Dear Mr. Miscavige:
In a recent article “1950 Shades of Pinks and Greys: Was L. Ron Hubbard Drugged Out When He Developed OT III?” published by your academic collaborator Massimo Introvigne, as I’m sure you know, one of your other collaborators Ian Camacho made the claim that asking your organization or you or your organization juniors to produce a certain letter would create for you, et al. a “lose-lose scenario.”
Asking the Church of Scientology to produce a copy of the letter creates a lose-lose scenario, subtly shifting the burden of proof to the accused. If indeed authentic, then presenting such a letter would invite scorn on Hubbard and the church. If it produced a forged copy, then it could not prove that Armstrong created it as he could deny having forged it—after all, a forger would attempt to pass off a phony document as authentic to deceive others. If the church presents nothing—whether because it has something potentially damning or because nothing exists—then Armstrong and his allies can claim that the Church of Scientology has something to hide in this matter, just as they do now. 1
I have little doubt that Camacho’s claim is hogwash. I have to ask you anyway, however, because, of course, you run whatever Camacho is calling “the Church of Scientology.” I will also send this email to some of your juniors, and post it for ease of reference, so that everyone can see that you and your “Church of Scientology” have been asked.
Camacho wrote that he contacted “Bridge Publications representatives” for his article, and they were “unable to provide any new data.” Contacting Bridge reps about the subject letter is, of course, nuts. It is like contacting platoon reps to get the minutes of a Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting. Camacho should have contacted you, if he really wanted to know about the letter and what you had done with it.
There are actually two letters that Camacho is considering here. Presumably, asking you to produce, or have your juniors produce, either letter would create for all of you, this lose-lose scenario, whatever this is in Camacho’s mind. He isn’t clear. In any case, these are the two letters:
A. The letter L. Ron Hubbard wrote to his third wife Mary Sue from Las Palmas in 1967 in which he said he was “drinking rum and popping pinks and greys.”
B. The letter that Tommy Davis told Lawrence Wright and other New Yorker staff that I forged, which contains the same assertion, as if from Hubbard, that he was “drinking rum and popping pinks and greys.”
Letter A, of course, as you know, is, or was, real. It was in the set of Hubbard materials that were under seal from 1982 through 1986 in the first Scientology v. Armstrong case you filed against me, LA Superior Court No. C 420153. These materials, including this letter, were then delivered to your organization representatives in December 1986. What happened to the letter and the other Hubbard materials after you received them from the court, I do not know, but you know.
Letter B, as you know, never existed. Davis simply lied to Wright and the other New Yorker staff when he claimed I forged the letter, i.e., that I forged the real one in which Hubbard stated he was drinking rum and popping pinks and greys. I did not forge this letter, or any of the other letters Davis said I forged. You know this. Indeed you would have had Davis directed and drilled to tell this very lie.
As you know, Davis made his forgery accusation at a meeting in New York in September 2010 you had set up with The New Yorker to try to derail Wright’s article “The Apostate.” Jessica Feshbach, and some of your lawyers also were present.
According to Wright, The New Yorker had submitted 971 questions to you and your organizationists, and a major part of Davis, Feshbach and your lawyers’ response was to “dead agent” or black PR me. Falsely accusing me of forgery fit right into your New Yorker handling program, and your now forty-year black PR campaign targeting me.
According to Wright in his book Going Clear, Davis claimed that I forged many of the Hubbard documents in addition to his rum, pinks and greys letter. Wright obviously asked Davis to produce the forgeries because he wrote in Going Clear:
Davis charged that Armstrong had forged many of the documents that he later disseminated in order to discredit the church’s founder, although he produced no evidence to substantiate that allegation. (p. 342)
The only evidence that would substantiate Davis’s allegation is the documents that he claimed I forged.
Since Wright asked Davis, your representative, to produce the subject letter – forged or not – the lose-lose scenario Camacho postulates for you and your organizationists must already have been created. Naturally, I do not believe Camacho as he has proven himself to be a gargantuan liar. Accepting his claim in this matter, however, since you and your organizationists presented nothing in response to Wright’s request, it is obvious you have something to hide.
That you have something to hide is old news. You and your organizationists have had myriad things to hide for decades: lies, fraud, extortion, wrongful imprisonments, suppression of human rights, hate crimes, black PR, fair game, rapes, deaths, ad nauseum. And you can add to that list of unsavorinesses and crimes, the policy and practice of trying to hide them and silencing the people who would tell the truth about them. Your campaign to silence me is the classic example.
Camacho’s assertion that your presenting or providing Hubbard’s actual letter to Mrs. Hubbard would invite scorn on him and your organization is clearly ass-backward. Telling the truth about the letter, or proving it, would in fact reduce the scorn you pull in on Hubbard, on Scientology, on the Sea Org, and on yourself by lying about the letter or having Davis and others lie about it and by falsely accusing me of forging it. Producing the actual letter would even reduce the scorn Camacho and Introvigne are inviting by lying about the letter and falsely accusing me of forging it. The longer you, Davis, Camacho, Introvigne, and other knowledgeable Scientologists or Scientology collaborators continue your lie that I forged Hubbard’s letter and continue your attacks on me, the more scorn you pull in on yourselves. You are already known as the COB of Scorn. You pulled it in, and you should stop.
In any case, I am writing you at this time to ask you to produce or have produced Hubbard’s letter in which he wrote that he was drinking rum and popping pinks and greys. I am asking you to produce either the real Hubbard letter, or the one your representatives accuse me of forging. Camacho says that asking you to produce the letter, as I am asking you now, creates for you and your organizationists “a lose-lose scenario.” He implies by this that you have never been asked to produce the letter; otherwise the lose-lose scenario would already have been created. You, or your organization, or your organizationists have, of course, already been asked, and Camacho’s implication that you have not been asked is false. Nevertheless, to make it beyond any question that you have been asked, I am asking you now. I am asking you to please produce Hubbard’s letter or the letter you or your representatives say I forged.
PS: As you know, Davis also told Wright and The New Yorker staff at the September 2010 meeting that I had also forged the Hubbard document commonly known as the Affirmations. You know this too is a lie, and undoubtedly you had Davis directed and drilled to tell it. Now Introvigne has also published an article falsely claiming it is a forgery. I will write you separately about Hubbard’s Affirmations and Davis and Introvigne’s lies about this document.
cc: Ian Camacho
cc: Massimo Introvigne