is only to

    CP: Well, I think we can look at it from this point of view. As far as
    the Church is concerned, if we paid him 2.1 million for making these
    films for which ordinary industry standard is very, very, very much
    less, we face an inurement problem. Therefore, if the Church's
    attorneys had been involved with this transaction, we would have
    advised the Church not to pay that kind of money because it would be
    dangerous to our exempt status. However, if you would like to say that
    he will do the work for nothing, obviously, the Church is - I,
    representing the Church's attorney viewpoint, would say, "Terrific,
    you're going to do it for nothing; that's fine." But of course, one
    also has considerations as <inaudible> Scientologist which says it's
    not right that he should make 33 films and occupy a good portion of
    time doing that for no recompense whatsoever. I just want to - so as
    far as I'm concerned, it can be as low as it can be from the Church
    viewpoint but there is a point beyond which it cannot go and that is
    the point at which it becomes unjustifiable in terms of industry
    standards. Not taking the lowest possible figure, but taking the
    highest reasonable figure. So, I put it back to you now as Ron's

    AW: If we're talking about a low figure, depending on how low it were,
    I might say, the risks don't justify the benefits in this particular
    instance because I know that he doesn't want to be named in lawsuits
    and he does not want his finances looked into and where the line is,
    just as with drawing any of these financial lines, I don't know.
    Perhaps, as we're thinking about 2 million it could be an advance
    against number


    6; partly it could be compensation for services; partly it could be an
    advance against a future share of the profits.

    CP: Right. In terms of risk to him arising out of this particular
    transaction, it's hard to see how there could be any risk. It's not
    like, for example, the Purification Rundown where people might sue for
    claiming injury.

    AW: The real risk is the fact that the man has been paid a lot of
    money which is greater than it should be...

    CP: Right. But that's no risk to him.

    AW: And fortunately for you... I think it is because the inurement has
    two sides to it. If the Church is his alter ego, then he will be held
    accountable for the acts of the Church, as well as the Church losing
    its tax exempt status which is of no significance to him as L. Ron

    CP: I can't myself see it... I can see that the Church would lose its
    tax exempt status if inurement is found but at the moment I can't see
    how that would create a liability for him.

    AW: Well, the whole piercing of the corporate veil in <inaudible>
    cases is what we're talking about here. You know, where a person sets
    up a corporation to run a business and the business has liabilities
    and the person just says, "Well, it was my corporation; wasn't me. So,
    go sue the corporation if you like, but it has no assets." And
    <inaudible> it says if it is unjust to treat liabilities to the
    corporation in the matter where the individual gets <inaudible>.

    CP: Yes, but that I can - I can see that but I don't think that a
    finding that part of the net earnings inured to his benefit in itself
    pierces the corporate veil. Unless it could be showing that
    corporation was indeed a sham for his benefit which would actually be
    inconceivable in terms of the amounts of money involved. His take of

    AW: I'm not sure what the courts require. If I were on a jury and
    somebody got paid 2 million dollars where $250,000, $300,000 or
    $500,000 was the appropriate amount, the difference would be large
    enough to me as an individual to think that perhaps something shady
    was going on.

    CP: So, in essence, what you're saying is that if the Church loses its
    exempt status on the basis of inurement to him, there could also be a
    finding that the whole corporation was in fact a sham for his benefit.
    Which indeed, the IRS, are alleging in the current case and therefore
    other litigants could pursue him directly bypassing the Church.


    AW: A lot of this also is cumulative because there are other things
    going on: The fact that he writes books which the Church publishes and
    sells and pays for advertising and so forth and there's probably some
    very meaty stuff there I would think. Jewelry. He has a lot of money
    coming in because of what the Church does. And perhaps that amount of
    money that's coming to him is not significant compared to the Church's
    total, but it is in and of itself, significant.

    CP: It's a lot of money. It certainly is percentage-wise very small.
    But, do I take it that you do say that - is that your real worry, the
    piercing of the corporate veil so that other litigants could pursue
    him directly?

    AW: I think that is the concern, yeah.

    The reason we are structuring it this way is to keep the green box and
    the red boxes as far away from each other as possible. We're trying to
    at least confuse people who are trying to figure out exactly what it
    is we're <inaudible>.

    CP: Now I fully understand that. I'm just trying to see what we're -
    if we say, don't give him anything at all for making the films. Other
    way around. Sorry. If we say the inurement problem is a very real
    problem. Any connection between him and the Church or substantial
    connection between him and the Church is a real problem to him rather
    than to the Church.

    AW: I was dealing from his point of view.

    CP: Yeah. 'Cause I tended to view it from the Church's point of view
    and the Church is always fixated on the problem of inurement. From his
    point of view I have always thought that there is no problem because,
    provided he accounts for sums received, which of course he always
    does, he would merely pay his tax and then...

