Seeking Information about Judith Muir. I have found several referenced to this name , one listing her as a Senior HAS Canada around 1983. She also appears in the criminal proceeding against the Church of Scientology in Toronto. The criminal proceeding in Toronto were related to infiltration of several legal offices and the Police using legal assistants and personnel to obtain confidential information. The name appears in one of the depositions on behalf of the Church of Scientology. I have also found a profile of a person that did hold various positions as a legal assistant positions.
—–
SPBILL:
As of 1983 LRH had already defined as many as six (6) different kinds of Committees of Evidence (Comm-ev’s). Most likely there are even more by now. Anyone have more up-do-date info?1. WW (Worldwide) Committee of Evidence Convening Authority is the Executive Director. This would be the Supreme Court of Scieno-justice.2. HCO Continental Committee of Evidence Convening Authority is the HCO Continental Secretary. Handles matters relating to “Scientology executives”.
3. Continental Org Committee of Evidence Convening Authority is the Continental Director. Also for
matters relating to “executives” only.
4. HCO Area Committee of Evidence Convening Authority is HCO Executive or Area Secretary in the sphere of a specific central org or city office. It handles most things including disputes with field auditors, students, preclears and members of the public. Emphasis here on “non staff members”.
5. Central Committee of Evidence Convening Authority is Assoc/Org Sec of any Central Org or City
Office. “concerned with all matters relating to the conduct and activities of organization members, administrative, technical and personal, fixing responsibility for various conditions or breakdowns within the organization and safeguarding the organization against personal conduct or security risks prejudicial to effectiveness and public repute.”
6. District Committee of Evidence Convening Authority is person in charge of a District Office, branch Org, or Assoc/Org Sec of the Zone or the HCO Area Secretary. This one exists for “all matters of dispute, repute or discipline in a District Office, its area, or a Scientology Group. The findings of this one *must* be reviewed by an HCO Area Committee before the Convening Authority may put those findings into effect.
I have read through the definitions of the above kinds of Comm-Ev more than once now, and I am still in the dark. The only thing which is clear is that the WW Comm-ev is the Supreme Court. It would seem church authorities could pretty much Comm-Ev whomever they want for whatever they want, and then find something in this HCOPL (7 September AD13) to justify it. This is typical of most kangaroo justice systems.
For example, after my Comm-Ev in 1983 I phoned and wrote to what seemed to be an infinite list of “terminals” trying to obtain the findings. No way, Jose! I was stonewalled at every turn.
Eventually I received a letter from Judith Muir, Senior HAS Canada, “What I suggest for you to do if you still disagree with the result of your comm ev is to ask for a review comm ev”.
A person is allowed to appeal only if he disagrees with the result of his comm-ev. How could I disagree with the result of my comm-ev when that result was not forthcoming? They don’t want me to appeal, so they found a way to block it.
To this day, some 13 years later, the church still refuses to release the Findings of my comm-ev! Unfortunately, there is no “Freedom of Information Request Form” in the Scientology “justice” system.
spbill
Your SP Declare is waiting for you at the end of the Bridge. Sign up now for your next step.
—–
Subject:
Scientology in Toronto [1]
From:
cyber1@io.org (x)
Date:
27 Jun 1995 06:57:22 -0400
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID:
<34adac08.895552 %40snews.zippo.com 
> [repost]
SCIENTOLOGY HISTORY IN TORONTO, PART ONE
In 1977, the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper reported:
M.D.‘s Worried Scientologists Breaking Law:
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario will be asked to investigate whether members of the Church of Scientology had been practising medicine without a licence.
The Ontario Medical Association Counsel said yesterday some of its psychiatrist members were concerned when told Scientologists had been offering passers-by on Avenue Road personality tests. The psychiatrists felt this constituted practicising medicine without a license.
The Church of Scientology of Toronto then sued the Globe & Mail for libel and slander. While a non-profit corporation can sue for libel, its right depends on whether, as a corporate body, it can exercise the function which it claims was libeled. The decision of the High Court of Justice, reported in volume 19 of Ontario Reports, pages 62-66, was that the corporation could not practice medicine (members could, the corporation could not), and so the statement of claim was struck out, and Scientology lost the case.
The Church of Scientology decided to infiltrate the offices of the Ontario Medical Association, and in 1985, after three years of pretrial motions, a woman was convicted of stealing documents from the OMA at the Church’s behest. Here is an article from the Toronto Sun newspaper, dated December 15, 1985:
Church used her to spy:
A woman who was “pressured into crime” by leaders of the Church of Scientology has been given an absolute discharge in provincial court.
Nanna Anderson, 39, of Scadding Court, pleaded guilty to possession of documents belonging to the Ontario Medical Association knowing that they had been stolen. The offence occurred between November 1976 and March 1983.
Judge Lorenzo DiCecco granted the woman an absolute discharge, stating she had suffered enough.
Crown attorney John Pearson had told the court the woman was “pressured into crime by senior representatives of the Church of Scientology of Toronto.”
Anderson, who worked for the OMA, admitted taking the documents and giving them to a Scientology member to be photocopied and then returning the file.
Anderson said she was asked to get a file with more “meat” in it, but did not comply with the request.
