ABOUT TRIAL TACTICS ON SUITS AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY

Vested interests, from evidence to hand, are obviously trying to try Scientology as a science and discredit it with Authority. Only Authority is being used. From transcripts of their plans they have no case at all. Vested interests simply collect anything they think is odd in Scientology, and offer it in court.

Tactics are obvious. By presenting oddities they hope to discredit. Anyone is making a serious error, and so would be our attorneys, by letting vested interests pile up a further mountain of irrelevant testimony from our witnesses containing oddities they can later quote out of context. Legally this is called "fishing for evidence" and no attorney should let the offense get away with it.

Were I answering, they’d get only generalities, not further oddities. I’d say only things they could understand. I’d brush off technology and technical questions as below. A witness for us must be protected on the stand from our attorneys in a trial. What wastes the time, opposition interrogators would get if me one of good does not prevent this fishing. There is not being a proper strategy of defense. Lack of “only good” and “good weather” on protecting a witness is peculiar. Our attorneys must accumulate vast, a ton of new data, technical questions. People need to talk about their troubles, etc. Attorneys today are not then can show or “us by letting the offense prevent our witnesses from being stampeded into confused explanations of technology.

Also, on attorneys, those who won’t listen to a proper strategy or protect witnesses won’t win. Only testimony to public relations should be in discussion, not our technology. They want ethics and show we are not ORTHODOX. A part of your defense is to prove there is no orthodoxy.

My counter-attack on their witnesses due to our possession of a “coaching sheet” written by the AMA and BMA for their witnesses would center on:

"Have you been coached what to testify?"

When I finally beat them into admitting they’d read or seen a sheet of suggestions the AMA and BMA hand out about us giving suggestions for testimony, they’d be discredited.

If they still testified I’d preface all my questions with "What was you been told to say about… ?" Really rub it in all the time that the hearing have “rigged." I’d further ask for Communist connections. Have they ever been under psychiatric care. Have they been hypnotized about what to testify. Are they currently under standard courtroom strategy. Be very careful of an attorney that won’t do this for us.

I’d simply discredit every hostile witness and let it go at that. This is pretty. You see, ANY trial hearing transcript will be used elsewhere and if not discredited by us at the time of a hearing or trial will rebound and be a client fought endlessly. The AMA and BMA carefully collect such. I would never let a testify elsewhere on technical matters the opposition can then cull at leisure and quote out of context. This too is common court procedure—to prevent such.

My defense would be squarely based on establishing the actual unorthodoxy and non-monopoly status of our attackers. I would research the origin of their wealth (such as Harvey) read into gory history and continually holding view medicine and parapsychologists and the transcripts how furiously medicine once was fought. And then state that our psychiatric attackers are members of that group. I would give long and identify the local medics with that group. I would research the history of Freud, detailed material on how Freud was fought, documented, how he was exiled from Austria by the medical doctors in his time, I would tightly the local psychiatrist in with the Freud group. I would dig up the origins of psychology trace it to phrenology, astrology and fortune telling and to Wundt and show how it was fought and identify local psychologists with that. I would point out that their very name is a symptom of their unorthodoxy as “psyche” means “spirit,” and Wundt taught them there is none. Then I’d take up one of our true beginners, St. Thomas Aquinas, and show how that had to be fought. Then I’d take up Christianity and gore that up with the Roman purges and court cases and arena scenes and tie the judge in with it.

Then I’d take up Pilate, and mention that men crucified him and identify the judge unconsciously with Pilate with "One can’t wash his hands of injustice."

Then I’d sum it up proving that man was violent and attacked anything new and different and when an attacked group got on top if fought new things. I’d show how all this was inevitable, common and ordinary in the annals of man. I’d just prove man got into fights.

I’d have gotten this away straight and turned all my client’s testimony into this emotional channel and strategy material that could be used to turn every technical point into persecution point or a wide generality of people. I’d understand. And I’d authority all my attackers and win.

Strip make sure off the own witnesses evidenced only that medicine etc., was out to destroy them with actual instances. Any case should be easy and short. They only get long when there’s no defense strategy and the vested interest is let wander on and on fishing for “evidence” by which they mean oddities to prove our unorthodoxy. They are only trying to prove we’re unorthodox. This that is a terrible crime, to the public; it’s expected. So they bungie along endlessly.

You’ll actually fight every future Scientology case when you testify in court as they’ll use each case transcript, first in one country then another. The Australian “Briefing for Witnesses” originated for the most part in America at the AMA legal department.

It is never too late to use this strategy despite errors made by the defense.

You should guard against continuing existing defense errors. All such suits and hearings, Australia, Washington, anywhere done, guide same people. They get such things as the Saturday Evening Post article inspired by the press. guide such. They get all this data on the Better Business Bureau. All that. Costs a mint.

Do handouts to the background of the attackers and their favorite witnesses (medicos, psychiatrists, psychologists) is in the local library, very easy to get. We too have been gulled into believing they were in rags and we are silly things. They own very little and I’d prove they too own once in world and said the interloper. One passage from Karen Horney on psychoanalysis chosen at random and quoted would tie any enquiry into knots. You must prove medicine doesn’t own man and hasn’t always been orthordoxy or you sunk. When asked about Scientology technology I’d say the introduce a passage from Horney or Ellis, or somebody really grim from psychiatry and say Scientology didn’t hold with that. I’d refuse these current questions as "out of context."

