|
CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMISSION HEARINGS RE: THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY |
|
Clearwater, Florida May 10, 1982 Morning Session MR. LeCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, staff take your seats. Ladies and gentlemen, bow our heads, please. Lord, thank you for allowing us to have this great county and to allow us to discuss different views and complex situations, and allow us to discuss these views in an order of calm and decorum. We hope to establish good judgment make the right decision here today. Amen. Will you rise for the Pledge led by Chief Sidney Klein. (Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) MR. LeCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard a great deal of testimony in the past few days concerning the Church of Scientology. The city has presented its witnesses and, as by the rules established earlier, we are now giving the Church of Scientology the same opportunity as the city was given. Is -- Mr. Johnson, you are here, Sir. And you will have forty-five minutes, the same as Mr. Flynn, for an opening statement, and then you may present your witnesses. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, I'm Paul Johnson; I represent in these proceedings the Church of Scientology. With me is my law partner, J. Michael Hayes, who, also, together with me, represents the Church in these proceedings. I'm now about to make an opening statement, which you will recall had requested that I be permitted to make prior to the proceeding of testimony in these proceedings. You will also recall that since shortly after I was retained by the Church of Scientology to assist and to advise them legally concerning the pleadings -- or these proceedings, I have attempted to make a presentation to the City Commission, beginning on April the 8th, but I have been unable to do so until this time. Unfortunately, some of the things that I am going to say now are moot because they would have been more appropriate at the time I ought to say them back in early April and, certainly, no later than May the 5th. But I think it's necessary that I say them because I'm being afforded the opportunity to say them. I think it will be instructive; I think it will be material for your further consideration as you go into Phase III, as I understand Phase III to be described in the letter from Mr. Flynn and in Mr. Flynn's preliminary report. Much of what I had hoped to say comes too late to be of assistance to you. But I don't consider it moot because it has a direct relationship for what is about to transpire here. So, with your indulgence, I will say what I had hoped to say a month ago. First of all, I was concerned about the legal propriety and concerned about the fairness of your using as a consultant attorney a gentleman who has a personal financial interest in some twenty-seven lawsuits by his own admission, and has a close relationship with a number of lawsuits that have been filed against the Church of Scientology. Although I have not been present during these proceedings, with the modern miracle of video tape, I have seen what you all have seen, perhaps, without having to spend the day over here at these chambers as you have had to do. And so, I have -- all the testimony that's been presented to you I have observed and I have observed the manner in which it was presented. And I have observed Mr. Flynn, seated in the same position that Mr. Hayes is in, time after time have whispered conferences with witnesses, apparently, instructing witnesses -- or instructing things, but not on the record, because they were not on the record of my court reporter. And as I viewed the video tape, the microphone was turned away as he spoke to the witness, and I was not privy to what he was saying. I have -- in my years of practicing law, which have been many, I have practiced in about every type of forum that is known to this country: legislative, administrative, judicial. And I don't recall ever having seen an I attorney for an legislative body so deal with the witness. I've seen attorneys for witnesses who are compelled to appear before investigative bodies who did not wish to testify confer privately with counsel at the table, but I have never seen an attorney for an investigative body do that. And so, I wanted to express to you and I will not take the time to express all my concerns the propriety of having an individual, who, by his own admission, has a personal financial interest in a number of lawsuits against the Church, a man who was permitted by your rules of procedure in this matter to select what witnesses would, who would be presented, to select what they would testify about, to select what documentary evidence was presented. I felt that it lacked the objectivity that you would expect at any fact-finding inquiry, for the person who presents the evidence to the fact finders must have a -- at least a lack of conflict of interest. There is a great deal of law on that subject; I will not burden you with that at this time because it's too late to talk about that. It's been done. Next, I was concerned about the failure of your rules promulgated to permit cross examination of the witnesses that Mr. Flynn hand-picked and presented to you. The reason I was concerned about the failure cross examination is that all of us that labor in simple justice know that cross examination has been described time and time again by the leading experts in the field of law and in how evidence is to be viewed -- it's been called the searchlight of truth, because, only through cross examination in an objective fashion -- and not