Gerry Talks...

You are here: Home / 2018 / Archives for August 2018

Archives for August 2018

by

Aiding and Abetting Fair Game — 2016

I’m posting three email exchanges I had with Steve Cannane prior to the publication of his book Fair Game, which was in September 2016. These demonstrate certain relevant facts: he had my contact information; we were communicating; I had provided detailed, accurate data; he knew this to be true because he sought my data and credited it in his emails.

Cannane initiated this exchange with an email question on February 2, 2016 about L. Ron Hubbard’s “military pension.”

From: Steve Cannane
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 4:48 PM
To: ‘Gerry Armstrong’
Subject: a quick question

Hi Gerry,

Hope you are going well.

I am closing in on finishing my book. I’m just reviewing my chapter on Hubbard’s war service in Brisbane. Do you know if he claimed a military pension his whole life? Is there proof of this?

Thanks,

Steve

I emailed Cannane:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: February 2, 2016 8:16 PM
To: ‘Steve Cannane’
Subject: RE: a quick question

Hi Steve:

The issue of Hubbard continuing to receive a disability pension came up in my trial in 1984.

I was interested in his story of being in perfect mental and physical condition after curing his war injuries with Dianetics. And there was a disability taboo in Scientology that I learned early on. People receiving disability pensions, Hubbard said in the tech, were incentivized to not get well with auditing. I know there are other mentions, but for now I found this one in a 23 August 1961 lecture, “Auditing Basics:”

We’ve run into somebody who was on a pension or who was getting a disability payment. And if we’d cured the disability payment he would have had problems, you see. So we cured the disability payment and then all of a sudden we had an ARC breaky pc and we’d lose him as a pc. you see, it looked like because we’d gotten rid of his pension, you know, he was upset with us, or that he wouldn’t give up his bad heart, or something, because this’d mean he’d give up his pension, or something. So auditing sort of stalled there someplace.

Here is a discussion from my trial about a letter from Hubbard to the VA that showed he was receiving his disability pension in 1958:

Q [Attorney Michael Flynn] And with regard to 500 triple R, why did you send that to me, Mr. Armstrong?

A this letter from Mr. Hubbard is dated 1958, April 2, 1958, and it is to the Veterans Administration and in my mind there was a conflict between the fact that here he is asking to have his V.A. checks sent to a particular address in 1958, and in all the publications about Mr. Hubbard he had claimed that he had been given a perfect score, perfect mental and physical score by 1950 and by 1947 had completely cured himself, and here he is still drawing a V.A. check for this disability, and maybe it is okay to do that. It seems like there was at least a contradiction and possibly an unethical practice on his part.

Q And that was on April 2, 1[9]58?

A Yes.

Q And do you know what the percentage of disability that he had under his Naval pension?

A Originally it was at 10 percent. I believe it went up to 50 percent.

Q And do you know whether between 1945 and 1950 he was continually filing appeals with the Veterans Administration to raise the disability?

A There were a number of such documents.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/2495.php

I had a recollection of learning that he was still receiving his disability pension when I was on the biography project and dealt with his secretaries and the SO#1 Unit, but I cannot provide usable facts about this. Here is a statement from Ken Urquhart, who had been LRH Personal Communicator in the 1970’s, saying he was receiving “monthly VA pension checks:”

Not until the seventies did money become the supreme importance for either the organization or for LRH personally. Until he took action in the seventies to force some of the income into his own pockets he did not receive large amounts. I was close to the top up until 1978. I was responsible until around (I think) 1972 for the safekeeping of the money he did receive: his weekly pay of $80 (if I remember the figure aright) and his monthly VA pension checks.http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/bluesky/part2.txt

I don’t know of anyone else who can confirm that Hubbard received his pension between when Urquhart handled his finances in the 1970’s and when he died in 1986. I also have no reason to believe that he ever instructed the VA, or the Navy, or the US Treasury, to stop sending him money. Neither because he had enough and others needed that pittance even more, nor because after all that auditing and all those OT levels he finally really had cured his disabilities.

Seriously looking forward to your book.

Gerry

I received a reply from Cannane:

From: Steve Cannane
Sent: February 3, 2016 1:20 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: a quick question

Thanks Gerry, I knew you would have access to some good details like this. When it’s out I will be sure to send you a copy. Regards, Steve

by

Aiding and Abetting Fair Game — 2015

I’m posting three email exchanges I had with Steve Cannane prior to the publication of his book Fair Game, which was in September 2016. These demonstrate certain relevant facts: he had my contact information; we were communicating; I had provided detailed, accurate data; he knew this to be true because he sought my data and credited it in his emails.

This thread from July 2015 concerns information Cannane had requested from me when we met during a conference in Toronto that took place between June 22 and 26, 2015. He interviewed me very briefly, and I agreed to send him materials he wanted after I had returned home from the conference. My mention at the end of my email about “Hubbard’s letter to the police,” is because Cannane had told me in Toronto that he would send me a copy of this letter.

On July 5, 2015 I emailed Cannane:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: July 5, 2015 3:05 PM
To: Steve Cannane
Subject: Items discussed in Toronto

Hi Steve:

Great to meet you at the Toronto conference, and get to talk with you a few minutes.

There were 5 things I made a note to write to you about: 1. John Avery; 2. Scientology researcher “Margaret Lake;” 3. Hubbard in Princeton, NJ; 4. the Citizens Purity League, and 5. Hubbard’s WW II post-Australia injuries. I didn’t remember the name of the Citizens Purity League, an early Hubbard front, but remembered it as targeting the police, and thought it could relate to the letter from Hubbard to the police in Oz during the skirmish with Phillip Wearne.

I forwarded the contact information I have for Avery separately.

Here is Ms. Lake’s site: http://scientologymyths.com/hubbardww2.htm

I mentioned that she came up with the idea that Hubbard received his purple hearts from the US Army, not the navy, as a result of his “injuries” in Australia.

Here is an article I wrote in 2008 about Hubbard’s police caper that was based on a lecture of his on January 3, 1960 “Zones of Control and Responsibility of Governments.”  http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/526

On June 23, 1960, Hubbard published as a “technical bulletin” “The Special Zone Plan,” which the Anderson Report cites to in the “Scientology and Politics” chapter.

I don’t believe the Anderson Report mentions the Hubbard lectures/sermons from January 1960 that precede the HCOB. But they do appear to relate to the Australian situation at the time.

Anyway, take a look at my article and see if any of the material is new or useful.

Attached is a .pdf of the “State of Man Congress” transcripts where Hubbard introduces his Citizens Purity League idea.

I just spotted another event in Scientology’s history, and also my history, that reaches back to Wearne. Guardian Order 121669 “Programme: Intelligence: Internal Security,” which is issued over Mary Sue Hubbard’s name but almost certainly written by L. Ron, states:

OBSERVATION: The enemy has used the method of infiltration to obtain information against ourselves as known from incidences in South Africa, Edinburgh and Washington, D.C.

The enemy has also “turned” and used as double agents Staff members as  revealed by Maurice Johnson at Saint Hill and Barbara Peake in Melbourne.

Further, the enemy has used former disaffected staff members, Scientologists  or relatives of Scientologists in their attacks – Philip Wearne and Doug Moon in Australia, Jean Kennedy and Gene van Niekerk in South Africa, Michael Pernetta and Mrs. Henslow in England, Eleanor Turner and the former Mrs. Elmo Troup in America and the O’Donnell family in New Zealand, to name but a few of the outstanding examples.
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/3828

At my trial in 1984, GO 121669 came into evidence, my attorney Michael Flynn questioned Mary Sue Hubbard about it, and the judge referred to it in the judgment.

LRH’s wife, Mary Sue Hubbard is also plaintiff herein. On the one hand she certainly appeared to be a pathetic individual. She was forced from her post as Controller, convicted and imprisoned as a felon, and deserted by her husband. On the other hand her credibility leaves much to be desired. She struck the familiar pose of not seeing, hearing, or knowing any evil. Yet she was the head of the Guardian Office for years and among other things, authored the infamous order “GO 121669” which directed culling of supposedly confidential P.C. files/folders for purposes of internal security. In her testimony she expressed the feeling that defendant by delivering the documents, writings, letters to his attorneys, subjected her to mental rape. The evidence is clear and the court finds that defendant and Omar Garrison had permission to utilize these documents for the purpose of Garrison’s proposed biography. The only other persons who were shown any of the documents were defendant’s attorneys, the Douglasses, the Dincalcis, and apparently some documents specifically affecting LRH’s son “Nibs,” were shown to “Nibs.” The Douglasses and Dincalcises were disaffected Scientologists who had a concern for their own safety and mental security, and were much in the same situation as defendant. They had not been declared as suppressive, but Scientology had their P.C. folders, as well as other confessions, and they were extremely apprehensive. They did not see very many of the documents, and it is not entirely clear which they saw. At any rate Mary Sue Hubbard did not appear to be so much distressed by this fact, as by the fact that Armstrong had given the documents to Michael Flynn, whom the Church considered its foremost lawyer-enemy. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/283.php

This judgment was affirmed on appeal in 1991.

