 |
Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact
|
||
|
Cooper's Declaration |
||
|
|
||
|
While doing a search on PR Newswire through Nexis for Scientology-related articles, Diane Richardson and Keith Spurgeon, two Scientology critics, came upon an affidavit signed by Paulette Cooper that made no sense at all. In it, Cooper denounced her former counsel, Michael Flynn, right when he was in the best position to take the CoS down altogether. Her sudden settlement with the CoS was already a serious blow to Flynn's case and set a bad precedent, but her declaration made litigation against the CoS even more difficult for others and was potentially damaging for their cases.
Asked for the reason she made it on ARS, Paulette became very defensive and pretended that the clause of her settlement prevented her from discussing it, even though she said in another occasion that the clause of her settlement didn't include a gag order. Shortly later, she supposedly "unsubscribed" from ARS, and rather than address the issue publicly, engaged in a smear campaign against Diane through her mailing list. The reasons for Cooper's settlement and affidavit only started to make more sense for Diane and Keith when they ran into the Bast tapes.
|
|||
|
referen@neont.com (Diane Richardson) |
Sun, 09 Jun 1996 18:27:21 GMT |
||
|
Message-ID: <4pf5ph$qrf@clark.zippo.com> >In article <4pcgq3$h0v@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, Ceon Ramon <ceon@u.washington.edu> writes >>I haven't see Paulette Cooper betraying or implicating anyone. Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <dave@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote: >No, I think all the clams got out of her was a statement that her book "wasn't first-hand experience". They then misrepresented this as saying it "wasn't true", which is something else altogther. That's as far as it went. No, that's NOT as far as it went. You're referring to the original lawsuit the "Church" of Scientology[tm] filed against Paulette Cooper. Much later, after the FBI had seized documents from the CoS and made them publicly available, Paulette Cooper took on Michael Flynn as her attorney and *she* sued the "Church" of Scientology[tm]. She certainly had a valid case and had documents seized from the "Church" by the FBI as proof of her accusations. Michael Flynn had taken on a number of ex-Scns as clients. Lavenda Van Schaick was the first of these, but the number grew to somewhere around 50 all told. Among those clients was Gerry Armstrong, along with Paulette Cooper. It sure does seem to me, looking back on it, that Michael Flynn had the golden opportunity to "utterly destroy" the "Church" of Scientology[tm] at that point. Between Paulette Cooper's documentation and Gerry Armstrong's collection of LRH documents, it would appear that Flynn had Hubbard and his organization nailed. From the CoS viewpoint, it's no wonder that they made Flynn's life a living hell. He had, to all intents and purposes, the stuff that could blow apart the entire CoS web of lies, deceit, and dirty tricks. But then things started unravelling. People started bailing out of Flynn's campaign, firing him as their attorney and reaching private settlements with the CoS. I'm interested in finding out who started that stampede for the exits. As an aside, I believe that Gerry Armstrong was one of the last of Flynn's clients to abandon ship. By that time, it would appear that Flynn's "big guns" had already left and Flynn realized he no longer had an open and shut case against the cult. Flynn himself reached a settlement with the "Church" and he convinced Gerry Armstrong to do the same. Armstrong, of course, later regretted the settlement agreement he reached with the CoS and is still battling over the terms of the agreement. Diane Richardson |
|||
|
|||
|
referen@neont.com (Diane Richardson) |
Thu, 06 Jun 1996 22:21:26 GMT |
||
|
Message-ID: 4p7ma5$on@clark.zippo.com I should point out that the declaration Paulette Cooper swore out for the "Church" of Scientology[tm] was done *years* (perhaps as much as a decade) after the harassment ceased. We may choose to excuse Kim Baker's activity on insufferable pressure, but that certainly can't be Paulette Cooper's excuse. She settled out of court with the cult, signed over (for a second time) the rights to "The Scandal of Scientology," and most likely shafted a number of other litigants involved in the lawsuit at the time. I doubt if we'll ever hear the facts behind *that* story, however. Let me know if you'd like to see Paulette Cooper's declaration reposted here. I'll be glad to oblige. Diane Richardson |
|||
AFFIDAVIT OF PAULETTE COOPER
(State of New York, County of New York)
Paulette Cooper, being first duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:
-- I am Paulette Cooper, a resident of the City of New York, State of New York.
