Parties traduites en français en bleu
Ce mémorandum constitue probablement la plus virulente de toutes les mises en examen jamais endurées par la secte scientologie. Il sera suivi de la condamnation ad-hoc. En résumé, on y apprend que la scientologie, y compris Hubbard, son staff d'encadrement des "services spéciaux", ainsi que quelques membres extérieurs à ces services, ont cambriolé, infiltré, volé, diffamé, menti sous parjure devant un Grand Jury, kidnappé témoin et fugitif, caché des fugitifs, fabriqué des faux en tout genre, "mis en prison" un fugitif qui voulait se rendre aux autorités, intenté des procès uniquement pour empoisonner la vie de gens qu'ils estimaient opposants, détruits des preuves, incité et entraîné "leurs" faux-témoins à mentir et de manière générale conspiré haineusement contre l'ensemble du gouvernement et de leurs opposants, qu'il s'agisse du Ministère de la Justice, de la Santé, du FBI, de l'IRS, de la police, volé et cambriolé et diffamé des avocats des victimes, des journalistes, auteurs, directeurs de journaux, le tout en tentant hypocritement de se draper du voile "Liberté de religion, liberté d'expression" qu'ils refusaient à leurs victimes.
Si vous n'avez pas le temps de lire nombreux passages marquants - voire poignants - de ce document, n'hésitez pas à lire au moins la conclusion et les deux ou trois passages en caractères gras.
Note 1: M. Meisner est ce scientologue qui après avoir commis tous ces crimes s'est finalement rendu aux autorités, mais que les scientologues ont envisagé de supprimer avant qu'il ne réussisse à s'évader après qu'ils l'aient kidnappé.
Nota: Nous avons inséré les traductions dans la copie de l'original en anglais, les passages traduits étant en-dessous des passages originaux. Des notes sont laissées aux emplacements où elles se truve dans l'original.
TRIBUNAL DES ETATS-UNIS POUR LE DISTRICT DE COLUMBIA
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE )
)
contre. Criminal Case No. 78-401
)
MARY SUE HUBBARD, et co-accusés )
MEMORANDUM DE SENTENCE DES ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States of America, respectfully submits
this Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court in imposing
sentence in this case.
Initially, the United States must point out that as
part of the agreement which this Court found to exist between
it and the defendants, the United States agreed that it would
take "no position and is making no request on the matter of
sentence with respect to the defendant [Mary Sue] Hubbard."
Memorandum Opinion of October 8, 1979 at 10. However, as
this Court found, it was also "understood that Mrs. Hubbard
through her counsel will make no statement in allocution
concerning the facts of the case." Id. The United States
is, of course, prepared to abide by the Court's ruling, as
it has always been, as long as the defendant Hubbard reli-
giously abides by it as well. Moreover, as this Court held
"as to any defendant, including Mrs. Hubbard, the govern-
ment may dispute any statements of fact on any matter with
which it has disagreement." The United States intends to
correct any misstatement of facts made by Ms. Hubbard or her
counsel. In view of this Court's ruling, the United takes
"no position and is making no request" regarding the sentencing
of the defendant Hubbard. All representations contained in
- 2 -
the instant memorandum therefore apply only to the other
eight defendants.1/
The United States initiated the investigation which
resulted In the instant indictment in view of the brazen,
systematic and persistent burglaries of United States Govern-
ment offices in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California,
over an extended period of at least some two years.Les Etats-Unis ont entamé une investigation ayant eu pour effet la mise en examen immédiate en raison des cambriolages effrontés, systématiques et continuels d'administrations gouvernementales à Washington DC, à Los Angelès, au cours d'une période d'au moins deux ans.
Additionally,
the United States was confronted with the pervasive conduct
of the defendants in this case in thwarting a federal Grand
Jury investigation by harboring a fugitive, in effect force-
fully kidnapping a witness who had decided to surrender to
the federal authorities, submitting false evidence to the
Grand Jury, destroying other evidence which might have been
of valuable aid to its investigation, preparing a cover-up
story, and encouraging and drilling a crucial witness to
give false testimony under oath to that Grand Jury.En outre, les Etats-Unis ont constaté la conduite propagatrice des défendants lors de cette affaire, au cours de laquelle ils ont contrecarré l'enquète d'un Grand Jury Fédéral en cachant un fugitif - en réalité en kidnappant un témoin qui avait décidé de se rendre aux autorités fédérales - en soumettant des faux comme "preuves" au Grand Jury, en détruisant d'autres preuves capables de faire progresser l'enquète, en préparant une histoire destinée à cacher les faits, et en encourageant et exerçant un témoin crucial afin qu'il mente sous serment devant un Grand Jury.
Such .
outrageous conduct, it was felt, struck at the very heart
of our judicial system -- a system which has often been, at
crucial times in our history, the savior of our institutions.
We considered that in view of the widespread and long drawn
out nature of these offenses, as well as their heinousness,
we would have been derelict in our duty to enforce the laws
if we had failed to bring the charges in the instant indict-
ment. Moreover, a review of the documents seized in the two
Los Angeles, California, searches, which have since been
unsealed by this Court, show the incredible and sweeping
nature of the criminal conduct of the defendants and of the
organizaion which they led. These crimes include the
-------------------------
1/ In light of the afore mentioned agreement regarding
the Government's allocution concerning the defendant Hubbard,
references in the plural to "defendants" do not include that
defendant.[1/ note de renvoi indiquant qu'Hubbard lui-même n'est pas poursuivi suite à un accord spécial - dont les Etats-UInis ont le secret, ndt...]
-------------------------
Nous avons ressenti qu'une conduite aussi outrageante frappait directement au coeur de notre système judiciaire - système qui dans bien des moments cruciaux de notre passé avait sauvegardé nos institutions. Nous considérons qu'au vu de l'importance et de la nature amplement prolongée de ces délits, ainsi que de leur caractère haineux, nous aurions manqué à notre devoir d'imposition de la loi si nous n'avions immédiatement inculpé les intimés. En outre, une analyse des documents saisis dans deux locaux californiens, et les recherches qui ont été depuis mises hors-scellés par le Tribunal, ont démontré la nature incroyable et extensive de la conduite criminelle des défendants et de l'organisation qu'ils dirigeaient. Ces crimes comprennent:
- 3 -
infiltration and theft of documents from a number of promi-
nent private national and world organizations, law firms and
newspapers; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless
law suits to destroy private individuals who had attempted
to exercise their First Amendraent rights to freedom of expres-
sion; 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; violation
of the civil rights of prominent private figures and public
officials. These are but a few of the criminal acts not
covered in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence which the
United States believes this Court must consider in imposing
an appropriate sentence in the instant case. These other
crimes are discussed at length in section V of the instant
memorandum.
In view of the severity and heinousness of the crimes
of which the defendants Heldt, Snider, Willardson, Weigand,
Raymond, Hermann, Wolfe and Thomas were convicted, as well
as the additional criminal acts committed by these defendants
which we now bring to this Court's attention, we submit that
the public interest demands the imposition of the maximum
terms of incarceration and, where appropriate, the maximum
fines provided by the law. This Court must make it clear
beyond peradventure that the criminal conduct of the above-
named defendants cannot be countenanced and that anyone found
guilty of tampering with the judicial system -- a system
which this Court has often referred to as "quasi-religious"
in nature -- will be dealt with in the most severe terms
provided by the law.
