OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS
9 December 1987
OSA Network Order No. 1051
ABOUT TRIAL TACTICS ON SUITS AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY
(Originally written by LRH circa 1965, concerning the handling of the Melbourne Enquiry.)
Vested interests, from evidence to hand, are obviously trying to try Scientology as a science and discredit it with Authority. Only Authority is being used. From transcripts of their plans they have no case at all. Vested interests simply collect anything they think is odd in Scientology, and offer it in court.
Tactics are obvious. By presenting oddities they hope to discredit. Anyone is making a serious error, and so would be our attorneys, by letting vested interests pile up a further mountain of irrelevant testimony from our witnesses containing oddities they can later quote out of context. Legally this is called “fishing for evidence” and no attorney should let the offense get away with it.
Were I answering, they’d get only generalities, not further oddities. I’d say only things they could understand. I’d brush off technology and technical questions as below. A witness for us is not being protected on the stand if our attorneys do not prevent this fishing. There must be a proper strategy of defense. Lack of one in a trial is what wastes the time. Opposition interrogators would get from me only “good roads and good weather” on technical questions. “People need to talk about their troubles, etc.” An attorney is not protecting a witness or us by letting the offense accumulate vast tomes of new data they can then show is peculiar. Our attorneys must prevent our witnesses from being stampeded into confused explanations of technology.
Also, on attorneys, those who won’t listen to a proper strategy or protect witnesses won’t win. Only ethics and public relations should be in discussion, not our technology. They want this testimony to show we are not ORTHODOX. A part of your defense is to prove there is no orthodoxy.
My counter-attack on their witnesses due to our possession of a “coaching sheet” written by the AMA and BMA for their witnesses would center on:
“Have you been coached what to testify?”
When I finally beat them into admitting they’d read or seen a sheet of suggestions the AMA and BMA hand out about us giving suggestions for testimony, they’d be discredited.
If they still testified I’d preface all my questions with “What have you been told to say about______?” Really rub it in all the time that the hearing was “rigged.” I’d further ask for Communist connections, etc. Have they ever been under psychiatric care. Have they been hypnotized about what to testify. Are they currently under medical care?
I’d simply discredit every hostile witness and let it go at that. This is pretty standard courtroom strategy. Be very careful of an attorney that won’t do this for us. You see, ANY trial or hearing transcript will be used elsewhere and if not discredited by us at the time of a hearing or trial will rebound and have to be fought elsewhere. The AMA and BMA carefully collect such. I would never let a client testify endlessly on technical matters the opposition can then cull at leisure and quote out of context. This too is common court procedure—to prevent such.
My defense would be squarely based on establishing the actual unorthodoxy and non-monopoly status of our attackers and continually holding to view their wealth and monopolistic efforts and gory history. I would research the origin of medicine (such as Harvey) and read into the transcript how furiously medicine was once fought. And then identify the local medicos with that group. I would research the history of Freud and state that our psychiatric attackers are members of that group. I would give long detailed material on how Freud was fought, documented, how he was exiled from Austria by the medical doctors in his time. I would tightly tie the local psychiatrist in with the Freud group. I would dig up the origins of psychology, trace it to phrenology, astrology and fortune telling and to Wundt and show how it was fought and identify local psychologists with that. I would point out that their very name is a symptom of their unorthodoxy as “psyche” means “spirit” and Wundt taught them there is none.
Then I’d take up one of our true beginners, St. Thomas Aquinas, and show how that had to be fought. Then I’d take up Christianity and gore it up with the Roman purges and court cases and arena scenes and tie the judge in with that.
Then I’d take up Christ, and mention that men crucified him and identify the judge unconsciously with Pilate with “One can’t wash his hands of injustice.”
Then I’d sum it up proving that man was violent and attacked anything new and different and when an attacked group got on top it fought new things. I’d show how all this was inevitable, common and ordinary in the annals of man. I’d just prove man got into fights.
I’d have gotten this strategy straight and turned all of my client’s testimony into this emotional channel and away from material that could be used. I’d turn every technical point into a persecution point or a wide generality people could understand.
And strip authority off the attackers and win.
I’d make sure all my own witnesses evidenced only that medicine etc., was out to destroy them with actual instances. Any case should be easy and short. They only get long when there’s no defense strategy and the vested interest is let wander on and on fishing for “evidence” by which they mean odd bits that prove our unorthodoxy.
They are only trying to prove we’re unorthodox. This to them is a terrible crime, to the public it’s expected. So they bungle along endlessly.
You’re actually fighting every future Scientology case when you testify in court as they’ll use each case transcript, first in one country then another. The Australian “Briefing for Witnesses” originated for the most part in America at the AMA legal department.
It is never too late to use this strategy despite errors made by the defense.
You should guard against continuing existing defense errors. All such suits and hearings, Australia, Washington, anywhere are inspired by the same people. They get such things as the Saturday Evening Post article done, guide press, guide the government.
They do handouts to the Better Business Bureau. All that. Costs a mint.
