P & M
The name Phil Vilinski (sp?) can be added to $cientology's death list.
Here's my 1994 letter to crime cult lawyer Jonathan Lubell regarding Phil's death by auditing, and other matters.
May 14, 1994
Jonathan W. Lubell, Esquire
Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein
750 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Dear Mr. Lubell:
I apologize for not writing earlier in response to your letter of January 27, 1994 regarding F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fact). Sometimes it's hard to compose many thoughts in the moments available for such things.
As it turns out, however, I'm grateful for the delay because it afforded David Miscavige the opportunity, to which he rose, to craft and distribute his reaction to Fact. A copy of his reactive statement, in case you have not seen it, accompanies this letter. More about this later.
Until January 21, 1994 I was F.A.C.T.Net, Inc's president so you were correct in addressing your letter to me. I received it at the address below.
You are, I'm sure, aware of the fact that in the week or so before your January 27 letter the Scientology organization threatened a number of individuals and groups it claimed to consider were somehow connected to Fact with contempt of court charges for "acting in concert" with me in actions the organization also claimed were violations of a partial injunction entered May 28, 1992 by Judge Ronald Sohigian in the CSI v. Armstrong case known as Armstrong II. My being president of Fact was not a violation of the injunction, nor has been anything else I've done; nevertheless, to remove any conceivable threat of Sohigian-based litigation to these individuals or groups I resigned on January 21 as a director of Fact and as its president.
Since I have never been involved in Fact's day-to-day electronic, fact-finding, educational or other activities, my resignation did not make much of a blip in the company, which has thankfully continued to operate without disturbance. I will, therefore, respond to your letter, not as Fact's president, but as an individual deeply concerned about the matters concerning which you express concern.
You have asked for two things: the halting of the dissemination of the publication; and the retraction of all falsehoods in the publication. I am not in a position to halt the dissemination of this publication, and although I would undoubtedly have said it differently if I had myself said it, I am grateful that it was said because it is a significant public service. Certainly if I know of any Fact falsehoods I will point them out to Fact; as you can see I'm pointing out at least some of yours to you.
What you have asserted is that Fact's questionnaire entitled "Death, Psychosis, and Scientology," the document you have called "Are There Undisclosed Dangers in Scientology's Techniques?" (which is actually the section title at page five of the questionnaire), contains false and defamatory statements. Were it not for the truth this might be so.
For the truth is that the organization has for decades denied or covered up much of the human tragedy connected to it, manufactured diversions to draw attention away from the tragedies, or attacked those who did try to bring them to light so that the conditions which brought about the tragedies could be improved. The truth is that the organization is paranoid and schizophrenic, and this bizarre combination seems to be reflected in the way it deals with its tragedies, which are often its victims.
It is no secret to anyone that the organization is more than occasionally labelled in the media "the secretive Church of Scientology," and now no secret to you that it is known as something sinister in my wide circle of professional contacts. It is a closed system based on secrets and lies. It need not be; it could be as easily an open system based on faith in courage and honesty.
It is closed, secretive and dishonest pursuant to its leader's orders. That is how Hubbard was and how he set up his organization. Now Miscavige enforces his own secret orders on secret communication lines from secret places with secret threats of things to be done in secret. The organization's leader could just as easily issue open orders for things to be done in the open.
What these leaders try to hide are who they are and their organization's tragedies; what was done to whom and who ordered it; what was done in the name of Scientology or Hubbard or Miscavige which resulted in a tragedy; what potential "PR flap" was covered up; who got ripped off, who was hurt, who was abused. The coverups inevitably result in more tragedies, and more attacks and abuse.
What if, for example, Phil Valinski (I'm unsure of spelling, but will accept yours for now) didn't die in his sleep, as his family was apparently told, and as you have apparently been told, but died while being audited. Although I was not in the auditing session, and am not the source of this information, this was the way it was described to me while I was at Hubbard's La Quinta base, and seemed to be widely known at the base. If Phil did indeed die while being audited, shouldn't his family have been notified of that fact, rather than that he died in his sleep. If he died while being audited, and that fact was covered up, shouldn't his family now be told?
Shouldn't Scientologists be told that not only did Phil die during auditing, but that Hubbard's processes, which he claimed revived those who do die during auditing, didn't work? Shouldn't these processes therefore be stripped from Scientology auditing decrees as unworkable; and shouldn't auditors be trained rather in CPR, or something workable? And shouldn't people thinking about getting into Scientology be told up front of the actual numbers of people who have died while undergoing auditing?
