On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 18:58:10 GMT,

publicrelations@scientology.org (Public Relations) wrote a lot of propanganda you can read at the end of this message [deleted--- editor]; but for the truth, read this and ask yourself if this does not sound a lot like the scientology we see today:

(Conclusion from the second Snow White case in the early 80's)

Sound familar? Any wonder Scientology is a threat to democracy?

VII. Conclusion (Starting from page 32 of original)

The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years, It also puts to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harassment campaign against them.

The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the defendants' wanton assault upon the laws of this country. The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury inves-tigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in response to a grand jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story, and as-sisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of this country. Their total disregard for the laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of vilification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private and public individuals and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail. One can only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their "Red Box" data. 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 ar-rogantly 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 organiza-tion was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, look picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes. It is interesting to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspira-tor L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled "Modern Manage-ment Technology Defined" that "truth is what is true for you," and "illegal" is that which is "contrary to statistics or policy" and not pursuant to Scientology's "approved program." Thus, with the Founder-Commodore's blessings they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.

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 be-hind 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.

Moreover, we submit that in imposing any sentence upon these two defendants, the Court should consider the deterrent effect a severe sentence will have upon others -- besides the defendant Jane Kember who apparently remains the Guardian World-Wide, all other members of the Guardian's Office, and L. Ron Hubbard himself, the ultimate responsible authority. It is clear from the press re-leases issued by Scientology following the jury's verdict, and their vicious actions against another member of this Court, that they have yet to learn the errors of their criminal ways.

The United States submits that the only appropriate punish-ment in this case, the only one that is in the best interest of justice and the public, is a substantial term of incarceration for each of the two defendants now before the Court.

Moreover, we submit that there is no reason whatsoever under 18 U.S. Code 5 3148, why these two defendant should not be denied bail pending any appeal they wish to take. Both defendants are in this country solely for trial and the service of any sentence imposed by this Court, pursuant to an extradition order from the Government of the United Kingdom. Following the service of their sentences, they will return to the United Kingdom. They are not employed in the United States, and, indeed, in at least the case of defendant Kember cannot be so employed, Thus, the only questions which remain are, In the words of 18 U.S. Code 5 3148, whether

[a] person . . . who has been convicted of an offense and... has filed an appeal... (presents) a risk of flight or danger or if it appears that an appeal is frivolous or taken for delay....

We submit that in the Instant case, any appeal taken by these two defendants will be frivolous-and taken only for the purpose of delaying the ultimate day of judgment. The only real issues raised by the defendants involved the challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court over the burglary charges, and whether they had standing to challenge the searches of the two Guardian's Office premises in Los Angeles, California. The Court of Appeals has already, for all practical purposes, resolved against them the former issue. In Re: United States v. Kember _(Mary Sue Hubbard et al. , appellants), D.C. Cir. Nos. 80-2329 to 80-2332 (decided November 24, 1980), slip op. at 11. As for the standing issue, it has been conclusively resolved against the defendants, as this Court pointed out, by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the defendants, international crimi-nals, whose danger to the community the evidence overwhelmingly bears out, have been convicted of serious charges carrying severe penalties and now present a great risk of flight. Thus, we submit defendants should be denied bail pending appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLES  F. C.  RUFF, United States Attorney
RAYMON BANOUN, Assistant United States Attorney
JUDITH ETHERTON, Assistant United States Attorney
KATHERINE WINFREE, Assistant United States Attorney

- ---------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

JANE KEMBER
MORRIS BUDLONG
  a/k/a MO BUDLONG

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I. Introduction

The defendants Jane Kember and Morris Budlong were each found guilty, following a jury trial, of nine counts of aiding and abetting burglary in the second degree. The evidence which led the jury to return these guilty verdicts revealed that during the years 1973 to 1976 the defendants ordered the commission of brazen, systematic and persistent burglaries of United States Government offices. Their purpose was to ransack these offices of all documents of interest to the organization which they led -- the Guardian's Office of the Church of Scientology -- in order to secure total exemption from taxation and to protect Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard. In the process, from their headquarters in East Grinstead, England, they challenged and attempted to undermine the Judicial and governmental structure of the United States. They did so by fraudulently using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a manner never intended by the Congress of the United States.

As this Court heard, these defendants set about filing FOIA requests with various Government agencies in order, inter alia, to cause these agencies to gather all the requested documents in a Central repository for the review process mandated by the FOIA. Once the Guardian's office discovered where these documents were located, they began a systematic pillaging of that office-repeated and surreptitiously breaking into that office, taking the documents, photocopying them with Government equipment and supplies, and replacing them in the Government files so that, in the words of defendant Budlong, these thefts would not be uncovered.

