Courts have no excuse: Scientology’s ‘Fair Game’ harassment tactics were exposed early on

Our helper who dives into old newspaper archives is at it again, and this time he came up with an odd and interesting selection of items that, he points out, demonstrate how long it’s been that Scientology’s practice of “Fair Game” — retaliating against its perceived enemies with programs of harassment spelled out by founder L. Ron Hubbard — has been exposed in court cases and news stories.

In other words, there’s really no excuse for judges or media organizations or governments to be unfamiliar with Scientology’s long history of unleashing operations of intimidation and stalking on people it doesn’t like.

Let’s see what our friend came up with for us.

First up, here’s proof that in 1968 Scientology Fair Game was in place, but the church had very unwisely sued a former member for not turning in his uniform after leaving. Not only did it make the church the plaintiff, rather than defendant, but opened it up to some pretty damaging court testimony! (They had to learn this lesson all over again in the Debbie Cook fiasco in 2012.)

 
JP on Scientology: — ‘Brainwashing’
The Kent and Sussex Courier, Jun 14 1968

Hearing how Scientologists “audited” members who knew or mentioned people “disconnected” from the organization, chairman of East Grinstead magistrates, Mr. Antony Evans said: “It sounds like brainwashing to me.”

And the defendant and a witness in a case being heard by the court on Tuesday asked for their addresses to be kept secret to avoid persecution by members of the organization.

After a five-hour hearing the magistrates dismissed a case brought against former Scientologist Mr. Maurice Johnson, of South Shields, by the Scientologists who accused him of stealing a uniform consisting of a blazer and two pairs of trousers from the Church of Scientology of California. He pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Medawar, for the Scientologists, claimed that on leaving the employ of the Scientology organization in June, 1966, Mr. Johnson had not returned, as he should, the blazer and trousers he had been issued with.

Mr. Medawar called various Scientologists employed at the Saint Hill Manor headquarters of the organization. The first was Mrs. Monica Mary Qualino, of 16 Coronation Road, East Grinstead, who said she had been a secretary with the Church of Scientology at the time Mr. Johnson was employed there.

‘Fair Game’

He had been declared a “suppressive person” which meant he was anti-social. He was also listed as “fair game” — outside the protection of the organization which looked after its members.

Mr. Herbert George Parkhouse, of 47 Hermitage Road, East Grinstead, said he had demanded and asked for Mr. Johnson’s dismissal. He had spoken to him in the High Street and gone over the reasons for his dismissal and told Mr. Johnson he had better get the uniform back, fast.

In answer to defending solicitor, Mr. Harold Tavroges, Mr. Parkhouse said he had been requested by the ethics department of the organization to issue the summons against Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Parkhouse said that if a person was a “suppressive” he would not do “a darned thing for him — either as a Scientologist or as a human being.”

He alleged he had gone back to Saint Hill at 11:30 one night and seen Mr. Johnson extracting letters of criticism and complaint from various folders. Mr. Johnson had said he was putting these into dead files, but this was strictly off policy.

Mr. Parkhouse claimed Mr. Johnson had been unable to give a satisfactory explanation why he was doing this so he had taken the keys of the filing cabinets and the room from him.

‘Trumped Up’

Mr. Evans said the defence was alleging that it was a trumped up case. “One would have thought that an organization of your size would have ceased to be interested in a blazer and a couple of pair of trousers after so long a time,” he added.

Mr. Evans said he could not understand why the summons had not been taken out by the Scientologists’ legal or ethics department.

During a lunch-time adjournment, copies of a Scientology dictionary were handed to the magistrates and defending counsel to read. On the resumption, Mr. Tavroges pointed out that a man with the Scientologists had been sitting immediately outside the courtroom door with a camera at the ready to take photographs.

Mr. Evans then said the magistrates regarded the whole of East Court as being within the precincts of the court. No one could take photographs in this area.