Miscavige's book What is Scientology? contains lots of pretty polychrome pie graphs, but no stats on people who died or went crazy during auditing, or even any numbers for those who feel they've been religiously ripped off. Honestly, aren't these things more important to people seeking to understand what is Scientology than the claims that 2.2 percent of Scientologists golf and 16.1 percent walk? And speaking of stats, isn't it true that the reason Hubbard and now Miscavige inflate so flagrantly Scientology's membership (by the Miscavige method of counting now approaching ten million) is to falsely lower the organization's per capita tragedies?
Characteristically, what Hubbard's and Miscavige's Scientology did with Phil was lie about the actual circumstances of his death, even to you, their attorney. And now they use you, with all the weight and threat of your stature and clout in the legal industry, to forward the lie. Their other option was to tell the truth. That is still Miscavige's option; but that has not been his way, nor the way of Scientology under him. The fact that truth has not been his and his organization's way is what has made the collection of information about Scientology's untold tragedies by an outside agency such as Fact necessary.
This is the information I have about Phil's death. He was being audited by one Dan Koon one afternoon in 1977 at the Palms house on the La Quinta base. Dan was running Phil on an upset he had had with Kima Douglas, who had been busted from her MO and HU posts and was then working in the base galley. At lunch that day Phil had requested a piece of chicken, and Kima, not having any, had not given it to him. Phil had a heart attack in session, and Dan kept right on auditing him, reportedly for many minutes, not doing CPR and not going for help. Dan apparently kept commanding him to think of his poor auditor, which is a process Hubbard claimed worked to bring people back to life if they died, or as Hubbard said, "did a bunk," while being audited.
Following Phil's death, Kima was accused of killing him and sec checked on her overts and withholds toward him. This is standard Hubbardian practice within the organization, because it can never be admitted that Hubbard's processes could have contributed to harming, much less killing anyone. According to Hubbard there's always a "who" in every flap, and Phil's death was certainly a flap. Kima was an acceptable "who" because she was at that moment in Scientology time Hubbard's latest scapegoat "SP."
To the world outside, including the local authorities and Phil's family, however, the charge or admission could not logically be made that Kima had killed Phil by refusing him a piece of chicken, because that would lead to the fact that he had died while being audited, and that would result in some "bad PR." Therefore a "shore story" was concocted which had Phil, as you say, dying "in his sleep of a heart attack." His family was then notified and given the shore story. Some of the personnel were also moved off the property when Phil's family visited to cover up even what the base's actual activities were.
It is for reasons such as what happened with Phil that the organization's stories and data are doubted. It is not as you would like it to appear that those who question the circumstances of the organization's tragedies are "trying to destroy the Church." Hubbard was a judicially recognized pathological liar. His replacement acts in every way as if he is cut from the same madly embroidered cloth. Neither I nor anyone I know has any interest in destroying Scientology or causing any trouble for Scientologists. It is its leaders' lies and enforcement of those lies, including the enforcement by its big time Philadelphia lawyers, which threaten to destroy what is good in Scientology and cause trouble for its people of good will.
I have little doubt that Dan Koon has been ordered to lie about his auditing of Phil and that the auditing reports have been falsified. It would be stupid, or malicious, of you to automatically doubt my data and automatically accept your client's. I have confirmed what happened to Phil with four people who were in positions to know. Miscavige's data cannot be trusted. He deals in lies; and that, not the "protection" of a few "celebrities" and not for reasons he pays you to give, is why he dismissed CSI v. Fishman.
I do not know anything about the other incidents you list and will leave their investigation to others. I had heard the rumor about Ed Brewer, who was a good friend, over ten years ago, but cannot even recall who told me. You can see, however, in the Phil Valinski matter it is you who did not investigate and you who chose to disregard the facts in order to make your allegations. You will note, if you reread Fact's questionnaire, that Fact welcomes, in fact requests any information anyone, including organization personnel, has in clearing up or getting to the truth in the many reports of Scientology's tragedies. It would, however, given the overwhelming evidence of the organization's coverups and its policies ordering coverups of its tragedies, be irresponsible for anyone to simply accept your or your client's assertions that all these reports are lies.