You read out what Hubbard wrote in his letter to the police about being trained, I believe, as Provost Marshal Korea.

Sometime after this, he claimed to have actually been the “Provost Marshal Korea.” See this from a report I wrote to Cirrus Slevin, HCO Cope Officer CMO International, dated November 25, 1981:

I’ve attached an item “Data Sheet on Lafayette Ronald Hubbard” in his handwriting which was for use by the PR’s and for publication. It contains a number of claims which are not totally accurate, or are flatly untrue.

[…]

b.” attended Princeton University Post Graduate”
He didn’t.

[…]

g.” Provost Marshall Korea 1945″.
Untrue
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/historical/armstrong-ltr-cirrus-1981-11-25.html

This letter to Slevin was also quoted from in the judgment after my 1984 trial:

Less than three weeks before Defendant Armstrong left Scientology, he wrote a letter to Cirrus Slevin on November 25, 1981, in which it is clear that his intentions in airing the inaccuracies, falsehoods, and frauds regarding Hubbard were done in good faith. In his letter he stated as follows:

“If we present inaccuracies, hyperbole or downright lies as fact or truth, it doesn’t matter what slant we give them, if disproved the man will look, to outsiders at least, like a charlatan. This is what I’m trying to prevent and what I’ve been working on the past year and a half.”…
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/283.php

Princeton was where Hubbard was supposedly being trained at the Navy’s School of Military Government, which was apparently on the Princeton University campus. This is from his “Affirmations,” circa 1946:

I returned to sea as navigator of a large ship and was subsequently selected for the Military Government School at Princeton whither I went in 1944-45 for three months. During my Princeton sojourn I was very tired and harrassed (sp?) and spent week-ends with a writer friend in Philadelphia. He almost forced me to sleep with his wife. Meanwhile I had a affair with a woman named Ferne. Somehow, perhaps because I had constantly wet feet and no sleep at Princeton, I contracted a staphloceus infection. I mistook it for gonnhorea and until I arrived at Monterey, believed my old illness had returned. I consulted a doctor there who reassured me. This affair again depressed my libido. The staphloceus infection has not entirely vanished, appearing as rheumatism which only small doses of stilbestrol will remove. The hormone further reduces my libido and I am nearly impotent.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2000-03-11.html

See also this ESMB post from Caroline:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?31084-Robert-Heinlein-A-Stranger-in-a-Strange-Land-and-Ron-Hubbard/page2

Hubbard’s Provost Marshal Korea claim was discussed in my 1984 trial, see, e.g., June 6, 1984:

THE COURT: Seven I’s.

FLYNN: That relates to the claim that he was a Provost Marshall of Korea. That claim is made in that data sheet.

LITT: I don’t have anything to add on seven I’s, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It will be received.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/4814.php

This is Hubbard’s request to be appointed to the School of Military Government: http://www.solitarytrees.net/cowen/warhero/1944/440909.gif

His “qualifications” are really something.

Hubbard also mentioned his Princeton sojourn in a 1946 appeal of the amount of his disability award to the Veterans Administration, which was read into the record in the Christofferson v. Scientology trial in Portland, OR in 1985:

BY MR. McMURRY: (Continuing)

Q. Mr. Armstrong, would you start with reading the typed portion of the appeal forms signed by Mr. Hubbard on July 4, 1946.

A. “My service-connected disability amounts to more than the ten percent awarded. No disability whatever was allowed for service-connected eye trouble. No disability was allowed for a chronic and incapacitating bone infection which was also service connected and not due to misconduct.

“Ulcers: Ten percent was awarded for duodenal ulcers. This stomach condition was demonstrated as chronic and was advanced as wholly incapacitating — ‘unfit for further service’ — by the retiring board of the USN Hospital, Oakland, California, where I was hospitalized for the second time within two years on the same diagnosis. Necessity to obtain milk and a very narrow diet — I cannot tolerate a general diet — results in my having to abandon my old profession as ship master and explorer, and seriously hampers me as a writer. I can do nothing which involves nervous strain without becoming dangerously ill. I cannot undertake a routine job because of resulting nervous exhaustion followed by a painful flare-up of my ulcers. My income has been zero since my release from service due to my physical condition.

“Eyes: An author must research a great deal to write. This has always entailed a great deal of reading with me. I cannot now read for more than three to four minutes without suffering from headache. I have attempted to have glasses fitted by such an eminent ophthalmologist as the head of the Mount Sinai Eye Clinic without any relief. The condition was stated by Navy doctors (see health record and hospital record) as chronic and unremediable, noting that the present glasses could not be increased in strength. My eyesight when I entered the service was very good. It began to fail after prolonged exposure to tropical sunlight in the Pacific in the spring of 1942. The diagnosis was ‘conjunctivitis actinic’ and I was hospitalized for it at the Brooklyn Naval Hospital, before returned to duty on my own” —

COOLEY: “being returned to duty”.

THE WITNESS: — “being returned to duty on my own request. My eyesight failed until I found it very difficult to read. When I was mustered out of the service at San Francisco Separation Center, December 5, 1945, my eyesight was registered as being about thirty percent of normal with glasses. I have no copy of this record. Occupational fitness due to failed eyesight is at a point where I have written nothing since release from service due to my inability to research, and my lack of finances to enable me to hire research done.

“Infection: A chronic infection in my right hip has lamed me. It has been treated by private physicians and yields to no known therapy which could be applied. Naval doctors refuse treatment on the grounds that it was not curable, ‘but might go away sometime.’ After a year and a half it is worse. This infection was contracted at Princeton University in 1945, January, according to record. Sudden transition from the tropics to the slush and icy cold of Princeton caused dramatic chills which seem to have settled in the right hip. Warm weather slightly mitigates but does not banish this injury. I cannot walk on pavement without suffering severely. Naval doctors sought to label this as writer’s syndrome, but had no proof, and its diagnosis has been disproved. Surgery is not indicated. This also prevents me from working at sea where one must stand much of the time.

“My earning power, due to injuries, all service connected, has dropped to nothing. I earned one thousand dollars a month prior to the war as a writer. I cannot now earn money as a writer, and attempts to find other employment have failed because of my physical condition. Occupational disability is one hundred percent. L. Ron Hubbard.”
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/related/5208.php

I think I mentioned to you that in my opinion Hubbard started lying about his navy career upon his return from Australia, where he really had been sent off in relative disgrace. He obviously contacted John W. Campbell after arriving in New York, told Campbell of his action and heroism, faked a limp, and Campbell wrote to Heinlein:

May 13,1942

Dear Bob:—

A brief note during business hours, concerning something of some interest.

Ron Hubbard’s in town–temporarily confined to the Sick Officer’s Quarters. He’s angry, bitter,  and very such afraid—afraid he’ll get assigned to some shore job, which he does not want, and kept from going to sea again.

Angry and bitter because, I suspect, he was among those licked. He collected a piece of Jap bomb in his thigh dureing the battle of the Java Sea, as far as I can make out. He was aboard ship at the time, apperantly, and Allied air power was not giving adequate coverage.

He is a graduate C.E., but is also rather competent in several lines. He was barnstorming for a living for a while, and has a private pilot’s license. He did some fairly useful mapping along the Alaska coast by a new radio-beam survey/method. And he has imagination, of course.

If the guy is hooked for shore duty–he’s got a limp; how permanent I don’t know, nor how bad—he might be useful. His own feeling is that his direct experience with Jap weapons, methods and tactics might be his prime asset. Mebbeso–I don’t know. But there must be several thousand American men, several hundred American officers, who have that by now.

If Scoles would be interested, you might pass on the information. At present, at least, Ron’s unassigned. One present existent negative asset is a cross-combination of an active temperament, an active temper, and a most active resentment at having been licked. His red hair seems to mean something, but if the Navy doesn’t want him in fighting service, he could do much better than as a parachute snap-fastner inspector in Kankakee, Kansas.

His medical condition I don’t know exactly, but the San Francisco medicos released him as fit for service; the New Yorkers grounded him again. A limp and a boiling temper seem to be his only momentos now.  [Heinlein archives: CORR218-3:146]

If you send me Hubbard’s letter to the police, it would be great. And if there are any other areas or questions I might be able to help with, please let me know.

All the best.

Gerry

I received back a notification that my email exceeded the Australia Broadcasting Corporation’s size limit:

From: alert…com
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 3:12 PM
To: gerry…gerryarmstrong.org
Subject: ABC Email size limit exceeded

This is an automatically generated notification.

A message sent by you has triggered the ABC filtering rule for email size. The attachment you are trying to send is too large.

Please reduce the size of the attachment and try again.

I resent my email to Cannane with this note:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: July 5, 2015 3:40 PM
To: Steve Cannane
Subject: FW: ABC Email size limit exceeded

Hi again Steve:

My email text is below this notification. And I will excerpt the relevant lecture transcripts from the oversize “State of Man Congress” pdf, and will send separately.

