Tape 1, August 16, 1998

Lawrence Wollersheim and Jesse Prince  L: Testing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Today is the 16th of August,
1998. This is Lawrence Wollersheim, about 5:00 in the afternoon, sitting
with Jesse Prince . We’re just going to talk about his time in
Scientology and ask him different things. And this is my voice, the
other voice will be Jesse’s.
J:  The voice he’s referring to is this one right here.
L:  OK. Tell me, the other day we were talking about Scientology
tampering with judges.  You mentioned that you had been interviewed by
the FBI once before and that they had asked you about it but you didn’t
tell them what was going on.  Were you in Scientology?
J: Yes I was. I told them the truth as I understood it at that time.
L: You told them what you knew at that time, the truth as you understood
it at that time.  It was concerning a tampering with a judge. What was
that judge’s name?
J: Judge Mary Anna Fouser.
L: This was in a case?
J: A RICO suit brought against David Mayo, the AAC.  CSC and RTC brought
the action.
L: What specifically did Scientology do to tamper with this judge, and
if you can just try to describe what your knowledge is, and who was
involved in doing it and if you know what they specifically did, or you
don’t know what they did.  Kind of, a person, an action, as much detail
as you can have.
J: What I would like to do is just start at the beginning.  Any time a
judge appears in a case in Scientology, good, bad, or indifferent, a
common practice is to do an ODC, particularly if he’s a hostile judge,
or is perceived to be a hostile judge.  ODC means overt data
collection.  What would happen is, you’d get some guys normally from OSA
Invest, and they would go and get as much public record as they could
about that particular judge.
L: Could you state what OSA Invest is?
J: Office of Special Affairs Investigation Unit.  It’s kind of like a
low scale FBI investigotory group that investigates enemies and critics
of Scientology.
L: Great, go on.
J: They do an ODC.  If it goes further and the judge is really hostile,
what they will do is go and start interviewing the associates of the
judge, like trying to find out information in an innocuous way, or in a
harsh way, to create intimidation.  That’s a common practice, they do it
with every judge.  With Mary Anna Fouser, when we got on this case, an
ODC was done on her.  They kind of looked up her records as a judge,
looked up her cases, found out where she lives, everything that they
possibly could.  Through lawyers and investigators, found as much
personal information as they could about the judge, what she likes, what
she doesn’t like, this kind of thing.  Before any case is started, you
have the profile of the judge, you have a profile of a prosecutor, if it
is a prosecutor, or a profile of the opposing litigating attorneys.  In
my particular case, I was involved as a witness in the AAC case, I came
on as a witness, as a director of the Religious Technology Center, and a
person that had high credentials in their technological business.  We
were in the case and what I was doing in the case was comparing the "NED
for OTs" [stands for "New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans"]
materials to the "NED for OTs" materials that David Mayo himself had
issues.  Now, I’m just going to speak as I as thinking at the time.  Of
course, I have other ideas about that now.  I took and compared the "NED
for OTs" issue #1 and David Mayo’s the "NED for OTs" issue #1, which
were so amazingly similar to what the church had and he produced.  Of
course, subsequently, that wouldn’t be a surprise because Mayo wrote it
anyway.  At the time I was being a little church person, Mayo wrote 98%
of it based on random crazy notes.  At that point, when I was on the
stand, and I brought up, I had it in my jacket pocket, and I pulled out
these papers, and there was an immediate objection from the other
attorneys, I forget their names.  The judge had us meet back in
chambers.  The opposition attorneys and our attorneys went back in the
chambers, and we just looked at the papers because the objection was
that they hadn’t had a chance to review that evidence.  What actually
happened in evidence in chambers is they had a chance to see the notes
that I had written, which were relatively cryptic.  We had also procured
the copy of David Mayo’s material to even do the comparison with.  He
was holding his material in confidence and we sent investigators in
there.  Bob Mithoff was a deep cover plant for us, and he just got
copies of their material so that we could do this.  Their organization
was infiltrated in more ways than one, as far as the amount of pressure
and stress that we brought against AAC.  Back to Mary Anna Fouser
chambers.  In effect, we were looking at these differences and comparing
the material, that was pretty much done in back chambers.  I don’t think
the opposition attorneys were very happy about it.  Subsequently, when
we came back in and I finished my testimony and Ray Mithoff came up as a
witness and he spoke for a while.  We were granted an injunction a TRO
against David Mayo using those materials, which, in effect, closed down
the AAC.  Like I say in retrospect, as he wrote 98% of that stuff
anyway, he had all the right in the world to use it.  From the tactics
and the things that I just described to you, same thing has subsequently
happened to CAN.  You put in deep cover plants that no one ever
suspects, and you just wear them out.  What happened is…
L: Can I ask you a specific question, and you will be able to keep your
train of thought?