It seems, moreover, something less certain than doubtful that Miscavige would allow his org personnel to communicate with Fact to clear up any of the reported tragedies and rumors of tragedies. On the other hand he will order his operatives to sow more disinformation and lies; which is another reason why data coming from the organization, until its personnel are free to communicate without fear, will always be suspect. Communicating the truth about Scientology's tragedies to those who should know is considered "out-security." According to Hubbard's policies, orders and "logic," "out-security equals treason." Treason merits severe "ethics" punishment, and is a breath away from "fair game." And fair game is limited only by the threat of public exposure. Therefore we're grateful whenever exposure occurs, and Scientologists should be grateful as well.
Miscavige and his organization have, as Hubbard and his had, in addition to their psychological proclivity or compulsion for weaving tangled webs, a multimillion dollar motive, for lying about Scientology's tragedies. The same motive drives them to hire multimillion dollar lawyers to threaten those who seek to bring those tragedies to light, and it drives the lawyers to do this dirty work. It really is a cult of greed.
Even more urgent than the fact that families of the organization's tragedies, Scientologists and potential customers, should, for reasons of right to know and common decency, be informed of what really happened to those tragedies, is the prevention of future catastrophes. The organization's leaders enforce a belief in and the dramatization of Hubbard's pronouncements about the human mind and behavior. These leaders, from Miscavige on down, enforce the belief that if the withholds of anyone are missed that person will attack those who miss them. These leaders enforce the belief that the attacks will end when the withholds have been pulled, or exposed. Those of us who have been attacked by Miscavige's organization must, for our very survival, deal with the organization's dramatization of its missed withholds, and are in physical danger until those withholds have been pulled. Thus Fact has done thousands of us a considerable service with its destimulation of Scientology's group reactive mind missed withholds.
Hubbard defined a "withhold" as an undisclosed transgression or "overt" against the known mores of a group. The group can be as large as humanity itself. In the Phil Valinski matter the lie that he had died in his sleep would have been a withhold from his family, the local authorities, Scientologists and the organization's future potential customers. A "missed withhold" Hubbard defined as a withhold which has been restimulated but not divulged or pulled. When Miscavige gets this letter, for example, his withholds that he knows the real circumstances of Phil's death, has lied about them, has had you lie about them, and has attacked those who sought and told the truth about them, and all the other tragedies he knows of and has had his organization lie about, will be restimulated. Unless he divulges those withholds, he will, pursuant to Hubbard's dictates, dramatize them with natterings, upsets, critical tirades and attacks. To quote Hubbard, "This is the WILD ANIMAL REACTION that makes Man a cousin to the beasts." (HCOB 12/15/72R "Withholds, Missed and Partial")
Miscavige attacks me and has his organization attack me because he must dramatize, as Hubbard ordered and he enforces, his missed withholds concerning me. Every time he hears my name or thinks of me he is reminded of his crimes against me: the lies, the assaults, the black PR campaigns, the PI operations, the use of my pc folder materials, the threats, the frivolous and malicious lawsuits, the lies, the theft of my things. Thus he must hide, and thus I am at continual risk.
To stifle your conscience you will consider that I, being critical of Hubbard's and Miscavige's policies and practices, have my own withholds which you and your organization are missing. But also please consider that I have no intelligence bureau, no private investigators, no propaganda machine, no weapons, no militant minions, and no mad policies justifying the use of these things. I am also visible, my communications are open and signed, and I am willing to meet with Miscavige or anyone and communicate openly to resolve the Scientology situation. Miscavige has so far refused to be open, refused to meet, refused to sign his name to his black PR, and refused to do what is rationally called for to resolve the situation.
It is a dangerous situation, and thus there is a need to pull and expose Miscavige's and his organization's withholds to reduce the threat. Hubbard's policies and their enforcement really do drive people insane, and the organization's power and wealth in the hands of these truly wonky folks with their clear determination to destroy the innocent individuals they imagine may expose even more of their withholds is the stuff of nightmares. You should be doing something to lessen this threat, rather than making it worse by giving Miscavige and his cohorts a false sense of security and legitimacy; but you have, as they do, a magnificent monetary incentive to ignore the truth and this situation's urgency.
In truth there is no need for anyone, Miscavige included, to have their withholds pulled or confess their transgressions. In truth these withholds and transgressions are so insignificant and their effects so meaningless that it can be truthfully said that they don't exist. That is why they can be resolved with forgiveness, for forgiveness is the recognition that what needs forgiveness didn't happen. Hubbard didn't understand about forgiveness, thus he defined it as "censorious," (Certainty, Vol. 13, No. 3) which is the sort of screwy twist he gave to lots of things. Forgiveness and censoriousness are the two modes of human thought and action. They are not the same.