Gerry

[snip oversize email notification and my email “Items discussed in Toronto”]

I emailed Cannane the subject lecture transcripts:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: July 5, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Steve Cannane
Subject: Items discussed in Toronto

Attached are the relevant lectures from the State of Man Congress, January 1960.

On July 7, 2015, I received a reply from Cannane:

From: Steve Cannane
Sent: July 7, 2015 9:48 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Items discussed in Toronto

Hi Gerry, great to meet you in Toronto. It was a terrific week. Thanks for all these leads – much appreciated. If you ever have difficulties with emails to big for my abc email I have another address [  ]

Regards,

Steve

I emailed Cannane:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: July 7, 2015 10:03 AM
To: ‘[  ]’
Subject: Lecture transcripts.

Thanks for the gmail address. Here is the .pdf of the whole set of State of Man Congress transcripts.

Gerry

I received a reply from Cannane:

From: Steve Cannane
Sent: July 7, 2015 11:31 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Lecture transcripts.

thanks Gerry, that’s great. Steve

by

Aiding and Abetting Fair Game — 2014

I’m posting three email exchanges I had with Steve Cannane prior to the publication of his book Fair Game. These demonstrate certain relevant facts: he had my contact information;  we were communicating; I had provided detailed, accurate, useful data; and he knew this to be true because he sought my data and credited it in his emails.

This thread from early 2014, which concerns L. Ron Hubbard’s “pinks & greys” letter to Mary Sue Hubbard, started when Cannane emailed Jon Atack.

On 29 Jan 2014, at 08:33, Cannane wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

Hi Jon, another question about the great man. Pinks and Grays….what exactly was the old man popping in Tangiers? Was it Benzedrine? whats’ the difference between a ‘pink’ and a ‘gray’?

cheers,

Steve

Atack replied and cced me:

From: jon atack
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:05 AM
To: Steve Cannane
Cc: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: enquiry request

Dear Gerry,

Steve is working on a book about the clut in Oz and has some lovely new discoveries to share. If you can add anything to the tale of Ron: The Multiple Drug Abuser, I’d be grateful,

best,

jon

Dear Steve,

as you’ll see, I’ve copied Gerry on this, as the world’s leading expert on pinks and greys. There are good quotes on phenobarbital and benzedrine from the early fifties:

Hubbard said that sedative drugs cause “the individual to walk around in a light hypnotic trance” (SOSII, p.222), and said “Continuous application of sedatives to an individual … make him more suggestible.” (SOSI, p.163).  Hubbard admitted testing drugs and gave as one of his conclusions: “So far soporifics have been tested and rejected … That whole block of sedatives like scopolamine, opium, phenobarbital … are of no assistance in Dianetics” (R&D4, p.137).  Hubbard’s understanding of this was personal, having explained the damage caused in the highly suggestible state brought about by constant use of phenobarbital, Hubbard said “I know because I made myself a guinea pig on one of those experiments, and trying to get off a soporific was a tough job.” (R&D 1, p.124).  He named the barbiturate drug phenobarbital as the soporific to which he had been addicted. It was probably prescribed to him for his purported ulcer in San Diego in 1943. He was still trying to obtain phenobarbital in East Grinstead (as “Dr. Hubbard”) as late as 1965 (Atack, p.185, where the drug is given its British name “nembutal”).

Hubbard also claimed to have administered nitrous oxide to three people (R&D1, p.123).  He termed it “a first class hypnotic” (DMSMH, p.363).  While he condemned the use of soporifics (though his attitude seems to have been ambivalent in light of his positive comments about narcosynthesis), Hubbard encouraged the use of amphetamines, recommending benzedrine in particular (DMSMH, p.363, p.389 in later editions; R&D1, pp.124, 305, 313; R&D4, p.37). Curiously, although Scientology sponsors Narconon and claims to be drug free, its best-selling publication says “Making one drug immoral and another taxable is a sample of the alcohol engram in society” (DMSMH, p.365). On the same page, Hubbard says that opium, marijuana and phenobarbital are all less dangerous than alcohol. There is no prohibition on Scientologists drinking, however.

On January 31, I replied to Atack and cced Cannane:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: January 31, 2014 7:20 AM
To: ‘jon atack’
Cc: [Steve Cannane]
Subject: RE: enquiry request

Dear Jon, Dear Steve:

I have dealt with the pinks and greys question a bit over the last couple of years, mainly because Tommy Davis and his coconspirators told Lawrence Wright and other persons at The New Yorker that I had forged Hubbard’s letter where he stated he was popping those pills.

Steve, do you want me to forward what I wrote or assembled earlier about this? Or what is your need?

My short conclusion was that Hubbard was referring to Darvon or Dextropropoxyphene.

Best,

Gerry

On January 31, Atack emailed:

From: jon atack
Sent: January 31, 2014 8:08 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: enquiry request

Hi Gerry,

I’d like to see your more extensive investigation. David Mayo told me that on her deathbed, Virginia Downsborough listed the pharmaceuticals on Hub’s shelf when she rescued him (‘Scientology is here to rescue you’) form Gran Canaria. But he hasn’t revealed this information to me (Virginia got as far as telling me that Hub was subsisting on a ‘shelf-full’ of pharmaceuticals, but became bashful when asked precisely what. In fact, she claimed not to know).

Trust all is well, and that you are planning to visit me in the nearness of time – the first two years of our arty biography of you have been entirely developed by me – so much for Godot!

love,

j

On February 2, Cannane emailed:

From: Steve Cannane
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 4:46 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: enquiry request

Dear Gerry, thanks so much for the email – I’d love to see what you’ve previously written about this. Am I able to quote from it? Or is it background only?  I thought Hubbard was more into amphetamines and booze than opioids…

Regards,

Steve

On February 12, Cannane emailed:

From: Steve Cannane
Sent: February 12, 2014 7:13 PM
To: ‘gerry@gerryarmstrong.org’
Subject: FW: enquiry request

Dear Gerry,

Just following up on this email. Am I able to have a look at what you assembled for The New Yorker?

Regards,

Steve

On February 14, I emailed Cannane and cced Atack:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: February 14, 2014 9:40 PM
To: ‘Steve Cannane’
Cc: [Jon Atack]
Subject: RE: enquiry request

Dear Steve:

Following are three emails dated January 20 and 26 and February 4, 2011 to Katia Bachko, a New Yorker fact checker, and Lawrence Wright.

I included the complete emails so you can see the context in which I wrote about Hubbard’s pinks and greys comment during his Wall of Fire period. No dark night of the soul for Ron, no abyss. For Ron a flaming wall of fire.

I am not, as Jon jokes, the world’s leading expert on pinks and greys.

Hugh Urban doubtlessly asked me about the reference in 2010 because of mentions in Bent Corydon’s and Jon’s Hubbard biographies.

The New Yorker asked me about the reference because the Scientologists were telling Lawrence Wright that I forged, and disseminated, Hubbard’s letter to Mary Sue Hubbard in which, as I recall, he wrote that he was drinking rum and popping pinks and greys.

I am the world’s leading expert on my alleged forgery of the pinks and greys letter. I am guessing that you are not so much interested in chasing down the forgery charge, but what was going through Hubbard’s mind when he tripped through the wall of fire.

I probably last read the letter in 1982, and it was not referred to in my 1984 trial. During the time I possessed Hubbard’s archive, 1980-81, I got the idea that when Hubbard wrote “pinks and greys” in 1967, he had in mind two-toned caps. I already had an awareness of two-toned narcotic capsules in the 1960’s. There was so much Darvon around that I had probably seen pink and grey caps before I got into Scientology. Then sometime after leaving, I saw some pink and grey Darvon caps, learned about their availability in the 1960’s and just thought they were what Hubbard was talking about.

Maybe he was talking about pink pills and grey pills, I don’t know. And who knows how many pinks pills and grey pills were being sold around the world, and how indicated they were with rum.

I hope this helps. I’ve written Tommy Davis some letters about the forgery BS. But here are the New Yorker emails.

Best regards,

Gerry Armstrong
[address]

-A-

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:55 PM
To: ‘Katia Bachko’
Cc: ‘Lawrence Wright’
Subject: RE: Thank you!

Hi Katia:

Thanks. Images for the two Ability Magazines I think you’re looking for are attached. Will this do for your purposes? I do not have hard copies that I can easily put my hands on, but if necessary I’ll try.

Here are items I said I’d send you links for:

1. The Breckenridge Decision, filed June 22, 1984 after trial in LA Superior Court in the first Scientology v. Armstrong case:  http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/283.php

Image of the decision: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/ga/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/breckenridge-decision1.pdf

This became the judgment in the case, and was affirmed on appeal in 1991:  http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/3112.php

The Appendix to the LA Court’s Decision contains the history that leads to Scientology suing me and the provenance of the subject documents:

From his extensive knowledge of the covert and intelligence operations carried out by the Church of Scientology of California against its enemies (suppressive persons), Defendant Armstrong became terrified and feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger, and he also feared he would be the target of costly and harassing lawsuits.