J: What I’m getting to is the judge tampering part.
L: My question is this, did RTC and Scientology knowingly claim that
these were their copyrights, knowing that they were not their
copyrights, that David Miscavige was the true author of these documents?

J: ..not David Miscavige, David Mayo.
L: David Mayo was the true author of these documents, and that he was
the true copyright holder according to the copyright laws?
J: This is what I know about that.  Every one of those issues had DM at
the bottom of it, they were 1978-79 issues.  He wrote them all.  They
you have LRH/DM, and whoever the typist was.  In effect, Mayo sat down
and authored those things.  Whether he authored them from LR Hubbard
notes or personal meanings is not anything that I could speak on because
I wasn’t there.
L: You don’t if he did or not.
J: I do know for a fact.  I do know, subsequently in the church, in
seeing how they issue materials, a lot of it, it could just be something
with three lines on it, like this from L. Ron Hubbard, they turn it into
a two page bulletin.  It’s a process of getting a little piece here, and
a little piece there, and then someone actually composing it and making
it make sense.  In its original state.
L: The current practice is that in a bulletin that says it was written
by L. Ron Hubbard may have as little as 2 or 3 lines out of 2 pages.
J: And he’s never seen it or laid eyes on it.
L: OK. Is it your understanding that they know this and yet they claim
the whole policy was written by L. Ron Hubbard?
J: Sure.
L: They present it as completely authored by L. Ron Hubbard.  Is it your
understanding that the average staff member, or member of the church,
who receives this policy, with L. Ron Hubbard’s name at the bottom truly
believes that this was written by L. Ron Hubbard?
J: Oh yes, they truly believe it, they have to read it to each other.
If they make a method 9, do a stumble, oh yes.  They have a separate
organization out there called RTRC which is the actual organization that
compiles and issues all these letters, these ACLBs, BBs, whatever.
L: It’s basically a manufacturing plant?
J:  Right.
L:  And it gives the apparency, if I’m understanding this, no matter how
much is written by L. Ron Hubbard, it generates it as if the whole
document was written by L. Ron Hubbard.
J: Exactly.  Like you sit down, especially towards the end, and then
some of these concepts and issues are not even anything that L. Ron
Hubbard had to speak on.  The reason that I’m speaking about this in
such a way that’s kind of detailed, is because they have an issue
authority network in place in Scientology, where anything that is issued
goes through IA and then is issued to all the orgs.  I was the senior
person over issue authority in Scientology during my tenure as Deputy
Inspector General External in RTC.  IA was just one area that I had.  I
would see these things, see the process.  They would compile an issue,
maybe based on 15, 20 other different disrelated things in order to make
a point about a particular subject, and then would say L. Ron Hubbard
wrote this, when in fact, in its original form you could never, it would
never make the sense that it makes when they finish the compilation.
L: Did you ever see them take something that L. Ron Hubbard never wrote
about, never said anything about and create their own opinion, own
interpretation or policy directive?  Let’s just say, for example…
J: OT VIII.
L: He never did OT VIII?
J: He had something about OT VIII, and the original I never saw, but a
person that did see the original..
L: Who was that?
J: Vaughn Young.  It had no more writing on it than this.  But, there
was a lot of other little scraps of paper around.  Again, it was a
compilation process.
L: Somebody did this, not L. Ron Hubbard.
J: Oh yes, Ray Mithoff did this.
L: One has no way of knowing Mithoff took whatever notes that were
there, if those notes were really related to OT VIII.
J: Or anything.
L: And yet the church issued OT VII as authored as L. Ron Hubbard from
his old notes, this was his work.  There was nothing that said,
assembled by Bob Mithoff.
J: Ray Mithoff.
L: It didn’t have anything like that.
J: It would have RM, it would have LRH/RM and whoever the typist was,
just like the NOTs materials.
L: Did you ever see Scientology take -- like car washing, we know there
is a policy on car washing -- but something like using an automatic
teller, and all of a sudden a policy appears, authored by L. Ron
Hubbard, on something that he never wrote anything on?