- 4 -
I.
Introduction
------------
[ici, le tribunal introduit la notion d'accord préliminaire passé entre la Cour et les divers co-accusés, chacun acceptant par avance de ne pas contester ce crime-là. Les défendants ont donc admis le principe d'une "stipulation incontestée de preuves". Cela n'a pas empèché l'un des accusés de faire présenter par son avocat une tentative de dénoncer cette stipulation, ce que les juges dénoncent ici vigoureusement, ajoutant que "cela démontre l'incapacité de ce client à comprendre la gravité de ses crimes".]
The defendants in this case, Henning Heldt, Duke Snider,
Richard Weigand, Gregory Willardson, Mitchell Hermann, a/k/a
Mike Cooper, Cindy Raymond, Gerald Bennett Wolfe, and Sharon
Thomas each stand before this Court convicted of one count
of a twenty-eight count indictment.2/ The indictment and
the evidence set out massive conspiracies to burglarize
Government offices, steal Government property, intercept
private Governmental communications, obstruct the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and Grand Jury investigation into
those burglaries, thefts, and "buggings", harbor and conceal
a fugitive, and make false declarations to the federal Grand
Jury. Each of the defendants, while found guilty of only
one count of that indictment, entered into an "uncontested"
stipulation of evidence on October 26, 1979, which stipula-
tion set forth in detail the United States1 evidence on each
of the counts in the indictment. The defendants, by placing
their signatures on that stipulation of evidence, did not
contest the accuracy or sufficiency of the evidence contained
therein, and, indeed, pleaded with this Court to find them
guilty based upon that stipulation. Thus, the United States
is at a total loss to understand the statements of the defen-
dant Thomas' attorney, Leonard J. Koenick, to the probation
officer contesting the accuracy of the facts set out in the
"uncontested" stipulation of evidence which he and his client
individually signed in open Court on October 26, 1979. Mr.
Koenick's protestations must be rejected out* of hand and
--------------
2/ The defendants Heldt, Snider, Weigand, Willardson,
Raymond, and Wolfe were convicted of Count XXIII; the defen-
dant Hermann was found guilty of Count I; and the defendant
Thomas was convicted of Count XVII.
- 5 -
represent a clear example of the failure of his client to
comprehend the gravity of her crimes.
The presentence reports of all defendants, except
defendant Hubbard, contain the statement that "according to
the U.S. Attorney, all of the perpetrators involved in this
Conspiracy went beyond what the Church of Scientology ex-
pected of them." Presentence Reports at 5# Upon reviewing
these reports, the United States informed the Probation Office
that that statement was an incorrect representation of the
United States' view of the evidence. In view of the press
of business and the lack of time to make the necessary cor-
rection, the Probation Office indicated that it would orally
convey that error and the correct position of the United
States to this Court. In fact, it is the position of the
United States that each and everyone of the defendants herein
fulfilled his duties as expected by the Church of Scientology,
that all of their criminal activities, as well as those of
all unindicted co-conspirators, were carried out in furtherance
of the very goals of their Church. The very policies of
the Church, as reflected by its Guardian Orders called for
the execution of massive criminal conspiracies and rewarded
the participants for their success in carrying out these
criminal policies.De fait, les Etats-Unis soutiennent la position que chacun des défendants ici nommé a rempli ses devoirs de la manière attendue par l'Eglise de Scientologie, que toutes leurs activités criminelles aussi bien que celles des co-conspirateurs non-inculpés [L. Ron Hubbard lui-même, et Kendrick Moxon, entre autres, ndt] , ont été accomplies en poursuivant les buts véritables de leur église. Les véritables règles [policies] de l'église, reflétées par ses "Ordres du Gardien" [GO Orders, devenus OSA Orders] donnaient des ordres d'exécution de conspirations criminelles massives et récompensaient les participants pour leur succès dans l'accomplissement des ces règlements [policies] criminels.
II.
The LawLa Loi
-------
[Résumé: le tribunal expose ici les raisons légales et jurisprudentielles sur lesquelles il s'appuiera pour exiger la sentence maximale possible pour les accusés scientologues. Même ce passage montre à quel point l'exaspération des juges étaient immense face à la perversité impensable des méthodes employées par les criminels scientologues dans cette affaire]
The right of this Court to consider evidence of other
crimes prior to imposing a sentence has long been recognized.
It is 'well settled that "before making [a sentencing] deter-
mination, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad
in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of informa-
tion he may consider, or the source from which it may come."
- 6 -
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972). Courts
have a duty to obtain as much information as they can about
a convicted defendant's background, character, and conduct,
criminal or otherwise, so that they can impose a sentence to
fit the circumstances of the case and the individual defendant.
See United States v. Grayson, 98 S.Ct. 2610 (1978); 18 U.S.C.
§3577 (1976). Thus, hearsay assertions are admissible,
Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959), as is information
about prior crimes committed by the defendant, even if the
indictments for those crimes are pending, United States v.
Metz, 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972), cert, denied, 411 U.S.
919 (1973) for the defendant was never tried for the other
crimes, Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 244 (1949), or
the charges were dismissed without an adjudication on the
merits, United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 382 U.S. 843 (1965); United States v. Needles, 472
F.2d 652, 655 (2d Cir. 1973); or the defendant otherwise
avoided conviction. United States v. Jones, 113 U.S.App.D.C.
233, 307 F.2d 190 (1962), cert, denied, 372 U.S. 919 (1963);
United States v. Cifarelli, 401 F.2d 512, 514 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 393 U.S. 987 (1968). Even facts developed in prose-
cutions where the defendant was acquitted can be considered
by the sentencing judge. United States v. Sweig, 454 F.2d 181
(2d Cir. 1972).
In addition, the Court can consider all the circumstances
surrounding a defendant's conviction for the present crime.
As in the case where a defendant enters a guilty plea, where
a defendant agrees to be found guilty to one offense on
consent of the prosecution to dismiss other charges, the
judge can consider the factual basis of the dismissed charges
when imposing sentence. United States v. Marines, 535 F.2d
- 7 -
552 (10th Cir. 1976); United States v. Majors, W F.2d 1321
(10th Cir. 1970, cert, denied, 420 U.S. 932 (1975). A court
is also warranted in increasing the sentence when it believes
that the defendant has undermined the judicial system through
repeated perjury. United States v. Grayson, 98 S.Ct. 2610
(1978).
III.
Evidence As To Each Defendant
Concerning the Count On Which
That Defendant Was Convicted.Preuves concernant les charges retenues contre chaque défendant particulier
A. Henning Heldt
----------------
As previously noted, defendant Heldt was convicted of
count 23 of the indictment: conspiracy to obstruct a criminal
investigation, obstruct justice, harbor and conceal a fugitive,
and make false declarations before a federal Grand Jury. The
evidence introduced by the United States demonstrates that
defendant Heldt was a highly active participant in this
conspiracy from its inception. Indeed, not only by virtue of
his position as the highest official in the Guardian's Office
in the United States but also as reflected in the conduct in
which he engaged, defendant Heldt fulfilled the role of the
manager and strategist of both conspiracies throughout their
existence.Comme on l'a fait observer, le défendant Heldt a été accusé du Compte 23 de la mise en examen: Conspiration en vue de faire échec à une enquète criminelle, obtruction à la justice, cacher un fugitif et faire de fausses déclarations devant un Grand Jury. L'évidence fournie par les Etats-Unis démontre que le défendant Heldt était un participant extrèmement actif dès le départ dans cette conspiration. En effet, c'est non seulement en raison de sa position de cadre supérieur de l'Office du Gardien scientologue des Etats-Unis mais aussi par les actes dans lesquels il s'est impliqué que le défendant Heldt a rempli ce rôle de dirigeant et de stratège pour les deux conspirations, pendant toute leur durée.