‘Evil Cult’

Before giving evidence, Mr. Johnson said he did not want to divulge his address in open court. He was allowed by the magistrates to put his address on a piece of paper and handed it to the magistrates.

He said he was employed by the organization in July, 1965. His job was mainly connected with the central files.

He had handed back his uniform for alteration and had never seen it since.

Mr. Johnson told the court that having worked in central files and seen what was subsequently described in newspapers as an “evil cult,” he decided that in no circumstances would he work any longer in the organization.

Mr. Parkhouse, he maintained, had never seen him at Saint Hill late at night. He finished work at the manor at 6:30 p.m. and caught the minibus service to town. He denied that any such a scene as described by Mr. Parkhouse had occurred.

He was so disgusted with the organization that he would have left immediately, but he intended to work his formal week’s notice as required by law.

But an ethics order declaring him a “suppressive” was read to him by Mrs. Val Wigney and he was escorted from the premises by a man called Neville Chamberlain after he had asked for and got his insurance cards.

‘Hate Letters’

Since he had left the organization he had received over 100 letters from Scientologists. They were abusive and the main theme was hate.

He had issued a writ in the High Court against the Scientologists for the return of fees he had paid for a course in mental therapy. The Scientologists had resisted the writ, but he had been successful.

A batch of letters went to Mr. Johnson were handed up to the magistrates. On reading through them, Mr. Evans commented that they appeared to be written by people feeling very strongly about something judging by their language.

“The organization is rather bizarre. Sometimes you would receive five or six letters of disconnect from the same person. If my address is divulged I will get more abusive letters,” explained Mr. Johnson.

“Anyone who knew me or mentioned my name would be audited. They would have to go for a check on an E-meter and disconnect from me.”

Mr. Evans said: “It sounds like brainwashing to me.”

Mr. Arthur Reuben Naylor, a witness for the defence, asked if he could give his address by writing it on paper. He had, he said, never seen Mr. Johnson, who he knew well, wearing other than his own black blazer.

Mr. David Cunningham, of 21 Lauceston Gardens, Perrivale, Middlesex, said he had known Mr. Johnson for 12 years. They were close friends. He himself had been a Scientologist and had been declared a “suppressive,” but was not too clear what it meant to be declared “fair game.”

He said he was an unwilling witness for the prosecution and would like to request that his evidence was not required by the court. He did not want to say anything that might incriminate Mr. Johnson. He was told by the clerk, Mr. Francis Nutall, that he had no choice but to give evidence.

Mr. Cunningham said he had never seen Maurice Johnson in a Scientology blazer.

The letter he wrote disconnecting himself from Mr. Johnson was obligatory. He also understood that it was written in the strict confidence that it would not be used outside the organization.

“At the time of writing it I was under a mild form of psychological duress,” said Mr. Cunningham.

Next up is an example of what happens when a credulous reporter actually believes the statements coming from a Scientology mouthpiece, in this case David Gaiman (yes, the father of fantasy and sci fi author Neil Gaiman — David Gaiman was once the most prominent Scientologist in the UK and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Snow White prosecution of the early 1980s) who was doing damage control after the British government began investigating Scientology’s practices.

 
Scientologists drop ‘break the family’ rule
The Observer, Nov 24 1968
by Robert Chesshyre

The Scientology movement has abolished the practice of “disconnection,’ whereby members were forced to separate from families who were hostile to the cult.

This reform is the third major change in the movement’s rules since July, when Mr. Kenneth Robinson, then Minister of Health, banned the entry into Britain of foreign Scientology students and branded the cult as “objectionable” and “socially harmful.” The other radical reforms are a ban on the recording or writing down of verbal confessions and the abolition of security checks on a person’s past life.

Last night the movement’s chief spokesman, Mr. David Gaiman, admitted that the reforms were to a large extent an attempt to allay “public concern” after Mr. Robinson’s House of Commons attack.