J: Like how to do laundry.  There was just an insanity about L. Ron
Hubbard’s laundry.  These smells, these smells make him crazy.  There
was a point where he would have his laundry come to the basin, they
would wash up a bunch of stuff, and send it back out to him.  He would
be complaining about the soap, the scratching on the skin, the smell.
So, a whole big research project was done to get un-scented washing
soap.  No one in the Sea Org can wear anything with a scent.  They still
practice this today even though that stupid son of a bitch is long
dead.  Then me, being a smoking person, I end up being up being the last
person on the line to have to smell his stuff.  He never complained once
I started that.  I brought in an issue authority.  It used to be in that
special unit.
L: The research that was done on soaps and cleaning and detergent was
written up as a policy, with his name on it, and he never did the
research, never wrote a line of it, and it was copyrighted under his
name.
J: How to wash shirts and stuff, I mean tubs, big tubs were bought.  You
would literally take a brand new shirt and it would be in tatters by the
time you were done, washing the smell out of them, washing the sizing
out of them.
L: We take a little tangent, there’s reasons for this, I will connect it
up as we go through.  You will logically get where some of these things
are going.  Some of this stuff relates to our court case right here.
They claim that everything, every line, every word, in every policy that
bears the name of L. Ron Hubbard was written by L. Ron Hubbard.
J: That’s just a flat out lie.
L: They’re using that for their copyrights, that all of it belongs to L.
Ron Hubbard and the L. Ron Hubbard estate, and they’re trying to enforce
that with the judge.  Let’s go back to Mary Anne Fouser.
J: Now, what was happening is that there was this franticness to get
this TRO against the AAC.  They were having some party that weekend.
Just prior to that, we were infiltrating them and doing these little
operations.  Gary Clinger actually showed up with the Jewish yamalka on,
and all of these plants were there.  We wrote this up and planned it,
executed it.  It just made their event a nightmare.  They ended up
calling the police because we had secretly rented the place above the
AAC and were bugging it.  We knew what they were saying, all the plans,
everything.  So, there is an operative upstairs, there is one, Bob
Mithoff, that’s in and out of there, doing everything, plus there were
other females involved.  They just never had a chance.  We were in such
a panic about, on yeah, and then they got an injunction, once they
discovered these things, they got an injunction against the church for
the harassment and being on the property and coming around.  They
actually got the first injunction, which the only cover we had at that
point was Bob Mithoff in there.  So, of, this just caused a panic, now
these sons of a bitches got something against the church, and we quickly
have to do this thing and move on this RICO thing because it was looking
bad.  We were already in suit with them and we were doing all these
harass productions.  It was the weekend.
L: One thing, is it your understanding that to record someone without
their permission is a crime in most states.
J: Yeah.
L: Did they know that this was a crime to bug people’s homes and record
their private conversations without their permission?
J: Sure.  That’s not the first time and that’s the difference I can talk
to you about other things.  I’ll give you something real rude.  There
was a staff member, Bill Finell, kind of strange, the guy just acted
kind of strange, people thought he was strange, he had wife, Holly
Finell, she worked at RTRC.  There was a concern that they were going to
blow this that and the other thing.  Rick Aznaran went got a bugging
device, a lamp, we had them moved, Vicky had them moved from they were
living to another place where we bought a lamp with a bug in it, so that
we could get some insight on staff members.
L: You bugged your own staff members?
J: Rick and I are sitting out in a field with headphones on, while this
guy and his wife were having sex, doing whatever they’re doing.  It was
horrible.  They’d go to sleep.  This would go on night after night,
after night.  It’s beyond…
L: Would you think that tactic had been used on other staff members who
they thought might be blowing things, this is not a rare exception?
J: No.
L: The illegal wiretapping of their own ministers, they are ministers,
staff members, because staff members are now ministers, I believe?
J: Oh yeah, they had to be, some kind of crazy thing came up in the
80’s.
L: So, they are bugging their own ministers without their permission?
J: Yeah, using high tech spy equipment, radio receivers, radio
transmitters, bugging devices.
L: Go on with…
J: OK, it was Friday, too late to get in a motion with the judge.  The
whole weekend is going to pass and they’re having a party, and through
intelligence it was discovered that Mayo was going to give these packs
to certain people to start these groups.  Robin Scott was one of them,
over in England, Maura [?] Steve Bell Maine [?] in Scotland and England,
and there was some people in Copenhagen, I don’t remember their names.