Often testifying in tears, Anderson testified on “15 years of unbelievable stories” during her association with the Church of Scientology, beginning when she was 17.
In 1979, she said, a doctor who was a member of the church led her to believe she had cancer and asked her to obtain funds from her relatives for medical treatment. She alleged 10% of the money would have gone to him.
After moving to Canada from England, Pearson said she did not work for the church initially. But the church representatives approached her through her husband, a church member, and reminded her she had signed a long-term contract while living in England.
She was hired by the OMA and church representatives said they were interested in obtaining information from the OMA because the association was looking into whether the Church was practising medicine.
While Anderson was employed at the OMA, she received a letter from Herbert Parkhouse, a senior official of the church in England thanking her for the work she was doing, court heard.
Anderson said she divorced her first husband in England in 1974 because Parkhouse had said he was “bad for me.” She said she wed Paul Anderson because Parkhouse said Anderson wanted to marry her.
“If they said march, I would march.”
Part 1 Contents Part 3
Subject:
Scientology in Toronto [2]
From:
cyber1@io.org (x)
Date:
28 Jun 1995 02:34:01 -0400
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID:
<34adac3f.951081 %40snews.zippo.com > [repost]
SCIENTOLOGY HISTORY IN TORONTO, PART TWO
On March 1st, 1983, a Sergeant from the Ontario Provincial Police [O.P.P.] Anti-Rackets Branch swore an information before His Honour Chief Justice F. Hayes of the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) to obtain a warrant to search the premises of The Church of Scientology of Toronto [hereafter referred to as “Scientology”]. The information had a total length of more than 1,000 pages, including several appendices. On the same day, Chief Judge Hayes issued a warrant authorizing a search of the premises on March 3rd and 4th.
The information presented to Judge Hayes proposed three allegations of criminality:
Count 1 [tax fraud]:
… that he has reasonable grounds to believe that the above described things to be searched for will afford evidence in respect to the commission of offences against the Criminal Code of Canada, to wit:
that L. Ron HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY of Toronto and Garry JEPSON (President), Dan CROCINI (Secretary), Arnelle PEARSE (Treasurer), Kathy WHITMORE (Past Secretary), and others unlawfully did between January 1, 1976 and February 15, 1983 at the City of Toronto, in the Judicial District of York and elsewhere in Canada commit an indictable offence, to wit: by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means did defraud Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario (Province of Ontario, Ministry of Revenue) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Government of Canada, Department of National Revenue, Taxation) of money, property, valuable securities of a value exceeding $200.00 by representing to those officials responsible for registration of non-profit corporations under the Corporations Tax Act of Ontario and the Income Tax Act of Canada that SCIENTOLOGY was a non-profit organization, collecting “donations” from its members, without distribution of profit to any of its proprietors or members thereby obtaining non-profit status and exemption from corporate taxes otherwise payable while said SCIENTOLOGY in fact distributed and paid monies or profits raised by the Church of Scientology to the personal use of L. Ronald HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD and other members of the Church of Scientology, such profits arising from the sale of courses and other materials, contary to Section 338(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Count 2 [fraud]:
and further that L. Ron HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY of Toronto, Gerry JEPSON (President), Dan CROCINI (Secretary), Arnelle PEARSE (Treasurer), Kathy WHITMORE (Past Secretary) and others unlawfully did between January 1, 1976 and February 15, 1983 at the City of Toronto, in the Judicial District of York and elsewhere in Canada, commit an indictable offence, to wit: did defraud the public, more specifically persons to whom Scientology made representations concerning the qualities of and benefits receivable from, courses, including the Purification Rundown, and from E-Meters, for sale at costly prices in no way related to the real value of such things, such things being without the represented benefits, thus by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means defrauding such persons of money, property or valuable security of a value exceeding $200.00 contary to Section 338(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Count 3 [conspiracy]:
And further that L. Ron HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY of Toronto, Hilarie ROCKL, Scott CARMICHAEL, Harvey SHMIEDEKE, Nicole CRELLIN, Marion EVOY, William O’MEARA, Gerry JEPSON, Dan CROCINI, Arnelle PEARSE, and others unlawfully did between January 1, 1972 and February 15, 1983 at Toronto, in the Judicial District of York and elsewhere in Canada, commit an indictable offence, to wit: did conspire together and with other persons to effect a lawful purpose, the operation of Scientology-owned and controlled companies and organizations, by unlawful means, to wit: the use of the GUARDIAN OFFICE OF SCIENTOLOGY to commit indictable offences, including theft and break, enter and theft, when perceived necessary by the said persons to protect the interests of Scientology contary to Section 423(2)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
On March 3rd, an additional information was sworn before Justice of the Peace A. Kosteka, to obtain a warrant to search the premises of Michael P. Zaharia. The warrant was issued the same day.
The search warrants were executed by officers of the O.P.P. together with forensic accountants and accountants of the Federal Department of Revenue. The six floors of the Scientology premises were searched from 2:30 PM on March 3rd until 11:00 AM on March 4th. 129 OPP officers attended, with about 30 officers doing the actual searching. Some 850 boxes containing about 39,000 files and books, or about 2,000,000 documents, statements and tapes were removed.
The warrant to search Zaharia’s house was executed on March 3rd, and two boxes of documents, records and correspondence were removed.