Thus, on June 13, 1976, merely two days after Gerald
Bennett Wolfe's and Michael Meisner's encounter with Special
Agent Christine Hansen of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) in the library located in the United States Courthouse in
Washington, D.C., defendant Heldt met with Mr. Meisner and
defendants Snider and Weigand in Heldt's sixth floor offices
in Fifield Manor, Los Angeles, California (stip. 180), at
which time Heldt indicated that he had already read Mr.
Meisner's report of the June 11 incident. During the meeting,
- 8 -
defendant Heldt indicated that he and defendant Snider had
formulated a plan which called for the removal of both defendant
Wolfe and Mr. Meisner from the District of Columbia, stating
that this would render the FBI's search for the June 11
burglars impossible. (Stip. 181.) That meeting ended with
Heldt giving instructions to defendant Weigand and Mr. Meisner
to further analyze the above plan and an alternative one
formulated by defendants Weigand and Willardson and present
one for his (Heldt's) final approval. (Ld.) defendant Heldt's
approval of defendant Weigand's plan (stip. 176 et seq.) was
received by defendant Weigand later that some evening.
Clearly then, defendant Heldt took upon himself a
critical role in the earliest decisions and continued in that
role at every major point in the conspiracy.Il est évident que le défendant Heldt a pris de lui-même un rôle critique dans les premières décisions et a perduré dans ce rôle à chaque tournant majeur de la conspiration.
For example,
in September 1976 orders from defendant Heldt directing that
Mr. Meisner remain in Los Angeles so as to facilitate his .
concealment by the Guardian's Office, were conveyed by defen-
dant Weigand to defendant Hermann. (Stip. 201-202.) Similarly,
in the following month, defendant Heldt expressly approved a
trip by a Guardian's Office official to the District of
Columbia to check on security there and on the continued
functioning of two of Scientology's covert operatives in
Government agencies. Throughout this time period, and up
through the point of Mr. Meisner's flight from the Guardian's
Office, defendant Heldt was a recipient of all significant
Guardian's Office correspondence concerning the cover-up.
Thus, on July 2, 1976, two days following the arrest of
defendant Wolfe, Heldt received a copy of a report from
defendant Weigand to defendant Hubbard which related the
false story that defendant Wolfe had given the FBI regarding
the forging of Government credentials, and the instructions
- 9 -
given by defendant'Weigand to defendant Wolfe concerning his
future contacts with Church of Scientology facilities and
personnel. (Stip. 194 and n.140.) On August 30, 1976, he
received another report in which Mr. Weigand outlined a plan
to have Mr. Meisner removed from the country (stip. 198-199),
as well as a subsequent letter where defendant Weigand
suggested the possible basis whereby the FBI had identified
Mr. Meisner. (Stip. 200, n.145 and accompanying text.) Then
on September 18 he made personal notations on another letter
from defendant Weigand to defendant Hubbard which set forth
alternative courses of action concerning the Guardian's
Office disposition of Mr. Meisner's case. (Stip. 204, n.150
and accompanying text.) . Ten days later, defendant Heldt
received a copy of a letter written by Morris Budlong, the
Deputy Guardian for Information World-Wide, to defendant
Weigand outlining a plan whereby Mr. Meisner would be hidden
in "some out of the way large city" until the Guardian's
Office would "have some idea of which way things are moving".
(Stip. at 207209, Government Exhibit No. 13D.' While the
above correspondence was going back-and-forth between various
officials of the Guardian's Office, defendant Heldt was
aware of the existence of an arrest warrant for Mr. Meisner.
(Stip. 196 et seq., Government Exhibit No. 123.) In addition,
defendant Heldt knew of the FBI's request for exemplars of Mr.
Meisner's handwriting, having been so informed on October 9,
1976 in a letter from defendant Hermann. (Stip. 212.) In
the face of this knowledge, defendant Heldt not only failed
to perform his legal responsibilities in regard to this
investigation, but actively monitored Mr. Meisner's movements
(see Government Exhibit No. 140, stip. 222) to ensure that he
would cooperate with the Guardian's Office plans. (Stip.217.)
- 10 -
In a similar fashion, he monitored the progress of defendant
Wolfe's case in the District "of Columbia, urging its speedy
disposition so that the federal investigation might be termi-
nated. (Stip. 218.) Of course, defendant Heldt received
defendant Hermann's detailed historical summary of the conspir-
acy at the end of November 1976 (stip. 220 et seq. and
n.163) and his subsequent briefing paper and summary of
January 7, 1977 in which Hermann informed Heldt, once again,
of the Grand Jury investigation taking place in regard to
defendant Wolfe's case and of the FBI's continued search for
Mr. Meisner. (Stip. 225 et seq.)
In March 1977, defendant Heldt's involvement became even
more immediate (in response to a request from Mr. Meisner)
(stip. 232) and Heldt, so informed another defendant in a
letter of April 1, 1977. (Stip. at 233)-3/ Throughout
April 1977, defendant Heldt was involved in much correspondence
concerning the delays in ending defendant Wolfe's case, and
had to answer complaints from his seniors. (Stip. 232-238.)
It was at this time that defendant Heldt ordered unindicted
co-conspirator Brian Andrus to create a cover story in Canada
to explain Mr. Meisner's disappearance when he finally decided
it would be to their advantage to surrender Mr. Meisner to
the FBI. (Stip. 237-238.) Moreover, it was defendant Heldt
who ordered the Information Bureau to "arrange to restrain
Herb and prevent him from leaving, and to guard him so that
he does not ["return to D.C. and handle the scene as he sees
fit"]." (Stip. at 240.) This, of course, injected a criti-
cal element in the conspiracy -- the use of violence toDe plus, c'est le défendant Heldt qui ordonna au BI (Bureau Information du Gardien scientologue) "de s'arranger pour restreindre Herb et l'empècher de s'en aller, et de le mettre sous garde afin qu'il ne puisse pas "retourner à Washington et manier la scène selon ses méthodes" (stipulation à 240). Evidemment, ceci injecte un élément essentiel dans la conspiration, -- l'usage de violence
-------------------------
3/ It is worthy of note that this correspondence was in
a secret code, an indication of the degree of sophistication
with which defendants carried out this conspiracy. (See
Government Exhibit No. 148)3/ On notera avec intérêt le fait que cette correspondance s'effectuait par code secret, indice supplémentaire du degré de sophistication utilisé par les défendants tout au long de cette conspiration (pièce du gouvernement n° 148)
- 11 -
accomplish its goals.pour parvenir à la réussite. Cela démontre clairement que rien n'arrèterait ce défendant et ses co-conspirateurs dans l'accomplissement de leurs tâches désignées."