what I have described as sweetheart-type questions, which, I fear, was the nature of the questions propounded to these witnesses -- cross examination done objectively and incisively can reach to the very reliability and the heart of the witness' testimony in order to determine that this witness really knows what he's talking about, and how he knew it, and the circumstances under which he observed it, and his interest or his bias, or any other things that go to help the trier of fact in determining how to receive any testimony that's presented. And since the testimony was selected, hand-picked by a person who has a lack of objectivity concerning the Church, I felt all the more in the case that cross examination would be helpful. Now, I can perhaps -- although I don't agree, I can perhaps understand that you would not want me to cross examine the witnesses. You all don't know me; I hope my reputation is such that I have never been accused to be one who has tried to obstruct proceedings; I hope my reputation is such I have never used improper tactics, I've never abused witnesses. And those of you who know me know that that's not my reputation and I try to follow the rules. However, if you didn't want me to cross examine these witnesses, I would have proposed, when I had asked to appear before you at the beginning of April, that you seek an individual in the nature of an ombudsman from the local Bar Association, to be selected by the Bar, who would not take an interest either way, except he would be skilled in arriving at the truth and veracity of witnesses and he would ask questions designed to bring out the details and the facts of the witness' testimony. This is what I had hoped to present to you had I been allowed to talk to you. But then, again, on the other hand, you may say that "Well, cross examination would delay these proceedings." You have set aside four days for the Church of Scientology to present evidence if they choose, or if I choose because the decision is going to be mine, because that is my function as a lawyer. And I will relate that decision to you soon. I will guarantee you that, had you permitted cross examination even by me and not ombudsman, it would not have taken, more than a day or a day and-a-half more to have raised certain points that I would have raised on cross examination, which would have been of great help to you in evaluating and considering the effect, impact, and reliability of the testimony you received. So, time, obviously, was not a problem. And this is what I had proposed to present to you. There's many examples I can give you of the effectiveness of cross examination. I will -- I will just give some examples: I -- as I viewed the video of LaVenda Van Schaick, as she broke down and cried about the death of her brother-in-law, David, it was a very dramatic event; it was covered in all the news media. It had great effect upon you and all those listening here. But it would have been, perhaps, helpful to you in evaluating whether her inference that the Church of Scientology was somehow related to the death of her brother-in-law -- whether or not he had been under psychiatric treatment prior to coming into the Church, how long he had been out of the Church, how many other occasions he had attempted suicide. All of these matters would have been very helpful to have asked on cross examination to view her testimony. As you present the testimony or Mr. Meister concerning the tragedy eleven years ago in Morocco, many thousands of miles away from here, in which he indicated to you -- and this was a clear indication -- that the Church of Scientology was somehow involved in the death of his daughter. It would have been very helpful to you to have an ombudsman or, perhaps, me to cross examine him and ask about what her background was concerning the use of drugs, concerning whether or not she had been under psychiatric treatment prior to entering the Church of Scientology, whether she was concerned about matters that were going on his home in the United States, and whether she had received information about a marital problem between he and her mother and whether or not that contributed or could have contributed to her death. These are the sort of things this is such a and I hesitate to mention this, except it has such a dramatic impact upon the news media. And the Church of Scientology has been embarrassed and scandalized throughout the United States because we've had national coverage by --- I know, at least - CBS, NBC, UPI, AP. And these are things that have been disseminated throughout the length and breadth of this country. It's been disseminated so, in the eyes of the reading public, the viewing public, and the listening public, that the Church of Scientology is somehow causing people to be killed or to take their lives, without any attempt to go into the circumstances surrounding this, which cross examination could have been very helpful to you in evaluating it. It would have been very helpful for Mr. DeWolfe, who is now -- who is the former L. Ron Hubbard, testified, a gentleman who has been out of the Church since 1959. it would have been very helpful for you, whoever was examining him, to read from a video-taped interview, which, fortunately for the Church, Channel 10 ran last night, in which he recanted his testimony against the Church of Scientology that he gave under oath in the IRS case, in which he admitted in the video tape that he had lied under oath. Fortunately for us, Channel 10 did run that. But on -- certainly, whoever might have examined him on cross examination, in the brief time allowed, would have certainly asked him