In the third and final part of a deep dive by historian Chris Owen into Scientology’s machinery for attacking its critics and gaining influence, we’ll look at the role of lawyers and the Office of Special Affairs in litigation and lobbying. See part one here and part two here.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Scientology gained a justified and still-lingering reputation for being extraordinarily litigious. Its Guardian’s Office (GO) would sue at the slightest provocation, rarely winning cases but racking up huge legal costs for its opponents. In 1983, the church’s Office of Special Affairs (OSA) and Religious Technology Center (RTC) inherited the GO’s formidable litigation machine.
Scientology also retained the GO’s standard playbook, which one journalist summarised as “sue the critics, sue the government and sometimes overwhelm the judges. Whenever necessary, use private investigators to probe your opponents’ weaknesses and exploit them.” That said, Scientology is much less litigious now than it used to be, and it has been many years since the church last sued a media organisation.
Despite Scientology’s unpleasant reputation, it has consistently been able to find top-flight lawyers to fight its cases. As one lawyer said in 1980, “These people pay their bills – top dollar and on time – which is more than I can say for most of my unpopular clients. This case will finance a lot of pro bono work.” Others have had higher motives, seeing Scientology as a persecuted victim of the government or seeking the opportunity to expand constitutional protections.
By the late 1990s, Scientology was reported to employ over 20 lawyers at a dozen firms in the US. According to former OSA head Mike Rinder, the church’s lawyers fall into three categories. Many key legal cases, particularly those involving specialised issues of First Amendment or copyright law, are managed by non-Scientologist lawyers from major law firms.
The church also has its own in-house stable of Scientologist lawyers who handle activities that are regarded as more sensitive, such as hiring private investigators. They are bound by Hubbard’s policies and the church’s draconian disciplinary system, as well as its code of secrecy.
Finally, a third tier of lawyers comprise non-Scientologists from small law firms who are largely or entirely dependent on the church’s patronage.
Scientology gained a reputation for being serially litigious during the 1960s and 1970s, suing for libel at seemingly every opportunity. However, few of its lawsuits actually came to court; instead, the church often kept its cases alive for years without ever bringing them to trial, draining its opponents’ resources and discouraging further criticism of Scientology. This tactic, the English courts have ruled in a non-Scientology case, is an abuse of process aimed at gagging critics.
Under the direction of Scientology leader David Miscavige and the then RTC Inspector General Mark ‘Marty’ Rathbun in the 1980s and 1990s, Scientology adopted a different approach. Lawsuits were brought to trial much more often, particularly in cases where Scientology’s trademarks or copyrights were under threat. Its defensive tactics against lawsuits have been ferociously uncompromising.
Whereas ordinary litigants might settle cases to keep down costs and legal exposure, Scientology often makes a point of pursuing them as far as possible. Miscavige himself has publicly called Scientologists “the antimatter of quitters … When the going gets tough, pitbulls call a Scientologist.” As one US judge has put it, the church views “litigation as war.”
The church’s huge financial resources have been key to this approach. Los Angeles lawyer Dan Leipold comments that “for every nickel we spend [in litigation against Scientology], they spend $1.” Another lawyer, Ford Greene, describes Scientology litigation as “fearsome … They litigate by mud and by volume and behind-the-scenes intimidation.”
This has reportedly included opposing lawyers being pursued by private investigators, dealing with complaints to the Bar Association and facing derogatory rumours being spread to their clients and neighbours. According to lawyer Graham Berry, a California law firm dropped litigation against Scientology in 1995 after church officials threatened to expose extramarital affairs of several partners in the firm.
As well as brute legal force, the church’s approach has also reportedly encompassed what might be termed social engineering: finding lawyers with social connections to judges, enabling them to bring influence to bear outside the courtroom. Such ex parte communications are not illegal; they are however, generally prohibited under rules of legal conduct, as they threaten judicial impartiality and give one side an unfair advantage in a case.
In one late 1990s example when the church was looking to launch a federal lawsuit in Texas, Rathbun said that Miscavige ordered him to find “Texas legal counsel so connected to the local judiciary as to assure victory to the Church … with such connections that he could walk unannounced into the [judges’] chambers.” In another mid-1980s case, according to Rathbun, a church lawyer bonded with the presiding judge over a shared love of sports. When the case looked like it would go against Scientology, Rathbun said, the lawyer made a social visit to the judge to make a personal appeal to reverse an adverse decision. The decision was indeed subsequently reversed.