This clearly shows that this defendant
and his co-conspirators would stop at nothing to accomplish
their assigned tasks. Indeed, the California probation
officers' statements that the defendants did not have a
violent disposition reflects their total lack of familiarity
or understanding of the evidence in this case. Contempora-
neously, defendant Heldt also ordered the Guardian's Office
Legal Bureau to assume closer supervision and control of
defendant Wolfe's case. (Stip. 240-241.)Simultanément, le défendant Heldt ordonnait aussi au Bureau Légal de l'office du Gardien scientologue de se charger d'une supervision et d'un contrôle plus serrés du cas du défendant Wolfe (Stipulation 240-241)
From April through June 1977, defendant Heldt assumed
virtually total daily control over the conduct of the conspiracy,
Thus, it was defendant Heldt who ordered defendants Willardson
and Weigand to "get control" over Mr. Meisner (stip. 242),
which order, of course, the latter two dutifully followed
on April 30, 1977. On May 1, he was made aware of the fact
that Mr. Meisner's guards had found it necessary to bind and
gag him, and on May 2, defendant Heldt approved a funds
request for these guards. (Stip. 244-245 and Government
Exhibits Nos. 164 and 165.) On May 30, it was defendant Heldt
who pleaded with Mr. Meisner to return to the Church (stip.
2l|9 et seq.) when the latter had left for Las Vegas, and it
was the defendant Heldt who met with Mr. Meisner the following
evening to assure him that his case was being supervised at the
highest levels of the Church. Finally, it was defendant
Heldt who met with Mr. Meisner in a last-ditch effort to gain
his confidence one-week before the latter's surrender to the
FBI; and defendant Heldt who, after Mr. Meisner's escape,
approved a plan to locate Mr. Meisner and return him to the
fold.
The foregoing recital demonstrates that one of two
individuals who provided leadership for the highly complex
- 12 -
cover-up conspiracy was defendant Heldt. In complete and
utter disregard for his lawful 'obligations and responsibili-
ties, defendant Heldt worked from beginning to end to insure,
as best he could, that the United States never would become
aware of the involvement of the Church of Scientology, its
Guardian's Office, and the other defendants and co-conspirators
in the burglaries, thefts, and buggings.L'énoncé qui précède démontre que l'un des deux personnages ayant conduit les éléments complexes de couverture de la conspiration était le défendant Heldt. Négligeant totalement ses obligations et responsabilités légales, le défendant Heldt oeuvra dès le début afin de s'assurer du mieux qu'il le pouvait que les Etats-Unis ne prennent jamais conscience de l'implication de l'église de scientologie, de son Office du Gardien, et des autres défendants et co-conspirateurs dans les cambriolages, vols et écoutes illégales.
Defendant Heldt, in his statement to the probation officer,
contained in his presentence report, now seeks to convince
this Court that he is truly contrite for his criminal be-
havior. He states: "I regret any violation of the law, and
realize that in violating the law I injured not only myself,
my family, and my church, but also to some degree the system
of justice and law in this country to which I am dedicated."
Presentence Report at 5. The hypocrisy of that statement is
beyond belief. The evidence in this case establishes beyond
a shadow of doubt that defendant Heldt, instead of having
dedicated himself to our "system of justice and law," had
dedicated himself to the undermining of that very system.Le défendant Heldt, dans sa déclaration à l'officier de Probation, consultable dans le rapport de pré-sentence, tente désormais de convaincre le Tribunal qu'il serait tout à fait contrit de son comportement criminel: "Je regrette toute violation de la loi, et je me rends compte que ce faisant, j'ai non seulement fait du tort à ma personne, mais aussi à ma famille, mon église, et jusqu'à un certain point au système judiciaire et à la loi du pays auquel je suis dévoué. Rapport de pré-sentence à 5. L'hypocrisie de l'énoncé est impensable. L'évidence de ce cas établit sans l'ombre d'un doute que le défendant Heldt, loin de s'être dévoué "à notre système judiciaire et à la loi", s'est dédié de lui-même à précisément miner ce système.
He not only approved burglaries of the United States Courthouse,
but was a leading participant in a complex cover-up which
included the commission of perjury to a judicial body and
the destruction of evidence sought by that body. Moreover,
it is interesting to note that he only regrets "to some degree"
the harm which he caused "the system of justice and law in
this country." One wonders whether, in fact, the only
thing which this defendant and his co-conspirators really
regret is the harm they caused their organization and them-
selves by having been caught in the commission of their
crimes. This view finds support in defendant Heldt's con-
tinued assertion to the probation officer that "I feel thatIl a non seulement approuvé les cambriolages du Tribunal des Etats-Unis, mais fut un participant majeur dans la couverture complexe [des ces crimes], ce qui incluait le parjure devant un corps judiciaire constitué et la destruction des preuves recherchées par ce corps judiciaire. De plus, on notera qu'il regretta seulement "jusqu'à un certain point" le tort causé au système judiciaire et aux lois du pays. On se demande en effet si la seule chose que regrettent le défendant et ses co-conspirateurs n'est pas le tort que ça leur cause ainsi qu'à leur organisation, en s'étant fait prendre à commettre ces crimes. Ce point de vue trouve appui dans l'affirmation continuelle faite à l'officier de probation " J'ai l'impression
- 13 -
what has occurred was at least in part provoked by Government
harrassment. . . ." Unfortunately, for this defendant and
his criminal co-defendants, that assertion no longer carries
any weight in view of the thousands of seized documents which
this Court has unsealed.que ce qui s'est produit a au moins en partie été provoqué par le harcèlement continuel du gouvernement". Hélas pour le défendant et ses co-défendants criminels, cette affirmation n'a plus le moindre poids lorsqu'on consulte les milliers de documents saisis que le Tribunal a rendus publics.
This defendant and his cohorts, as shown in section V
infra, carried thier campaign of crimes and vicious innuendos
against private organizations and citizens whom they sought
to destroy merely because they exercised the same First
Amendment rights behind which this defendant and his organiza-
tion have repeatedly sought refuge.Le défendants et ses cohortes, comme le démontre la section V ci-dessous, ont accompli leur campagne de crimes et d'insinuations vicieuses contre des organisations et citoyens privés qu'ils cherchaient à détruire pour l'unique raison qu'ils tentaient d'exercer les mêmes droits découlant du Premier Amendement sous lesquels le défendant et son organisation n'ont cessé de chercher refuge. [ndt: ces droits sont ceux afférents à la liberté de religion]
Additionally, as the
Courts in the United Kingdom, before whom the defendant's
two fugitive co-conspirators attacked the United States
Government for alleged harrassraents, have found, the actions
taken by the United States Government were "required to
carry out its duty to protect the public at large." Judgment
of Stipendiary Magistrate W.E.C. Bobbins of 25 May 1979 at 1.De surcroît, les tribunaux du Royaume-Uni devant qui les deux co-conspirateurs fugitifs du défendant avaient attaqué le gouvernement des Etats-Unis pour de soi-disant harcèlements, ces tribunaux ont déclaré que les actions entreprises par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis "étaient exigées pour accomplir le but de protection générale du public" - Jugement du Juge professionnel W.E.C. Bobbins du 25 mai 1979, à 1.