    AW: He is not always taxable. He receives <inaudible>
    He gets a $35,000 annual consultant fee.

    AW: $35,000 is not enough as far as I was concerned to get into
    whether or not that's a fair amount and I just suggested that he
    forget it. He gets - people work for him. People who are paid by the
    Church render their exclusive services to him directly. That's
    something that's always bothered me. Standing Order #1 is an area I've
    had dealings in which hasn't been followed for ten years; yet there is
    advertisement... There's a lot of things going on that really tie him
    into the Church. If you get back to Jesus Christ delivering a lecture
    to Christians, probably he would do that without being paid, I
    guess,... not being Christian.


    CP: I think on the whole, he did give lectures free and furthermore
    fed people for nothing while they were there.

    AW: My feeling is that if LRH knew up front that he wasn't going to
    get paid for doing the films, he would have done them anyway.
    female- Yes.

    JM: If I may interject something here, the reason, I think, that
    inurement is a problem on both sides of any congression is that an
    actual finding of inurement which would jeopardize the Church's tax
    exempt status presupposes a control relationship in addition to a
    transfer of personal or extraordinary personal financial gain. And
    that control relationship is a control relationship that we have been
    primarily concerned with because that could be basis for suits by
    private litigants whose main complaint against the Church from going
    through the Church and looking at our client or any other organization
    which was receiving money via the Church and has arguably some control
    relationship with the Church. So that when Allen is referring to
    inurement, we really - our concern is primarily this control
    relationship aspect rather than the direct financial gain. And getting
    back to what you indicated before, yes, if it were just a matter of
    pure dollars and if you never had to look beyond those dollars, then
    we would not be concerned. In fact, we would be quite happy that our
    client received 2 million dollars. Allen, is that consistent with

    AW: The trade mark area which is next on our agenda has very little
    to do with money and everything to do with control.

    CP: Right. But it would be true to say then, that your concern about
    control essentially is that 3rd party litigants will pursue him for
    damages which will cost literally - which will be intolerable for him
    in terms of his personal life. That's really the concern.

    AW: I think so. I think the people have shown a predisposition to
    suing him personally and perhaps this is part of their experience of
    getting out of the Church. He seems to be the person, in addition to
    the Church, who seems to be an important party.

    CP: Oh, yeah, that's true and it is the fashion to sue him as well.

    AW: Well, he's not without assets. He's well off and I would assume
    would have the money to satisfy a few of these judgments if they
    were successful and he certainly would have


    to pay to defend them.

    CP: True. That's absolutely right. You did say that he has not always
    accounted for sums actually received. That is entirely at variance
    with my understanding from Marty Greenburg that he has always
    accounted for sums received. I realize that the Church has rendered
    certain services to him in the form of personnel.

    AW: That's the kind of thing that I was talking about.

    CP: You're not talking about actual cash transfers.

    AW: I don't know anything about that.

    CP: Oh, you don't know about that. Well, as far as I know, he has
    always been, through his accountants, entirely scrupulous about
    accounting for every cent actually received. Benefits is another
    matter entirely.

    When we're talking about accounting, we are talking about accounting
    from the financial standpoint; for example, tax authorities, as
    opposed to accounting to the Church for the goods and services
    rendered which would justify cash transfers. That's two separate kinds
    of accounting. Are we talking about the same kind of accounting?

    CP: Well, the kind of accounting I am talking about is accounting for
    the IRS for his income expressed in terms of money.

    Allen, when you are talking about accountability, are you referring
    to exactly the same thing

    AW: Indirectly I am.

    CP: Yes.

    Those are the only people who are going to raise the

    AW: The people I'm worried about are the IRS.

    That's what all of this accounts for L. Ron Hubbard's <inaudible>.

    CP: Good and that's great.

    JM: This structurally a little more allows it. Because there was a
    concern to interpose or to put a barrier between direct economic
    relationships, between a tax exempt organization and LRH and we're
    not for him continuing the economic


    relationship. Some of us would get <inaudible>.

    CP: Right.

    JM: And that is not generated so much from this office as concern on
    the part of the people representing the Church. And a direct economic
    relationship, if it can be avoided, should be avoided.

    CP: Right. Well I think the Church is always..

    AW: And the control at the same time which is how the F & P thing
    arose and here we have created - taken the people who in the English
    terms really do control the Church, we have taken them out of the
    Church and we've given the church its own Board of Directors who are
    now supposed to control the Church after consulting with a separate,
    separately incorporated body of people who in turn can look to LRH for
    advice when they are unable to solve whatever problems they are being
    asked to solve <inaudible>. We are trying to remove the man as much as
    possible from allegations or <inaudible> control.

