Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95
From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!gatech!hookup!interlog.com!io.org!nobody Mon Jul 10 17:04:42 1995
From: email@example.com (x)
Subject: Scientology in Toronto 
Date: 10 Jul 1995 15:20:55 -0400
Organization: Internex Online (Data: 363-3783/Telnet: io.org)
SCIENTOLOGY HISTORY IN TORONTO, PART NINE
In December 1987, Scientology affiliate New Era Publications
International, ApS of Copenhagen was in federal court, attempting to get
an interim injunction to stop the publication of "The Bare-Faced
Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard, by Russell Miller. Cathia
Riley, the church's director of special affairs, claimed that the book
contained material stolen by former members of the church in California.
Lawyer Julian Porter, whose wife owns Key Porter Books, the Canadian
publisher, told the court that his main defence was "fair dealing" on
the part of the author. "You cannot criticize accurately without citing
in some instances the work you are criticizing", Porter said. 
On December 2nd, four hours after lawyers had ended their arguments,
Mr. Justice Bud Cullen delivered a 10 page judgement denying the
injunction. Judge Cullen described Scientology's founder as an author
of "outlandish, foolish, vicious, racist writings." He observed
approvingly of statements by a British High Court judge that Scientology
is "both immoral and socially obnoxious" as well as "corrupt, sinister
and dangerous". 
Scientology had some good luck in May of 1988. The long-awaited Supreme
Court of Canada decision in the case of _Stewart v. The Queen_ was
announced on May 26. Stewart was a consultant who was acting on behalf
of a union in a recruiting drive. He had offered a security guard at
the worksite an amount of money in exchange for a confidential list of
employee names, addresses and telephone numbers. The information was to
be obtained without removing or otherwise affecting the records
themselves. Stewart was reported to the police, and was charged with
counselling to commit a fraud, counselling to commit a theft, and
counselling to commit mischief.
The Supreme Court determined that Stewart should be acquitted of all
charges. They wrote that for a theft to occur, that which is stolen
must be the subject of a proprietary right, and that it "must be capable
of being taken or converted in a manner that results in the deprivation
of the victim". 
Therefore, information cannot be stolen. Merely copying or memorizing a
confidential document is not theft.
The lawyer who argued this case was Clayton Ruby. The arguments of
_Stewart v. The Queen_ were later put to good use by Scientology.
In July, 1988, Scientology came up with a new tactic. Church lawyer
Clayton Ruby sent a letter to Ontario Attorney General Ian Scott
proposing a deal whereby "possibly millions" of dollars would be given
to agencies which help the elderly, poor, and drug addicts, if the
government would drop charges against the Church and give them immunity
from prosecution. At a press conference on July 26th, church spokesman
Cathia Riley said that the church did not insist that charges against
individual members be dropped, and urging Scott to suggest an
appropriate cash amount.
It turned out that the social agencies were not very happy about the
proposal, and Scott was roundly criticized for even considering the
deal, which he admitted was an attempt to buy off the prosecution. The
idea that people or corporations with deep pockets could be above the
law did not sit well with the citizens, and the proposal was quickly
refused.     
The accused Scientologists, and the Church of Scientology of Toronto,
were indicted on September 21st, 1990, and again by preferred indictment
on February 8th, 1991, on charges of theft and/or possession of stolen
property, and of Breach of Trust by Public Officer.  
In an unreported preliminary hearing before Judge Babe, Scientology
argued successfully that it could not be proven that the documents which
they were accused of having stolen, or having possessed knowing that
they were stolen, were of a value greater than $200. This makes the
difference between petty theft and felonious theft (the limit today
 is $1000). Scientology lawyers relied on the Supreme Court
ruling in _Stewart v. The Queen_, as the valuation of the documents had
been based largely on their confidentiality, that is, the value of the
information. The Crown was reduced to allegations either that the paper
on which the documents were printed had been stolen, or else that it was
removed from use (converted) for the period of time it took to photocopy
The Scientology defence lawyers then sought a declaration from the trial
court that their right under s. 8 of the _Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms_ to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure was
infringed, due to the manner in which the search warrant was executed
and because the warrant was allegedly obtained in a fatally flawed
The accused argued that the evidence relied on to show reasonable and
probable grounds for a search was obtained by unlawful acts by the
police. An undercover police officer employed by the church had taken
documents from the workplace, had them copied, and returned them to the
files. The accused argued that the removal constituted a "seizure" and
that the seizure was unreasonable and violated their s. 8 rights. They
also claimed that the taking of the documents constituted theft. They
submitted that the police officer committed forgery when, in connection
with her employment for the church, she signed a document containing a
Constable Barbara Taylor of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) later
testified on May 19th, 1992 about her role. She had been assigned to
work undercover at the church in 1980, after documents from the Ontario
government had been found in an FBI search of the Los Angeles Church of
Scientology headquarters.  By 1983 she had gained a position in the
Guardian's Office of the Toronto church. In this position, she had
access to intelligence files, including files on the OPP and the
detective supervising Taylor's assignment. She said that some of the
information appeared to be from job-performance evaluations.
Anyone with a sense of irony will be amused at this. Here are the
police investigating infiltrations by doing some infiltrating of their
own. Here is an undercover officer discovering purloined information on
her own force, job-performance reviews on her own boss. And because she
copied that information, the Scientologists cry foul and accuse her of
theft. Truly a game of spy and counterspy.
Judge Southey ruled:
"The taking of the documents did not constitute theft, because it was
not done fraudulently or without colour of right. The taking was
incidental to the ultimate disclosure of the suspected criminal
conduct of the accused. The undercover officer was under a public
duty to make full disclosure, a duty which did not depend on her
status as a police officer." 
The judge also ruled that the seizure of the documents was not
unreasonable and did not violate s. 8 rights.
As to forgery, Constable Taylor was required to sign a document
entitled, "Declaration of Religious Commitment and Application for
Active Participation on Church Staff". This document includes the
" (9) I am not related to or connected to intelligence agencies either
by past history or immediate familial connections.
(11) I am not here to obtain news stories or data for any other
organization or to generally disrupt the Church organization.
(14) I have had no prior service in a high security section of the
government or armed forces.
Judge Southey said that the officer did commit the offences of forgery and
uttering (she had been assured that the Attorney General would stay
prosecution), but that the fact that this was not revealed to the
issuing judge did not render the search warrant invalid. This would
only be the case if the information not disclosed would tip the scales
against the issuance, in the mind of the issuing judge. In fact, had
Judge Hayes been informed that "source #3" was an undercover police
officer, it would probably have strengthened the case. "The signing of
the forms was essential to her undercover operation... most reasonable
persons would regard the criminality as technical, not involving and
A much more serious issue was the manner in which the search warrant was
executed. The search warrant limited the search with these words: "All
the above described things to be searched for to relate directly to the
below described offences." These were the three proposed charges of tax
fraud, consumer fraud, and conspiracy to commit indictable offences,
including break, enter and theft. The Ontario High Court and Court of
Appeal had referred to the limitation above in deciding that the warrant
The investigation into Scientology had been given the name,"Project 20".
It was kept to a minimum number of persons, so as to avoid exposure to
possible Scientology "plants".
The search warrant was executed by a force of 129 OPP officers, most of
whom were used to secure the building. The search team consisted of 37
officers, some of whom were administrative personnel. The original plan
called for only 19 officers to actually look at the documents. These
were a 3 officers per floor, plus one extra on the third floor. The
seven accountants present were to give advice on the documents to be
seized. Only one of the searching officers on each floor was a Project
20 member. There was one copy of the search warrant per floor. None of
the officers had been permitted to contact relatives between their
muster for the search and the initiation of the search, in order not to
tip off the suspected "plants". No provision was made for the searching
officers to be relieved. While the warrant permitted a three day
search, the plan was to take 20 - 24 hours to complete it. In fact, it
was complete in 20 hours, but allowing for time to prepare rooms for
searching by photographing and labelling, only about 17 to 18 hours was
39,000 files were taken, averaging 50 to 60 pages per file, for a total
seizure of about 2 million pages. The trial judge calculated that if
the seizure of all documents had been approved by the team leaders, as
was the original plan, then "the six team leaders each approved
documents at the rate of five pages per second, non-stop, for the 17 or
18 hours in which they were searching." 
A significant number of documents were seized which did not fall within
the classes of documents covered by the search warrant. An example was
the pre-clear folders. They were clearly marked as pre-clear folders,
and each bore the name of the person who was the subject of the file.
The OPP had authority under the warrant to seize the pre-clear folders
relating to members and former members of the Guardian Office. No list
of names of the Guardian Office staff was provided to the searching
officers. Instead, the total number of pre-clear folders seized was 978,
relating to 641 parishoners. In June 1983, 48 boxes of pre-clear
folders were returned by the OPP, because they were folders of persons
not on the Guardian Office staff.
Likewise, in other areas, the judge found that there were wholesale
seizures, rather than a search for relevant documents followed by a
seizure. Whole locked filing cabinets were taken, rather than being
opened and searched. Judge Southey concluded, "There is no question
that the search and seizure of documents not covered by the search
warrant which resulted from the improper manner in which the search was
conducted was unreasonable because it was warrantless." 
However, the Crown sought only to introduce documents which did fall
within the terms of the search warrant. Judge Southey referenced
decisions in _United States v. Heldt_, 668 F.2d 1238 (1981) and
_R. v. Simmons_ (1988), 38 C.R.R. 252, which relate to a good faith
attempt by officers to stay within the limits of a warrant, and to the
requirement for a "flagrant" violation of _Charter_ rights for evidence
to be set aside. He concluded that because so many officers paid no
attention to the search warrant limitation, that the facts do not
support a finding of good faith.
Section 24(2) of the _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms_ requires:
"Where ... a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner
that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this
Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that,
having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the
proceedings would bring the administration of justice into
Accordingly, Judge Southey ruled on December 2nd, 1991, "the Crown may
not give evidence as to the documents seized in the premises of the
corporate defendendant on March 3 and 4, 1983." 
NONE of the seized documents could be used as evidence in the trial.
1. "Court weighs bid to ban boiography of Hubbard", Globe & Mail,
December 1, 1987, p. A18.
2. "Lawyer says biography in breach of copyright", Globe & Mail,
December 2, 1987, p. D14.
3. "Court rejects bid to ban Scientologist's biography", Globe & Mail,
December 3, 1987, p. A20.
4. Stewart v. The Queen. Canadian Criminal Cases, vol. 41 (1988), p. 481.
5. "Scientology church offers to aid poor if charges dropped", Globe &
Mail, July 26, 1988, p. A1.
6. "Church of Scientology offers deal for immunity", Toronto Star, July
27, 1988, p. A12.
7. "Scientology charges secular, Scott contends", Globe & Mail, July 27,
1988, p. A1.
8. "Charities cool to Scientologists' offer", Globe & Mail, July 26,
1988, p. A13.
9. "Scott attacked over Scientology case", Globe & Mail, July 29, 1988,
10. "Church to stand trial", Globe & Mail, September 22, 1990, p. A7.
11. Ontario Court (General Division) document 1571/90.
12. "Secret Ontario documents found in U.S. cult's files", Globe & Mail,
January 22, 1980, p. 1 and 2.
13. R. v. Church of Scientology. Canadian Rights Reporter, vol. 9, p. 198.
14. Ibid, p. 216-217.
15. p. 204.
16. p. 210.
17. p. 220.