Part 2 Contents Part 4
Subject:
Scientology in Toronto [3]
From:
cyber1@io.org (x)
Date:
29 Jun 1995 00:35:14 -0400
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID:
<34adac79.1008697 %40snews.zippo.com > [repost]
SCIENTOLOGY HISTORY IN TORONTO, PART THREE
[Preceding: 2,000,000 documents seized in police raid of Scientology HQ]
On March 7th, Mr. Justice Linden ordered the “sealing” of all seized documents described as “Pre-clear folders” so as to preserve the status quo until such time as the question of the existence of a priest and penitent or confidential religious communication privilege was determined.
On December 1st, 1984, an information was sworn charging Scientology and a number of individuals with various criminal offences. Eventually 19 persons (Scientology + 18 individuals) were charged or summonsed. It is significant that the Church of Scientology of Toronto, as a corporate body, was charged with criminal acts.
An indictment for 11 of the persons charged follows. It shows that the following organizations were infiltrated or victimized by the Church of Scientology:
Fasken & Calvin [law firm].
Goodman & Goodman [law firm].
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [medical governing body].
Ontario Medical Association.
Canadian Mental Health Association.
Ontario Provincial Police.
Metropolitan Toronto Police.
Attorney General of Ontario.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Persons named but not charged in this indictment:
Cynthia Bake, Donna Lee Cavanaugh, Jaqueline Dianne Carmichael, John Bradley, Kathleen Lepp, Marilyn Linda Belaire, Michael Symington, Nancy Troiani, Nanna Krogh Anderson, Susan Leah Lemieux.
NOTE: Part 4 of this series on Scientology in Toronto will deal with the disposition of these charges. There were some “not guilty” verdicts.
ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)
THE QUEEN
v.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ, PAUL FRANCOIS CHARBONNEAU, JANET ELSIE WILKENS, ANNE MARIE WALSH, CLARA ANNE SCHNEIDER, ERNEST LEHMANN, MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE, JAAN JOOT, JANICE WHEELER and DONALD BRYAN WHITMORE
Theft Over :
Theft Under :
Breach of Trust :
I N D I C T M E N T
IN THE ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)
CANADA
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
TORONTO REGION
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– against –
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ, PAUL FRANCOIS CHARBONNEAU, JANET ELSIE WILKENS, ANNE MARIE WALSH, CLARA ANNE SCHNEIDER, ERNEST LEHMANN, MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE, JAAN JOOT, JANICE WHEELER and DONALD BRYAN WHITMORE
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ, PAUL FRANCOIS CHARBONNEAU, JANET ELSIE WILKENS and ANNE MARIE WALSH STAND CHARGED THAT they, within the period commencing on or about the 11th day of February, 1975 and ending on or about the 2nd day of September, 1977, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the property of the law firm of Fasken & Calvin, Barristers and Solicitors, of a value exceeding $200.00, contrary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and JACQUELINE MATZ STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with NANCY TROIANI, within the period commencing on or about the 27th day of December 1976 and ending on or about the 6th day of January, 1978, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the property of the law firm of Goodman & Goodman, Barristers and Solicitors, of a value exceeding $200.00, contrary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JACQUELINE MATZ, CLARA ANNE SCHNEIDER and ERNEST LEHMANN STAND CHARGED THAT they, within the period commencing on or about the 26th day of January, 1976 and ending on or about the 31st day of August, 1978, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the property of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, of a value exceeding $200.00, contrary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO STANDS CHARGED THAT it, together with NANNA KROGH ANDERSON, within the period commencing on or about the 1st day of November, 1976 and ending on or about the 29th day of June, 1978, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the property of the Ontario Medical Association, of a value exceeding $200.00, contrary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and JAQUELINE MATZ STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with KATHLEEN LEPP, SUSAN LEAH LEMIEUX and MICHAEL SYMINGTON, within the period commencing on or about the 29th day of July, 1974 and ending on or about the 19th day of March, 1976, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the property of the Canadian Mental Health Association, of a value not exceeding $200.00, contrary to s.294(b) of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and JAQUELINE MATZ STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with DONNA LEE CAVANAUGH, an official employed by the Ontario Provincial Police, within the period commencing on or about the 21st day of May, 1974 and ending on or about the 12th day of May, 1975, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, unlawfully did commit a breach of trust, in connection with the duties of the office held by DONNA LEE CAVANAUGH, in that the latter disclosed to unauthorized persons information coming to her knowledge or possession by reason of her office, contrary to s.111 of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and JAQUELINE MATZ STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with CYNTHIA BAKE, an official employed by the Ontario Provincial Police, within the period commencing on or about the 31st day of May, 1976 and ending on or about the 12th day of November, 1976, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, unlawfully did commit a breach of trust in connection with the duties of the office held by CYNTHIA BAKE, in that the latter disclosed to unauthorized persons information coming to her knowledge or possession by reason of her office, contary to s.111 of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ and MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with JOHN BRADLEY, within the period commencing on or about the 28th day of February, 1976, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents relating to the investigation conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto Police into the activities of Church of Scientology of Toronto, the property of the Metropolitan Toronto Police, of a value exceeding $200.00, contary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ and MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE, an official employed by the Metropolitan Toronto Police, STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with JOHN BRADLEY, within the period commencing on or about the 23rd day of July, 1974 and ending on or about the 28th day of February, 1976, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, unlawfully did commit a breach of trust in connection with the duties of the office held by MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE, in that the latter disclosed to unauthorized persons information coming to her knowledge or possession by reason of her office, contary to s.111 of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ, JAAN JOOT and JANICE WHEELER STAND CHARGED THAT they, within the period commencing on or about the 25th day of April, 1974 and ending on or about the 11th day of July, 1975, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the property of the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, of a value exceeding $200.00, contary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ, JAAN JOOT and JANICE WHEELER, an official employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, STAND CHARGED THAT they, within the period commencing on or about the 25th day of April, 1974 and ending on or about the 11th day of July, 1975, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, unlawfully did commit a breach of trust in connection with the duties of the office held by JANICE WHEELER, in that the latter disclosed to unauthorized persons information coming to her knowledge or possession by reason of her office, contrary to s.111 of the Criminal Code.
AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and DONALD BRYAN WHITMORE, an official employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with JAQUELINE DIANNE CARMICHAEL, within the period commencing on or about the 27th day of November, 1976, at the City of Ottawa in the Judicial District of Ottawa-Carleton and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, unlawfully did commit a breach of trust in connection with the duties of the office held by DONALD BRYAN WHITMORE, in that the latter disclosed to unauthorized persons information coming to his knowledge or possession by reason of his office, contrary to s.111 of the Criminal Code.
Pursuant to Section 574 of the Crminal Code, I hereby prefer Counts 1 to 11 of this Indictment in the Ontario Court (General Division), and, pursuant to Section 577 of the Criminal Code, I consent to the preferment of Count 12 of this Indictment, and hereby prefer Count 12 in the Ontario Court (General Division).
DATED at Toronto, this 8th day of February, 1991.
(signed)
HOWARD HAMPTON
Attorney General for the
Province of Ontario
Part 3 Contents Part 5
Subject:
Scientology in Toronto [4]
From:
cyber1@io.org (x)
Date:
30 Jun 1995 00:35:48 -0400
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID:
<d0b19fc47 %40holsoft.demon.co.uk > [repost]
[Preceding: Scientology charged with 12 counts of theft and breach of trust]
I’m going to skip ahead to the trial on the 12 charges of the indictment, for two reasons: first, it is only fair to the persons declared not guilty, and second, the verdicts refer to the charges, so they should be in proximity.
The 11 defendants were committed for trial in 1990, but due to extensive legal arguments, the trial only began in April, 1992. For example, the defence objected because the jury was selected by computer. They said the juror ballots should be scrambled and chosen by hand. The judge ruled that a computer is a modern ballot box (that is, a container from which juror ballots are selected). The defence objected because there were no veterinarians on the jury. And so on.
All accused pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The trial lasted two months. With adjournments, it ended on June 25th, 1992. The most important ruling during the trial concerned the evidence to be used in support of the charges of theft of documents. Mr. Justice James Southey ruled that all of this evidence was protected as “confessional materials”. The prosecution is appealing this ruling. Following Judge Southey’s ruling, the prosecutor told the jury there was insufficient evidence to make a case, so there was a directed verdict of not guilty on the theft charges.
On the breach of trust charges, the defense admitted the spying, but claimed that it had been done without the knowledge of church officials by former members of the church who were testifying for the Crown (i.e. the prosecution) in exchange for immunity from prosecution. In addition to these witnesses, the trial heard from a female Ontario Provincial Police officer who had worked undercover for three years as a Scientologist, partly in the Guardian’s Office. This undercover operation began after Ontario Government papers were found by the FBI in its raid on the Scientology headquarters in Los Angeles.
NOT GUILTY VERDICTS
On charges numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10, there was a directed verdict of not guilty, due to inadmissibility of evidence. These are the theft charges.
The Church of Scientology of Toronto was found not guilty on charges #6 (breach of trust, O.P.P.), #9 (breach of trust, Toronto Police), and #12 (breach of trust, R.C.M.P.).
Jaqueline Matz was found not guilty on charges #6 and #9.
Marilyn Linda Belaire was found not guilty on charge #9.
Jaan Joot was found not guilty on charge #11 (breach of trust, Attorney General of Ontario).
GUILTY VERDICTS
The Church of Scientology of Toronto was found guilty on charges #7 (breach of trust, O.P.P.), and #11 (breach of trust, Attorney General).
Jaqueline Matz was found guilty on charges #7 and #11.
Janice Wheeler was found guilty on charge #11. Wheeler had sent copies of secret documents from the office of the Attorney General of Ontario to the Guardian’s Office, and allowed a member of that office to go through ministry files in an unsuccessful attempt to find a file on Scientology.
Donald Bryan Whitmore was found guilty on charge #12 (R.C.M.P.). Whitmore was a Scientology plant who memorized information from R.C.M.P. files.
SENTENCES
Sentences were pronounced on September 11th, 1992.
The Church of Scientology of Toronto was fined $100,000 on count #7, and $150,000 on count #11.
Jaqueline Matz was fined $2500 on count #7 and $2500 on count #11, with 60 days imprisonment if she defaults.