The church was in a panic about that because they had done their ODC so
very well, they were sending staff members like Lynn Farney and other
OSA people to her house to bring her this motion to try to get it.
Which was not successful, because something happened, security got
pissed off at them, and they didn’t get her to just grant an immediate
TRO and we ended up having to go to court on it, she granted it at that
time.
L: Did she disclose that you had come to her house privately?  Did she
disclose that?
J: No, there was never any mention of that.
L: Was there a lawyer with Lynn Farney when they went to approach the
judge privately?  Do you have any recollection?
J: No.  I don’t think that there was. I don’t think that there was.
L: So, Farney himself went to the judge’s home?
J: Right, standing out there.
L: Did he have something for her to sign?
J: Yeah, he had the papers.
L: And some attorney in Scientology had prepared that?
J: Yes.
L: The security would not let Farney into the house.  Continue on with
the story.
J: The following Monday, or Tuesday, I don’t remember which, is where
the story co-joined with what I told you earlier, where we were in court
and went to the judge’s back chambers and got her and got the TRO that
day.  Later on an investigation was being done in relationship to that
specific suit.  At this time, when that investigation started, I was no
longer in a high position; I’m basically lower than whale shit.  It was
explained to me, and I don’t even remember the case, that the church was
being accused of judge tampering.  The FBI wanted to talk to me,
specifically, of all damn people, who knew the least, to go in and talk
to them.  I just basically went up and told them what I told you.  I was
told that some people went out there, and it was an unsuccessful thing,
but beyond that I didn’t know.  But, in retrospect, if you look at the
ODC that they do on the judge, on every judge that they get, and how
they then send professionals in to talk to people that are close to
them, to really test the waters, this is the way it works.
L: Are they sending in people like
J: Attorneys.
L: Are they sending people in close to leak out bits of the information
that they’ve collected for the purpose of intimidating the judge?
J: No, first they will try to find out, how does the judge feel about
Scientology.  Let some friend of a friend of a friend find out.  They’re
paying money, big money, for this information.  They will do that and
try to coerce any attorney, "Look, this is what we need, you’ve got an
in, you want to make a little quick money, do this."
L: So, they find out how the judge feels, that’s not illegal, that’s
just investigation.  Where do you feel that, what else, did you hear
something else that makes you think that they tampered with this judge.
J: No, I haven’t heard anything else beyond that.  I don’t think that
the judge herself, in all honestly, this is my opinion, was that way.  I
don’t think she was that way.  I think she made a decision based on the
evidence.  Here’s stuff that Scientology says is theirs, even they
acknowledge, yes, this was Mayo’s state of mind.  He didn’t say, hey, I
wrote these things. He didn’t say that.
L: Still so brainwashed.  He didn’t say that, that’s amazing.
J: So it was like, what was she supposed to do?
L: Did you ever hear anything that they in any way told her they had
personal information about her through any source?
J: I know they knew who her husband was, and I knew they just knew
everything about her.
L: OK. Let’s talk about is there any other judge, or members of the
court, that you know that Scientology may have tampered with, bribed,
intimidated?
J: Charles O’Rielly.  I think that they had him beat up one night in a
club.  This was done in conjunction with Gene, their PI.
L: Gene Ingram.
J: Gene Ingram.  There was some club. This was during the trial, I guess
it was your trial, as a matter of fact.  They were in Los Angeles, and
there was this club that Charles O’Rielly liked to go to.  It was known
that he liked to go there.  They were just insane about this Charles
O’Rielly.  Specifically, I remember this, the day after Charles was beat
up, no, I back it up.  Marty Rathbun and Gene Ingram were heavily into
following Charles from the time the courtroom was over.  Wasn’t it
Breckenridge that was the judge?
L: No it wasn’t Breckenridge, it was Swearinger.
J: Swearinger.  They hated that judge and they hated Charles O’Rielly,
because apparently….  I was not necessarily involved in that, because
that was not anything that had anything to do with trademarks, and I was
primarily concerned with trademarks in my executive position in the
church.
L: What did you hear?
J: What I was hearing days prior to Charles actually getting beat up,
and then days after, was, this like something between David Miscavige,
Marty Rathbun and Gene Ingram.  Because I was at ASI on other matters, I
would hear some of this stuff.  But Dave Miscavige made it very clear
that this was on a need to know basis, what Gene Ingram and Marty were
doing in relation to Charles O’Rielly going to this club that he liked
to go to.  Days prior to it they were talking, "yeah, he really runs his
month somebody’s going to beat him up.  He’s really loud and boisterous,
he’s such an asshole and we had so and so in there and so and so…."