Indeed, after reviewing thousands of pages of documents
submitted to him by the defendants Kember and Budlong, the
British magistrate rejected the defendants' suggestion that
they had been persecuted by the United States Government
over the past thirty years. Id. at 2. That judgment was
affirmed on November 30, 1979, by the High Court of Justice
with the Lord Chief Justice in full agreement. Indeed,
before that Court, counsel for Ms. Kember repeatedly told
the Court that the United States of America had instituted
the present criminal action against the defendants in good
faith; that the United States would have been derelict in
its duty to uphold the law had it not prosecuted these defen-
dants. [Hearings before the High Court, November 12, 1979.]En effet, ayant lu des milliers de pages de documents qui lui avaient été soumises par les défendants Kember et Budlong, le magistrat anglais a rejeté la suggestion des défendants, qui se disaient persécutés par le gouvernement américain depuis trente années. Même réf. à 2. Ce jugement fut confirmé le 30 novembre 1979 devant la Cour Supérieure de Justice, avec plein accord du Lord Chief Justice. En effet, devant cette Cour, l'avocat défendant Madame Kember avait plusieurs fois répété que les Etats-Unis d'Amérique avaient institué la présente action en toute bonne foi; que les Etats-Unis auraient manqué à leur obligation de faire respecter la loi s'ils n'avaient pas poursuivi les défendants. [Auditions devant la Cour Supérieure, 12 novembre 1979]
- 14 -
Finally, defendant Heldt's assertion that "the policy
of the Church prohibits any illegality on the part of it's
members or staff. . . " is totally unfounded and incorrect.
The evidence in this case and the documents seized by the FBI
in Los Angelesv.establish beyond peradventure that the Church
and its leadership had, over the years, approved, condoned
and engaged in gross and widespread illegality. One, indeed,
wonders how it can even be suggested that the defendants and
their organization did not make illegal activities part and
parcel of their daily work.Finalement, l'allégation du défendant Heldt selon laquelle "la règle interne [policy] de l'église interdit tout acte illégal de la part de ses membres et de son personnel..." est absolument dénuée de fondement et incorrecte. Les preuves ici et les documents saisis par le FBI à Los Angelès établissent à n'en pas douter que l'église et ses chefs avaient, au long des ans, approuvé, encouragé, et s'étaient engagés dans de grossiers actes illégaux de grande ampleur. On se demande même comment on oserait suggérer que les défendants et leur organisation n'ont pas fait de la commission de ces illégalités une partie de leur travail quotidien.
We further submit that the defendant Heldt's statement
to the probation officer is not worthy of any credibility
whatsoever. In a sworn affidavit dated July 18, 1976,
submitted to a judicial body and appended hereto as Exhibit 1,
the defendant Heldt asserted that "I do know that Church
policy forbids illegalities" and that "express policy . . .
which I am legally and spiritually committed to forward,
forbids any illegal actions." Affidavit at 3. In fact, the
defendant Heldt on July 18, 1976, when he subscribed to that
affidavit under oath, knew that for the preceding few years
he and the remainder of the top leadership of his organization
in England and the United States had ordered, sanctioned,
solicited, and rewarded, the commission of widespread viola-
tions of the law in the United States and in foreign countries.
De plus, nous soumettons le fait que la déclaration de Heldt à l'officier de probation n'est digne d'aucune espèce de crédibilité. Dans une déclaration sous serment du 18 juillet 1976, soumise à un corps judiciaire et jointe ici en Pièce 1, le défendant Heldt affirmait que "je sais que la policy de l'église interdit les actes illégaux" et "la policy, que je suis légalement et spirituellement tenu de suivre interdit toute action illégale". Cf la Pièce, à 3. En fait, le 18 juillet 1976, lorsque le défendant Heldt effectuait cette déclaration sous serment, il savait que les années précédentes, lui-même et divers autres chefs de son organisation anglaise ou américaine avaient ordonné, sollicité, sanctionné et récompensé la commission de vastes violations des lois aux USA ou à l'étranger.
Moreover, notwithstanding the alleged policy which defendant
Heldt alluded to, he and his co-defendants and co-conspirators
engaged for the next year in a professionally orchestrated
cover-up conspiracy which had, as its now acknowledged goal,
the undermining of the judicial system in. the District of
Columbia. That this conspiracy failed is due only to the
willingness of Michael Meisner to escape from his captors,En outre, en dépit de la soi-disant policy à laquelle le défendant Heldt fait allusion, lui-même et ses co-défendants et co-conspirateurs se sont engagés au cours de l'année suivante dans une conspiration professionnellement orchestrée ayant comme but avoué de miner le système judiciaire du District de Columbia [c.à.d. Washington, ndt]. Le fait que cette conspiration ait raté ne trouve sa cause que dans le désir qu'a eu de Michael Meisner d'échapper à ses kidnappeurs,
- 15 -
step forward, and assist the federal authorities, as well as
to the federal authorities determination not to allow harrass-
merit, dirty tricks/ and a vicious slander and libel campaign
by the defendants and their cohorts, to divert them from
their duty to enforce the law in a fair and even-handed
manner.de se présenter aux autorités fédérales et de les aider, et dans la détermination des autorités fédérales de ne pas accorder de poids au harcèlement subi, aux coups bas et à la campagne de diffamation et calomnie vicieuses entreprise par les défendants et leur cohorte, afin de les distraire de leur devoir d'imposer le respect des lois de façon convenable.
B. Duke Snider
--------------
As with defendant Heldt, defendant Snider was also found
guilty by this Court of the conspiracy charged In Count 23 of
the indictment. During the relevant time period encompassed
by this conspiracy, defendant Snider was the Deputy Deputy
Guardian for the United States, the second-ranking official
in the United States' hierarchy of the Guardian's Office.
Defendant Snider was present and active at several crucial
stages in the formulation and execution of the conspiracy.
The timing of this involvement reflects the crucial role
which defendant Snider performed.
Defendant Snider's first involvement came during the
June 13, 1976 meeting in defendant Heldt's office, two days
after Mr. Meisner and defendant Wolfe had their encounter with
the FBI. (Stip. 176 et seq.) Working jointly with defendant
Heldt, he formulated one of the alternative cover-up plans
considered by the defendants at the time this conspiracy was
initiated. He was informed of, and participated in, discus-
sions regarding the cover-up plan that was finally adopted.
(I_d.) Standing alone, this involvement at the critical
stage when the conspiracy was conceived merits for defendant
Snider the maximum period of incarceration provided by law.
However, this initial incident did not comprise defendant
Snider's only conduct in furthering the conspiracy. For
example, defendant Snider was prominent in the handling ofCependant, cet incident initial n'est pas l'activité unique de Snider dans l'accomplissement de la conspiration. Par exemple, le défendant Snider a eu un rôle primordial dans le maniement de
- 16 -
one of the early crises in the conspiracy's execution. In
September 1976, a police lieutenant who was a member of the
Church of Scientology in San Diego was directed, in violation
of his oath and duties, to make an inquiry through the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC) to determine the specifics
of the arrest warrant for Mr. Meisner which had been issued
on August 5, 1976.l'une des premières crises lors de l'exécution de la conspiration. En septembre 1976, il a demandé à un lieutenant de police alors membre de l'église de scientologie de San Diego, en violation de ses devoirs et serments d'officier, d'enquèter par le biais du NCIC (Centre d'information national sur le Crime) afin de déterminer les spécificités du mandat d'arrêt émis contre M. Meisner le 5 août 1976. [ndt: le traducteur webmaster et plusieurs critiques de la secte ont subi les mêmes illégalités de la part des scientologues en France, 25 ans plus tard, puisque deux enquèteurs privés engagés par la secte utilisèrent leurs ex-collègues policiers pour enquèter illégallement sur nos vies privées, comptes bancaires etc. Ces enquèteurs se sont fait prendre et ont été traduits en justice.]