Fair game

The movement had already ended its rule under which “excommunicated” members were declared “fair game,” Mr. Gaiman explained. “The term ‘fair game’ was misunderstood in Britain. People thought it meant that we set out to track down and attack expelled members. In fact it just meant that such people no longer enjoyed the support and backing of Scientology.”

The sweeping changes follow a questionnaire which was sent out to more than a million outsiders in responsive positions, such as teachers, asking them for constructive suggestions about Scientology. Mr. Gaiman claimed that 100,000 replies had been received so far.

He considered that the reforms adequately met outside criticism and that further changes were not called for.

The decision to end security checks taken in August, is confirmed in the current issue of the Auditor, the monthly journal of Scientology. A signed article by L. Ron Hubbard, the cult’s founder, lists as a major reason for the change “public criticism of security checking as a practice.”

The suggestion by opponents was that security checking exposed people to the risk of blackmail. New recruits were asked if they had committed certain crimes.

“Criticism of our practices always comes from people who have long left Scientology or who have never been connected with it,” says Mr. Gaiman.

In the same issue of the Auditor an “international amnesty” is announced by Mr. Hubbard. Under this, all people who have been disciplined by Scientology are forgiven. “This is not connected with recent criticisms, but is something that is done about once a year. Under the amnesty everyone is forgiven,” said Mr. Gaiman.

Even “excommunicated” people are free to contact their local Scientology branch. They will be restored to their former positions.

The Scientologists hope that this amnesty, in conjunction with the reforms, will meet criticism that the movement hounds ex-members and never forgets or forgives past breaches. 

Despite this smokescreen put out by Gaiman, all three practices — disconnection, writing down what is said in confessionals, and interrogations known as ‘security checks’ — continued on uninterrupted. But as you can see in this next piece, from 1970, Gaiman was still spinning, pretending that Scientology had emerged from a more primitive era.

 
Cult’s penalties horrific, says QC
Evening Standard, Nov 13 1970

Penalties imposed on staff at the Church of Scientology’s world headquarters in East Grinstead for falling below the cult’s standards were “horrific,” Sir Elwyn Jones, QC, said today.

A policy letter from the cult’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, setting out the penalties, was read by Sir Elwyn for Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, MP, who is being sued in the High Court by the Scientologists for alleged libel.

The penalties fall under these headings:

Liability. — Suspension of pay and a dirty grey rag on the left arm and day and night confinement to organization premises.

Treason. — Suspension of pay and deprivation of all uniforms and insignia, a black mark on left cheek and confinement on organization premises, or dismissal from post and debarment from premises.

Doubt. — Debarment from premises. Not to be employed. Payment of fine amounting to any sum procedure may have cost organization. Not to be trained or processed. Not to be communicated or argued with.

Enemy. — Suppressive person order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed.

‘Puritan period’

Sir Elwyn was continuing his cross-examination of Mr. David Gaiman, deputy guardian at the headquarters at Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, during the seventh day of the action.

The Scientologists claim they were libeled by Mr. Johnson Smith, 46-year-old vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, on the BBC television programme 24 Hours.

The Scientologists maintain his remarks implied that they were a harmful organization. Mr. Johnson Smith denies libel.

Sir Elwyn asked Mr. Gaiman: If the public had known the sort of thing that was going on at this place they would have been pretty horrified. It’s horrific isn’t it?

Mr. Gaiman said it sounded horrific. The letter was sent in October, 1967. By August, 1968, the church’s “Puritan period” was over.

Sir Elwyn: You call this the Puritan era?

Mr. Gaiman: Yes. It was a period of harsh internal discipline.

Sir Elwyn said the cult’s literature explained that a Scientologist having difficulty with a member of his family who was a “suppressive person” should handle the situation or “disconnect.”

Mr. Gaiman said “disconnect” meant to cut off all communication.

Sir Elwyn said that another of Mr. Hubbard’s policy letters said it could mean “to disavow, separate or divorce and thereafter cut off all communication.”

“It couldn’t be more vividly expressed,” counsel added. 