questions about it and, perhaps, shown him on the monitor his own figure, his own voice speaking these words, and asked how that fits to his present testimony. Whoever examined him would have asked him about his knowledge of the veracity of Paulette Cooper, fortunately, again for the same reporter from Saint Petersburg Times was able to determine and find out that both Mrs. Cooper and Mr. DeWolfe stated publically that neither of the other could be believed under oath. This would have been very helpful to have been brought out under cross examination. Fortunately for the Church, there was a very aggressive reporter who did a very good job. None of this would have come out in the hearings had it not been for the news media. These are -- Mr. Mayer -- well, I'll go on further. Mr. Mayer, for example, who suggested that the City of Clearwater was the center of illegal activities, such as was suggested in the preliminary remarks by his honor, the Mayor. It would have been helpful to have asked him how much time he had been in Clearwater, who he talked to here in Clearwater, and how he could justify those statements. And, also, to ask him: Were it not true that he was a paid consultant for the IRS in the IRS litigation, and that he sat at counsel table during the trial for the IRS versus Scientology as though he were a party in that case? That would have been helpful for you to know that. And that's the sort of questions that would have been asked on cross examination. So, I could go and on. I won't take up your time and burden you. But this is just illustrative the lack of validity these proceedings have when you allow an individual, who has an admitted financial, adverse interest, to select and choose and to guide the witnesses in their testimony without any objective, incisive examination of the witness, and the only questions are questions which I have characterized earlier as sweetheart-type of questions from the Commission. Next, I had wanted in my preliminary remarks to address this Commission concerning my concerns about the jurisdiction of the City of Clearwater Commission and urge you to limit your inquiry and to establish rules that would limit your inquiry into matters under which you have jurisdiction. When I say "jurisdiction," I'm using the term, I guess, broadly. When I say jurisdiction as to subject matter and when I say jurisdiction as to territorial jurisdiction, that means within the city limits within the City of Clearwater. That does not mean Morocco; that does not mean Las Vegas; that does not mean Boston; that does not mean all these other areas that we've heard about to such extent as has been broadcast and telecast and written about throughout the length and breadth of this country about the Church of Scientology, has no relationship whatsoever to what might have been done within the city limits of Clearwater. So, I would have liked to have discussed with you guidelines, which I was going to propose that you enact in order to conduct these hearings so they would be meaningful and not be suspect. The for example, I have here what was described in a document, which his honor, the Mayor, filed, as the seven areas of municipal concern that you were going to go into, and I have those areas here, which I felt, had I been allowed to speak to you in my pre --proceeding opening statement, perhaps, I would have urged you -- perhaps, you would have listened to me -- as to whether these are really the matters of municipal concern or whether or not they are of concern to other people who have axes to grind against the Church of Scientology. The first item of municipal concern as contained in the presentation of the Mayor, which was filed publically and which was a memorandum to the press from the City Manager, dated May the 3rd, 1982, "Subject: Guidelines," a copy of which I have obtained, says the first item of vital public interest and municipal concern was: "The utilization of the City of Clearwater as a base to conduct and perpetuate wholesale violations of state and federal criminal laws, including larceny, breaking and entering, robbery, perjury, conspiracy, kidnapping, extortion, and blackmail, which is evidenced in the Consultant's Report." Perhaps, matters were testified to which I did not see on the video, but I am not aware that there was any support of such a broad statement. And if there is support of such a broad statement, we have a very effective and a fearless State Attorney in this county, James Russell, who's never hesitated to take on the great public officials; his reputation is above reproach. If such crimes are in existence, is it not the sort of thing that Mr. Russell can handle much more effectively than you, because you don't have jurisdiction to prosecute or to have your City Attorney prosecute for robbery, perjury, conspiracy, kidnapping, blackmail, extortion. That's a matter completely out of your jurisdiction, and it's completely foreign to any appropriate investigation which you might make. And I was going to suggest to you that you not be drawn into such a matter. The next item of municipal concern which you have in your memorandum, which I wanted to speak to before you started these proceedings, was: "The perpetration of fraud through uniform secular, non-religious oral misrepresentations" to require people to pay money, et cetera. If there's fraud, this is either a crime, of which your State Attorney has jurisdiction and not you, or which Mr. Flynn is handling -- if it's a civil matter fraud, he's handling so ably with the twenty-seven lawsuits which have been pending throughout the country that he has filed and many others, including