Miscavige's Scientology, following Hubbard's example and policies, is censorious in thought and action and does not recognize nor practice forgiveness. Seeing value and reality only in condemnation, it applies that value and reality, even if valueless and unreal, to itself; and thus it considers that to be free of its withholds and transgressions and their effects it must have these withholds and transgressions pulled. In that Scientology is no better than the worst in the worst of us. Not understanding and giving forgiveness it cannot accept forgiveness for itself. It could, very easily, for forgiveness is not hard, but the organization would not then be Scientology. No matter what Miscavige and his organization do they will be forgiven. Given that fact we simply ask that they don't do those things.
I will take this opportunity to renew and repeat my demand for Miscavige's return of everything he or any member of his organization or any of his agents has ever stolen from me at any time, especially my original Hubbard Letters art work. I am certain that you are in a position to ensure that Miscavige does one more time get this demand. Please return my things.
Now, to address the widely distributed Miscavige reaction. Any denial by him that he did not order, edit and author this document is just a denial. Since there's no denying his and his mentor's mendacious pathology, such a denial would be received by all with titters and hoots. It is his work, his style and his language, his party line right down to the incorrect copulatives, and even if one of his abject juniors comes forward to claim authorship, that would mean nothing more than another lie, which, tragically, in that organization at this time would not be all that hard to find.
Miscavige's reaction is a splendidly educational example of what Hubbard termed "black propaganda" or "black PR." He defined it as "spreading lies by hidden sources," or "a covert attack on the reputation of a person, company or nation using slander and lies in order to weaken or destroy." He gave its purpose as "a common tool of agencies who are seeking to destroy real or fancied enemies or seek dominance in some field," and said it was to be "used for the destruction of ideals or institutions or repute of persons." In his black PR manifesto Miscavige tries to remain the hidden source, and his intention to destroy the reputations of his fancied enemies named therein, I think even you will agree, is manifest.
You, being something of a libel lawyer, will recognize that the charges and black PR in the Miscavige reaction are unrelated to the subject matter in the Fact questionnaire. That fact is indicative of the maliciousness of the defamatory reaction. That its source attempts to remain hidden also goes to malice. So does the premeditated, careful, and calculated, albeit mad, assembly of charges, their printing and extremely wide distribution. Then there are the lies therein themselves. His intention is clear: expose named "enemies" to hatred and danger, cause them to be shunned and injure them in their careers and life.
Take Gerry Armstrong, for example. I did not steal any records in 1981, and the 1984 Breckenridge decision, upheld on appeal, states what did happen with the Hubbard archives. This charge, long ago judicially declared so much bushwa, stems right out of Miscavige's missed withholds. Having stolen my documents, he accuses me of theft. Libel per se. Being terrified of the truth he has never allowed his organization spokesmen to say what I really am and what I really do.
The pig dream is only significant because it is a document which was stolen by Miscavige's organization, and then specifically sealed by Judge Breckenridge in the Armstrong I case. Miscavige's use of it now is in violation of that court order. The pig dream does not more clearly demonstrate my state of mind than any of my other writings. It captured a couple of seconds of dream thought in 1985, and has no relation to my state of mind beyond that. Since I keep hearing of the pig dream from Scientologists and Scientology lawyers around the world, it should be clear that it actually has captured the Scientological mind more precisely than any of my other writings.
This letter to you is a much better representation of my writings, and for, inter alia, that reason I am copyrighting it, and will include it in a book of related materials to be published in the near future. Miscavige, like his erstwhile master, seeks to divert attention from his organization's tragedies with imaginative tales of his imagined enemies' sex lives. The only result of making sex so relevant is that some day Miscavige will have to put his on the line. The only thing significant about my sex life is its insignificance since I have for some time been a yogi of the brahmacharya persuasion, almost as long as I have been a shave away from full-blown jutta-dharihood.
I have never used heavy drugs and never used any drugs heavily, and was never paid to provide homosexual sex. But these Miscavige libels point out two things which should be quite important to Scientologists: 1. statements made in what is represented to be a confidential setting in Scientology, even statements concerning enforced "past lives" incidents, are not confidential and will be used by the organization's leaders to vilify those who foolishly trust the organization's representations of confidentiality; 2. Scientology auditing doesn't work.