And in our final example, we’re struck by how even in a place like Calgary, the news was out about Scientology practices in 1974, five full years before the more extensive release of information about Scientology’s frightening covert and harassing operations were exposed in documents released in the Snow White prosecution in Washington DC.

 
Scientology has ways of dealing with those who go against church
The Albertan, May 31 1974
By Eric Denhoff

The former head of Calgary’s Scientology mission, by attacking that organization, has left herself open to the feeding of “lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence” to the press.

That’s the way Scientology officially deals with those who attack the organization, such as Lorna Levitt, who resigned April 19.

Levitt began attacking the organization in newspaper advertisements more than a month and a half ago, but as yet the church has not responded according to its policy.

Levitt says that, so far, the only attack has been a suggestion made to Edmonton mission members that she was using her files on Calgary members to blackmail them, a claim she heatedly denies. She says she has had “one warning phone call, but it wasn’t specific.”

Contained in a set of internal policy documents provided to The Albertan, and officially recognized by the organization, is one entitled “HCO Policy Letter…Attacks on Scientology (Additional Pol Ltr)” and dated Feb. 25, 1966. It sets out the rules established by the church’s head, L. Ron Hubbard, on how to deal with attackers of the church:

“NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to investigation of the attackers.

“Start investigating them (the attackers) promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.

“Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

“Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

“Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.”

Rev. Harvey Schmiedeke, of the church’s Toronto office, in Calgary to deal with the dissidents, told The Albertan he agrees with the policy “because it seems a reasonable way to approach the problem.”

He also confirmed that the policy has not been cancelled by Scientology’s international office.

He claimed, though, another document provided entitled “The Fair Game Law” had been cancelled in 1969.

The document states, in part: “By FAIR GAME is meant, without rights for self-possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that person or group is fair game.

“…Suppressive Acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.”

Despite the official claim that the document was cancelled as policy in 1969, it was used after that date.

On March 7, 1972, The Church of Scientology of British Columbia, in Vancouver, issued a Writ of Expulsion and Suppressive Person Declare (sic) against a South Surrey woman for public disavowal of Scientology.

The order was issued under the regulations of the Fair Game Law and the woman declared placed in a Condition of Enemy.

The Fair Game Law states “…The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics…”

“A truly Suppressive person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.”

In a further document, entitled HCO Policy Letter of October 6, 1970, Issue 11, Personnel Series No. 10, MOONLIGHTING, the organization says “Moonlighting on the government would be quite permissible. With governments anxious to hand out welfare, in some depressed areas it would be quite all right to go on the dole or relief and work as a church volunteer in the org. Org staffs under such duress can even live as monasteries for food shelter and pocket money…”

In another document, which Schmiedeke says was cancelled at the beginning of 1972, but which other documents show was “corrected and re-issued Jan. 11, 1972,” and under which lists were made and circulated during October, 1972, the church attacks Freeloaders and assesses a fine of $5,000 against organization members who quit as staff members and $1,000 against those who are not staff members.

Further to the internal fines, members are to be debited the full cost of all services provided them, the document says.

According to a freeloader list date April 10, 1972, and circulated in the U.S. and Canada, former members owed as much as $37,942 individually to the church for leaving, according to the documents.

---

Chris Shelton is going Straight Up and Vertical

---

Want to help?

Please consider joining the Underground Bunker as a paid subscriber. Your $7 a month will go a long way to helping this news project stay independent, and you’ll get access to our special material for subscribers. Or, you can support the Underground Bunker with a Paypal contribution to bunkerfund@tonyortega.org, an account administered by the Bunker’s attorney, Scott Pilutik. And by request, this is our Venmo link, and for Zelle, please use (tonyo94 AT gmail). E-mail tips to tonyo94@gmail.com.

---

Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:

Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history

Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea

Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time

Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology

Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain

Here’s the link to today’s post at tonyortega.org

And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.

Paid subscribers get access to a special podcast series…

Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news