-- I have a long history of conflict with the Church of Scientology, and I have been involved in substantial litigation against the church between 1971 and earlier this year. All litigation between the church and me has been settled and terminated.
-- In 1978, one such lawsuit commenced between me and the Church of Scientology in the United States District Court for the Central District of California sitting in Los Angeles, Church of Scientology of California Inc. v. Paulette Cooper, Case No. 78-2053-RMT. While the church claimed that I had breached a prior settlement agreement with it, the principle focus of the lawsuit soon became my counterclaim for personal injuries against the church. I was represented in that case by Attorney John McNicholas. During the year 1980, Boston Attorney Michael J. Flynn convinced me that he should file on my behalf a lawsuit in Boston, Mass., against Scientology, alleging some of the matters that were the subject of my lawsuit pending in Los Angeles. I retained Attorney Flynn to file such a lawsuit in my behalf in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of Boston, et al., Civil Action No. 81-681-MC.
-- I allowed Mr. Flynn to file the Boston case, and replaced my counsel in Los Angeles with an attorney selected by Mr. Flynn, because Mr. Flynn explained to me that he had devised a strategy for quickly and easily winning my litigation against Scientology and collecting money on a judgment. He explained that his whole strategy was based upon conducting an attack against Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard by naming Mr. Hubbard as a defendant in my lawsuits. Mr. Flynn said that he believed that Mr. Hubbard would never appear in any of the lawsuits in which he was named, for any one of a number of possible reasons. Mr. Flynn told me that it was his belief that by approximately 1979, Mr. Hubbard had severed his ties with the church. The litigation, said Mr. Flynn, would be quickly terminated, either by obtaining a default judgment against Mr. Hubbard, or by having the Church of Scientology settle the litigation in order to protect Mr. Hubbard.
-- In pursuit of this strategy of winning by seeking default judgments, my attorney filed in my lawsuits sworn statements alleging that Mr. Hubbard was in control of Scientology's activities, and that he directed a campaign against me. However, I never had any real evidence or reason (other than the word of my lawyers) to believe that Mr. Hubbard was in control of the activities of the Church of Scientology, and my attorneys never presented me with any evidence that such was the case. It is clear to me, on the basis of my conversation with Mr. Flynn on this subject, that the allegations concerning Mr. Hubbard's control over day-to-day Scientology activities had no basis in fact, but were being made solely for strategic reasons in pursuit of a default judgment.
Paulette Cooper
Sworn to before me this 4th day of March, 1985.
Alda N. Boyrie, Notary Public
|
|||
|
paulettec@aol.com (Paulettec) |
8 Jun 1996 10:51:29 -0400 |
||
|
Message-ID: <4pc41h$1q0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> No, Diane you are wrong on several points. Although the Scientologists have recently released some alleged affidavit, while I don't remember signing that specific document, the statements were indeed made by me *in 1984* when a bar association complaint was filed against Michael Flynn, which believe me, I was all for. If I did indeed sign that affidavit, then I did it more than a decade ago as part of the final settlement and I'm not supposed to discuss that. And I don't know how you can say that Kim had "insufferable pressure" put against her to sign affidavits but that I didn't have that excuse (in 1984). I am not aware that Kim spent most of 15 years as SP#1 with a full contingent of B1 people constantly plotting to get her, and with daily dirty tricks against her; nor am I aware that Scientology ever had her arrested and indicted and that she had to spend 8 months and $28,000 fighting those charges alone; nor am I aware that she was deposed for 50 days, that 50 of her friends were deposed, that her elderly parents were repeatedly harassed, and that she had to defend 19 frivolous lawsuits against her all over the world on her own money. If I temporarily "broke" in 1984, what should be surprising was not that I did but that it didn't happen earlier. I also found your statement interesting that I turned over the rights to "The Scandal of Scientology" twice. That certainly is news to me. If I did it twice, that means that the second time wasn't valid. Hmmm. :-) And I resent your statement that I "most likely shafted a number of other litigants involved in"my lawsuits. I was the only one involved in my suit, and I believe that my settlement helped those on other suits who settled later. And no you will never hear the whole story of the settlement, as you well know, because I signed an agreement not to discuss it, as you well know. I am not going to get into a public spitting match with you or any other enemy of Scientology because I think if we're truly concerned about what Scientology is still doing to its critics, then we should avoid acting like the Scientologists and DAing and demeaning these critics ourselves. It would be best legally if this is the last I have to say about his whole issue, and those who truly want me to avoid going back to court with Scientology will respect this by ending this whole discussion, so I don't feel I have to defend myself by breaking the secrecy of the settlement agreement--to defend myself from someone on "our side" no less! Paulette Cooper |