In addition, Mr. Garrison became afraid for the security of the documents and believed that the intelligence network of the Church of Scientology would break and enter his home to retrieve them. Thus, Defendant Armstrong made copies of certain documents for Mr. Garrison and maintained them in a separate location.

It was thereafter, in the summer of 1982, that Defendant Armstrong asked Mr. Garrison for copies of documents to use in his defense and sent the documents to his attorneys, Michael Flynn and Contos & Bunch.

2. Scientology’s injunction against me filed October 17, 1995 in the fourth Scientology v. Armstrong case:  http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a4/2623.php
Image of the injunction: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/ga/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/injunction-1995-10-17.pdf

3. This site deals with the injunction’s “in concert” issue, and proposes to organize the class of persons acting in concert with me: http://inconcert.xenu.ca/

By making it possible for me to respond to Scientology’s statements about me, you, and of course the New Yorker, are acting in concert with me; for which I thank all of you very much.

4. Scientology’s charge that I had forged the 1967 letter Hubbard wrote to his wife Mary Sue, in which he mentioned drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys, is brand new to me, and both bizarre and disturbing. I can kind of see why Scientology would take that position at this point, because the phrase has gone semi-viral. I just did this search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22popping+pinks+and+greys%22&hl=en&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=

A Ohio State University Professor of Religious Studies Hugh Urban asked me last summer about the pinks and greys and the letter, and I’ll copy the part of my e-mail to him that relates to this issue:

The only copy of the letter that I know of would be inside Scientology. There’s no way of knowing with absolute certainty what Hubbard meant, but I’ve for some time thought “pinks and grays” are Darvon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextropropoxyphene

Darvon had been around since the 1950’s. See image: http://www.everydayhealth.com/drugs/images/multum/Darvon%20Compound%2065.jpg

In his letter to Mary Sue, he wrote about drinking rum along with popping pinks and grays. It’s likely he was self-medicating to produce the necessary manic state.

He wrote that in 1938 he stayed up for 4 days straight drinking beer while he cranked out Excalibur. And the thesis for Excalibur came to him, he claimed, while under nitrous oxide for a tooth extraction.

This is from Ron’s Journal 67:

Tape #6709 C2

And this is a tape of 20 September 1967, made on an island in the sea, and it is addressed to all staff and students of Scientology organizations.

[…]

And so I decided that I had better go out and contact an exact point or two, not so much for me, but where things had happened in ages past which were really the beginning of the demise — or were the demise for this civilization as it then existed. Without telling anyone about this – or what I intended to do – I went out and took my life in my hands, you might say, and brought the matter off. The mystery of this universe and this particular area of the universe has been – as far as its track is concerned – completely occluded. No one has ever been able to make any breakthrough and come off with it and know what happened. As a matter of fact, it is so occluded that, if anyone tried to penetrate it, as I’m sure many have, they died.

The material involved in this sector is so vicious that it is carefully arranged to kill anyone if he discovers the exact truth of it.

So in January and February of this year, I became very ill, almost lost this body, and somehow or another brought it off and obtained the material, and was able to live through it. I am very sure that I was the first one that ever did live through any attempt to attain that material. This material I’m talking about, of course, is very upper level material and you will forgive me if I don’t describe it to you in very broad detail because it’s very likely to make you sick, too.

[…]

It is quite aside from the point, but maybe a slight matter of interest, that all of this recent career has been relatively hard on this poor body. I have broken its back, broken its knee, and now have a broken arm because of the strenuousness of these particular adventures. One wonders, then, well, if he is in such good shape, then what is he doing breaking up these bodies? Well, that is the trouble! I have — I have a great difficulty in getting down to the small power level of a body and if suddenly – if something happens in its vicinity – I will suddenly move it or yank it in some direction, and it is very very difficult to keep it in any kind of condition. I’m keeping it alive because it is a symbol and because it is still needful and because it would be upsetting, at least to the wog side of the world, if a symbol of this body were to disappear.

Hubbard was a bit of a whiner, and invented a number of injuries and illnesses for himself over the years despite what he said in his Admissions.

People dislike cripples. You need never be a cripple. You have never done anything for which you need feel guilty. You never need punish yourself about anything. You are in wonderful glowing health. You never have accidents because you are prudent and poised.

You will live to be 200 years old, both because you are calm and because of modern discoveries to be made in your lifetime. [Ole Doc M]

[…]

When you tell people you are ill it has no effect upon your health. In the Veterans examination you will tell them how sick you are. You will look sick when you take it. You will return to health one hour after the examination and laugh at them.

No matter what lies you may tell others they have no physical effect on you of any kind. You never injure your health by saying it is bad. You cannot lie to yourself. Disgust not sympathy is generated in others by bad health. Injuries are not romantic. They are disgusting in you. You are a child of God. You are perfect. Health is a passport to friends. Women are not impressed by your injuries. Clear exuberant good health is your passport to their hearts. Adventure heroes may sound romantic when injured but it is really a bad comment on their expertness. The truly great adventurer is so expert he is never injured by anything. Dragging a wing is not romantic, it is silly. You will always be in wonderful health and well-being. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2000-03-11.html

It is nevertheless quite possible that in 1966-67 Hubbard really was ill, was in some discomfort, and did dose himself with a diet of Darvon and rum.

5. Attorney Ford Greene’s web site: http://www.fordgreene.com/
and contact data:

711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
[telephone]
[email]

I worked with Ford as his paralegal/sole office help in 1991-1995 and he represented me against Scientology during that period. He’s had some major cult cases in his career, got appropriately fair gamed, and he’s now the Mayor of San Anselmo!

I let him know that you might contact him.

6. Organization of United Renunciants section on my site: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/media/our/index.html
As mentioned, the idea is to peacefully move society off the money standard. Note the Marin IJ article: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/media/marin-independent-journal-1992-11-11.html
We talked about currency: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/media/our/present-currency.html

7. Also see this recent note that mentions Lawrence Wright’s article, Tommy Davis, pre-emptive black PR, and my nude newspaper posing activities: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/4805

8. Regarding the Armstrong Operation, I mentioned this declaration, which, upon re-reading now, remains a pretty good statement of what went on:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-1994-02-20.html

There are a bunch of related documents here: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/illegal-videotaping.html

And a whole page full of links to black PR and extralegal ops, with some info on “dead agent” you asked about: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/index.html

These are the best copies of the videos I’ve got:

Day One. Gerry meets with David Kluge: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/25

Day Two David Kluge Returns: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/24

Day Three Enter Mike Rinder: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/23

Day Four Mike Rinder returns: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/22

Because this matter involves document authenticity and accuracy, as well as litigation, could you please send me a scan of what documents relating to me Scientology provided New Yorker people, so that I can know for certain what I’m being asked to respond to.

Best for now,

Gerry Armstrong

[address]

 

From: Katia Bachko
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:23 AM
To: gerry…gerryarmstrong.org
Subject: Thank you!

Hi Gerry,
It was really nice to speak with you earlier. So, the issues of Ability that we’re looking for are Issue 81 from 1959, and March 1955. Will you let me know if you might have those in your possession, or could connect us with someone else who does? And, feel free to send as much material as possible regarding the other topics we covered.
Thanks again!
Katia
—
Katia Bachko
fact checker
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036

[telephone]

-B-

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:14 PM
To: ‘Katia Bachko’
Cc: Lawrence Wright
Subject: RE: Pinks and grays

Hi Katia:

I haven’t been able to find where it’s stated that the letter was admitted into evidence. If you could send me a link to such a reference it would be helpful.

The earliest published reference I can find is in Corydon’s Hubbard biography first published in 1987:

Armstrong, told me, among other things, of a letter from Hubbard

to his third wife Mary Sue when Hubbard was in Las Palmas during

1967 at the inception of the Sea Org. This letter is now in the custody

of the court. In it Hubbard tells his wife: “I’m drinking lots of rum

and popping pinks and greys.”

There was no discussion of the content of this letter at my 1984 trial that I’ve been able to find, and I’ve not been able to determine if it was admitted into evidence. It is most likely, from what Corydon wrote in his book in the 1980’s and from my memory, that the letter remained under seal in the custody of the LA Superior Court Clerk until the Hubbard documents were delivered to Scientology in December 1986.

Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard’s attorneys acknowledged correspondence between Hubbard and Mary Sue that was included in the sealed documents, and argued that this correspondence was private and privileged. But they never claimed that any of these materials were forgeries. These attorneys moved some of that correspondence into evidence themselves, but the documents are not identified well enough in the record for me to be able to determine if the pinks & greys letter was among them.