Janice Wheeler was fined $2000 or 30 days on count #11.
Donald Bryan Whitmore was fined $2000 on count #12.
The Church of Scientology of Toronto had statements documents to the court showing that its liabilities exceed its assets, and argued that it should receive only a nominal fine. Judge Southey rejected this argument, and also rejected a prosecution request that the fine be at least $1 million. He suggested that since the “mother” church in California had contributed to the $7 million cost of fighting the criminal charges through interest-free loans, they could pay a portion of the fine. He noted that the Church in Toronto is governed by three appointed directors, over whom the 7,000 parishoners have no control.
The judge rejected the contention that the church had shown remorse for its role, and suggested that in reality there was a continuing attempt to blame individuals within the church for illegal activities that had been carried out at the direction of senior Scientology officials. Meanwhile, outside the court, church officials distributed pre-printed statements declaring the sentence “an outrage and miscarriage of justice.”
Judge Southey also said he was satisfied that the British-based Guardian’s Office World Wide was “subject to the control of founder L. Ron Hubbard and his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard. He said that a heavy fine was necessary to deter any organization from placing “plants” in law-enforcement agencies.
Both Prosecution and Defence are appealing.
In reporting on the sentencing, I have liberally paraphrased from an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail by Thomas Claridge: “Church of Scientology fined $250,000 for espionage” (Sept. 12, 1992, page 1).
Part 4 Contents Part 6
Subject:
Scientology in Toronto [5]
From:
cyber1@io.org (x)
Date:
1 Jul 1995 03:51:18 -0400
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID:
<39c89fc47 %40holsoft.demon.co.uk > [repost]
SCIENTOLOGY HISTORY IN TORONTO, PART FIVE
Canada’s Largest Libel Award
After the police raid on its headquarters in Toronto, the Church of Scientology decided to destroy the reputation of Casey Hill, the Crown Attorney who was preparing the case for the prosecution. False allegations of contempt of court were prepared. Appearing on the steps of Osgoode Hall (Appeal Court) in his barrister’s robes, lawyer Morris Manning announced to a press conference that his client, the Church of Scientology, was bringing contempt charges against Hill for allegedly misleading a judge and breaching a court order sealing seized documents.
The contempt charges were later dismissed by a judge, and Hill sued the church for libel. Hill’s lawyers met with the church’s lawyers before the libel trial and offered to settle for $50,000, but the church refused. The jury trial ending October 3rd, 1991 awarded general damages of $300,000 against Scientology and lawyer Morris Manning. The jury also awarded$500,000 in aggravated damages against Scientology, and a further $800,000 in punitive damages against Scientology, for a total of $1.6 million.
The Church of Scientology appealed the size of the award, and on March 11th, 1992, Mr. Justice Douglas Carruthers decided that the church should pay pre-judgement interest at the rate of 10% since 1985, effectively adding $500,000 more to the award. He also issued a permanent injunction against church officials from making defamatory statements about Hill.
When a lawyer for Mr. Hill, Robert Armstrong, attempted to collect, he found that the Church’s offices, with an appraised value of $6 million, had been mortgaged to the Church of Scientology of California within weeks of the judgement. The cash from the mortgages had ostenstibly been used to pay legal fees. A payment of $3.1 million was shown to the law firm of Clayton Ruby, although $2.1 million of that was not owed at that time.
Armstrong asserted that the church’s property was essentially debt-free before the trial, but within weeks it had three mortgages registered against it for $10 million.
The Church appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and in a unanimous judgement on May 10, 1994, the court found in favour of Mr. Hill. The three-judge panel was severely critical of the church’s conduct, calling it “character assassination” and noting that Scientology kept an internal file on Hill, identifying him as “Enemy Canada” — a category reserved for the vilest individuals.
“Scientology decided that Casey Hill was the enemy and it set out to destroy him”, the court said in its 129 page judgement. “It levelled false charges against him. It prosecuted him on those charges … In summary, the evidence suggests that Scientology set upon a persistent course of character assassination over a period of seven years with the intention of destroying Casey Hill.”
Although the church knew within 10 days of the Osgoode Hall news conference that some of its allegations were untrue, it continued to defend them as justified right up to the start of the appeal.
Mr. Justice W. David Griffiths wrote that the appeal court had reviewed the evidence and found that it was sufficient to find “malice and egregious conduct on the part of Scientology”. The malice alone was sufficient to merit the punitive damage award, the judgement said, and “what seemed to be of overriding importance was the need for specific deterrence of Scientology to prevent it from repeating its libel.”
Scientology was not easily deterred, the appeal court judges said. It not only published the libel when there was no evidence to support the allegations but continued its unfounded proceedings against Mr. Hill when it knew the principal allegation was untrue. It also made allegations that it knew were untrue in documents it submitted to court.
References:
Globe and Mail, May 11, 1994, p. A3. “1.6-million award upheld in appeal: Court rules Church of Scientology ‘set out to destroy’ government lawyer”.
Globe and Mail. November 26, 1992, p. A10. “Scientologist’s offices mortgaged, court told: church accused of trying to make Toronto operation judgement-proof”.
Toronto Star, May 13, 1994, p. A14. “1.6m libel case settlement is upheld”.