|||
|
|||
|
referen@neont.com (Diane Richardson) |
Sun, 09 Jun 1996 01:58:36 GMT |
||
|
Message-ID: <4pdbqp$2j4@clark.zippo.com> paulettec@aol.com (Paulettec) wrote: >No, Diane you are wrong on several points. Although the Scientologists have recently released some alleged affidavit, while I don't remember signing that specific document, the statements were indeed made by me *in 1984* when a bar association complaint was filed against Michael Flynn, The affidavit wasn't released recently. It was located in a database search. I've never seen any Scientologists[tm] either post or mention this affidavit. >which believe me, I was all for. If I did indeed sign that affidavit, then I did it more than a decade ago as part of the final settlement and I'm not supposed to discuss that. Are you claiming that you *didn't* sign such an affidavit? If you did not, you certainly have cause to sue the CoS for libel, since at the time of your settlement, they issued it to newspapers across the country by means of the PR Newswire. It's still quite accessible, independent of the "Church," by accessing Nexis. >And I don't know how you can say that Kim had "insufferable pressure" put against her to sign affidavits but that I didn't have that excuse (in >1984). I am not aware that Kim spent most of 15 years as SP#1 with a full >contingent of B1 people constantly plotting to get her, and with daily dirty tricks against her; nor am I aware that Scientology ever had her arrested and indicted and that she had to spend 8 months and $28,000 fighting those charges alone; nor am I aware that she was deposed for 50 days, that 50 of her friends were deposed, that her elderly parents were repeatedly harassed, and that she had to defend 19 frivolous lawsuits against her all over the world on her own money. If I temporarily "broke"in 1984, what should be surprising was not that I did but that it didn't happen earlier. Was the CoS "constantly plotting to get" you at the time you signed that affidavit? It appears that their dirty tricks against you ended *years* before you signed that affidavit. I'm still incredibly curious to find out why you never bothered to file charges against CoS operatives for the dirty tricks they pulled against you. You had incontestable proof that such tricks were pulled from the files seized during the FBI raid. Why didn't you prosecute? >I also found your statement interesting that I turned over the rights to "The Scandal of Scientology" twice. That certainly is news to me. If I did it twice, that means that the second time wasn't valid. Hmmm. :-) Ron Newman was the source of this information. If it is incorrect, it is because he misinformed me. He was telling me what you had told him. Perhaps you and he should clear up that misunderstanding. >And I resent your statement that I "most likely shafted a number of other litigants involved in"my lawsuits. I was the only one involved in my suit, and I believe that my settlement helped those on other suits who settled later. Really? Like Lavenda Van Schaick? David Mayo? >And no you will never hear the whole story of the settlement, as you well know, because I signed an agreement not to discuss it, as you well know. No, I do *not* well know. You have informed us *in public* that you never signed a nondisclosure agreement with the cult. Perhaps you'd like to check out the FAQ you wrote and posted to this newsgroup. >I am not going to get into a public spitting match with you or any other enemy of Scientology because I think if we're truly concerned about what Scientology is still doing to its critics, then we should avoid acting like the Scientologists and DAing and demeaning these critics ourselves. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what's going on here. There certainly appears to be critics amongst us who do not share the same fsdesire to learn what *really* happened in past events. The "Church" of Scientology[tm] has learned that sugar-coating a version of the "truth" does not work well on alt.religion.scientology. Perhaps it's time that a few critics learn the same lesson. >It would be best legally if this is the last I have to say about his whole issue, and those who truly want me to avoid going back to court with Scientology will respect this by ending this whole discussion, so I don't feel I have to defend myself by breaking the secrecy of the settlement agreement--to defend myself from someone on "our side" no less! I have signed no legal agreements with either the "Church" of Scientology[tm] or you, Ms. Cooper, so don't expect my questions to disappear. I'm just doing what I've always done here -- trying to learn the truth behind the lies. Diane Richardson |
