Australian Critics of Scientology
This page maintained by David Gerard.

GO 166: Legal Strategy for Entheta Books

Jane Kember, Oct 1971

From: (RonIsXenu)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Legal Strategy for Entheta Books
Date: 27 Aug 1997 02:18:54 GMT
Message-ID: <>

GUARDIAN ORDER GO 166 7 October 1971 To all A/Gs D/G/ Legals PROs Bur 4s Re: BOOKS & ENTHETA WRITTEN ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY BY SPs. In the UK, the following legal actions have been done on entheta books which have been written about Scientology. 1. Satans Slaves - this was a book all about Charles Manson and hippie cults in California. In several places, throughout the books, Charles Manson was mentioned as a former Scientologist (untrue) and it was alleged that he got his start with Scientology, etc. The publishers of the book were sued for libel, eg. They did not serve a defense but instead asked for settlement. It was agreed that they would pay us 100 pounds damages, together with the costs of the action. They also agreed to make an apology in open court and to discontinue publication and sales of the book. 2. A psychologist by the name of Dr. Christopher Evans was writing a book entitled "20th Century Cults". Legal started writing to him and his publishers and later his lawyers. No proceedings were started because the book had not been published. However, endless letters were sent to and fro over a period of about a year, during which time it was made clear to the publishers and their lawyers that if they published the book, they would have to fight a legal action, which would lose them money. Finally the publishers layers wrote to us to say that there was no point in continuing the correspondence because the publishers had now decided not to publish the book. As of this date, the book has not been published. 3. C.H. Rolph, (a small time author and journalist), was commissioned by the NAMH U. to write a book on the subject of the NAMH conflict with Scientology, from their viewpoint. PRO got in touch with Rolph - Rolph came down to SH and there were a series of friendly letters. Rolph finally submitted his manuscript to PRO but, in spite of the friendly visits, it turned out that he was just a NAMH hack and had written an attack. Legal wrote to him and his lawyers, and pointed out that publication would be a contempt of court (because of other legal actions which we have against the NAMH). The book has not been published. 4. "Scientology, what it is - what it does" by Rev. Morris Burrell was the first book published in the UK, solely on the subject of Scientology. Burrell had been in comm with PRO and a long series of letters had passed between them. But once again, the book when published turned out to be hostile. The front cover of the book contained the Scientology double triangle and our first thought was to begin legal proceedings for infringement of trademark. However, on reading the book, it was discovered that Burrell had mentioned a number of libel actions in which C of S was engaged and had commented upon them. Thus, being in contempt of court, legal moved the court for an order "that Morris C. Burrell do stand [sic] committed to Her Majesty's Prison at Brixton and that the publishers may be so committed for their several and respective contempts". So, legal took them to Court, and the Judge found that the book was a contempt of court. So the book was withdrawn from publication without any copies having been sold to the public. 5. The latest book is by Cyril Vosper called "The Mindbenders", a stupid bit of natter. Preview of the book was sent out by the publishers, and PRO was alerted by a phone call from a TV station, who wanted a confrontation on TV with Cyril Vosper. This gave the G.O. 24 hours to stop the book, the TV confrontation and attendant bad publicity. The book contained numerous quotes from Scientology books and policy letters, etc., and contained some data which Vosper had learned on the Solo Course. Legal proceedings were brought on the basis of breach of copyright and breach of confidential relationship (meaning putting in details of the Solo Course). As time was short, B4 did a superb job of getting data, PRO did a superb job of stalling TV, and Legal went round to the Judge the evening at his own home, to ask for an injunction. (An injunction is a Court order stopping a person from doing a particular act). In this case the injunction was to prevent the book from being sold or distributed. PRO went down to the TV station, to be ready to appear, in case the injunction was not obtained. The programme announcer had already made his introductions on Cyril and his book when the phone rang in the studio, and our Lawyer informed the producer that the injunction had been obtained. The announcer was forced to apologize to the viewers, and PRO handled the resultant tension after the programme had not gone on, with a drunken Vosper and furious 3
producer. The injunction was Ex parte (the other side was not present when it was obtained) and 3 weeks later legal went before the Court again for a contested hearing, to see whether the injunction should be continued or not. Legal won on both counts of copyright and breach of confidence. The other side now have 14 days in which to appeal. The point of relating these actions is to indicate that the following countries have similar laws to Britain: New Zealand Australia South Africa Canada There is no acceptable justification in these countries for no action being taken against the publishers or authors of entheta books. The G.O. has to act fast, effectively and with imagination. The skill required is in: 1) Having the brains to see a possible course of action, no matter how unlikely. 2) Having the necessary organization to start that action immediately and bring it to a point of confrontation and decision. (The longer the delay, the greater the chance of failure). 3) Legal U.K. seldom, if ever, assesses its chances of winning before commencing action. Its ability lies in getting the action into court fast, without a Q&A on the chances of winning. No one can accurately assess in advance the chances of winning or losing, as this is a matter of individual lawyers, individual judges, how many arc breaks the judge had that day, the particular circumstance of the particular case which strikes the Judge and good fortune. Good fortune never strikes you in Court, unless you are in Court. 4) Legal U.K. has been in courts more often in the past 3 years than the rest of the Scientology world combined. They have won more cases and lost more cases than anywhere else. They lost cases they were sure they would win, and won cases they were sure they would lose. The losses did not hurt us, and the successes established an iron clad ethics presence which has probably prevented more entheta than we will ever know about (B4 feedback lines confirm this). 4
5) Do not worry about whether you will win or lose, but direct all effort and concentration on the legal technicalities required to achieve a legal confrontation. 6) It is always technically possible - though sometimes difficult, to get into Court. The most difficult part is in forcing your legal team, ..........[illegible]............. .......requires intention, determination and ................ persistence to get this done. Not legal genius. Re USA In America, where Freedom of Speech includes freedom to malign with impunity, except for old ladies and crippled men, much more imagination is required. Because of the Constitution of America, and case ... [illegible] on libel, inclusive of recent Supreme Court decision, it is impossible to prevent publication of libel. Attempts to prevent a book being published are called pre-publication censorship, and are extremely unpopular legally. However, where U.S. legal has been successful is prior to Court appearances and actual trial in effecting settlement. The button used in effecting settlement is purely financial. In other words, it is more costly to continue the legal action than to settle in some fashion. Doing this, legal U.S. usually moves for retraction of the libel and/or publication of a correction or Scientology viewpoint. Therefore, it is imperative that legal US Dev-T his opponents and their lawyers with correspondence (a lawyer's letter costs approx $50), phone calls (time costs), interrogatories, depositions and whatever else legal can mock up. One of the bright spots of US legal is that even if you lose you don't pay your opponent for his lawyers fees. Therefore the cost of any legal action is small by comparison with Commonwealth Countries, where the loser pays everything. N.B.: Any legal action on entheta publications needs the close co-ordination of PR, Legal and B4. One should carry forward without being afraid of being labelled Litigious. We want the reputation that we use the laws of the Country to uphold our legal and civil rights. Europe: Legal terminals have only just been set up and although the laws are different from Commonwealth and US laws, there are actions which can be taken if they are researched and forced 5
through. Up to this point, the G.O. has been entirely swayed by our wog lawyers negative opinions but legal in Europe should note the message in this Guardian order. The message is that in combatting entheta articles and books, legal should be aggressive, fast, persistent and untiring. Every skirmish should be treated like a major battle. Jane Kember Guardian World Wide

[Books on Scientology]