Toronto Star, March 12, 1992, p. D26. “Judge adds $500,000 to record libel award”
Globe and Mail, October 5, 1991, p. A9. “Lawyer awarded $1.6m for libel: decision against Church of Scientology largest of its kind in Canada”.
Part 5 Contents Part 7
Subject:
Scientology in Toronto [6]
From:
cyber1@io.org (x)
Date:
5 Jul 1995 02:11:12 -0400
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID:
<34adacc3.1083066 %40snews.zippo.com > [repost]
SCIENTOLOGY HISTORY IN TORONTO, PART SIX
(Legal Arguments, 1983-1985)
As we have seen in part 2 of this series, Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P.) conducted raids on the headquarters of the Toronto Church of Scientology, and on the premises of Michael P. Zaharia, on March 3rd and 4th, 1983. The police had a search warrant with a 9 1/2 page list of items to be seized. The types of files to be seized were:
Central Files;
Guardian Office Staff Members Pre-Clear and Clear Folders;
Bulk Files;
Staff Personnel Files;
Flag Operations Liason Office (FOLO) Files;
Guardian Office Toronto Files;
Guardian Office Canada Files;
Treasury Files;
LRH Communication Files;
Continental Publications Liason Office (CPLO) Canada Files.
In addition, books, devices, sales journals, and 57 named publications were to be seized. Some 2 million documents were seized in all. It later developed that the O.P.P. had found that the Guardian’s Office was instituting new procedures for destruction of documents in the event of a police raid, and so the timing of the raid had been accelerated somewhat.
An important factor in the legal arguments to follow was that Canada’s Constitution Act, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (comparable to the U.S. Bill of Rights) had been passed and proclaimed into law in 1982.
On March 4th and April 5th, 1983, Scientology and Zaharia filed motions in the Supreme Court of Ontario to quash the search warrants. A “return” was made to Justice of the Peace Kostecka on March 7th, and Mr. Kostecka signed orders requiring the detention of the seized items for 3 months. On the same day, Mr. Justice Linden ordered the “sealing” of pre-clear folders, until the question of the possible existence of priest-penitent privilege could be determined in court.
On June 2nd, 1983, at the request of the O.P.P., Mr. Kostecka ordered an extension of the period of detention for a further one year and six months. These orders of March 7th and June 2nd were made ex parte, although counsel for Scientology had sought to be present.
Hearings on the motions to quash commenced June 4th, 1984, before Judge Osler of Motions Court (Ontario High Court of Justice). These hearings were closely watched by human rights and criminal law reporters. Several important rulings were made:
Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. Reported in Candian Criminal Cases (C.C.C.) vol. 13, p. 93.
Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 13 C.C.C. 97.
Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 15 C.C.C. 190.
(Addendum) Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 13 C.C.C. 353.
Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 17 C.C.C. 489.
Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 18 C.C.C. 244.
Re Church of Scientology et al. and the Queen. 21 C.C.C. 147.
R. v. Zaharia and Church of Scientology of Toronto. 21 C.C.C. 118.
On December 1st, 1984, Scientology and a number of individuals were charged with various criminal offences. On January 8th, 1985, Mr. Justice Osler ordered that the seized materials remain in the custody of the O.P.P. pending the conclusion of the proceedings before him.
Scientology attacked the three proposed charges which were presented in the sworn information in support of the application for a search warrant. Briefly, they stated that the applicant had reason to believe that the named persons had committed: 1) tax fraud, 2) fraud [sale of e-meters, etc.], and 3) conspiracy [to steal documents].
On charge #1, Scientology showed that there was a defect, in that Scientology was a non-profit corporation but not a charity, and thus had no obligation to register as such. Court ruled that the applicant’s submissions were a statement of defence, but an application of certiorari to quash a warrant must deal only with matters of jurisdiction or with allegations of fraud in the application for the warrant.
On charge #2, Scientology claimed that the use of e-meters and other practices alleged was in fact a religious practice. They stated that i[t] is impossible to prove a religion correct or incorrect, and they cited article 2(a) of the Charter and other precedents in support of their claimed rights. It is a spiritual issue, Scientology claimed, and is non-justiciable. Judge Osler noted, “Whatever spiritual benefits the artifacts and teachings referred to may confer, the Crown states that the material benefits receivable are not as represented or are not worth the moneys received for their sale, and that if this be so these things are evidence of fraud.” Again, the submissions of the applicant could be used for defence, but not in an application to quash. [1]
On charge #3, Scientology submitted that there were not sufficient particulars given about the alleged offence, and thus the charge referred to “no offence known to law”. The court ruled against Scientology on this.
Scientology also challenged the warrants on the grounds that documents were taken which were of a legally privileged nature. The pre-clear folders were describes as “pastoral counselling” notes, and thus it was claimed that they were privileged “priest-penitent” communications. Also, files had been seized from the Guardian’s Office legal bureau, and these, it was asserted, were privileged “solicitor-client” communications.