|||
|
referen@neont.com (Diane Richardson) |
Sun, 09 Jun 1996 05:08:28 GMT |
|
Message-ID: 4pdmuu$6mo@clark.zippo.com We all know that L. Ron Hubbard was running the church back then. Paulette Cooper knew that. Michael Flynn knew that as well. It would appear to me that Paulette Cooper was willing to falsely swear under oath to something that she knew was a lie. Diane Richardson |
|
|
referen@neont.com (Diane Richardson) |
13 Jul 1996 00:00:00 GMT |
|
Subject: Re: Hubbard as Managing Agent of the CoS >In article <3f7a66eb46@holsoft.demon.co.uk>, Sister Clara <clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk> writes >>But one thing I continue to find interesting. It has been put forward as a proposition that Paulette's affidavit blew away the cases of her fellow litigants. I still do not understand why this one document should have the power to do that. Sherilyn <Sherilyn@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote: >I agree with you completely on this point. I do not believe that the document had the power to do anything of the sort, as it is completely at odds with the evidence that Diane has just posted. >It reads like a simple bit of PR, aimed mainly at the publics. If it was material in overturning cases against the cult, I'd be surprised. Actually, the document was solicited for a very specific purpose, although it was used along with other CoS-manufactured evidence in later cases as well. Paulette Cooper swore out her declaration on 4 March 1985. The "Church" of Scientology[tm] filed the declaration, along with an accompanying press release, on 21 March of the same year. Let's look at events surrounding the declaration. In 1983, the CoS filed a $2-million defamation lawsuit against Michael Flynn for statements he allegedly made implying that "a large organization" had tried to murder him by placing water in the fuel tanks of his private airplane. [PR Newswire, Friday, 5 August 1983] The lawsuit was initially dismissed by Judge Manuel Real of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The "Church" appealed, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in October 1984 and ordered Judge Real to rehear the case. [United Press International, Wednesday, 3 October 1984] Pretrial hearings began in early 1985. Flynn's lawyers included L. Ron Hubbard on their deposition list. "Church" lawyers stated that Hubbard would "not be available" for deposition. The matter went before Judge Real on March 11, 1985. Judge Real ordered Hubbard to appear in Los Angeles for deposition on March 20. ["Scientology Founder's Appearance Ordered," Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, 12 March 1985] Hubbard, of course, failed to appear. Flynn's attorneys then asked Judge Real to dismiss the lawsuit because of Hubbard's failure to show. ["Reclusive Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard Fails to Appear for Questions," Associated Press, Wednesday, 20 March 1985] On March 21, John Peterson, the CoS lawyer handling the case, filed Paulette Cooper's declaration, claiming it "revealed for the first time a sordid billion-dollar plot of extortion and perjury aimed at the Church of Scientology." Flynn's attorneys filed a declaration by Joseph M. Flanagan (who appeared as one of Paulette Cooper's co-defendants in another CoS lawsuit), implying that she had been paid $50,000 for the statement. [United Press International, Saturday, 23 March 1985] The trial proper began and ended on Monday, April 1, 1985. Judge Real dismissed the lawsuit because of Hubbard's failure to appear for the 20 March deposition. The evidence that convinced Judge Real to dismiss the suit was neither Cooper's declaration nor Flanagan's counterdeclaration. I quote from The Los Angeles Tmes, Tuesday, 2 April, 1985, "Hubbard's Absence Leads to Dismissal of Scientology Suit":