L: So and so in the club?
J: Yeah, other investigators, other people watching him, tricking him,
doing things to deceive him, like buying him a drink, talking to him.
Then it seemed like there was a day when they said, we know where this
guy’s at, we know what we’re going to do, in relation to Charles
O’Rielly.  He’s going to get a big surprise.  This is what I remember,
specifically, and then…
L: Was David Miscavige saying this?
J: No, Marty saying it to David Miscavige and Gene Ingram was there, and
I’m there and Vicky’s there. Then Dave would just be elated about this,
he’d be so happy, "OK, OK, OK."  Then now, the next day, "Charlie got
beat up, oh man it was so funny, if you could have seen see his face,"
Marty’s telling this to me and Vicky, no it was me and Vicky was there,
Dave Miscavige was there, Norman Starkey was there.  They were just
hooting and hollering and thinking this was the greatest thing that
happened since sliced bread.  Gene Ingram was there and he wouldn’t
speak when I was there, but Marty would kind of come and tell the
story.  Gene Ingram was kind of kept away from everybody.  It is my
belief that they orchestrated that confrontation that O’Rielly had.
L: Did Marty or anyone ever say that anything which directly lead you to
believe that they were involved in getting Charlie beat up?
J: It seemed, like I said, in days prior, they were orchestrating
something that would set something off like that.  The details escape
me.  It was like a hard meeting every time, "OK, what did he do, where
did he go? OK, this is what we’re going to do, that is that we’re going
to do."  They’re planning it, so it seems like it was orchestrated for
that to happen.
L: If you remember more details abut that, let me know, if you remember
any conversations, anything anybody specifically said…
J: They was like, why are you even saying this around Jesse?  He was so
happy, had to tell someone.
L: David Miscavige?
J: Yes.
L: Did he say, "Charlie got what he deserved", did he say "Charlie got a
surprise"?
J: No, he would be just insanely laughing, happy.
L: Did you ever hear anything about Judge Swearinger’s dog being drown?
Nothing at all.  He had a little collie that somebody climbed over the
fence and drowned the dog in the pool.
J: Maybe Marty. But it’s just faint. It may take me a day or a day or a
half after we have this conversation to remember.
L: I’m going to throw some stuff out that you may have never heard.  One
of the biggest things that happens to people who stand up to Scientology
is their pets start dying.  Their animals disappear or die, it’s been a
pattern through the IRS investigators who were having problems with
their pets, I’ve had problems with pets.  Other people who have stood up
to Scientology. Do you have any knowledge about anyone every talking
about hurting an animal because it’s not a felony and it sends a signal,
it’s close to the family, and it really sends a terror signal.
J: Nothing like that, not in those terms, but I remember being in an ASI
boardroom -- and again this is something that will come to me more
strongly later -- where Marty was talking the godfather movie when the
horse head appeared.  He was alluding to doing this to other people that
were critics of Scientology, scaring people by doing it. I do remember.
L: Do you remember any more specifics about what he said?
J: I remember, this is what I remember.  David Miscavige was there, Norm
was there, I was there, Vicky was there, Marty was there, some other,
maybe somebody from OSA, I’m trying to think who it would have been.
Maybe Edith Bucaley, and Klaus Bucaley used to be over the OSA network.
I remember at a break period, Marty bringing it up.  I think one of the
attorneys was there, I don’t know if it was John Peterson. It could have
been Joe, I doubt it.
L: Joe Yanni?
J: Yeah, because Joe used to be an attorney for the church.  Anyway, we
were in that meeting and they were making a joke about how intense that
scene was, and maybe perpetrating something similar to that on other
people.  I remember Dave saying, look, shutup, don’t talk about that
kinda stuff.  That’s what I remember right now, specifically about it.
I may remember more about it later.  That’s what comes to mind now.
L: Do you recall any other instances involving another, you talked about
Charlie, involving any lawyers, any judges, any clerks, sometimes to get
a clerk to bury a document, change a document, change an evidence.  Do
you ever remember hearing anything about altering the court records or
tampering with a judge, or intimidating a judge, or letting them know
that they have blackmail on them.
J: I think they did something to try to intimidate Judge Breckenridge.