Judge Osler ruled that there does not exist, either at common law, or by virtue of the Charter, a privilege which attaches to the communications between a religious authority and a member of his religious community. He wrote, “In this jurisdiction the almost universal practice has been to state, or to assume, that no privilege exists, but in a pragmatic way to press counsel not to pursue questions that would result in compelling a priest or minister of religion to breach a confidence, or to decline to compel persons claiming such a privilege to answer.” [1]
With respect to solicitor-client privilege, the court heard from Scientologist George Matz who, although not legally trained, was Deputy Guardian, Legal, for Canada. He had been a member of the legal bureau from 1977 to 1982. Mr. Matz stated that the decisions regarding legal matters were made in England by the Deputy Guardian, Legal, Worldwide. This office was held by English barrister Charles Parselle, who shared an office with solicitor Steven Bird.
Mr. Matz was to supervise the gathering of necessary facts required in connection with pending or proposed litigation or other legal matters, and to submit these to Parselle with requests for advice or instructions for operations in Toronto or elsewhere in Canada.
[Note that Jaqueline Matz was accused of running a spy ring for the purpose of acquiring documents from government offices, and that she was eventually convicted of two counts of Breach of Trust.]
Judge Osler noted that “Any documents that would otherwise be privileged, which appear either by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to have been prepared for an improper purpose, will, of course, lose any privilege that would otherwise have attached.” [2]
Judge Osler examined some of the contended documents, and found that some were indeed privileged. He then appointed a retired judge, the Hon. Campbell Grant, as referee to sort through the remaining documents to determine which were privileged and which were simply irrelevant to the charges.
Scientology also objected to the warrants in that the information in support of the application contained “arcane language”, that is, the special terminology of the Scientologists. Judge Osler ruled that much of this terminology was intelligible in context, and even if that which was obscure were to be eliminated, there was remained sufficient information to establish reasonable ground for a search.
Likewise, when Scientology objected that part of the O.P.P. affidavit consisted of personal opinion, Judge Osler noted that the 25 paragraphs neither “constitute anything like a screen which might obscure the factual material [for the issuing judge] … nor are they a sieve through which he had to sift the factual material supplied.” [3]
Scientology objected that much of the information relied upon by the O.P.P. was hearsay. Three principle sources of information were relied upon by the police, of whom two were said to be confidential sources. The police affidavit mentioned their former relationship with Scientology, which provided the opportunity for their knowledge, and their prior good character, which indicated the ground of credibility.
Judge Osler mentioned the “two-pronged” test used by the U.S. justice system, as laid down in “Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108″, and “Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410:. However, he noted that in “Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213″, the U.S. Supreme Court took a different approach. Quoting Mr. Justice Rehnquist:
This totality of the circumstances approach is far more consistent with our prior treatment of probable cause than is any rigid demand that specific ‘tests’ be satisfied by every informant’s tip.
… we consider it wiser to abandon the “two-pronged test” established by our decisions in “Aguilar” and “Spinelli”.
Judge Osler ruled that the information of the informants went to the weight of evidence, and it was not improper for the issuing judge to consider this information in making a decision about the search warrants.
Scientology objected to the warrants on the basis that they were allegedly vague and overly broad in the desription of items to be seized. It was alleged that the police “oversearched”, which was said to prove the lack of particularity. Judge Osler pointed out that even if the police had exceeded their authority and oversearched, this “cannot retroactively affect the jurisdiction of Chief Judge Hayes to issue the warrant, and hence cannot in this proceeding justify me in quashing”.
Scientology moved to cross examine the police sergeant who had sworn the original information. Judge Osler ruled “that before leave to cross-examine could be obtained, an allegation had to be made of deliberate falsehood or omission or reckless disregard for the truth…” Scientology did make such an allegation, and it took the highly unusual tactic of applying for the recusal of the Crown Attorney, Mr. Hill. Despite objections from Scientology, Judge Osler limited the scope cross-examination to specific areas involving the alleged falsehood or ommission. He then ruled that Scientology had failed to make its case.
Finally, the court considered the matter of the two ex parte hearings of March 7th and June 2nd, 1984. Judge Osler wrote, “Although the judicial act of issuing a search warrant is properly performed ex parte, the need for secrecy vanishes with the execution of the search warrant.” [4] Osler wrote, “… retention of documents is a mere extension of a seizure and is encompassed by s. 8 of the Charter.” [This section says, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”] Therefore, he concluded that, “Both ex parte orders for retention were unlawfully made…” Judge Osler also re-interpreted the word “shall” in s. 446(1) of the Criminal Code [which is now re-numbered] to be permissive, that is, to be “may”. [5]
By this time — July 5th, 1985 — the referee had made a report on the seized documents. He had been “assisted” by Mr. Matz of the Church of Scientology in determining which documents were considered to be privileged. Matz was cross-examined by the Crown Attorney, Mr. Hill. Judge Osler accepted the referee’s report and ordered that all documents found to be privileged should be sealed. The remaining documents were returned to the police, but were subject to the following order:
…that all material seized under the two warrants, save for that which is required for its evidential potential in respect of the charges that have been laid, will be returned to the respective applicants.
At this time, the police had still not been afforded an opportunity to examine the material for which a religious privilege had been claimed [6], and so the police were unable to determine whether that material met the test above, that is, whether it was potential evidence. Osler, J. wrote that as there was no further order for the detention of that material, it should be returned also.
It should be noted that in the course of these hearings before Motions Court, standing was given to other Scientologists on the basis that materials concerning them had been seized, although they were not charged.