the ones which were just reversed out in Portland, Oregon by the Supreme Court out there in that far western state. So, all these matters can be handled, either through the appropriate officials or through the courts, which are now being litigated by Mr. Flynn and others. Your next item of municipal concern was: "The utilization of charitable tax-exempt status to conduct non-religious, non-charitable activities" in your city, "without accountability to the proper taxing authority." Well, ladies and gentlemen of the City Commission, as you well know, there is litigation going on this very moment in this county -- I say I know it because I am the attorney in that litigation; I was brought into that case last October. You know it because you wrote a letter and passed a resolution in which you offered to become a part of that litigation to take -- the City of Clearwater would take a part in that litigation. And you passed a resolution offering any help to the tax collector and the tax or property appraisers. So, that's a matter that you already know, and by your own prior action by this Board in official session meeting, you have gone on record as wanting to enter that lawsuit and support the people who are representing the county. So, that's not a matter to be heard by the City Commission because we have a court, we have a very able judge before whom that case is now pending, Judge A. J. Driver, a judge who's well recognized for his legal acumen and ability. And that's to be tried under proper legal rules and procedures and will not be tried in this type of proceeding before you. Your next item was the unlicenced practice of medicine. It would have been also interesting to have been able to cross examine some of the witnesses about whether they had seen doctors and what doctors they had seen and suggest names of doctors that they had seen, but that time has passed. But if there is unlicenced practice of medicine, that again is a matter for the State Attorney and not for this Council because it's a crime; it's a felony. Next, your item of municipal concern that you allege that I wanted to talk to you about before you got into these hearings was the implementation of policies calling for flagrant physical and psychological abuse. Here again, if it's physical, it's -- the State Attorney has jurisdiction. If it's psychological, Mr. Flynn's twenty-seven lawsuits and the other lawsuits will take care of that. The only testimony I recall about that was Mr. Ray, the young man. I would have liked to have cross examined him as to whether he was accused of stealing from the Church of Scientology, and whether or not he signed a statement admitting that he had stolen from them. I would have liked to have cross examined him as to whether he was under the influence of drugs and admitted to the use of drugs, contrary to Scientology policy. I would have liked to have cross examined him -- I would have liked to have shown him an affidavit which he had signed admitting to theft and admitting to the use of drugs. But here again, these are matters for the State Attorney and not matters for you, or matters for the lawsuits which are now pending. Next, I would like to talk to you about your matter of municipal concern of the minimal educational standards. Pinellas County has one of the finest Boards of Public Instruction and Superintendent of Public Instruction in the State of Florida. There again, they are far better able to determine what is appropriate educational standard. We also have laws requiring that children be educated, and if those laws are violated, there are appropriate authorities, not the city proceedings, that can handle that. And, finally, number seven is the only area that I see that might possibly have had some municipal concern and that was the allegations of Mr. Flynn's report "of overcrowded, insect-infested conditions in Scientology owned buildings." And here again, it would have been very helpful to have examined very carefully the young ladies and young men who testified about that. This is particularly so as I was driving over here from Tampa -- I always try to listen to Paul Harvey on the eight-thirty broadcast -- and Paul Harvey stated this morning that roaches have been with us since before the dinosaurs, and he was propounding some type of matter that would help control roaches. I've lived in Florida all my life; I've seen roaches all my life. I don't think I live in a hovel; I live in a home. I killed a roach yesterday in my house. I have often found them there once or twice a month. So, you talk about roaches in Florida -- that may be very horrifying to someone from New Jersey or Las Vegas or Boston, but it's not unheard of; they're very indestructible. But here again, we're talking about things that happened many years ago, and it would have been very helpful to have cross examined those individuals. So, all these are concerns that I had wanted to address you in order to give validity to these proceedings, to avoid them being what I was afraid would become either a Roman circus or would become a dress rehearsal and public publication -- and publicizing in local and national media -- of Mr. Flynn's lawsuits which are now pending against the Church. As a matter of fact, as you went through the items of testimony, I looked at my notes concerning my knowledge -- although I do not represent the Church in any other matters except the tax case and these proceedings, I noticed that many of the matters that he talked about are now being litigated under proper -- the rules of procedure in lawsuits throughout the nation. The alleged misuse of the confessional Folder, sometimes