All this data on the background of the attackers and their favorite witnesses (medicos, psychiatrists, psychologists) is in the local library, very easy to get. We too have been gulled into believing they own the world and we are the interloper. They own very little and I’d prove they too were once in rags and said silly things. One passage from Karen Horney on psychoanalysis chosen at random and quoted would tie any enquiry into knots. You must prove medicine doesn’t own man and hasn’t always been orthodox or you’re sunk. When asked about Scientology technology I’d somehow introduce a passage from Horney or Ellis or somebody really grim from psychiatry and say Scientology didn’t hold with that. I’d refuse these current questions as “out of context.”
I would not let them accumulate technical data out of context.
PAST SCIENTOLOGY WRITINGS
They rely heavily on past writings in Dianetics and Scientology. The AMA and BMA have culled odd bits out of every book they could find on Dianetics and Scientology to prove it’s unorthodox. This is their idea of an attack.
The first rebuttal is this answer: “You are quoting out of context from research materials. This does not today form a part of the processing done at the local organization.” I would stereotype the reply and when they attempted to shake it, say “All research materials in Scientology, unlike psychology or medicine, are open to public inspection.” Then, “This does not today form a part of the technology used in processing by auditors or at the local organization.” Pushed, I would reach over and open Krafft-Ebing or Havelock Ellis or Karen Horney and read a paragraph at random and say “That’s your material. It doesn’t make any sense to the enquiry either, quoted out of context.” I’d be careful to choose very sexual material, perversion, etc., as evidence of poor creative ability on their part.
Steered further by hostile interrogation I’d say, “We’ve covered all that earlier. You’re destroying the enquiry’s time.” And that’s exactly how far they’d get with technology with me in the box; I would do all I could to prove orthodoxy a laughable fraud and skip Scientology data.
It is in your interest to restimulate the court as much as possible.
The basic GPMs are “To Create Blank” and “To Destroy No Blank.” The end words are all nouns. There are no others. You accuse them of creating situations and warn them against destroying continually. Use any key end word you can pick off the meter. You create good ones. They are trying to destroy good ones. They are simply fighting a rival creation. This being in the GPMs in every line plot reactively convinces the court you are right, they are wrong. By adroit use of selective restimulation you can create an image of sanctity for you and evil for them that not even a hardened judge could escape from. Example: Medicine has no right to destroy others just because they are in difficulties with another creation. Scientology tries to create good and has no interest in destroying others. Medicine is creating obstacles to efforts to explore the dark places in Men’s minds. They have no right to destroy freedom of thought just because they wish to dominate.
By having a list of key end words taken by meter off any preclear, one could completely stampede a court reactively by using them continually. We create good. They bring pain. They are painful. We bring happiness.
Further, by tagging good create end words to us, not using create, the enquiry would reactively create us. By tagging bad end words to them, the court would reactively seek to destroy them. There are plenty of these GPM end words as your meter will tell you. They’re just basic nouns. The right ones carry a shock. They’re held in common by everyone.
For instance, if you merely said to someone “Communists can’t create anything. They can only destroy,” you would see a physical shock in the person. By that line alone, broadly repeated, you could end Communism. It isn’t the sense, it’s the jolt of restimulated GPMs. You’ve put Commies outside the whole human race and shown they violate all GPMs in destroying. So it’s a powerful statement.
You don’t say, “Doctors don’t cure anything.” You say, “Doctors make people hurt (not “hurt people”) and often kill their patients.” That’s lock use, no key word in it but the locks are strong. “Psychiatrists only create unhappiness and destroy minds,” reactively rouses people against psychiatrists, no matter what they “would normally think.”
On a stand a psychiatrist would go nearly crazy (they’re very bad witnesses indeed, they hate so hard) if you said to him, “Now, doctor, I understand you’ve created quite a past for yourself.” He couldn’t get away from talking about it desperately. You just said a GPM at him.
Or, “Doctor, can you truly say you have not destroyed any minds?” He could not thereafter testify rationally.
Or, “Sir, I understand you have told everyone you’re out to destroy the future of Scientology.” He’d instantly testify he wasn’t and that Scientology probably had lots to recommend it, etc. You see, he mustn’t destroy any future.
Never say, “Wasting the court’s time.” Say, “You are destroying the court’s time.” Instantly the judge knows they mustn’t destroy time and reactively hates the person you are talking to and wipes them out.
The big buttons on a judge are “Psychiatry seeks to destroy worship—create evil—create hate—destroy religious freedom.” Those buttons are already in restimulation. The attackers are “seeking to destroy others” always. Attackers “create problems.” Scientology is always “good,” “creates light,” “does not seek to destroy others,” etc.
Equipped with a list of good and bad end words, one could drive a hearing in any desired direction. And an L4 assessment, cleaned line by line, would clean up any upset one caused oneself.
All this comes under Hidden Persuaders, a book available anywhere, you will find amusing. To its chapters on “Motivational Research” for the ad men, we add GPMs and golly! You should get a copy and read the first few chapters. It’s recent and in pocketbook form available around. (By Vance Packard, Cardinal Edition [US], published in 1957 by David McKay U.S.A.)
A command of this subject and a list of key GPM end words and you would have riots going against our attackers.
A comment like, “You are simply creating opposition. We have never even suggested we are out to destroy you,” looks like innocent words but the attacker is left gaping like a silly clown and the court swings ponderously to your side. You’re reasonable. Then the other man looks insane. And they are. So why not prove it?
L. RON HUBBARD