As the American Lawyer noted in its 15 April 1985 report on the case, "Sometimes it doesn't pay to advertise." The litigation, of course, did not end there. The CoS lawyers were back in Judge Real's courtroom on 9 September 1985, arguing to have the lawsuit reinstated. During the proceedings, Ken Hoden, the CoS Los Angeles president, rose from his seat and demanded to speak. He called Judge Real a liar, upon which Judge Real held Hoden in contempt and had U.S. marshals forcibly remove Hoden from the courtroom. This incident occurred just a couple of weeks after Judge Real had ordered CoS lawyer John Randolph jailed for contempt in another cult case he was hearing -- a lawsuit the CoS had filed against Laurel Sullivan. That's another story entirely, however. :) In the end, the specific purpose for which Paulette Cooper's declaration was solicited by cult lawyers was not aided by the document. That did not, however, keep "Church" lawyers from using the same document in other cases, and with better effect. I will do my best to present these cases in future posts. I was made aware of the continued use of Paulette Cooper's declaration by David Mayo, whose own case was adversely affected by the "Church's" use of that document. It appears that Larry Wollersheim's original lawsuit was unnecessarily delayed and made more complex because this declaration was entered as evidence as well. I do not claim that Paulette Cooper's declaration alone was damning enough to alter the outcome of later litigation. I believe, however, that it was utilized successfully by "Church" attorneys to extend litigation and to make the litigation more expensive for their opponents. The declaration was only one of several "dirty tricks" that "Church" attorneys used. The secret videotape made by Gene Ingram of Gerry Armstrong's purported revelation of a conspiracy between Michael Flynn and government officials to take control of the "Church" was another. I will present these events as I find time to do so. Diane Richardson |
|
|
referen@neont.com (Diane Richardson) |
08 Jul 1996 00:00:00 GMT |
|
Message-ID: <4rq7qm$akk@clark.zippo.com> In a previous message:
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing [snip] >Does this show any evidence that Michael Flynn still knew whether Hubbard was in control of Scientology at that time or not? Do your other press clippings show any evidence? [snip] The court records of the time provide ample evidence that Hubbard was legally considered the "managing agent" of the Scientology[tm] organization. In an accompanying post, I will provide the text of a similar case, in which the courts found L. Ron Hubbard to be the managing agent of the CoS. Flynn was neither the first nor the only lawyer to sue L. Ron Hubbard as the managing agent of the Scientology[tm] organization. To my knowledge, the first instance of this occurred in an Oregon lawsuit filed by Martin Samuels, the franchise holder of the Portland mission, against L. Ron Hubbard personally. Samuels' lawsuit was similar to those filed by Flynn on behalf of his clients. He alleged that Hubbard directed and controlled others to commit torts against him -- conversion, outrageous conduct, defamation and fraud. Hubbard failed to appear and was found in default. The CoS appealed the decision, asking to be allowed to stand in for Hubbard. The Oregon Court of Appeals did not allow the intervention of the CoS and upheld the lower court's decision requiring Hubbard to appear in person. (71 Or. App. 481; 692 P.2d 700 1984). As to what is meant by Hubbard's "directing and controlling" others, this is defined in a legal, rather than in a practical, sense. Whether or not Hubbard was still running the Scientology[tm] organization, it was being run under the authority of Hubbard's name as Founder of the religion. That made Hubbard responsible for the activities of Scientology[tm] subordinates. The complaint Flynn filed as his own lawsuit against Hubbard is available at http://www.sky.net/~sloth/flynn.cmplnt. Section IV, Statement of the Claim, details Flynn's reasons for suing Hubbard as managing agent of the CoS. They include: Defendant is the founder, controller, principal and absolute authority over the Scientology organizations and individuals. The Scientology organizations, as well as various individuals, acting as agents of defendant within the scope of the authority granted to them by and upon his express orders, engaged in the conspiracy to perpetrate the torts alleged herein. Hubbard ordered that the directors and officers of each of the Scientology organizations enumerated above sign written resignations in advance of their appointment as Directors and Officers and this was done. Hubbard held these "resignations" and over a period of years whenever any of said Directors contested his orders or authority, he removed them from their capacity in said corporations, and appointed new individuals who complied with his orders and policies. Hubbard was a required signatory on every bank account over $5,000 of each said Scientology organization. Hubbard established, supervised and controlled an organization called the "Guardian's Office" ("G.O.") which he placed in each of the Scientology corporations for purposes of enforcing his express daily orders. He routinely called these orders the "daily battle plan." At all times material hereto, the G.O. employed individuals under Hubbard's direction to operate in California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Boston, Massachusetts, Clearwater, Florida, and diverse other places. Plaintiff has possession of the