I think they did.  The way that I think it was done, and because I
wasn’t directly involved I can’t tell you, "It happened Sunday at
12:15," that type of thing.  What they did was influence, just like they
do now.  They go to your friends and family and say, well, it’s not them
that’s doing it, they are paying people to do it, like have a lawyer go
and say, "Hey, you are good friends with so and so, why don’t you…
Maybe this Breckenridge is getting a little bit out of hand."  Try to
get the judge’s peers to say, "Hey look, you’re out of line."  This is
what a program or operation that they had going for Breckenridge, to
discredit him as a judge.  I think they took articles out, they did
quite a bit during that time.
L: They actually paid people to go to his friends and ask the friends or
the associates of the judge to go to the judge and tell him he was out
of line, with the way he was treating Scientology?
J:  Right.
L: That’s interesting, that is very interesting.
J: That’s part of their policy, the ODC, they use that as a form of
intimidation in and of itself.  Like Lynn Farney would be a key one that
would orchestrate that kind of shit, where they would just say he’s
slandering Scientology and try or dig up some dirt.  Dig up crimes, he
did this, he drinks, he runs around with whores, whatever.
L: Would they give that to the people that they were trying to
influence, that they were trying to get to influence the judge?  In
other words would they say,
J: They would give that to friends, family associates, spread that kind
of idea.
L: What they picked up in their investigation?
J: To back the judges off.
L: This is an important subtlety, because if they are gathering
information about the judge’s sex life, his business life, his credit,
anything that would embarrass or discredit him, then giving it to his
associates.
J: Let me finish.  They would do ODC and CDC.
L: CDC is what?
J: Covert data collection.
L: Tell us about covert data collection.
J: Now ODC, you can go and get public records; CDC is going around and
interviewing friends, associates, somehow getting ahold of bank records,
somehow getting ahold of phone records.
L: When you say somehow, would they obtain these in a legal manner, to
the best of your knowledge?
J: No. They would pay people to do it for them.
L: They would pay someone else.
J: ….like a private investigator, if he said, "I can do this, I can get
this."
L: I can get illegal bank records, illegal phone records.  They would
knowingly pay him, he would tell the church, "I can get these illegal
records," and the church would pay them.  The people that would pay them
are the attorneys.
J: It would come through OSA, and the attorneys would pay the private
investigators for investigation.  It was like it was all legal, it looks
all perfectly fine, but it would go from OSA to the attorneys they hired
to the investigators, and that’s how they get their information.
L: Would the investigators tell the attorneys that they could get these
illegal bank records and phone records, or would they tell…
J: Let me lay it out for you, OK.  This is how it would be done.  They
had certain investigators, it’s like a network, Gene Ingram being the
main one.  He knows and works with all of these others.  The thing would
happen like this, "Hey Gene, it would be nice if we could get his bank
records or his phone numbers to see who he’s calling."  Or whatever
else.
L: Who would ask that?
J: Person in, well, this is how they mask and do this hypothetical
situation.  Like Lynn Farney, who’s assigned to a case would say to an
attorney, "Would it be helpful if we knew such and such about that
judge, or another attorney, like if we knew, if we came up with
information that says he hires prostitutes every other weekend or he’s
cheating on his wife, or whatever? Would that help us, or he’s already
prejudiced against Scientology and he’s been saying whatever."  Whatever
kind of dirt they could dig up, an attorney would say, "Yeah, yeah, that
would be helpful."  Scientology would give a hypothetical situation to
attorneys, "If we had this information, would it help our case move
along?"  "Yes."  Of course, he knows what they’re talking about.  So
then they go to a person like Gene Ingram and say, "Look, let’s figure
this out, we need to know this about this guy, where need to know
where’s he at, we need to know who he’s calling, we need phone records,
we need this kind of stuff."
L: They would actually tell Gene, "We need the phone records, the bank
records."
J: Yep, right. And then to Gene, "Who can get it?"  Well, Gene, "I know
so and so and so, he can do it, he can do it, but it’s gonna cost you."
So Gene would set it up, have the act done.  Then they would tell the
attorneys, "We’re going to get this information, we’re hired this person
who comes to your office and you pay them."  They just basically
shelling money through.
L: A couple of important questions:  Who would generally tell Gene
Ingram to go out and get phone records and bank records?  What person?
J: Marty Rathbun, Lynn Farney, I’m talking about during my period of
time.   Lynn Farney would do it, and then there was a guy, Ben.  Ben
somebody from OSA.  Ben Shaw?