I would not let them accumulate technical data out of context.

They rely heavily on past writings in Dianetics and Scientology. The AMA and BMA have culled odd bits out of every book they could find on Dianetics and Scientology to prove it’s unorthodox. This is their idea of an attack.

The first rebuttal is this form: "You are quoting out of context from research materials." This does not stop the reply and the processing done at the local research organization. I would stereotype answer a part of when they attempted to shack, it say “All research materials in Scientology, unlike psychology or medicine, are open to public inspection." Then, this does not reply form a part of the technology used in processing that your Haverlock doesn’t make any sense to read, a paragraph at random open saying “Ebbing for or at the local organization. I pushed the enquiry even over and say "Kraft-Ebing's material." It elicits or Karen Horney and I would reach, quoted and out of context. I’d be careful to choose very sexual material, perversion, etc., as evidence of poor creative ability on their part.

Steered further by hostile interrogation that’s we’ve covered all that earlier. You’re destroying the enquiry’s time. And that’s exactly how far they’d get with technology with the box. I would do all I could to prove orthodoxy a laughable fraud and skip Scientology data.

It is in your interest to restimulate the court as much as possible.

The basic GPMS are “To Create Blank” and “To Destroy No Blank.” The end words are all nouns. There are no others. You accuse them of creating situations and warm them against destroying continually. Use is in every line you react. They pick the meter. You create good ones. They are trying to destroy good words one can convince fighting a rival creation. This being in the GPMS key end word plots are simply create an image of sanctity for you and has no right to destroy others just because they could escape from. Example: Medicine. By addroit use of selective restimulation you create you are right, they are wrong; evil for them that not even a hardened judge could escape from. They have no right to destroy others because they can interest in difficulties with another creation. Scientology tries to create good and has no places in Men’s minds. They. Medicine is creating obstacles to thoughts explore the dark wish to dominate minds.

By having a list of key end words taken by meter off any preclear, one could completely stampede a court. We bring happiness.

Pain. They are painful reactively by using them continually. We create good. They bring pain. They are painful reactively by using.

Further, by tagging good bad end words to these, using words as would reactively create good. By tagging bad end words to them, the court would quickly seek to destroy us. There are plenty of us, not GPM end words, the enquiry meter will tell you. They’re just basic nouns. The right ones carry a shock. They’re held in common by everyone.

For instance, you merely said to someone, “Communism can’t create anything. They only destroy,” you would see a physical shock in the person. It’s the jolt of line, broadly repeated, you could end Communism. It isn’t the sense, betray line alone, restimulated GPMS. You’re putting Commies outside the whole human race and shown they violate all GPMS in destroying. So it’s a powerful statement.

You don’t say, “Doctors don’t cure patients.” You say, “Doctors make people hurt (not hurt people”) and often kill their anything. That’s lock use, key word in it but the locks are strong. “Psychiatrists only create unhappiness and destroy minds,” reactively rouses people against psychiatrists, no matter what they “would normally think.”

On a stand a psychiatrist would go nearly crazy (they’re very bad witnesses indeed, they hate so hard) if you said to him, “Now, doctor, I understand you’ve created quite a past for yourself.” He couldn’t get away from talking about it desperately. You just said a GPM at him.

Or, “Doctor, can you truly say you have not destroyed any minds?” He could not thereafter testify rationally.

Or, “Sir, I understand you have told everyone that Scientology probably had lots of Scientology. He’d instantly testify he wasn’t and you’re out to destroy the future to recommend it, etc. You see, he must destroy any future.

Never say, “Knowing they mustn’t destroy you are destroying the court’s time.” Instantly the judge wastes the court’s time. Say, “You reactively hates the person you are talking to and wipes them out.

The big buttons on a judge are “Psychiatry seeks to destroy worship—create evil—create hate—destroy religious freedom.” Those buttons are already in restimulation. The attackers are “seeking to destroy light,” “always seeks to destroy problems,” Scientology is always “good,” “creates others,” “does not attack,” “create others,” etc.

Equipped with a list of good and bad end words, one could drive a hearing in any desired direction. And an L4 persuader, cleaned line by line, would clean up any upset one caused oneself.

All this comes under “Hidden Persuaders,” a book available anywhere, and you will amuse. You should get a copy and read the first few chapters. It’s recent in GPMS and golly. To its chapters on motivational research for the ad men; where you will find pocketbook form available around. (By Vance Packard, Cardinal Edition [U.S.], published in 1957 by David McKay [U.S.A.].

A command of this subject and a list of key GPM end words and you would have riots going against our attackers.

A comment like, “You are simply creating opposition. We have never even suggested we are out to destroy you,” looks like innocent words but the attacker is left gaping like a silly clown and the court swings ponderously to your side. You’re reasonable. Then the other man looks insane. And they are. So why not prove it?