written policy of Hubbard establishing and directing the G.O., together with the "training materials" of the G.O., written by Hubbard, all of which were used to commit the torts alleged herein. At all times material hereto, Hubbard has controlled said Scientology organizations and issued express daily orders to them through several individuals. These agents include his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, Jane Kember (the head of the G.O.), Arthur Maren (an employee of the G.O.), David Miscavige (the current liaison of express orders between Hubbard and the G.O. and all Scientology organizations), Norman Starkey (an employee of the G.O.), Joseph Lisa (an employee of the G.O.) and Lyman Spurlock (in charge of ASI and all financial affairs of Hubbard and the Scientology organizations). Plaintiff is in possession of a 286 page "Stipulation of Evidence" filed in United States v. Mary Sue Hubbard Crim. #78-401 (D.C.D.C. 1978), and executed by Mary Sue Hubbard and eight (8) of the highest officials of the G.O., all as agents of Hubbard, in which said individuals stipulate that Hubbard is the "overall supervisor" of the G.O. Said "Stipulation of Evidence" is a detailed stipulation of the "operation" of the G.O. to "destroy" some of the "enemies" of Hubbard, one of which was the plaintiff. At all times material hereto Hubbard used the Scientology organizations and the above-named individuals and others to implement and enforce both his policies and his daily orders. Some of the policies were written and copyrighted by Hubbard and his agents and used by his agents as overall policy directives to carry out his orders. Some of the written policies that were specifically implemented against the plaintiff as hereinafter described are set forth below . . . . [Fair Game and other policies are then quoted.] Hubbard, of course, was found in default when he failed to appear in court to defend himself against Flynn's lawsuit. This time, Mary Sue Hubbard appealed, asking to be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit, since her interests would be jeopardized by an adverse judgment against her husband. The appeal was heard by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which would not permit Mary Sue to intervene for her husband and upheld Hubbard's default. The decision was issued February 6, 1986 at 782 F.2d; 4 Fed R. Serv.3d (Callaghan) 18. Interestingly, the Federal Government also successfully employed the same tactic in its court battles with the Scientology[tm] organizations, which may well explain Hubbard's reticence to appear in *any* courtroom during that time period. I will post a lengthy excerpt from the decision of the Appeals Court which details the evidence for holding Hubbard responsible as the managing agent of the Scientology[tm] organizations up until the time of his death. Diane Richardson |
|
|
referen@neont.com (Diane Richardson) |
08 Jul 1996 00:00:00 GMT |
|
|
Message-ID: <4rq7s3$akk@clark.zippo.com> In 1978, the "Church" of Scientology[tm] filed suit against the United States government and a number of Federal Government officials (FBI director, Attorney General, CIA director, NSA director, etc.), alleging an extensive campaign of government harassment. The lawsuit never got beyond the pretrial discovery stage. The defendants (the Federal Government) issued a notice to depose L. Ron Hubbard on August 24, 1984. Hubbard, of course, refused to appear. The government then moved to either dismiss the case or compel Hubbard's deposition. The Court agreed, ordering the defendants to issue another deposition notice along with a factual statement as to why Hubbard's deposition was necessary. Hubbard, of course, failed to appear again. The CoS submitted numerous declarations by offcials of individual Scientology[tm] churches and high officials in the central Scientology[tm] organization, denying not only Hubbard's status as managing agent, but any capability of contacting him. The Government responded with additional declarations and other evidence in support of Hubbard's status as managing agent. On March 13, 1985, the District Court found that the Government had established "at least a prima facie case" that Hubbard was managing agent as of November 19, 1984. Yet another deposition notice was issued for Hubbard to appear. Once again, Hubbard didn't show. The CoS lawsuit was then dismissed because of Hubbard's failure to appear. The "Church" of Scientology[tm] appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Appeals Court decision, although reached after Hubbard's death, settled the matter decisively. Below is an extended excerpt from the Appeals Court decision.
Diane Richardson |
||
False Indictment - Nan Stupid Honesty - Forcible Depogramming - Cooper's Declaration - The Bomb Threat - ARS Lynch Mob - Blased Jornalism - Censorship - Humor
Random Quote :
Disclaimer :
| This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology. |