    CP: Right. That's a very helpful exercise. And also I may say this,
    that it is very very helpful for LRH to have his own attorneys, i.e.
    yourselves, because for many years we have been missing this essential
    service and we have done this exercise of trying to think of the way
    it would be on the one side and trying to think of the way it would be
    on the other side and it really doesn't work very well to do that. It
    doesn't work to represent both parties at the same time. Especially if
    you also happen to be a Scientologist and involved in that particular
    way as well. So, I'm with relief representing the Church interest and
    I certainly invite you to represent Ron's interest as much as you can.
    I say that RRF, which is as far as I am concerned part of the Church,
    made a mistake when it paid over that 2.1 million. RRF had nothing...
    We could say that RRF and CSC are part of the same Church, even though
    they are corporately different. I mean if anything was a sham
    corporation, it's RRF.

    AW: As I understand it, RRF receives monies that would otherwise be
    due the California Church for services rendered by the California
    Church to people outside of the country who decide to pay the Church
    from outside the country.

    CP: That's right.

    AW: So that's basically right?

    CP: That's right. Foreign - non-US Scientologists who wish to pay for
    Flag services pay RRF and then go to Flag and take the services. RRF
    was originally supposed to hold the money


    until the service was rendered and then pay it to CSC. But in fact, it
    has not really done that and so CSC has rendered much service to many
    foreign Scientologists and RRF has got the money. Fortunately for us,
    RRF wasn't incorporated until 1973 and we are now litigating 1972. So,
    I haven't really tried to sort this one out but it obviously is the
    classic case (loud laugh) of inurement, if not fraud.

    (Several laughs.)

    LS: Well, put.

    It's all privileged.

    DS: The tape recorder is going here, Charles.

    CP: However, as you can see, our financial direction is really
    weighted to this solution and it is an ongoing battle which I will
    eventually win because I am the one who has to litigate the case next
    year and we obviously have to handle RRF. The way we will probably
    handle it is by simply saying it is part of the same Church, in fact.
    Now that, of course, goes directly contrary to what you're doing which
    is to split LRH off from the Church and to talk about the corporate
    integrity of the different Churches. Unfortunately, the Churches do
    not have any corporate integrity. And our efforts to give them
    corporate integrity have not hitherto been successful. Now when you
    talk around a table like this and there is no Internal Revenue agent
    present, (whispered: I hope so), bugged or otherwise, one can work out
    solutions. But when you are a few weeks away from a trial and
    everything you say is going to be rammed down your throat, then you
    have to start looking at what actually happened. And it's very
    difficult to assign significances to things other than what was
    actually being done at the time. We are trying to say for example that
    Flag in 1970 is a part of California Church which is probably true but
    there is no documentation to say that and the truth of the matter is
    that Marty Greenburg, the accountant, decided to include Flag's
    accounts in California accounts some years later for convenience. So
    the decision, what is - the IRS can say and are in fact alleging that
    Flag in those years, 1970 to 1972, was an unincorporated association
    to which CSC's income inured on a grand scale. We cannot point to a
    document which says, "Actually Flag was part of CSC during the years
    of question" because it doesn't exist because no one really thought of
    it. So, we have to have a different theory of the case which is going
    to account for all facts and omitted facts which do exist.

    Is this the why of efforts to create corporate integrity in 1980?


    CP: Well, I think it certainly affects F & P. Possibly Laurel told you
    I have thoughts about F & P. But I think perhaps shouldn't anticipate

    What should we do with the 2.1 million dollars? Do you want LRH to
    give that back? We'll declare it all a mistake and we'll negotiate it
    fresh, or what? What would you like to do on that? What's your

    CP: My thought is that the Church is very willing to pay LRH for all
    the work which he did in creating those movies and ought to pay
    generously but not excessively having in mind accepted industry
    standards. Generously because he was the only person who could have
    done it. Generously because he did everything. And generously because
    he trained the Church crew from start to finish. And generously
    because his name on the credits will ensure an audience and without
    his name on the credits, one could be fairly confident that there
    would be no Church audience. I think all those facts should be taken
    into account in the reaching of a fair price.

    Who will own the copyrights <inaudible>? Who will control the
    dissemination of the films, how they are used, whether they are used
    properly, or how long they will be used? Is that something that the
    author can retain? <Inaudible.>

    CP: Well___

    And can control their uses for Churches, Missions, non-Scientology
    organizations, such as WISE. Who knows who is going to use those

    LS: <Inaudible> will use the films; WISE will use the films; SMI may
    use the films (only 3 of them). Why can't PDK own the copyrights?

    CP: Well, who in fact owns the copyright? Normally, as far as I
    understand it, the employer owns the copyright. But,

    AW: Financier. Usually the financier - he who pays usually owns.

    CP: That's right.

    AW: Not always.