As this highlights, lobbying and influencing is an integral part of the way that Scientology seeks to thwart its enemies and grow its power. Hubbard understood that organisations depend on individuals; therefore you target the individuals as much as the organisation. OSA trainees are required to demonstrate their understanding of a number of maxims: “If it’s a group problem, find the key person and influence him”; “Only action upon individuals is productive”; “Forget they. Find him or her”; “Never abandon an attack until you have found and contacted the key person.”
OSA carries out a sophisticated political influence programme to find potential allies for Scientology. It maintains a “power communication lines database,” which Rathbun described as “a computer database that culls from every source of information they can find, through going out and doing public record checks, through an intelligence network, through parishioner files, through counseling folders, through everything to find every connection they can find from a Scientologist or people hired by Scientology to people in positions of power in Scientology communities.”
The church has surveyed its members to identify their connections with influential people. Scientologists are currently required to submit a highly detailed “Life History” detailing virtually every aspect of their lives, including connections with those in influence. The database enables the church to exploit those links to contact, groom and ultimately recruit influencers to take its side.
In Clearwater, Florida, for example, it reportedly identified a local political consultant as a top mover and shaker and ”a key player in the community that had to be dealt with one way or another,” as Rathbun put it. According to Rathbun, she had a connection with a Clearwater Scientologist engaged in PR activity for the church. By exploiting that link the church was able to bring her onto its side and establish links through her to other important figures in the area, to build goodwill and gain influence.
Much of this work takes place through OSA’s Directors of Special Affairs – its regional representatives. In one example from the 1990s, OSA’s Greek representative, Ilias Gratsias, reported that he had used Scientologist volunteers to infiltrate meetings of Scientology’s critics and hired lawyers and private investigators to aid the campaign against them. He worked closely with OSA branches elsewhere in Europe and with the continental and worldwide Scientology headquarters in Copenhagen and Los Angeles respectively.
Gratsias reported that he had developed and used non-Scientologist allies to obtain benefit for the church. He kept records on numerous individuals of interest including politicians, business figures, celebrities, journalists, and other public figures. A long list of public figures was identified as “allies” of Scientology, while others – chiefly journalists and anti-cult campaigners – were designated as “enemies.” The enemies were targeted through lawsuits, surveillance and intrusive investigation, such as going through their garbage. Gratsias also organised public relations campaigns intended to improve Scientology’s image, such as cleaning up parks and planting trees.
OSA’s approach to covert influencing has strong similarities to the agent recruitment cycle described by CIA staff historian Randy Burkett. This consists of six steps: identifying individuals who can meet intelligence needs, assessing whether they are able to deliver the desired services, developing an initial relationship with them, carrying out the actual recruitment, holding subsequent meetings for taskings and debriefings, and either continuing to run the agent or terminate the relationship.
According to Burkett, successful agent recruitment depends on six factors known collectively as RASCLS: Reciprocation, Authority, Scarcity, Consistency, Liking and Social proof. Reciprocation means providing an amenity for the agent, creating an obligation that they feel they have to repay. Presenting the recruiting organisation as powerful and wealthy enables the recruiter to present the agent with an air of authority. Human psychology causes scarce items to be seen as more attractive and therefore worth making a greater effort to obtain. The desire to be seen as self-consistent motivates the agent to justify providing further assistance once the initial ethical breach has been made. The innate desire to “like people who like us” encourages the agent to cooperate, particularly if they are being flattered or given tokens of esteem. Finally, social proof – the herd instinct to follow what others are doing – reassures the agent that their own actions are correct.
All six factors can be seen in an account by Marty Rathbun of how Scientology influenced a Clearwater lawyer who was representing a client in conflict with the church in the early 2000s. Rathbun recalled that one of the church’s lawyers made friends with the Clearwater lawyer. They set up a personal meeting with Miscavige at the church’s gleaming ‘Mecca’, the Flag Land Base. Miscavige was able to create what Rathbun described as “this little bonding scenario… over months.”
The lawyer received numerous perks, such as sought-after tickets to the 2003 Super Bowl, gifts of expensive cufflinks, invitations to celebrity galas and personal meetings with Scientologist celebrities. By the end of it, Rathbun said, the lawyer was representing Miscavige’s interests more than his actual client’s. Although he very likely did not see it as such, the lawyer had effectively become Scientology’s agent.
OSA also seeks to influence media coverage of Scientology through worldwide media monitoring and rapid-reaction rebuttals. According to Marc Headley, who was a senior Sea Org member at Scientology’s secretive Gold Base facility in California, OSA compiles daily reports of worldwide press coverage of Scientology, divided into good and bad (“Black PR”) categories.