See, e.g., this discussion at p. 4662, when exhibits are being moved into evidence:

Six B’s is a letter to his wife, I guess.
MR. FLYNN: This letter, Your Honor, shows — it is reflective of six inches of letters of the same type downstairs. We took one letter.
It shows financial transactions between HEC and Mr. Hubbard; payments into Swiss accounts; the receipt of 10 percent of Church funds, all after his resignation.
And as I indicated, there is another six inches of similar type letters downstairs.

So here, my attorney Michael Flynn is identifying a letter (Ex, No. 500-BBBBBB) between Hubbard and Mary Sue as reflective of six inches of similar type letters downstairs. “Downstairs” refers to the Clerk’s office in the basement of the LA Superior Court where the bulk of the subject documents remained during the trial.

As far as I know, only Scientology possesses the pinks & greys letter, and it has never been made public. In that Scientology’s representatives are claiming the letter is forged, they should produce it. Good luck, huh.

I hope this helps.

Gerry

 

From: Katia Bachko
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:52 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Pinks and grays

Hi Gerry,
A quick question for you: I keep reading on the web that the ‘pinks and grays’ letter was supposedly admitted into evidence during some court proceedings. Do you know anything about that?
Thanks,
Katia
—
Katia Bachko
fact checker
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036

[telephone]

-C-

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:23 PM
To: Katia Bachko ([  ]); Lawrence Wright
Subject: More pinks & greys

Hi Katia, Hi Larry:

As I understand it, Scientology’s basic or key charge against me to The New Yorker, which I’ve been asked about a number of times in the past couple of weeks, is that I forged documents and inserted these forgeries into the documents that were delivered to Scientology from the office of the Clerk of the LA Superior Court at the time of the settlement of the Scientology v. Armstrong case in December 1986. The one such allegedly forged document that has been identified is the pinks-and-greys (p & g) letter from L. Ron Hubbard to Mary Sue Hubbard during the period when he was in Morocco and the Canaries supposedly developing OT III and starting the Sea Project.

To me it’s obvious that Scientology has the responsibility of producing these documents it claims are forgeries. The charge is serious enough to me that I will also communicate about it to Miscavige, et al. I would think they’d be more than anxious to provide The New Yorker with documents they say I forged. In fact, if Miscavige and his attorneys really believed I forged any of those documents, they would have long since tried to have me prosecuted for such a fraud, and certainly would have made the claim in earlier black PR and in legal proceedings.

Following are some facts and references to documents that support my denial of the forgery charge.

Corydon’s Messiah or Madman was published in 1987. This appears to be the earliest published mention of the p & g letter.

Armstrong, told me, among other things, of a letter from Hubbard to his third wife Mary Sue when Hubbard was in Las Palmas during 1967 at the inception of the Sea Org. This letter is now in the custody of the court. In it Hubbard tells his wife: “I’m drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.”

Miller’s Bare-Faced Messiah was published in 1987. He doesn’t mention the letter, and he had something better, an interview with Virginia Downsborough who was with Hubbard in Las Palmas.

‘We got the Enchanter on the ways in Las Palmas,’ said Downsborough, ‘and we had not been there very long before Ron turned up. Bill Robertson – another Scientologist – and myself went to the post office to post some letters and discovered a telegram there from Ron saying that he was arriving in Las Palmas almost at that minute and wanted to be met. We jumped into a taxi and got to the airport just in time to pick him up as he was coming through Customs. We found him a hotel in Las Palmas and next day I went back to see if he was all right, because he did not seem to be too well.

‘When I went in to his room there were drugs of all kinds everywhere. He seemed to be taking about sixty thousand different pills. I was appalled, particularly after listening to all his tirades against drugs and the medical profession. There was something very wrong with him, but I didn’t know what it was except that he was in a state of deep depression; he told me he didn’t have any more gains and he wanted to die. That’s what he said: “I want to die.”‘

It was important for Hubbard to be discovered in this dramatically debilitated condition at this time, for it would soon be announced to fellow Scientologists that he had completed ‘a research accomplishment of immense magnitude’ described, somewhat inscrutably, as the ‘Wall of Fire’. This was the OT3 (Operating Thetan Section Three) material, in which were contained ‘the secrets of a disaster which resulted in the decay of life as we know it in this sector of the galaxy’.[3] Hubbard, it was said, was the ‘first person in millions of years’ to map a precise route through the ‘Wall of Fire’. Having done so, his OT power had been increased to such an extent that he was at grave risk of accidental injury to his body; indeed, he had broken his back, a knee and an arm during the course of his research.

Virginia Downsborough did not observe any broken limbs, but recognized that Ron needed nursing. ‘I moved into an adjoining room in the hotel to take care of him. He refused to eat the hotel food, so I got a little hotplate and cooked meals for him in the room, simple things, things that he liked. My main concern was to try and get him off all the pills he was on and persuade him that there was still plenty for him to do. He was sleeping a lot and refused to get out of bed.

‘I don’t know what drugs he was taking – they certainly weren’t making him high – but I knew I had to get him over it. I discussed it with him and gradually took them away. He didn’t carry on about it. He had brought a great pile of unopened mail with him from Tangier, a lot of it from Mary Sue, and I got him to start reading her letters. After about three weeks he decided he would get out of bed and he started taking little walks and then he got interested in what was happening on the Enchanter and after that he was all right.’

I had never spoken to Downsborough and didn’t know of her knowledge of Hubbard’s drugs in Las Palmas until I read about it in Bare-Faced Messiah.

Atack’s A Piece of Blue Sky was published in 1990.

Hubbard had spent the last weeks of 1966 “researching” OT3 in North Africa. In a letter of the time, he admitted that he was taking drugs (“pinks and grays”) to assist his research.

Atack’s reference for this statement is:

16. Interview with Gerald Armstrong, East Grinstead, June 1984.

It’s likely that this interview with Atack was the earliest time I mentioned the p & g letter to any writer who later wrote about it.

The Scientology v. Armstrong trial ended June 8, 1984. The Breckenridge decision is June 20, and the same day I flew to London to testify in the B & G Wards case. While in the UK, I met Atack and spent some time talking with him. He’s an ex-Scientologist, and smart guy, and we had lots to talk about. This would have been when the p & g letter was fresh in my mind.

I met Corydon, I believe, before the 1984 trial, and he attended a number of days of the trial. He lived in Riverside, CA, which is about 50 miles from LA. We communicated a number of times about many subjects during that period and afterward. I think, however, that the p & g letter would have come up in our conversations, and Corydon would have recorded or noted my language, after he began his research and interviews for his book.

During that period, I was in Boston, working for attorney Mike Flynn. I was there from September 1985 to January 1987. Bent came out to Boston and stayed with me for a few days in 1986. He spent a lot of time talking to me, and also interviewed Sara Northrup on that trip.

I also met Miller in Boston in 1986 and spent several hours talking with him over two days.

During the years the documents were under seal, 1982 through 1986, Scientology had access to them at any time the Court House was open, and Scientology inventoried all the Armstrong documents. At no time during that period did Scientology claim that it found any forged or even possibly forged documents.

Please see the set of five affidavits executed by Scientology representative Kenneth Long in October 1987 that were filed in the Scientology v. Miller case in the UK.

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/other-sworn-testimony.html

Scroll down to “Long.”

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/affi-long-1987-10-05-1.html

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/affi-long-1987-10-05-2.html

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/affi-long-1987-10-05-3.html

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/affi-long-1987-10-07-4.html

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/affi-long-1987-10-08-5.html

There are also links to images of these affidavits at the bottom of each document.

Long accuses me of violating court sealing orders by retaining possession of and disseminating certain documents, which I didn’t, and supports his accusation with his logic. But there is no mention in this in any of the Long affidavits that I had forged any of the documents that had been used at trial or remained sealed in the LA Superior Court Clerk’s office.

It should be understood that while Scientology was filing these affidavits in court in the UK, the cult also considered that I was silenced by contract and not permitted to respond to clear my name. In fact, I was threatened with enforcement of the contract during the Miller proceeding if I talked to Miller or his publisher’s attorneys.

The affidavits describe the security actions Long and Scientology took with the Armstrong documents, which Long personally inventoried. Scientology went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that what it’s now claiming happened couldn’t happen. See, e.g.,
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/affi-long-1987-10-05-2.html

3. I have been deeply involved in the litigation of the case of {Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue} {Hubbard v. Gerald Armstrong}, Los Angeles Superior Court case number C 420153, since the inception of that litigation on August 2, 1982. During the course of my participation in that litigation, I personally inventoried the materials surrendered pursuant to court order to the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court in September 1982 by Gerald Armstrong and his counsel. I also attended almost every deposition and/or pre-trial proceeding held in that case, and was present as an assistant to counsel throughout each day of the trial proceedings in May and June, 1984.

[…]

[Para. 9] Between the end of trial on June 8, 1984, and the issuance of the temporary stay on June 25, 1984, I caused a watch to be maintained over the area in the courthouse wherein the trial exhibits were stored to ensure that no one, other than trial court personnel, had access to said materials. Additionally, I later personally confirmed with Ms. Rosie Hart, the clerk for the Honorable Paul Breckenridge Jr., the trial judge for the Church’s case against Mr. Armstrong, that none of the trial exhibits were made available to anyone at any time prior to the issuance of the temporary stay order of June 25, 1984.