The abuse of Scientologists' supposedly confidential statements by the organization's leaders for the purpose of attacking those Scientologists has been demonstrated by these leaders so many times right up to this instant that it need not be elucidated further. What does require some light shone on it, however, is why all the Scientologists of good will do nothing to rein in these leaders and this ongoing tragedy. I believe it evidences the terrible menace of those leaders. Who would dare to stand up to a Miscavige who blows the heads off photos of his fancied enemies and lounges with the likes of a Gene Ingram who threatens to blow off their actual heads? It is Scientology's auditors who use the tech, and potentially use it to free rather than enslave. It is not Miscavige who uses the tech, and doesn't own it, even if he claims to by his RTC emperorship. It is therefore the auditors who are in a position to do something about the abuses, even if it means walking off the job.
If auditing works, why does Scientology's leader always use the pre-Scientology past of former Scientologists to attack them? Auditing, according to Scientology promises, erases the past and eliminates any aberrative behavior stemming from that past. Yet the organization always acts, by attacking its Ex-Scientology victims with incidents from these victims' auditing sessions, as if auditing had done nothing. And that is indeed what auditing does. The harm is in all the lies, extortion and abuse the organization's leaders make part of the auditing package. The inescapable reality of the Scientology philosophy is that while promising to make people smarter, at the Hubbardian rate of a point of IQ per hour of auditing, it makes them stupider; and having made them stupider, charges them to do it. I have never seen a person who did not get smarter when he or she got out of Scientology. I understand philosophically and mathematically why it makes people stupider, and I believe that for the future wisdom of the world it's important that I recommend that people do get out. Surely you wouldn't recommend that your children get into something that will make them stupider, and my guess is you're still smart enough yourself to not buy into it. You will agree, I'm sure, that if I'm right what I'm saying makes good sense.
"Armstrong in the nude holding a globe," is close to true. I have always been nude, and often I wear clothes as well. In the photo which appeared in the November 11, 1992 Marin Independent Journal I am also, in addition to being nude, wearing clothes. I assume you, as you are reading this are also nude, and may or may not be wearing clothes. Emperor Miscavige, as well, underneath those nifty suits, is, as you and I and everyone can imagine, naked as a jay bird. Stark raving nude.
You know about malice, and you know that a guy with a smile on his face sitting in the lotus posture and holding the world in his hands, all of which facts can be seen in the IJ's photo, is something so different from "in the nude," which fact cannot be seen, although it can certainly be seen that it very easily could not be true - shorts being a modern day yogi's common, usual and expected garment of choice - that Miscavige's malice is unmistakable. Add to this the fact that hiss pet PItviper slithered into the IJ after the 11/11 article was printed to rattle the writer, and sure did know that I was something different from nude. Then add the delivery to the organization's UK legal personnel of the IJ photo, plus a big, bold blowup thereof, and throw in the identical lie that I'm sitting there all fully bare. I'm sure you know that the UK solicitor's clerk, one Helen Margaret Barlow, through whom Miscavige slipped his "Armstrong in the nude" taradiddle into the UK courts, claims that she was given the information by the organization's US attorneys, which fact is altogether unremarkable because that is exactly how the organization uses its lawyers to spread and consecrate its dirt. You are one of its US attorneys, right? Finally, consider the fact that in all the depositions Miscavige has dragged me through since November, 1992 I was never once asked if I had been indeed nude during the shooting of the IJ photo. I was not asked because Miscavige, looking forward to using his little bare-cheeked lie, didn't dare learn the unnaked truth.
As to Gerald Armstrong's recognition of the valuelessness of money, it is quite understandable that your cult of greed's leader, having put so much time and effort into extorting all that stuff from so many people, would be having nightmares contemplating the fact that it was all for naught. It is also understandable that he might be terrified that his underlings and other victims might wake up to the same truth. But Miscavige really need not worry. What is valuable will remain long after money is seen for what it is. Ironically, renunciation is Miscavige's safest route out of his predicament. He should tell the truth, turn Scientology over to its people of good will and wisdom, and then he should go off and do something good and wise himself; or, if he can't figure out something good and wise to do, he should join a monastery and put himself in the hands of someone good and wise to give him simple orders until he can figure things out.
