GO 166: Legal Strategy for Entheta Books

Jane Kember, Oct 1971

From: ronisxenu@aol.com (RonIsXenu)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Legal Strategy for Entheta Books
Date: 27 Aug 1997 02:18:54 GMT
Message-ID: <19970827021800.WAA14322@ladder01.news.aol.com>



                         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