L: Ben Shaw? OK. Did they know it was illegal to obtain bank and phone
records.
J: No, see, of course. But it’s part of their policy, ODC/CDC.
L: They’re going to get whatever they can, but the important
distinction, did they know..
J: I can’t speak for everyone’s mind.  They knew it was illegal, but
they knew how to do it so they would never get caught at it.
L: They knew it was illegal, they asked for illegal documents, they paid
attorneys to break the law and obtain these illegal documents…
J: They didn’t pay attorneys, the attorneys just shelled the money to
the investigator.
L: So, they didn’t pay the investigator, they didn’t do it directly. The
lawyers did.
J:  The attorneys do.
L:  Now, did the lawyers, this is an important distinction, did the
lawyers know that Scientology was telling the attorneys, telling the
investigators to go get bank records and phone records?
J: Of course.
L: They knew it.  Name some of the attorneys that knew.
J: Earle Cooley knew what the deal was on everything.  John Peterson,
who is dead, knew everything. Moxon, as he was coming up and along, he
kind of came up through Invest, he came up in that muck, in that filth.
L: He knew. How about…
J:  OK, go ahead.
L:  Heller, Larry Heller?
J: Larry Heller, big one, yes of course.  Larry Heller, Sherman Linske,
his little brother.
L: Drescher?
J: That’s not one that I’m familiar with.
L: How about the Yingling group?  Monique Yingling?
J: I don’t know, I’d have to see some stuff.
L: That’s a new name.  Any other Scientology attorneys that you knew who
knew their private investigators were going out and getting illegal
documents and they were paying them for them?  The illegal documents,
the phone records…  Joe Yanni’s OK, leave him off. Do you want to repeat
that?
J: No, I’m never going to speak against Joe.
L: Joe’s OK, I deal with him all the time, so does Margaret.  We’ve been
through all of this.
J: I don’t want to say anything about him, without his permission.
L: Did these bank records, I’ve had my bank cracked three times.
J: It’s not hard.
L: Three times, with codes on it.  Somebody is paying money to get the
bank records.  They ain’t getting it from a teller.
J: Do you want to open that can of worms?  Get their lead counsel and
all their sub-counsels and subpoena, I want to see how much money you’re
paying investigators.  You will find that to be an inordinate amount of
money that the attorneys themselves are paying.
L: How much do you think they pay for illegal bank records?  What do you
think, $2,000, $5,000?  Any kind of a guestimate?
J: That was on a need to know basis.  Everyone didn’t have that
information.
L: Question, when they would obtain, when the lawyers would get the
investigators to go out and get the records…
J: You’re not listening to me.  Lawyers had nothing to do with it.  The
church would go directly to their lead investigators and say, this is….
L: So, they would go to the church, and not even the attorneys? The
attorneys were paying blind?
J:  Right.
L:  Holy shit.
J: Yes.  They were just told, we hired him, pay the money, boom.  They
were just used.
L: That’s how they run the scams.
J: They were just used to pay to make it look legal.
L: They knew they were…
J: Attorneys don’t even know what they have going on, and they don’t
want to know and they tell them.  That would be good, how you get it is
your business, don’t tell me about it, but I’ll pay some investigators
and if you’ve got some information I can use, great.
L: So, they’re paying the investigator to get the stuff any way they
can, they know that the investigators are aren’t obtaining it legally,
but because they don’t see the documents, they’re just writing the
checks, so it all has the apparancy of legality, at the attorney’s
office and it has the appearance because Scientology isn’t paying for
this illegal information, they’re just getting it.
J: Yeah but Scientology is paying for it.  It’s coming from…
L: It’s being laundered through the attorneys?
J:  Right.
L:  So, Scientology would get the bank records, the phone records, what
other illegal records would they obtain that you know?
J: They’d get your criminal history, that’s so damn easy to get, any
kind of record.
L: Like a sealed court record, confidential record, criminal records,
they’d get those?
J: What I’m saying is they would get, if they wanted to know your
criminal history, they’d have it like that [Snaps fingers].  Now a
normal person can’t get that.  It’s not supposed to be available.
L: What about other parts of the covert data collection?  What other
things would they do, what other types of information would they
accumulate?
J: Tax records, financial statements majorly, phone records.
L: Tax records, IRS 1040s, like your IRS records?
J: Yeah, they would know, they could get that. They could get whatever.
L:  OK.
J:  OK, let’s take a break. I’m done with this today.