[…]

[Para. 11] Thereafter, no further public inspection of the trial exhibits was ever allowed by the court, and I have personally confirmed with the court personnel responsible for the caretaking of the exhibits that absolutely no inspection or copying of the trial exhibits was allowed. The final order, which maintained the seal on the trial exhibits until they were returned to the Church in December 1986, is also attached to my previous Affidavit in Exhibit “KDL 19.”

And, e.g., http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/affi-long-1987-10-07-4.html

6. After the Church brought suit against Mr. Armstrong, a Temporary Restraining Order was issued on August 24, 1982. Pursuant to that Order, Mr. Armstrong and his counsel surrendered to the Clerk of the Court approximately 10,000 documents contained in five boxes. I inventoried all of the surrendered materials immediately upon their arrival with the court. These documents were placed under seal and then maintained under seal thereafter by the Clerk pursuant to the preliminary injunction issued on September 24, 1982. From this point onward, all such documents were to be only in the possession of the court.

[…]

10. In reviewing Exhibit “KDL 34” attached hereto, the Court will no doubt note what appear to be “windows,” or gaps between the vacating of one order and the issuance of the next. These “windows” are far more apparent than they were real. To begin with, I maintained, along with my staff, a daily check with each court in which a temporary stay order was pending in order to ensure that I learned the minute a ruling was issued. So before the trial court received any order vacating a sealing order, the Church obtained another order sealing them up again. In actuality, it took 3-5 days for the trial court to receive a vacating order from the Higher Court and before recript I would personally, hand deliver a new stay order. In addition, I also had my staff maintain a watch over the area of the court where these documents were kept during each so called “window” period and no one viewed and/or copied the materials.

[…]

12. Following the issuance of the “Roes” order on December 20, 1984, the 178 trial exhibits were never again unsealed. These 178 trial exhibits, the other tiral exhibits which had been left sealed throughout, and the 9,000 documents nver entered into the trial, were then returned to the Church in December 1986.

Please also see this declaration I executed March 15, 1990 and filed in the appeal Scientology had taken from the 1984 Breckenridge decision: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/2149.php

Particularly, see paras. 20 – 39.

Also see my declaration executed December 25, 1990 and filed in the same Armstrong I appeal

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/2173.php

Note particularly, paras. 17 – 20, which deal with Long’s false charges that I violated court orders.

Then see this declaration executed by Long March 26, 1990 and filed in the Armstrong I appeal:

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/2167.php

Ken Long inventoried the subject Armstrong documents while they were in the possession of the LA Superior Court Clerk, and obviously checked these documents against his inventory, or could/should have checked them against his inventory, to come up with the facts he alleges in his affidavits filed in Scientology v. Miller.

The Long affidavits’ false charges against me of violating court orders were instrumental in bringing me back into public opposition to Scientology following the December 1986 “settlement.”

Maybe before The New Yorker prints, you could ask Scientology/Davis/Miscavige/et al. to be able to interview Ken Long on his knowledge of what was contained in the Armstrong documents, his inventory, etc., to get to the bottom of the narrow and apparently pivotal issue and charge that I had forged some of those documents, specifically the pinks-and-greys letter.

Best regards,

Gerry

On February 15, I received an email from Atack:

From: jon atack
Sent: February 15, 2014 3:43 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: enquiry request

Thanks Gerry. David told me a year ago that Virginia D had told him the contents of the famous OT3 drug shelf on her deathbed. But he didn’t remember, and my attempts to remind him have fallen on stony ground. If you are in touch with him, he might be willing to tell you. He did say that they were psychiatric drugs and that he would take contra-indicated medicines (Nibs said that he used to give uppers and downers to groupies as a date rape drug, but we all know how reliable Nibs is). I imagine he was taking speed with the Darvol.

love (and to Caroline),

On February 17, I replied to Atack and cced Cannane:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: February 17, 2014 8:25 AM
To: ‘jon atack’
Cc: [Cannane]
Subject: RE: enquiry request

Hi Jon:

I don’t think I’m close enough to David Mayo to question him to get an ancient third hand memory of old mother Hubbard’s drug cupboard.

I didn’t mention to Steve, and it isn’t in what I sent to the New Yorker, because their interest was in the alleged forgery of the pinks and greys letter, but it’s fairly common knowledge that Hubbard was dosing himself with testosterone. It might have been his drug of choice among other drugs of choice, but testosterone was in his drug diet as early as the 1940’s and well past his wall of fire incident in the 1960’s. I think he sought the aggression and swinish suspicion it could give him, and didn’t interpret his paranoia as paranoia.

Gerry

On February 17 I received an email from Cannane who cced Atack:

From: Steve Cannane
Sent: February 17, 2014 5:14 PM
To: ‘Gerry Armstrong’
Cc: [Jon Atack]
Subject: RE: enquiry request

Dear Gerry,

Thanks very much for all of this, a great help. That is some very thorough referencing.  Yes, I was more interested in what Hubbard was on at the time, than the cult’s allegations.

You both may be interested to know I just tracked down an 82 year old former private eye living in the Australian outback, who in 1968 spied on the then emerging newspaper publisher Rupert Murdoch and 12 Australian parliamentarians. No wonder Murdoch called them a creepy evil cult recently.

The private eye played double agent and fed information back to Murdoch and the politicians. And he’s kept his affidavit from the time detailing his work for the cult…. A researcher’s dream!

Thanks again.

Best,

Steve

by

Fair Game: more telling untold stories

On October 24, 2016, I emailed a letter to HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty Ltd and Steve Cannane to complain about how he dealt with me in Fair Game: the Incredible Untold Story of Scientology in Australia. I identified fact errors and  defamatory statements about me, and I included a number of fact errors and spelling or semantic mistakes that are not directly related to me, but which caught my eye in a quick read through the book. On November 7, 2016, I posted my complaint letter and an explanatory note: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/speaking-up-about-fair-game/

On December 17, 2016, I received a response from Cannane to my October 24, 2016 letter:

From: Steve Cannane [mailto:[  ]
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 10:01 AM
To: gerry@gerryarmstrong.org
Subject: responses

Gerry,

Sorry it has taken a while to get back to you. I have been very busy with work. It also took me a while to go through your list and check my sources.

I was a bit surprised you sent that email to my publisher given we were already corresponding about proposed corrections that you were planning to send me. I can understand you contacting them afterwards if you’re weren’t happy with the changes I was planning to make, but beforehand seems a bit much.

Also the tone of your email was pretty mean spirited Gerry. It seemed like you were trying to undermine my credibility to my publisher because I didn’t get you to fact check the book.  You couldn’t even find a positive thing to say about the book! Even though I uncovered new documents, spoke to people who hadn’t gone on the record before and revealed stories that you didn’t even know despite your extensive knowledge.

I did show the book, or passages of the book, to a select few people.  I did not think to show it to you, because to be honest, I don’t know you. I met you at Toronto and briefly corresponded with you over email. I couldn’t risk letting any of it get out pre-publication as you would understand. Your actions since tell me I made the right decision. What you publish on your website shows me you lack discretion. I could only afford to show it to people I could trust.

The idea you put forward in your email that I am “forwarding the Scientologists’ black PR” is absurd, and undermines the credibility of your criticisms of the book. The way you put it in your email it’s as if the two people who I did trust to pre-read my book are somehow agents of this black PR. This is crazy talk.

Gerry, I have no idea what it’s like to walk in your shoes and to have been targeted in the awful way that you have been. But can I suggest you step back and try and see that not everyone has evil intentions against you? Can you try and realise that not everyone sees the perceived slights that you do?

Where I have made mistakes, I will correct them, and I thank you for pointing them out. Much of what you have listed in your email is either contestable or your opinion. I have responded to your list with some notes below.

A – You are right Gerry, a spelling mistake by me. I will get it corrected.

B – Why are you making this passage about yourself Gerry? Your story is a minor part of the book. What I am referring to here is the people whose stories I was telling that related to allegations of abuse and were happy to have them tested. What you say does not disprove the point I am making here.

C – I will check this with the people I have spoken to who were on the RPF in Australia and if you are right I will correct it.

D – This is an impressive list of hot and humid climates that Hubbard visited. But how do they compare to Brisbane? I have been in England for 8 months and I can tell you I am not used to the cold.  I was brought up in a hot climate and doubt I will ever get used to it. I don’t think that was an unfair thing for me to write.

E – If the Polk was a transport ship taking him to the Philippines isn’t he still serving on it?  I don’t see what is wrong here.

F – Did the YP-422 see active duty under Hubbard’s command? I am happy to correct this if I am wrong.