That inquiry precipitated an FBI contact
to determine the reason for the lieutenant's inquiry. (Stip.
206-207.) In a letter to defendant Weigand written in defen-
dant Snider's own hand, the latter observed that the inquiry
by the officer had placed the Church in a vulnerable position
"to be accused of conspiring with this policemen to violate
the law." Defendant Snider, therefore, ordered defendant
Weigand to take whatever steps were necessary to handle the
problem. (Stip, 206.) By return letter, defendant Weigand
assured defendant Snider that the lieutenant was a Scientolo-
gist and would obey orders (Id.), and expressed that they
had "laid a nice false lead for the FBI which cant [sic] help
but help us while dispersing their investigation." (Id.)
Defendant Weigand further observed, for defendant Snider's
benefit, that a false lead and dispersion of investigative
resources "is one thing that can draw an investigation to a
quik [sic] close." (Ld.) In a return handwritten notation,
defendant Snider expressed his satisfaction with the situation,
stating that he was "glad to see it is under control." (Stip.
207.) This act shows defendant Snider's willingness to subvert
the law enforcement system whenever it suited his purpose
and that of his organization. Again, the United States sub-
mits that such satisfaction with the fact that law enforcement
officials would be hindered in their efforts to capture the
persons who had burglarized Government offices is inconsistent
A nouveau, les Etats-Unis soumettent le fait que les officiels chargés de faire respecter la loi, ainsi entravés dans leurs efforts pour capturer les personnes recherchées pour cambriolage de bureaux du gouvernement, cela correspond à
- 17 -
with any inference of remorse for the illegal acts of burglary,
theft, and "bugging" in which defendant Snider had been
intimately involved. This lack of any sense of wrongdoing
argues strongly against any leniency by this Court. See
United States v. Grayson, supra.un absence totale de remords pour des actes de cambriolage illégaux, des vols, et des écoutes auxquels le défendant Snider a été intimement mélé. Cette absence de tout sens moral constitue un argument de poids s'opposant à une quelconque indulgence de ce tribunal. cf USA contre Grayson ci-dessus.
Finally, it must be noted that defendant Snider was the
person called upon to calm Mr. Melsner when, in October 1976
the latter began to express a desire to return to the District
of Columbia. (Stip. 215.) Thus, on October 28, 1976, defen-
dant Snider met with Mr. Meisner to convince him of the
necessity for waiting to see what would happen with the
defendant Wolfe's case, and to remind Mr. Meisner of the
serious effect that his (Meisner's) actions would have on
the Church. (Stip. 216.) Confident in the fact that he had
averted a breakdown in the conspiracy plan, defendant Snider
reported to defendant Heldt following the meeting that Mr.
Meisner" is not a traitor and will cooperate." (Stip. 217.)
In sum, defendant Snider's position and conduct placed
him at the center of the cover-up. Defendant Snider's ac-
tions can only be described as cold-blooded, premeditated
attempts to subvert and frustrate the lawful processes of
the United States judicial system. The United States agrees
with the presentence report (at p. 11) that "definite
sanctions should be implemented by the Court." Such sanction,
we submit, must be in the form of a maximum prison sentence.Les actions du défendant Snider ne peuvent se décrire qu'ainsi: actions effectuées de sang-froid, préméditées, destinées à pervertir et frustrer le processus légitime du système judiciaire américain.../... Nous demandons que la sanction prenne la forme de la sentence de prison maximale.
C. Richard Weigand
-------------------
Defendant Richard Weigand shared with defendant Heldt
the primary responsibilities for the planning and execution
of the cover-up conspiracy of which he was found guilty.
Indeed, in terms of ongoing daily management of the illegalLe défendant Weigand a partagé avec le défendant Heldt les responsabilités primordiales de planification et d'exécution de couverture de la conspiration dont on l'a constaté coupable. En effet, en ce qui concerne le suivi au jour le jour pour diriger les
- 18 -
obstructive activities in which these defendants engaged, no
one surpassed Richard Weigand.activités illégales d'obstruction, aucun n'a surpassé Richard Weigand.
On the night of June 3.1, 1976, it was the defendant
Weigand who, through defendant Mitchell Hermann, issued the
order for Michael Meisner to fly to Los Angeles immediately
and to prepare a report of the encounter with the FBI in
the United States Courthouse. (Stip. 176-177.) Upon Mr.
Meisner's arrival in Los Angeles, it was to the office of
defendant Weigand that he went for his first debriefing.
(Id.) And it was in that same office that shortly thereafter,
the defendants Weigand and Gregory Willardson met with
Michael Meisner and engaged in the initial attempts to
formulate alternative cover-up plans in their conspiracy
against the federal judicial system in the nation's capital.
(Stip. 178-183.)
The "uncontested" Stipulation of Evidence into which
defendant Weigand entered establishes that, once the plot
had been hatched, he undertook, substantial responsibility
for seeing that it was carried to fruition. In some instances,
he acted upon his own authority, while in others he served
as a conduit for his superiors. Moreover, for much of the
conspiracy, defendant Weigand was also responsible for the
dissemination of information throughout the Guardian's Office,
both in the United States and Great Britain. In whatever
capacity, defendant Weigand remained center-stage until one
month prior to the end of the cover-up when Scientology re-
moved him from office. A few examples of defendant Weigand's
conduct will amply demonstrate the extent of his involvement,
and, consequently, the reason that the United States believes
that defendant Weigand must receive the maximum sentence of
incarceration.
- 19 -
In this regard, it is significant to note that it was in
defendant Weigand's home that Mr. Meisner resided for the
summer following his return to Los Angeles on June 12, 1979.
(Stip. 189.) Similarly, it was in defendant Weigand's office
that Mr. Meisner worked while preparing a detailed report for
defendant Weigand explaining the burglaries of Government
offices which defendant Wolfe and Mr. Meisner had carried
out at, among others, defendant Weigand's orders. Defendant
Weigand, on one of his trips to Washington, D.C., in fact,
made a surreptitious entry into the IRS building on Constitution
Avenue, N.W., for the purpose of forging for himself an IRS
identification card. Thus, there is no question that defen-
dant Weigand was intimately aware, of the extent of the illegal
activities of the Guardian's Office.Lors d'un de ses voyages à Washington D.C., le défendant Weigand a pénétré en catimini le bâtiment de l'IRS sis sur Constitution Avenue, N.W., afin de se fabriquer une fausse carte d'identité de l'IRS. Il ne fait donc aucun doute que Weigand était intégralement au courant de l'étendue de l'illégalité des activités de l'Office du gardien.
As regards the handling of defendant Wolfe's case in the
District of Columbia, it was defendant Weigand to whom the .
defendant Hermann reported when the latter first became aware
of Wolfe's arrest on June 30, 1976. (Stip. 191-192.) It was
defendant Weigand who conveyed this information up the
chain-of-command, often using the secret code which the
Guardian's Office had developed for discussing illegal acti-
vities. (Stip. 192, text and n.138.) When inquiries were
made by his superiors, it was defendant Weigand who responded.