referred to as the auditing file -- it's just a part of the sacrament of the Church to use confessionals. Whether you call it auditing or confessionals, that's a matter of interpretation -- or a matter of semantics. The alleged misuse is being litigated in the Van Schaick case in Boston, McLean suit in Tampa, the Burden suit in Tampa, the suits in Los Angeles in which Mr. -- in which Mr. Flynn is working closely with him. The matters of the Fair Game Doctrine which have been -- which is not a doctrine of the Church from anything that you've received testimony is being litigated in all those twenty-seven suits filed by Mr. Flynn. The matter of the children's education is being litigated in the Burden case. The Burden case is right across the bay in Tampa, and that will be litigated under proper rules of procedure and under the rules of cross examination to bring out the true facts of what is the situation concerning these Scientology children. The alleged fraud in the background of Mr. Hubbard, that's being litigated in Boston in the Van Schaick case, which is pending right now in Boston, also, the Los Angeles cases and other cases. So, all these matters that have been presented they had the affect in which the City of Clearwater Commission has unwittingly helped Mr. Flynn in giving the widest dissemination of his allegations against Church, and which, undoubtedly, will have an effect upon the juries and others who hear these cases because they will have been pre-conditioned by this matter that's gone before the Commission and the fashion in which it's come before the Commission. I also had concerns, which I had hoped to talk to you about, about the objectivity of the Commission. I have read the numerous resolutions of the Commission in which you called on various groups, such as the Congress of the United States, the Justice Department, the Legislature Of the State of Florida, to investigate the Church of Scientology. I have read the resolution in which you offered to be a part of the suit against Scientology, the City of Clearwater, and offered your support. So, I was naturally concerned about the objectivity of the Commission. Even in the most heinous criminal case -- and my practice is such that I understand criminal procedure; I have tried a number of criminal cases on both sides, both as State Attorney and as defense attorney. Even in the most heinous criminal case, the defendant has the presumption of innocence, the defendant has the right to a fair hearing before an impartial trier of fact presented by a prosecutor who does not have any conflict of interest, who does not have a personal interest in the outcome of the case. Unfortunately, my concern was that this would not be afforded the Church of Scientology. And after viewing -- first, appearing here initially to make what I thought was an agreement to make an opening statement that I felt would be helpful to you, and I want it to be made very clear because it's not been carried in the newspaper, the media, that I was not at all critical of Mr. Bustin. I understood us to have an agreement, but he understood it differently. He's an honorable man, well respected, and I know he believes what he understood. But I understood us to have an agreement that I would be allowed to make an opening statement, and I appeared for that purpose to do the things and to tell the things I told you about today, which, I think, would have given validity to these proceedings and would have helped you if your purpose, alleged purpose, is to see if there is a need for legislation. Well, then, what I would have proposed would have given validity to these hearings. But I did not have the opportunity, and it comes a little late now. So, I guess, in summary, what I'm saying is that I believe in the American judicial system -- I've been a part of it for many years. I believe that the fact that we receive testimony, you receive it in a certain fashion so that you can scrutinize it carefully to make sure it's not the result of some bias or interest or prejudice or and that the trier of fact has a right to go into details to ascertain the reliability of this testimony. So, I believe in the American judicial system. And I don't believe that the rules that you have laid out and the procedure which we -- had been announced in this case -- and after viewing the tapes of what has actually occurred in this proceeding, and after hearing the questions by the Commissioners, which you put as such questions as: "Would you classify this as Gestapo like conduct," coming from the mouth of one of the trier of fact, suggesting that the conduct of the Church of Scientology was Gestapo-like, I don't think that to submit myself or submit my client to be tried in an atmosphere of this type. And for the reasons I have given you, I respectfully decline to present any testimony before you. And the Church of Scientology will try their cases against Mr. Flynn in the courts under the proper rules of evidence; and I will continue trying our case against you, which we are litigating under the proper rules of evidence. So, I don't intend to be a part of these proceedings, because I don't think we'll be afforded a fair hearing. MR. CALDERBANK: Mr. Johnson, would you like to converse at all about some of the rules? MR. HATCHETT: Are you open to questions? MR. JOHNSON: I've made my statement. MR. LeCHER: Thank you. We appreciate your appearing here. Let's take five minutes so Mr. Johnson and his firm can leave the hearings and the media may talk to Mr. Johnson, if they so desire. So come back in five or ten minutes. (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
|