Mo Budlong

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JANE KEMBER: MORRIS BUDLONG a/k/a MO BUDLONG:

: : : :

Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)1

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States of America respectfully submits this Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court in imposing sentence in this case.

[…]

[The Scientology conspirators] challenged and attempted to undermine the judicial and governmental structure of the United States.

[…]

Thus, they perpetrated a fraud upon the American judicial system.

[…]

These crimes included: the infiltration and theft of documents from a number of prominent private, national, and world organizations, law firms, newspapers, and private citizens; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless law suits for the sole purpose of destroying private individuals who had attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; the framing of private citizens who had been critical of Scientology, including the forging of documents which led to the indictment of at least one innocent person; and violation of the civil rights of prominent private citizens and public officials.

[…]

[T]hese documents establish beyond question that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment.

[…]

To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, ² 58 Cal. App. 3d 439 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977)]. That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person,” “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. [He m]ay be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Id. This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.

[…]

The defendants directed and encouraged a number of covert operations against private individuals and public officials to destroy and discredit these persons because they had either attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights by criticizing Scientology or by attempting to carry out their duties as public officials.

[…]

That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims. The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard. No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds.

[…]

These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed. The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.” That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society. These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.

Notes