(See, e.g., Stip. 193-19*1, 198, 210-211.) Conversely, it
was through defendant Weigand that subordinate officials of
the Guardian's Office communicated to senior Church officials.
(See, e.g., Stip. 195, 212-213, 231.)
As the person in California who had primary responsibility
for handling Mr. Meisner's situation on a day-to-day basis
(until defendant Heldt took over in March 1977), defendant
Weigand was the official who laid out the plans and options
- 20 -
for his superiors (stip. 198 et. seq.; 203 et seq.: 223 et
); who instructed Mr. Meisner to sever all outward
connections to the Guardian's Office when a warrant was
issued for his arrest (stip. 200); and who generally saw to
it that orders from senior officials were executed properly.
(See, e.g., stip. 201-202.) When the crises arose over the
San Diego policeman's NCIC inquiry, discussed above, it was
to defendant Weigand that defendant Snider turned for efficient
handling of the situation.(Stip. 205-207.) Finally, it was
defendant Weigand who coordinated the efforts in April, 1977
to forcibly restrain Mr. Meisner when he indicated his inten-
tions to return to the District of Columbia to handle his
case on his own. (Stip. 238 et.seq.) Thus, on April 30,
1977, at approximately 2:15 a.m., defendant Weigand was the
person who, along with defendant Willardson and unindicted
co-conspirator Brian Andrus, visited Mr. Meisner to inform
him that he would no longer be permitted to make "demands
and threats on the Church," and "that he was to start.becoming
a decent, cooperative, contributing part of the venture
[conspiracy] and nothing else was to be tolerated." (Stip.
242 et seq.)
Donc, le 30 avril 1977, vers 14h15, c'est le défendant Weigand qui, accompagné du défendant Willardson et du co-conspirateur non-inculpé Brian Andrus, rendit visite à M. Meisner pour l'informer qu'il ne "serait plus autorisé à exiger [quoi que ce soit de l'église] ou à menacer l'église" et "qu'il devait devenir une part décente, coopérative, contribuant à l'aventure [à la conspiration], et que rien d'autre ne serait toléré." (stip. 242 et suite)
It is interesting to note that neither defendants
Weigand nor Willardson submitted a statement of their own to
the Probation Office. Instead, their counsel submitted on
their behalf a statement which amounts to no more than a
restatement of the propaganda line of the defendants1 organi-
zation. While indicating that his clients were "remorseful"
and "contrite" for the consequences of their criminal acts,
counsel puts in last place the harm caused to the "legitimate
public institutions" of this country. One would have ex-
pected that attorneys who are officers of the Court and anNotons avec intérêt que ni le défendant Weigand ni le défendant Willardson n'ont soumis de déclaration à l'officier de probation. A la place, leur avocat a fourni une déclaration revenant à faire passer la ligne propagandiste des défendants de cette organisation. Tout en disant que leurs clients "éprouvent du remords et de la contrition" en raison des conséquences de leurs actes criminels, l'avocat place en dernier le tort causé aux "institutions publiques légitimes" de ce pays. Un pays se serait attendu à ce que des avocats , qui sont officiers judiciaires et
- 21 -
essential ingredient in the protection of the judicial system
from any attempt to subvert it, would, at the very least,
recognize that the greatest damage caused by the defendants
Weigand's and Willardson's crimes was to the judicial institu-
tions.ingrédients essentiels de la protection du système judiciaire vis-à-vis des tentatives de le subvertir, auraient pour le moins reconnu que le plus grand tort provoqué par les crimes des défendants Weigand et Willardson était celui causé aux Institutions judiciaires.
Moreover, counsel parrots the Church's assertion that
the defendants acted "out of fear that the investigation
[of the federal Grand Jury] was but one further step in the
destruction of the Church," and contends that the defendants
"believed their conduct to be a moral and principled re-
sponse" to the investigation. Willardson and Weigand Pro-
bation Reports at 5. (Emphasis added.) We submit that these
statements are absolutely outrageous and establish that the
defendants have yet to recognize the severity or consequences
of their oriminal conspiracies.De surcroît, l'avocat répète en perroquet l'affirmation de l'église selon laquelle "les défendants ont agi "par crainte que l'investigation [du Grand Jury Fédéral] serait une étape de plus dans la destruction de l'église" et affirme que les défendants "pensaient que leur conduite était la réaction morale de principe" à l'investigation en cours. Rapports de probation de Willardson et Weigand à 5. (emphase ajoutée) Nous soumettons que ces déclarations sont absolument outreageantes et démontrent bien que les défendants doivent encore reconnaître la gravité et les conséquences de leurs conspirations originelles.
As in defendant Heldt's
case, they seek to hide behind a religious cloak. Yet no
criminal can be permitted to seek refuge behind the trappings
of a religion. Certainly, the Watergate defendants attempted
to hide behind the cloak of official secrecy and national
interest, yet the Court recognized their actions to be nothing
but a criminal subversion of the judicial system to save
their own skin. The defendants in the instant case stand
in no different a position. To suggest that the defendants'
conduct was "the only principled response" to a federal
judicial investigation into serious criminal activities is
so outrageous as to offend fundamental decency.Comme dans le cas du défendant Heldt, ils tentent de se cacher à l'abri d'un voile religieux. On ne peut cependant autoriser aucun criminel à chercher refuge derrière les piègeages d'une religion. Certes, les accusés du Watergate ont essayé de se mettre à l'abri de l'intérêt et du secret nationaux, mais la Cour a reconnu que leurs actions n'étaient rien d'autre qu'une subversion du système judiciaire en vue de sauver leur propre peau. Dans le cas qui nous occupe, les défendants sont dans la même position. Oser suggérer que la conduite des défendants "était la seule réponse de principe" à une investigation judiciaire fédérale envers des activités criminelles aussi graves est tellement outrageant que ça en blesse tout sentiment fondamental de décence.
Finally, the United States rejects the evaluation of the
probation officer as totally unfounded and contradicted by the
"uncontested" evidence in this case. Indeed the California
probation officer's statement either suggests that he failed
to read the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence or that
- 22 -
he did not understand the nature of the defendant Weigand's
actions. Firstly, the probation officer questions whether
in fact defendant Weigand held the "very responsible posi-
tion" set out in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence.
Secondly, the officer astonishingly concludes that defendant
Weigand acted "as a functionary and not as a determiner of
policy." We submit that such a report is useless and not
worthy of reliance by this Court. The facts outlined above
and in the stipulation of evidence, as well as in section V
infra, leave no doubt as to the role of the defendant Weigand
as a "determiner of policy" and a major force in the con-
spiracies set out in the indictment.
It is clear that defendant Richard Weigand coordinated
the Guardian's Office's initial burglary and theft con-
spiracy as well as the conspiratorial efforts to cover-up
its prior illegal and unlawful activities from beginning to
end. In light of this conduct, the United States submits
that the only appropriate response is the imposition of a
sentence calling for the maximum period of incarceration.Vu ce comportement, les Etats-Unis soumettent que l'unique réponse appropriée est l'imposition de la sentence maximale d'incarcération.