Yes I wrote that Hubbard lost command after the Cape Lookout incident and I was careful not to draw a direct causal link, in case there were other factors at play, but you seem to be sure that it was not because of this. If so why did he lose command? If you are telling me it wasn’t because of the incident, then that suggests you know why.

Re the magnetic deposit, I’m not sure how you say that was “probably wrong”. Both Owen and Miller – good sources – say the implication was clear from Fletcher’s report that the PC-815 had fought a two-day battle with a magnetic deposit. Why would Fletcher mention the magnetic deposit in the context of his view that there was no submarine in the area, if he was not suggesting this?  Jon Atack reaches the same conclusion here http://tonyortega.org/2016/09/10/laying-to-rest-the-obfuscations-of-l-fletcher-prouty-scientologys-conspiracist-for-hire/

Laying to rest the obfuscations of L. Fletcher Prouty …

tonyortega.org

Jon Atack is the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, one of the very best books on L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. He has a new edition of the book for sale, and for more …

I consider Atack, Miller and Owen to be excellent sources.

G — I am not sure what your point is here

H — Prouty was named as Hubbard’s authorised biographer in the Sunday Times in November 1987
https://whyweprotest.net/threads/the-strange-case-of-jan-grieve-einar-cynewulf.108622/

It’s listed on Amazon with an ISBN number – though I believe never published.
Publisher: Bridge Pubns (Aug. 1990)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 088404274X
ISBN-13: 978-0884042747

I — Sounds weird? That’s your opinion Gerry. The main point here is that Hubbard wrote the statement for the Sunday Times that said he broke up black magic in the US. It’s not the case that is relevant here, it’s that he wrote it! You seem to be making this about yourself again. Jon’s book is a completely legitimate source for this.

You may be right that the notes have inconsistencies, but that does not mean they are wrong. It’s more highly footnoted than most Scientology books. They are there as a guide for people to find the evidence themselves, and they can from what I have put in my end notes. I am a journalist, not an academic. I’d rather the book be out there and people reading it, than me spending another 6 months finessing the endnotes so they are consistent.

J — If the case went to trial in 1984, I don’t have a problem with calling it the 1984 court case. That’s when it was in court wasn’t it?  You obviously have a different view on this.

K — Gerry I don’t read this implication at all. The important fact was you were a member of the Sea Org, so dedicated to Scientology and Hubbard, but you fell out of favour with the hierarchy when you wrote the report.

If it’s a case of reports rather than a report, I am happy to add an s.

‘Fell out of favour’ may not in your mind adequately summarise what happened to you. But it’s not wrong. I had to quickly summarise your role. This page is about the Affirmations, the chapter is about Hubbard and his war record, do you think I really should get bogged down in the minutiae of your story? Or press on and tell the reader about Hubbard?

Isn’t ‘contradiction’ correct? Weren’t you showing the differences between the truth and reality? By one dictionary definition, a contradiction is ‘an assertion of the contrary or the opposite’. Isn’t that accurate?

L — I don’t see the implication that you see in this and I think you’re going completely over the top in comparing it to black propaganda attacks from Scientologists. I don’t run the argument that you stole the documents – on the contrary I mention that you were unsuccessfully sued – which suggests doesn’t it, that you didn’t steal them? How could this sentence create the false impression you say it does? I don’t say you sent the documents to your lawyer because you fell out of favour with the Scientology hierarchy.

This passage in my book is about Hubbard and the Affirmations. If I go into the nitty gritty of your court case as you lay it out in the email, it becomes about you and your case, which is not the story I am telling. You must understand I am using shorthand here to describe in part what happened.

I understand that you would be sensitive to how this chain of events was laid out. If you think there’s a way I can better express it in a sentence or two, by altering certain words or including certain information, let me know and I will consider it.

I take your point re “what the church saw” and that maybe ‘what it claimed’ would have be better, but really this seems a bit pedantic. The key point once again was that they ‘unsuccessfully sued’.  You were vindicated!! Do you really think the reader, having read about all the other underhand and illegal activities the Church of Scientology was up to, then sees you were ‘unsuccessfully sued’ by them would somehow think that you had acted inappropriately? It defies logic Gerry. They would understand exactly what they were up to – they were using the legal system to try and intimidate and punish you. How can you not see this?

M — Re the issue of url’s I include some but not others, I noticed in my research that sometimes urls become obsolete after a certain amount of time. Yes I’m guilty of inconsistency with putting some urls and not others but I’m sure if people want to find them, they can.

N — Re you being an archivist for Hubbard or Scientology, I think its fair to say both. The Church of Scientology paid you didn’t they?

0 – you are right, I will correct this

P —  Re the RPF I will change this so it does not look like you were a member of the RPF at the time

Re being named as a source of leads and information. This does not make it sound like you were a fact checker at all. It is what it is.  You were named as one of 19 former Scientologists who gave me leads and information. This is what you did Gerry and I was grateful for the information you gave me.  Jon is the person I thank in the book for fact checking. You are once again seeing things that are not there.

Q — Miller in Bare Faced Messiah says they were uniformed. I am happy to check with people who were in Clearwater at the time to see if this was true.

R — Maybe you are right about this Gerry, perhaps I should’ve written ‘said’, or ‘wrote’ rather than ‘believed’.

S — I don’t recall where I got that information on DeSapio, if I had cited every single source for every single piece of information, the book would be the size of a piano.

T – you are right I will correct the spelling of Wolfe.

U – Maybe I should’ve put anti-social personalities in inverted commas – however it is strongly implied in this sentence that this is Hubbard’s belief. I am not sure why you have to bring Nazi comparisons into this Gerry, it doesn’t really do your argument any credit.

V — I will look this up, but if I am wrong I am happy to amend.

W — Terri told me this, when I checked with her she said “in a nutshell it was for defending him”. In your notes it says you were joined by Terri on the last couple of days of you being locked up – does this mean that what she said is right? Or were you not on the RPF at the time?

X — yes you are right I will insert that word.

Y — I can see plenty of references to “Bay area” – while what you say may be the more usual term, I don’t think what I have written is wrong.

Z — Yes I have spelt this name wrong, I will correct it.

AA, BB, and CC I will check all these with the legal team

DD — Jon Atack told me that the GO was autonomous from the Church of Scientology you obviously disagree.

regards,

Steve

On December 18, I emailed Cannane and cced HarperCollins:

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Date: Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 21:15
To: Steve Cannane <[  ] >
Cc: [HarperCollins]
Subject: RE: responses

Dear Steve:

Thank you for your response to my piece.

I sent it to your publisher not to undermine your credibility with HarperCollins, but because of the company’s responsibility as publisher. I would think your publisher would want to do what it sensibly can to save your credibility or reinforce it. I have a legitimate relationship with both HarperCollins and you.

It will take some time to prepare a reply to your various points that to me remain unresolved. But for now, can you please identify whatever it is that is published on my website that you say shows you that I lack discretion.

Discretion is an issue in all journalism, and here actions and inactions are being pinned to its claimed absence.

Your publisher could also get the wrong idea you’re proffering, that I communicated because you didn’t get me to fact check the book. There is no such suggestion in what I wrote, and it was not in any way a function or duty I wanted, or regretted not having.

It is, however, regrettable that you did not ask me to fact check the passages about me. I am the wrong person to fact check your book. I am the right person to fact check your facts about me.

It is true that when I read through the book I noted some misspellings, typos and fact errors that an editor or fact checker might have caught, and that many of these did not relate directly to me or my history. In fact, I noted in my October 24 letter to HarperCollins: “Some items concern me personally, some concern L. Ron Hubbard’s or Scientology’s history, and some items are just typos or similar that caught my eye and I thought the publisher and the author would appreciate knowing about.” I only noted errors that did not concern me because they appeared to me when reading the book to comment on errors that did concern me.

The reason you give for not sending me the passages about me to check — that I might therefore publish the book you weren’t sending me, or you couldn’t risk letting any of it get out pre-publication — does not wash journalistically. Your actual fact checkers also never checked your facts about me with me.

I will deal with the journalistic question of not checking facts because the facts being fact-checked might get out when I deal with the rest of your response. For now, as I mentioned, I would be grateful if you would point me to what on my site, or sites, shows you that I lack discretion. That information would facilitate a fuller, more clarifying reply from me.

Regards,

Gerry

On December 19, I received a reply email from Cannane:

From: Steve Cannane [mailto:[  ]
Sent: December 19, 2016 5:17 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: responses

Hi Gerry,

What I am talking about re discretion is publishing people’s email correspondence online.

Now I’m not getting all high and mighty about this, I have published people’s emails without their consent when I have believed there has been a public interest in doing so. All of us have our own boundaries where we draw the line on this. I may be wrong but you seem to be pretty liberal when it comes to disclosing other people’s emails.  When it came to trusting people pre publication I had to be sure about the people I could show it to.  I trusted Tony and Jon. That was my judgement call and I think it was a good one.