Notwithstanding the fact that they had obtained illegally all the documents they were seeking, they proceeded to file F0IA suits in the courts of this country, complaining that the particular Government agencies had not given them all the documents to which they were entitled. Thus, they perpetrated a fraud upon the American judicial system. They came into the American courts with unclean hands, seeking documents which they had already obtained by viola-ting the laws of the United States. After abusing the trial courts, they proceeded to abuse the appellate courts never disclosing that they were engaging in litigation in bad faith, totally heedless of the waste of judicial resources involved. Such conduct, which strikes at the very heart of the Judicial system, cannot be tolerated.

These defendants additionally ordered the theft of documents and memoranda of attorneys representing the United States Government, a party against whom they had instituted a variety of lawsuits. They did so to discover the attorneys' legal strategy and gain an unfair strategic advantage in the courts. In effect, they violated the attorney-client privilege of every litigant who opposed them, a fact which they seek to obfuscate by complaining in bad faith, that their own attorney-client privileges were violated. Such conduct cannot be permitted in our judicial system.

Once their emissaries were caught in the midst of one of their criminal acts, the defendants orchestrated from England a massive obstruction of the due administration of justice. Such outrageous conduct, which, we submit, this Court can consider under standards recognized by the Supreme Court, strikes at the very heart of our judicial system-a system that has often, at crucial times in our history, been the savior of our institutions.

Moreover, a review of the documents seized from the two Los Angeles, California, offices of the Guardian's office -- including log books of messages from these two defendants -- show the incredible and sweeping nature of the criminal conduct of these defendants. Indeed, Guardian Program Order 158, and some of the other orders in evidence, have already provided the Court with a glimpse of this conduct. 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. These are but a few of the criminal acts of these two defendants which, we submit, give the Court a glimpse of the heinous and vicious nature of their crimes.

In view of the severity of the crimes of which the defendants Kember and Budlong were convicted, the high level of their positions in the organizational hierarchy of the Guardian's Office, compared with the positions held by their nine co-defendants who were convicted after a non-jury trial based on an uncontested stipulation of evidence, as well as the additional information which we now bring to this Court's attention, we submit that the public Interest demands the imposition of substantial terms of incarceration. This Court must make it clear beyond peradventure that the criminal conduct of these two defendants cannot be countenanced, and that anyone who sets about masterminding and executing the crimes of which they were convicted, uses and then tampers with the judicial system as they have, will be dealt with in the most severe terms provided by the law.

VI. (Starting from page 30 of original)

Comparative Roles of These Defendants and the Previously Convicted Co-Defendants

The defendant Jane Kember was, during the periods relevant to the charges of which she was convicted, the Guardian World- Wide of the Church of Scientology. Her principal role was to "Protect" and "defend" Scientology from all persons and organiza-tions, private and governmental, whom Scientology viewed or per-ceived as its enemies. As such -- after L. Ron Hubbard (the Founder and Commodore), and Mary Sue Hubbard (the Deputy Commodore, Controller, and Commodore Staff Guardian) -- she was superior in authority to everyone else within the Guardian's Office. By the defense's own witnesses this Court was told that the defendant Kember ruled with an iron hand the whole Guardian's Office net-work which stretched through dozens of countries in almost every continent in the world.

Prior to assuming her position as Guardian World-Wide in the late 1960s, the defendant Kember served as the Deputy Guardian for Intelligence (later renamed Information) World-Wide a position assumed about 1967 by her loyal and hard working deputy and now co-defendant -- Morris Budlong. Thus, both defendants Kember and Budlong are long-standing, committed and dedicated high officials of the Guardian's Office. It was unchallenged at their trial that these two defendants took a leading role in every endeavor of the Guardian's Office, They drafted, reviewed and issued every order which commanded the commission of criminal acts. They de-manded total and absolute loyalty and obedience from their sub-ordinates, awarded them when they obtained it, punished them when they did not. They demanded to be kept Informed of every move made by their underlings through an elaborate system of weekly reports and emergency telex messages when the need arose.

Everyone of the other defendants previously convicted after a non-jury trial based on an uncontested stipulation of evidence, with the exception of Mary Sue Hubbard, were below them in the hierarchy of the Guardian's Office and carried out the orders of these two defendants. Seven of the other eight defendants sub-ordinate to Kember and Budlong were convicted of one felony count carrying a maximum term of incarceration of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In December, 1979, five of them received sen-tences of four years incarceration and $10,000 fines; the other two received sentences of five years in prison and $10,000 fines.

The defendants Kember and Budlong, on the other hand, were each found guilty following a five-week jury trial, of nine counts of burglary in the second degree -- felonies each carrying terms of incarceration of "not less than two years nor more than fifteen years." 22 D.C. Code § 1801(b). We submit that the sentences this Court will impose upon the defendants Kember and Budlong must be both commensurate with their role in the crimes of which they were convicted as well as with the sentences imposed upon their previously convicted co-defendants.

Bob Minton