Do not think that because I have not committed suicide or succumbed to Miscavige's savagery and forsaken my sense of humor I have not been deeply wounded and threatened by his, his organization's and his lawyers' personal attacks. The attacks must cease. You and your client must do what you can to heal the wounds. And all of you must stop threatening your way through life.
I am not unhappy that you have insisted that I rectify the false charges that have made their way to Fact. Your fellow CSI lawyers have until now refused to allow me to rectify any false charges on penalty of $50,000 per rectification. I assume that you are their senior, being so close to Miscavige himself and being near the top of the pleadings hierarchy, and that your releasing me to rectify falsehoods supersedes your associates' earlier refusals to so release me. In that Miscavige's reaction has made its way to Fact, and presumably by Fact's mandate become part of its library, I will send this letter to Fact as well. I will also send a copy of this letter to many people who should know, and many of these I've indicated on the copy list which follows. I will also avail myself of this window of opportunity you've opened to rectify any other falsehoods concerning my experiences with the Scientology organization which have made their way into Fact's library.
Your fellow CSI lawyers have claimed in the second amended complaint in Armstrong II filed April 5, 1994 that I "provided an entire assortment of documents to FACTI for its electronic library, including a copy of the settlement agreement herein, scores of declarations, and documents which Armstrong retained in violation of paragraph 7(E) of the Agreement," and go on to claim that providing such documents is a breach of the "agreement." As you can imagine these claims are as nutty as the lawyers themselves, which nuttiness I know you have to smooth over to continue to pull in those big fat fees.
I retained no documents in violation of paragraph 7(E) of that or any other agreement and I did not send any of these documents I didn't retain to Fact. Miscavige made the same charge through Ken Long in the CSC v. Russell Miller case in the UK in 1987, and it was, despite his organization's threats that I would be sued if I corrected the lie, disproved there as well. CSI's own lawyers filed the settlement agreement in open court, probably some fifteen times in the three lawsuits they have brought against me in Marin and Los Angeles in the past couple of years, and it is entirely probable that they are the source of whatever copy Fact acquired if it did indeed.
I have sent Fact very little, and it has wanted very little from me, because my materials have been public documents available almost anywhere. I will as soon as possible make an effort, especially now with your release of me to do so and with the latest Miscavige attack, to find out what Fact has relating to me and my experiences with Scientology in its library, make certain the information is complete and rectify any falsehoods therein. I will also let Fact know that I will be available to answer the questions of anyone who may have received false data concerning my Scientology experiences, or the dangers of association with the organization. I hope it puts your mind at ease to know that I will be helping in this manner.
In addition to getting Miscavige to retract his latest libelous publication, perhaps you can help in a related matter as well. As you know, on February 8, 1994 Miscavige executed a declaration which was filed in Fishman in an effort to prevent his court ordered deposition from going forward. Miscavige included in his declaration an attack on me filled with what even a fool can see are lies. On February 22 I executed a declaration in response to correct the lies. Then one of his litigation puppets, CSI, amended the Armstrong II complaint to include a cause of action for my writing my declaration, seeking another 50 K liquidated damages. These people are dangerously crazy.
In December, 1992 I wrote to Miscavige in an effort to initiate a peace process. He tried to have me jailed for writing the letter. Then he had CSI sue me, claiming damages of $950,000.00 for the letter. It is dangerous to attempt to make peace with mad men. And that is why I'm appealing to you, the man's lawyer.
You know that the organization's leaders cannot prevail in our courts. They have neither right nor decency on their side, and they have long since lost the battle in the marketplace of ideas. The opponents they made, for no other reason, by the way, than to satisfy their need to look important by being opposed, are no longer merely being pushed around and aren't going anywhere. The organization's leaders are abusers, and the world has in recent years come to recognize abuse and abusers and now acts to restrain them. Perhaps, therefore, you can let the abusers you work for know that the game is dangerously close to over, and perhaps you can suggest an orderly withdrawal from their fortifications. Nobody is waiting out here to pounce on them. All of us out here really do want peace. This time, however, unlike in December 1986, let it not be peace with abuse. Just peace.
715 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Hub Law Office
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, CA 94960
cc:(all without enclosure)
Ford Greene, Esquire
Graham E. Berry, Esquire
Daniel A. Leipold, Esquire
Floyd Abrams, Esquire
Cult Awareness Network
Robert Vaughn Young
Margaret Singer, Ph. D.
© Gerry Armstrong