To back up my point once again you copy your response (and therefore my email) on to my publisher.  As far as I’m concerned this was personal correspondence between you and I. This shows a lack of discretion. It doesn’t particularly bother me  because I stand by what I have said, but it’s just not the done thing.

As I said to before, I believed I was working from good sources on all the stories in my book. If I have got anything wrong, I am happy  to correct it. I will deal with that after I get your responses.

Regards,

Steve

On December 19, I emailed Cannane and cced HarperCollins:

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Date: Monday, 19 December 2016 at 21:47
To: Steve Cannane <[  ] >
Cc: [HarperCollins]
Subject: RE: responses

Dear Steve:

Again, I never asked to see your book pre-publication, nor did I even think of fact-checking your book. I did not want to be your fact checker. If done conscientiously, fact-checking your book would have taken a lot of time and effort. I was not complaining about your not sending me your draft or manuscript. I was not even complaining that you didn’t check your facts about me with me. I complained that while not checking your facts about me with me, for whatever reason, you got facts about me wrong. Now, unfortunately, I can add complaints about fatuous excuses and browbeating.

It is true that you got some facts wrong that were not about me, and I noticed and noted some in my review. That does not mean or suggest, however, that I wanted to fact check your book or was fact checking your book.

Your claim is that you didn’t check your facts about me with me because you did not know me and did not trust me. Even if you actually didn’t know me, and even if I actually was untrustworthy, however, these are spurious reasons. It defies journalistic logic. People a journalist is writing about but doesn’t know should be people about and with whom he scrupulously checks his facts. A journalist can’t avoid checking with people he’s writing about because they might be untrustworthy. He still has to be fair to them. Assuming untrustworthiness also evidences a decisive bias from the outset. Now you’ve heaped on bias confirmation.

The facts are that you knew me, and you knew that my facts could be trusted. The trustworthiness of my facts is relevant. My trustworthiness regarding some risk that I might publish whatever you could have sent me to fact check is not relevant. The “risk” has never been identified, and, from all information available, is invented.

You wrote that I would understand that you couldn’t risk letting any of it get out pre-publication, but that is not true. I do not understand; at least in the sense that I accept what you’re saying about risk.  It seems to me, if there really was such a risk – that if you checked your facts about me with me something might get out — you would not have to contrive the idea that I wanted to see or possess your book pre-publication, or that you would have to send me the whole book for me to be able to check the facts about me.

I would never have tried to control what you published; but you knew my facts were accurate enough and articulated well enough to at least merit an opportunity to provide them. After that, you could have still chosen to publish whatever you want, even untruths or faulty facts.

I am certain that you have communicated your opinions and fact claims about me to others. I can prove to everyone with our pre-publication email correspondence, Harper-Collins included, that you knew me, and knew my facts could be trusted. So you can see how such can become a matter of public interest.

Surely you would agree that I did not publish any of our pre-publication correspondence before you made your not knowing me and not trusting me your reasons for not checking your facts about me with me. The subject facts are published in a globally promoted and sold book by one of the world’s largest publishing companies.

There are a number of journalism questions that have developed from my relationship with you, which are matters of public interest and deserve analysis. For example, when does a journalist know a person he is writing about well enough to create an ethical requirement to check his facts about that person with that person? If the subject is available, of course, which I was.

Among the emails you say I disclosed on my site or sites, can you identify any that concern pre-publication fact-checking or other pre-publication matters, or that expose, disclose or even discuss a writer’s pre-publication manuscript, draft, book or article?

I asked if you could identify whatever it is that is published on my website that you say shows you that I lack discretion. You wrote that my lack of discretion is shown by my publishing people’s email correspondence online. Can you please identify what email correspondence you are referring to.

Although there is a personal component in the correspondence between you and me, from at least the point when you wrote about me and HarperCollins published about me a professional relationship was created. My communications to your publisher do not reveal indiscretion but do demonstrate a problem in our professional relationship. I don’t think you should say you stand by what you have said when you have already acknowledged errors in what you have said. I don’t believe that it’s just not the done thing for a person aggrieved by a publication to communicate to the publisher, to complain to the publisher, to look to the publisher for correction of errors. The publisher might be too big to give a fig, but it would not be indiscrete of an aggrieved person to communicate his grievances to that gargantuan publisher, as well as the publisher’s writer.

Regards,

Gerry

On December 21, 2016, I received an email from Cannane:

From: Steve Cannane [mailto: [  ]
Sent: December 21, 2016 5:11 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: responses

Hi Gerry,

I think we’ve both made our respective points clear to each other. I’m currently busy covering terrorism attacks in Europe and child sexual abuse and don’t have time to have a debate about the definition of discretion.

Come back to me with responses to my responses to your list and then I will tell you what alterations I am willing to make.

If I have any further questions I will them come back to you.

Regards,

Steve

Cannane and I have not corresponded since. There is a clear public interest in my relationship with him, his fact checkers Tony Ortega and Jon Atack, Cannane’s major Fair Game contributor Mike Rinder, HarperCollins, government entities and the Scientologists, and in good and fake investigative journalism, and other social or theological issues, which, for understanding’s sake, compels this matter’s and these emails’ publication.

Since Cannane says essentially that he didn’t trust me with what he was writing and would publish about me, and that he knew I could post email correspondence, and since he had emailed back and forth with me prior to publication, he should have been extra-careful to write and publish the truth and give me an opportunity to read and comment on what he was writing about me, rather than use his bogus mistrust to fudge facts, justify his poor journalism and protect an antisocial agenda.

by

Happy BC Day!

Happy BC Day everybody!

Glücklicher Britisch-Kolumbien-Tag!

Счастливый День Британской Колумбии!

¡Feliz día de la Columbia Británica!

ਸ਼ਾਨਦਾਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਟਿਸ਼ ਕੋਲੰਬੀਆ ਦਿਵਸ!

In 1974, when the British Columbia Legislature established BC Day, the first Monday in August, as a civic holiday, I was busy making ports safe for L. Ron Hubbard and his Flagship “Apollo.” From 1975 to 1997, I was living in the US, rarely got back to BC where I’d grown up and had family, and had no real awareness of BC Day.

In 1997, I escaped from the US, although I tried for the next couple of years to get back in. Caroline showed up in Chilliwack in 2001. Like me, she had been born and raised in BC, had left to live in the US in 1978, like me because of Scientology, she had returned to BC, like me because of Scientology, and like me she had no clue about what on earth or Teegeeack BC Day is.

We had to escape from BC in 2002 to Germany where we hid out from Scientology’s agents and built our websites, and in 2004 we returned to BC, where we have lived ever since, and gradually accepted BC Day for whatever it is. The day is celebrated with different names across “most” of Canada. In Guelph, with no apparent tip of the hat to Ayn Rand, it’s John Galt Day; in Oshawa, risibly enough, it’s McLaughlin Day; and in Ottawa, correctly enough, it’s Colonel By Day.

The first Monday in August is probably a good time for a holiday and a long weekend. It’s right in the Dog Days, so it’s kind of perfect for lying around on shady porches, dreaming of triumphal rabbit chases through flower fields, inactivities that can be stretched into weeks with no sweat. Actually, “Dog Days” comes from the ancient Greeks who observed the heliacal rising of Sirius, the “Dog Star” at the nose of Canis Major, which signaled the start of the hottest days of summer. The Germans have something even better than Dog Days, Sauregurkenzeit, the Sour Pickle Period, where for weeks by general agreement nothing is done and there is nothing to talk about. BC Day fits right in.

Vancouver sounds like it has capitalized on BC Day.1 But Chilliwack seems to have done, and plans to do, absolutely zippo.2

Never mind. Crochet artist, stealth patriot, and best wife imaginable, Caroline has poured her love of beautiful BC into these exquisite crocheted dogwood flower pins or brooches. Not that long ago she graced Canada Day.3

The Dogwood is BC’s provincial flower, and Caroline has been duplicating Dogwoods of various species on different occasions in the crochet medium for some years. One of her first full size creations:

I think I took one of these to Russia a few years ago, and successfully got it through the Сельское хозяйство, таможня, национальная безопасность и их водители такси. I have also worn her Dogwood boutonnieres, very unselfconsciously, when I’ve had to suit up, and I’ve given them away abroad and in BC.4

I remembered that my mother, who very recently passed away, had years ago acquired a few pieces of a Royal Albert Dogwood pattern, which I thought had long since been given away.5 It turns out, I discovered today, that my mom had given a cup and saucer to Caroline. What a BC Day!

La voici, ce matin, Caroline, avec une broche en cornouiller.

Our provincial tree is the Western Red Cedar, which I hunted as a logger before the cult got me. Our provincial bird is the Steller’s Jay, named after German naturalist and explorer Georg Wilhelm Steller. Our provincial fish is the Pacific Salmon. Our gemstone or mineral is jade. And our provincial mammal is, really, the Spirit Bear, which could be Caroline’s future crochet project.6

She has already done a Spirit Mouse and a Spirit Rat so a Spirit bear is definitely doable.

 

 

Notes