    CP: Not always. In this case, we have a relationship between Ron and
    the Church which is not entirely that of film director to film set. It
    is also Founder of the Church and for the last 30 years, Ron has
    always steadfastly insisted upon owning and retaining the copyrights
    to any of his own work product. And I think we could say that in these
    circumstances it is


    completely understood without even the necessity of saying it. That
    where Ron produces something of this nature, he owns the copyright. I
    would have thought that was well defensible.

    MC: Is the underlying work already published? What the film is made
    from, is that already published in <inaudible> covering the script?

    MC: It's just a script, it's not a book or anything...

    CP: No, it's just a script.


    © Gerry Armstrong
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
  2. cakemaker

    cakemaker Patron Meritorious

    Are the full transcripts available someplace?
    AnonyMary likes this.
  3. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    I'll put my clerk hat on.

    From a July 26, 1982 declaration filed in Tonja Burden v. Scientology, and other litigation. It might have been the "partial transcript" the US v. Zolin cases concern, but Gerry doesn't know. Note that the Scientologists sued Gerry in LA Superior Court (Armstrong 1) one week later.

  4. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    This declaration was filed in Founding Church of Scientology of Washington D.C., v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation (Case No. 78-0107)
    Also filed on September 6, 1984 in CSC v. Elmer Linberg, Case No. CV 77-2654-Kn (Mcx)

    Earlier in this case, on December 14, 1981, US District Court Judge David Vreeland Kenyon issued the Scientologists (as CSC) a favorable ruling denying the US Government defendants motion to dismiss CSC’s complaint.

    Gerry had escaped Scientology and the Sea Org two days earlier.

    The Scientologists’ attorney identified in this order was Howard J. Stechel. He also represented the Scientologists against Tonja Burden. Doubtlessly because of his success for the Scientologists against the Government in front of Kenyon, and against attorney Michael Flynn and his clients, Stechel was hired to prosecute the Armstrong 1 case shortly after it was filed.

    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
  5. cakemaker

    cakemaker Patron Meritorious

    Thanks so much Caroline.

    It's breath taking the criminality of this cult.
    AnonyMary likes this.
  6. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    You're welcome, cakemaker. It takes my breath away too.

    I'll now post in parts an unofficial transcript of the September 29, 1980 meeting set up in LA by the Hubbard-ordered Mission Corporate Category Sort-out (MCCS) between the Sea Org missionaires, Scientology attorneys and Hubbard’s attorneys.

  7. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    September 29, 1980 meeting
    Part 2

  8. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    September 29, 1980 meeting
    Part 3
  9. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    September 29, 1980 meeting
    Part 4
  10. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    September 29, 1980 meeting
    Part 5

  11. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    September 29, 1980 meeting
    Part 6

  12. cakemaker

    cakemaker Patron Meritorious

    Since the "Church of Scientology of California" ceased to exist decades ago, do you know if the court records that were sealed are now public?
    AnonyMary and Churchill like this.
  13. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    Although we don't know exactly what is sealed or unsealed, I think the sealing of the subject court records is probably not related to the end of CSC operations.

    Note that although CSC sued Gerry, and he was never "employed" by CSI, the 1986 "settlement agreement" is with CSI, and the subsequent future litigation Armstrong 2 through 7 is with CSI.
  14. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    Gerry's attorney Michael Flynn wrote a declaration regarding MCCS, C.I.D., the Armstrong case, and related matters.

  15. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

  16. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    Can do. I agree with you about document redundancy.
  17. ILove2Lurk

    ILove2Lurk Lisbeth Salander

    Quick question.

    In looking through the website, I've noticed
    that many of the links lead to pages with no content. Example would be this link
    to the deposition of TonJa Burden.

    Am I missing something?
    There's so many links with intriguing titles but no content. :questions:

    I'll tell you that some of my favorite materials that I've ever encountered are the
    audio files of talks by Michael Flynn. He was really a force of nature and a very
    smart guy. High confront. I admire him much.
  18. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    Ach, I apologize. A glitch seems to have developed very recently, which involves Wordpress and how it displays custom fields (in this case, the field is a link to the PDF file). Here is the Tonja Burden depo:!O3xA2CYa!kqUgGdTo6gMGuwUr4NfpRLLwhQRj-5oqPobXSbbWdH0

    The Armstrong legal library is currently archived on, and indexed from I have been thinking of sending up a copy of the PDF library to, for redundancy, reindexing, and hopefully easier access. (Praying for bandwidth, time, resources, etc.)

    I will try to be responsive to specific document requests in the meantime...
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
  19. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

  20. ILove2Lurk

    ILove2Lurk Lisbeth Salander

    I think so. I tried 4 or 5 links as a test and they all point
    to documents on MEGA now. I think it's fixed. Thank you! :thumbsup: