Fair game (Scientology)

Template:ScientologySeries Fair Game (FG) was a status assigned to those whom the Church of Scientology had officially declared to be Suppressive Persons or SPs. "Suppressive Persons" are those whose actions are deemed to "suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist." Often, this means they have been overtly critical of the church.

L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, formulated "The Fair Game Law" in a 1965 policy letter: "A Suppressive Person or Group becomes 'fair game.'" In a subsequent policy statement, Hubbard wrote that a person deemed Fair Game "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." The Church of Scientology has used "noisy investigation" as one method of attacking its enemies.

In 1968, Hubbard declared the term "fair game" would no longer be used, because "it causes bad public relations" . Many journalists and critics of Scientology have stated on syndicated national TV shows, radio programs, magazines, and newspapers that the primary purpose of the policy has remained unchanged over the years and that fair game is still a doctrine for attacking enemies of Scientology.

The Church has admitted that the practice of fair game exists since it issued the HCOPL cancelling the use of the term "fair game". In 1989 and 1994 appeals in Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Scientology asserted that fair game was a "core practice of Scientology", and therefore protected as "religious expression". . The Church also took this position in a 1984 court case with Gerald Armstrong.

The "Fair Game Law" 1965

The expression Fair Game Law was introduced by L. Ron Hubbard in a Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter (HCO PL) first issued in early March 1965.

HCO POLICY LETTER OF MARCH 1, 1965 ETHICS - SUPPRESSIVE ACTS - SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS - THE FAIR GAME LAW  :

A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress

or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology

or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.

...

A Suppressive Person or Group becomes "fair game".

By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and

disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.

....

The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in

attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any

protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.

Later in December of that year it was reissued as:

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965 (Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I. This was originally misdated as 1 March 1965)

This 23 December HCOPL is about identical to the 1 March 1965 release. The earlier quotations remain fully intact. This HCOPL is found reprinted in the Organizational Executive Course volumes (often referred to as OECs). These are an official Scientology collection of HCOPLs, the "PTS-SP" course materials, references for the GO agent training packs, etc.

HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions, extends the policy:

ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

Cancellation and controversy

Hubbard's "Fair Game" policy soon gained notoriety in the British press, and even received mention in Parliament. As a result, Hubbard reissued HCOPL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions as HCOPL 21 July 68, Penalties for Lower Conditions. . It redefined the condition of Enemy into: "Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org."

In October that year was also issued HCOPL 21 Oct 68 Cancellation of Fair Game that said: "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." .

Although this and subsequent policy letters publicly cancelled use of the phrase "Fair Game" and its practice outside of Scientology, confidential policy letters of the time show the previously expressed attitude remained in place. In fact, in the OEC volumes collecting official policy letters, HCOPL 21 October 1968 was attached as an addendum to HCOPL 23 December 1965, making plain that this HCOPL, "ETHICS SUPPRESSIVE ACTS SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS THE FAIR GAME LAW" was the policy that was not to be cancelled as active policy on "treatment or handling of an SP".

Fair game concepts continued to be found in other HCOPLs. For example, in HCOPL 16 Feb 69 Issue II, Battle tactics, Hubbard states: "One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. He deprives the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory. He raids and harasses. All on a thought plane - press, public opinion, governments, etc. Seeing it as a battle, one can apply battle tactics to thought actions. ... Never treat a war like a skirmish. Treat all skirmishes like wars."

L. Ron Hubbard EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE 2 December 1966, the "CONFIDENTIAL" "PROJECT SQUIRREL" states:

...

(a) People who attack Scientology are criminals.

(b) That if one attacks Scientology he gets investigated for crimes.

(c) If one does not attack Scientology, despite not being

with it, one is safe.

...

Other similar documents that paralleled and reinforced "fair game" policies included HCOPL 15 February 1966, Attacks on Scientology, the 18 February Attacks on Scientology continued, HCOPL 17 February 1966, Public Investigations, HCOPL 15 Aug, 1960, Department of Government affairs and others.

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 FEBRUARY 1966

...

ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY (Additional Pol Ltr)

...

This is correct procedure:

(1) Spot who is attacking us.

(2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals not outside agencies.

(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

(4) Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. Don't ever tamely

submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.

In 1977, after Scientologists had been discovered infiltrating government offices and stealing documents (as part of Operation Snow White), the FBI raided Scientology headquarters in Los Angeles and Washington DC. Scientology records seized in those raids revealed that Hubbard had set up a division in 1966 called the Guardian's Office (GO) that gathered intelligence on and harassed perceived enemies of the organization. Among the items seized were 1974 GO agent "Hat Packs", the training materials for GO agents. Included there for study was the original 7 Mar 1965 HCOPL, "Fair Game." This HCOPL was marked "starrated," meaning that GO agents were expected to memorize and be drilled on that particular policy.

Eleven Scientologists eventually pled guilty to the theft of government documents, including Mary Sue Hubbard, Hubbard's wife, who was head of the Guardian's Office. L. Ron Hubbard was named an un-indicted co-conspirator. Two GO officials, Jane Kember and Mo Budlong, admitted through their lawyer that "Fair Game" policy was practiced in the GO.

Further modifications to the policy

Today the Church of Scientology follows Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter (HCOPL) of 23 December 1965RB, revised 8 January 1991 and titled: Suppressive Acts Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists.

As instructed in the "cancellation" HCPOL of 1968, the words "Fair Game" do not appear in the modern policy. It states the procedure the Church of Scientology is to follow regarding suppressive acts (acts meant to harm) against the Church of Scientology or suppressive acts against Scientologists. It closely defines what constitutes a suppressive act and includes "any felony (such as murder, arson, etc), blackmail" and goes on for about 2 pages with a list of such actions which the Church of Scientology considers to be suppressive acts. It disambiguates between those within the CoS who are proven to have done such acts and those exterior to the CoS who are doing such acts against the CoS or CoS members. It spells out how do deal with the above situations. It concludes with this statement:

"Nothing in this policy letter shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violation of the laws of the land or intentional legal wrongs. Any such offense shall subject the offender to penalties prescribed by law as well as to ethics and justice actions."

Because the official policy for confronting its enemies does not include the words "fair game," the Church of Scientology states today that it has no "Fair Game" policy. The term is not found in any policy letter presently published or used by the CoS. However, Policy letters were revised for a number of reasons as the CoS grew. One of the reasons was a larger organization required additional policy. Critics of Scientology state that regardless of the name used to describe its policy, the Church of Scientology continues to attack its perceived enemies relentlessly through any means possible. [1]

Examples of Fair Game

Paulette Cooper and "Operation Freakout", 1973

Main article: Operation Freakout

Paulette Cooper is a New York-based freelance journalist. Cooper wrote a critical article on Scientology in the British Queen Magazine (now Harpers Queen) in 1969 [2]. In 1971 she published a book, "The Scandal of Scientology". [3].

In 1973 Cooper was indicted by a US federal jury for bomb threats against Scientology offices and for perjury, and she underwent a year of psychiatric treatment as a condition of her negotiations with the US Attorney.

In 1977 the FBI found Church of Scientology documents containing a precise plan to frame Cooper for bomb threats in order to get her "incarcerated in a mental institution or jail or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks." [4]. The plan was dubbed by its authors "Operation Freakout." Scientology operatives had sent the bomb threats, using Paulette Cooper's typewriter and paper with her fingerprints on it. On October 12th, 1977 Paulette Cooper was informed by the FBI that her innocence of the charges had been conclusively established.

Cooper's history as the object of "fair gaming" is summarized in Paulette Cooper's Statement to City of Clearwater Commission Hearings in 1982 [5] and in the harassment diary Cooper kept on the advice of her lawyers, which she posted on the internet in 1997. [6]

John Clark, 1977

John Gordon Clark, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard criticized Scientology in 1976 during a testimony before the Vermont senate.

Scientology started to harass him in the next year. About this harassment, Justice Latey of the Royal Courts of Justice stated 1984 (Ref: Re B & G (Minors) [1985] FLR 134 and 493)

"Beginning in 1977 the Church of Scientology has conducted a campaign of persecution against Dr. Clark. They wrote letters to the Dean at the Harvard Medical School and to the Director of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Then the Dean and the Director refused to gag him. Their [the Church's] agents tracked down and telephoned several of his patients, and interviewed his neighbors looking for evidence to impugn his private or personal actions. They submitted a critical report to a Committee of the Massachusetts State Senate. On three occasions during the last five years a Scientology "front" called the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights have brought complaints against him to the Massachusetts Medical Board of Registration alleging improper professional conduct. In 1980 he was declared "Number One Enemy" and in 1981 they brought two law suits against him (summarily dismissed, but costly and worrying). They distributed leaflets in the Massachusetts General Hospital offering a $25,000 reward to employees for evidence which would lead to his conviction on any charge of criminal activity. They stole his employment record from another Boston hospital. They convened press conferences calculated to ruin his professional reputation. "

Louis Jolyon West, also a critic of Scientology, remarked regarding John Clark: "I was lucky that I was a full-time professor in a big university like UCLA. Others, like Harvard's Jack Clark. who was primarily in private practice, nearly had their lives ruined by the Scientologists." (Psychiatric Times, 1991)

1985 Clark started a lawsuit against Scientology, alleging they tried to destroy his reputation and career. "My sin," Clark said in an interview, "was publicly saying this is a dangerous and harmful cult. They did a good job of showing I'm right."

In 1988, the church paid Clark an undisclosed sum to drop his lawsuit. In exchange for the money, Clark agreed never again to publicly criticize Scientology.

Casey Hill, 1985

Justice Casey Hill, at that time a Crown attorney involved in the R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto case, sued and won for libel in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto. During the case, it was shown that a file had been kept on him as an "Enemy Canada". In their decision (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada found:

"In this case, there was ample evidence upon which the jury could properly base their finding of aggravated damages. The existence of the file on Casey Hill under the designation "Enemy Canada" was evidence of the malicious intention of Scientology to "neutralize" him. The press conference was organized in such a manner as to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the libel. Scientology continued with the contempt proceedings although it knew its allegations were false. In its motion to remove Hill from the search warrant proceedings, it implied that he was not trustworthy and might act in those proceedings in a manner that would benefit him in his libel action. It pleaded justification or truth of its statement when it knew it to be false. It subjected Hill to a demeaning cross-examination and, in its address to the jury, depicted Hill as a manipulative actor."

Richard Behar and Time magazine, 1991

Investigative journalist Richard Behar wrote an 11-page cover feature for Time magazine in 1991, titled "Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power."[7] Scientology initiated a libel lawsuit against Time and Behar. After years of legal wrangling, the suit was dismissed by the district court in 1996, the dismissal was upheld by the court of appeals in 2001 [8] and the Supreme Court refused to reinstate the case [9]. In a sidebar to the original article, Behar describes his experiences with Scientology's Fair Game tactics during the five months he was preparing the article:

"For the TIME story, at least 10 attorneys and six private detectives were unleashed by Scientology and its followers in an effort to threaten, harass and discredit me... [As] I later learned, copy of my personal credit report -- with detailed information about my bank accounts, home mortgage, credit-card payments, home address and Social Security number -- had been illegally retrieved from a national credit bureau called Trans Union. The sham company that received it, "Educational Funding Services" of Los Angeles, gave as its address a mail drop a few blocks from Scientology's headquarters. The owner of the mail drop is a private eye named Fred Wolfson, who admits that an [Scientology-associated private investigator Eugene Ingram] associate retained him to retrieve credit reports on several individuals. Wolfson says he was told that Scientology's attorneys "had judgments against these people and were trying to collect on them." He says now, "These are vicious people. These are vipers." Ingram, through a lawyer, denies any involvement in the scam. ... After that, however, an attorney subpoenaed me, while another falsely suggested that I might own shares in a company I was reporting about that had been taken over by Scientologists (he also threatened to contact the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission). A close friend in Los Angeles received a disturbing telephone call from a Scientology staff member seeking data about me -- an indication that the cult may have illegally obtained my personal phone records. Two detectives contacted me, posing as a friend and a relative of a so-called cult victim, to elicit negative statements from me about Scientology. Some of my conversations with them were taped, transcribed and presented by the church in affidavits to TIME's lawyers as "proof" of my bias against Scientology."

Bonnie Woods, 1993

Bonnie Woods, an ex-member who began counselling people involved with Scientology and their families, became a target along with her husband in 1993 when the Church of Scientology started a leaflet operation denouncing her as a "hate campaigner" with demonstrators outside their home and around East Grinstead. She and her family were followed by a private investigator, and a creditor of theirs was located and provided free legal assistance to sue them into bankruptcy. After a long battle of libel suits, in 1999 the church agreed to issue an apology and pay £55,000 damages and £100,000 costs to the Woods.

The Fair Game policy in the courts

The case of L. Gene Allard, 1976

In 1976, Scientology was found legally liable for the malicious prosecution of a dissatified Scientologist named L. Gene Allard who left Scientology in 1969. The suit specifically charged the Church with "Fair Gaming" Allard according to Church policy.

The case of Lawrence Wollersheim, 1980

In a long and contentious trial, Lawrence Wollersheim, a former Scientologist, alleged that he had been harassed and his business nearly destroyed as a result of "fair game" measures. During appeals, Scientology again claimed Fair Game was a "core practice" of Scientology and was thus Constitutionally protected activity. That claim was denied by the appelate court on July 18, 1989. After over 20 years of legal wrangling, the Church of Scientology paid Wollersheim the amount of the judgement, plus interest: $8,674,643.[10]

The case of Jakob Anderson, 1981

In the March 11-16, 1981, Danish court case of Jakob Anderson vs The Church Of Scientology of Denmark, ex-Guardian's Office operative Vibeke Dammon testified that Scientology did in fact practice Fair Game and had done so in Anderson's case, in an attempt to get Anderson committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The case of Gerald Armstrong, 1984

In 1980, Scientologist and Sea Org officer Gerald Armstrong was assigned to organize some of Hubbard's personal papers as the basis for a biography of Hubbard. Omar Garrison, a non-Scientologist known to be sympathetic to Scientology, was hired to write the biography. Both Armstrong and Garrison quickly realized that the papers reflected unfavorably on Hubbard, and revealed that many of Hubbard's claimed accomplishments were exaggerations or outright fabrications. Garrison abandoned the project, and a disillusioned Armstrong and his wife left Scientology, retaining copies of the embarrassing materials as insurance against the expected harassment to come from Scientology.

Armstrong was sued by the Church in 1982 for the theft of private documents. The Fair Game policy became an issue in court. Armstrong won the case, in part because the Judge ruled that Armstrong, as a Scientologist of long standing, knew that fair game was practiced, and had good reason to believe that possession of these papers would be necessary to defend himself against illegal persecution by the Church. In a scathing decision, Judge Paul Breckenridge wrote:

"In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil-rights, the organization over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and the bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements..."

"In determining whether the defendant unreasonably invaded Mrs. Hubbard's privacy, the court is satisfied the invasion was slight, and the reasons and justification for the defendant's conduct manifest. Defendant was told by Scientology to get an attorney. He was declared an enemy by the Church. He believed, reasonably, that he was subject to "fair game." The only way he could defend himself, his integrity, and his wife was to take that which was available to him and place it in a safe harbor, to wit, his lawyer's custody." (Judge Paul Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court, June 20, 1984)

During the trial, Scientology hired Frank K. Flinn, a professor of comparative religions, to write a report arguing that Fair Game was a "core practice" of Scientology and thus should be considered Constitutionally protected activity.

The fair game concept and Scientology doctrine

From the earliest days of Scientology, Hubbard implied that only those who had been processed according to his therapies were deserving of civil rights. In his view, those who were not "clear" – still hindered by their "reactive mind" – were inherently untrustworthy. In Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1950), he states in the chapter Judicial Ethics:

An ideal society would be a society of unaberrated persons, clears conducting their lives within an unaberrated culture: for either the persons or culture may be aberrated. ... Perhaps at some distant date, only the unaberrated person will be granted civil rights before the law.

Similarly, in Science of Survival (1951), Hubbard states:

Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a nation threatened by war could take would be rounding up and placing in a cantonment, away from society, any [such] individual who might be connected with government, the military, or essential industry; since here are people who, regardless of any record of their family's loyalty, are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the political subversives, the people whose apparently rational activities are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate.

Anyone who criticized Scientology was counted among the hateful, immoral, and "aberrated," in Hubbard's view. The logic of this was fairly simple: As Scientology was a purely charitable organization, dedicated to the improvement of mankind, clearly only the most depraved or corrupt individuals would have any interest in attacking it. There was no legitimate criticism of Scientology, so long as Hubbard's instructions were being followed to the letter. Thus anyone who attacked bona fide Hubbardian Scientology was by definition someone who had put himself beyond the pale.

Early on, Hubbard advocated a strong counter-attack as the response to any outside criticism of Scientology. In Manual of Dissemination of Materials (1955, collected from his writings in Ability magazine), he wrote:

The DEFENSE of anything is untenable. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you forget that you will lose every battle that you engage in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. Do yourself, much MORE CHARGINGS and you will WIN."

In the same work, he instructed his followers to use litigation as a tactical weapon against critics of Scientology:

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass... If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

This frequently quoted statement by L. Ron Hubbard regarding the use of lawsuits was quoted by U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema in the case of Religious Technology Center vs. The Washington Post, in 1995.

In addition, he proposed to use a tactic he dubbed "noisy" or "overt" investigation – essentially a means of applying pressure – to dissuade critics of Scientology. In the 1959 Manual of Justice, he stated:

Investigation by outside sources: Overt investigation of someone or something by an outside detective agency should be done more often and hang the expense.

Thus, by the end of the 1950s, the two key doctrinal elements that were to support the Fair Game policy were in place: the dismissal of any consideration for critics, and a willingness to take punitive action against them.

See also

• Game (Scientology)
• Dead Agenting

External links

Church of Scientology owned sites

• Q. What does the term “fair game” refer to? -- from the Church of Scientology's FAQ pages.

Various studies

• The history of fair game in Scientology as seen from the policy letters (Michel Snoeck)
• The Scientology Fair Game Timeline (William C. Barwell)
• Fair Game Cancellation (Freddie)
• Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology; Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.; Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London; December 1971. Also known as the Foster Report.

Critical sites

• www.fairgamed.org
• suppressiveperson.org on "Fair Game" policy
• Operation Clambake present: The "Fair Game" policy

Other

• Deceived; One woman's stand against the Church of Scientology, Bonnie Woods, London: Published by Hodder & Houghton. 2001. ISBN 034078567.
• Eric J. Ascalon: Dangerous Science: The Church of Scientology's Holy War against Critics, American Jurist, November 1995, Vol. 9 No. 2
• Robert Vaughn Young "Affidafit regarding Fair Game", declaration in the case Church of Scientology International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, 1994.
• Stephen A. Kent, University of Alberta, Statement on Fair Game for the Dennis Erlich case, February 1999
• Clare Dyer, Scientologists pay for libel, The Guardian, 9 June, 1999