Both the defendants and the Crown appealed the decisions of Judge Osler. This appeal will be described in Part 7 of this series.
References:
Ontario Reports, Vol. 47 (2d), p. 86-90.
Ontario Reports, Vol. 47 (2d), p. 90-96.
Quoted in Ontario Appeals Cases Vol. 18, p. 358.
Re Church of Scientology and the Queen, Canadian Rights Reporter, vol. 14, p. 303-313.
Re Church of Scientology and the Queen, Canadian Rights Reporter, vol. 14, p. 310.
Re Church of Scientology and the Queen, Canadian Rights Reporter, vol. 14, p. 312.
Part 6 Contents Part 8
Subject:
Scientology in Toronto [7]
From:
cyber1(at)io.org (x)
Date:
6 Jul 1995 23:18:16 -0400
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID:
<34adacfa.1137661 %40snews.zippo.com > [repost]
SCIENTOLOGY HISTORY IN TORONTO, PART SEVEN
Handling the Media
By 1985 the Scientologists had a new problem. Some of the accused wanted to plead guilty and put the problem behind them. Charges were laid on December 1st, 1984; June 26, 1985; and December 16, 1985. On December 13, 1985, Nanna Krogh Anderson, charged jointly with the Church of Scientology of Toronto, appeared with her counsel before Judge L.E. DiCecco. This was 3 1/2 weeks before all accused were scheduled to appear for a preliminary hearing. Counsel for the church was not notified by the prosecutor, but was notified by the news media one hour before the hearing was to take place. He was unable to attend in court, and his pleas to the prosecutor to limit publicity were rebuffed. However, the prosecutor undertook to inform the judge of the preliminary hearing scheduled for January 6th, 1986.
Anderson pled guilty to unlawful possession of property of a value exceeding $200 knowing that such property had been stolen. An agreed-upon statement of facts was presented by the Crown counsel, detailing Ms. Anderson’s membership in Scientology branches in Denmark, England, and Toronto. In a further effort to mitigate the sentence, defending counsel called Ms. Anderson to testify. Her examination-in-chief occupies over 30 pages of transcript, and contains extensive references to the Church of Scientology, its organization, practices, and the manner in which Ms. Anderson ultimately received instructions to commit the offence charged. After the hearings, the judge observed:
It is a serious matter, there is no doubt about it, Ms. Anderson. However, through your testimony today, not so much what your counsel said or what Mr. Pearson said, but your testimony today; the emotion that you showed to me; the facts that you recounted to me, I’ve come to the conclusion that sentence was passed on you much before today.
I cannot think of a heavier sentence where a mother is deprived from being able to show her love every day to her own child. I cannot think of any heavier sentence than where someone can be put in a position to think that she’s an unfit mother when I’m convinced today that you’re not an unfit mother but you’ve been a hardworking member of this community.
Whatever you did was because of a particular situation that developed over a period of years from when you were a teenager. We’re all aware of the influences that can be made on young minds and the effect that those influences can have on a person throughout their adulthood.
Madam, I’m taking the position that you have been penalized sufficiently. As I indicated, the matter of general deterrence, if every person would think and realize what you have suffered, if that is not a general deterrence, I do not know what that could be. [1]
The case was widely reported. For example, on CBC-TV “The National News”, 10 p.m. December 13, 1985:
Vicki Russel — It was nearly three years ago that police raided the Church of Scientology and dragged away a quarter of a million documents as evidence. The Church and 19 individuals were charged with offences including theft and possession of stolen property. Police alleged that the Scientologists got the stolen documents by inflitrating organizations which were investigating or had information about the Church, and today in court the first of the accused went to trial and pleaded guilty to possesssion of stolen property. Nanna Anderson said Church officials pressured her to find a job in one of three places. She chose the Ontario Medical Association, which was investigating the Church to see if it was practicing medicine. She told the Court of the hardship she went through in the 17 years she was involved with the Church. She said Church members pressured her for money and expected her to put in long hours doing volunteer work. The judge gave her an absolute discharge.
On January 3rd, 1986, a few days before the preliminary inquiry, Kathleen Lepp, who was charged jointly with the Church of Scientology of Toronto and with members Jacqueline Matz (AKA Baillie), Susan Leah Lemieux, and Michael Symington on count 4 of the information [theft from the Canadian Mental Health Association], appeared with her counsel before Provincial Court Judge R. B. Dnieper. It was Ms. Lepp’s intention, apparently, to enter a guilty plea to the offence charged in count 4.
Counsel for the church and four of the other defendants sought leave, under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to make representations to the presiding judge, for an order enjoining the counsel for the Crown and Ms. Lepp from mentioning the names of the co-accused, or directing the media not to publish such names or other information on their alleged role in the offence, until the trial of the co-accused had been completed. Judge Dnieper said:
The problem before the court is this: we have a collision between two seperate rights. There is the right of a free press and to be informed by it. To interfere with this is, in my view, the second most dangerous thing that a court can do. The most dangerous is to arrogate to itself powers which it does not possess.
I assure you, I would like to find some way out of this that will satisfy everybody, but I do not see it. What, in fact, is happening here is this: Crown has called the case. Other counsel have