“These almost always had notes for each article,” Headley says, “and what the proposed handlings that would be done to Black PR the reporter or sources for the bad article.” Scientology has created publications and anonymously-published websites to ‘dead agent’ – discredit – particularly troublesome individuals and publications.
Leaked documents suggest that OSA recruited journalists as informants for covert intelligence-gathering and influencing. According to an internal memo posted by Rathbun and attributed to the current OSA CO, Linda Hamel, Vanity Fair contributing editor John Connolly gathered intelligence in 2006 for OSA on Andrew Morton, the British author of an unauthorised biography of Tom Cruise.
The memo describes information from a conversation Connolly had with Morton, who was evidently unaware of Connolly’s links. The relationship was evidently a two-way one; the memo records that “He has been given background documents that we [OSA] have on Morton and on [Paul] Barresi who we know that Morton has been using.” Connolly was reported to be looking to write a story to “attack Morton on his reputation questioning the credibility of his sources.”
The memo also records that an unnamed UK reporter was separately involved in the covert campaign against Morton. “He is willing to continue to feed information and documents to the UK tabloids to discredit Morton,” it notes. The reporter proposed to write “a pre-emptive positive book about Mr. Cruise” in advance of Morton’s book, but this was rejected. Instead, he “will continue to be used for feeding information and stories to the UK tabloids about Morton.”
According to Rathbun, Connolly had been an OSA informant “for nearly two decades. He has infiltrated several journalists doing stories on Scientology during that time, posing as a like-minded investigative journalist working on a Scientology story.” He told the New York Observer that the journalist had been an operative of the private investigator Gene Ingram, a long time OSA contractor.
For years, Rathbun said, “I periodically saw his name in programs and reports as an active source of information and stories.” For years, according to the Observer, Connolly had “repeatedly, almost obsessively, called a variety of prominent ex-Scientologists … to keep up with them, all under the pretense of developing stories for Vanity Fair.”
Former OSA head Mike Rinder comments that Connolly was “a resource to deal with media problems.” He says that Ingram would tell him, “‘Connolly can handle this; he’ll find out what’s going on and he’s got lines into all media.’ That was something I heard many, many times.” Connolly was paid for his services to Scientology, according to both Rathbun and Rinder. “No one ever does work like that for free,” comments Rinder. “Not for the church.” Connolly, who died in 2022, denied the claims.
OSA volunteers also play a frontline role in trying to influence coverage. In 2000, OSA deputy head Janet Weiland began recruiting volunteers for a new front group, the Scientology Parishioners’ League (SPL). It was reportedly created to act on OSA intelligence of forthcoming negative media coverage about Scientology.
SPL members were tasked with pressuring media outlets to drop the planned coverage by bombarding editors and producers with angry calls, faxes and emails. Although this sometimes worked, most of the time the volume of negative coverage was so overwhelming that it was beyond the SPL’s ability to control.
The SPL was defunct by around 2008, but a successor group called Scientologists Taking Action Against Discrimination (STAND League) was created in 2015 to do similar work, mainly on social media. While its tactics are often crude, they can be effective by creating an artificial cloud of controversy around a target, potentially deterring risk-averse organisations from working with them.
— Chris Owen
Also by Chris Owen for the Underground Bunker:
May 9, 2019: Death in the Timor Sea: The darkest war secret of Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard
June 6, 2019: ‘Scientology is Security for South Africa’: How L. Ron Hubbard sought to prop up apartheid
June 21, 2019: Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, ‘Provost Marshal’: Another apologist claim debunked
July 11, 2019: Scientology and the FDA: The conspiracy that never was
Sept 25, 2019: Hiding in plain sight: how Scientology nearly got away with its 1970s espionage campaign
May 16, 2021: Inside a PR mutiny: How Scientology’s war on Prozac backfired in spectacular fashion
Want to help?
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).
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 two special podcast series every week…
Up the Bridge: A weekly journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”
Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news
The two part article is long and extremely informative. Chris lays out the history and names names. Well worth reading as the cherch is still following the “destroy our enemies playbook” with frivolous lawsuits and media lies. Leah’s lawsuit will further expose the dirty tricks and immoral acts of Scamotology’s strict adherence to Hubbard’s fair game policies. Thanks Chris and Tony very relevant for our times across many areas of our lives.
Absolutely disgusting behavior from a church.