D. Gregory Willardson
----------------------
Along with defendants Heldt, Snider and Weigand, defendant
Willardson was one of the initial architects of the cover-up
plan. (Stip. 178 jet seq.) Indeed, defendant Willardson was
one of the first two Guardian's Office officials to read Mr.
Meisner's report concerning the encounter with the FBI (stip.
177) and participated, along with Mr. Meisner, in the first
meetings which defendant Weigand held in his office on June
12 and June 13, 1976. (Stip. 180.) Moreover, defendant
Willardson was one of the persons responsible for implementing
defendant Heldt's order to evaluate the alternative cover-up
plans and present one to him for his approval. (Stip. 182.)
- 23 -
On June 14, defendant Willardson met with defendants Weigand
and Wolfe and Mr. Meisner to create the cover story which
defendant Wolfe was to give to the FBI. (Stip. 184.) On
that same day, defendant Willardson participated in the
formulation of "mission orders" for defendant Hermann in the
District of Columbia, which required that defendant Hermann
find a lawyer for defendant Wolfe and supervise Wolfe pending
his arrest. (Stip. 188.)Le 14 juin, le défendant Willardson rencontrait les défendants Weigand, Wolfe et M. Meisner afin de fabriquer un mensonge que le défendant Wolfe raconterait au FBI pour se couvrir. (Stip 184). Le même jour, le défendant Willardson participait à la formulation "d"ordres de mission" pour le défendant Hermann au District de Columbia, ce qui exigeait que le défendant Hermann trouve un avocat pour le défendant Wolfe et qu'il supervise Wolfe lors de son arrestation. (stip 188). Willardson participait ensuite à l'entrainement de Wolfe quant à son histoire fabriquée. (Id).
Willardson then participated in
drilling defendant Wolfe on the cover-up story. (.Id..) That
evening Mr. Meisner, having already been disguised pursuant
to defendant Weigand1s orders so as to facilitate concealment,
stayed at the defendant Willardson's home. (Stip. 188.) On
June 18, defendant Willardson received and read the report
written by Mr. Meisner relating to the burglaries and thefts
which had taken place in the District of Columbia.
On September 10, 1976, defendant Willardson, along with
defendant Hermann, moved Mr. Meisner to a new location for
the purpose of frustrating the FBI investigation, notwithstanding
the Guardian's Office knowledge that a warrant had been issued
for Mr. Meisner's arrest and that Mr. Meisner was, at the
time, considered a fugitive from justice. (Stip. 198, 202.)
Thus, he was clearly involved in that part of the conspiracy
aimed at harboring and concealing a fugitive.
Similarly, defendant Willardson was involved in that
aspect of the conspiracy concerned with the obstruction of the
investigation taking place in the District of Columbia and
the prompt disposition of defendant Wolfe's then-pending case.
Thus, in early November 1976, defendant Willardson carried
out an order of defendant Heldt requiring him (Willardson)
to instruct defendant Wolfe to "push his lawyer to get the
scene handled." (Stip. 218.) Of course, the purpose of
- 24 -
these efforts to have defendant Wolfe's case disposed of
quickly was to thwart the FBI's attempts to find out the whole
story about the burglaries of the United States Courthouse.
Defendant Willardson maintained this active role in
furtherance of the conspiracy to the very end. In April
1977, when Michael Meisner was increasingly indicating his
readiness to return to the District of Columbia, defendant
Willardson accompanied the defendant Weigand to Mr. Meisner's
apartment in the middle of the night to inform him that his
lack of cooperation would no longer be tolerated. (Stip. 242.)
It was defendant Willardson who searched Mr. Meisner's apart-
ment to remove and destroy any evidence connecting Mr.
Meisner to the Church of Scientology (Stip. 242-243.)C'est M. Willardson qui fouilla l'appartement de M. Meisner en pleine nuit afin d'en faire disparaître et détruire toute trace permettant de faire le lien entre M. Meisner et l'église de scientologie. (Stip 242-243)
And when Mr. Meisner eventually did escape, it was defendant
Willardson who arranged to have all fingerprints removed
from Mr. Meisner's apartment (stip. 272) and to take addi-
tional steps to hide Mr. Meisner's connection with the Church.Et lorsque M. Meisner parvint finalement à s'échapper, c'est le défendant Willardson qui se débrouilla pour faire disparaître toutes les empreintes digitales de l'appartement de M. Meisner (stip 272) puis entreprendre d'autres étapes destinées à cacher tout lien de M. Meisner avec l'église.
Defendant Willardson explained this to defendant Heldt in a
handwritten letter. (Government Exhibit No. 175.) Perhaps
most significantly, defendant Willardson ordered the removal
of all incriminating documents from the Guardian's Office
and their placement in the "Red Box", the. locale for any
document containing "proof that a Scientologist is involved
in criminal activities." (Government Exhibit No. 219 at
Stip. 274-275.) The document containing the explanation of
the "Red Box" and instructions for its use was seized from
defendant Willardson's office. (Stip. 275 n.207.) Given
this integral participation in the cover-up, it is not sur-
prising that defendant Willardson was the person to whomLe défendant Willardson expliqua cela au défendant Heldt dans un courrier de sa main (pièce du gouvernement n° 175) Peut-être plus significatif encore, le défendant Willardson ordonna qu'on ôte tous les documents incriminants de l'Office du Gardien et qu'on les place dans la "Red Box", l'endroit destiné à tout document "contenant des preuves d'implication d'un scientologue dans des activités criminelles" (pièce jointe du gouvernement 219, Stip 274-275) Le document contenant l'explication de la "Red Box" et ses instructions d'emploi fut saisi dans le bureau du défendant Willardson. (Stiip 275, n. 207). Etant donné la participation intégrale dans ces actions de couverture, on ne sera pas surpris que le défendant Willardson ait été la personne vers qui se
---------------
2_/ A letter from the defendant Hubbard to Mr. Meisner
acknowledging the use of guards was seized from defendant
Willardson's office files. (Stip. 243 n.185.)Une lettre du défendant Hubbard à M. Meisner, acceptant l'usage de gardes, fut saisie dans les bureaux du défendant Willardson (Stip 243 n. 185)
- 25 -
defendant Heldt turned, after Mr. Meisner's escape, to imple-
ment the directive to devise '$'plan to "defuse [Mr. Meisnor'f
as a traitor.11 (Stip. 282.)tourna le défendant Heldt, après que M. Meisner se fut évadé, afin de mettre en route la directive planifiée permettant de faire sauter M. Meisner en tant que traître.
Moreover, defendant Willardson's participation in the
conspiracy to burglarize Government offices, steal Government
documents, "bug" Government meetings, and forge Government
credentials is abundantly set out in the "uncontested" stipu-
lation of evidence.En outre, la participation du défendant Willardson à la conspiration en vue de cambrioler les bureaux du gouvernement, pour voler des documents du gouvernement, pour poser des écoutes lors de réunions du gouvernement, et forger de faux justificatifs du gouvernement, est abondamment démontrée dans la Stipulation "incontestée" d'évidence
Indeed, it was the defendant Willardson,
who in a letter dated 20 May 1975 to the U.S. Directorate
Secretary World-Wide set out the legal reasons why the crimes
he and the other defendants were committing were felonies.
(Stip. 63-65, Government Exhibit No. 32.) In that letter, a
copy of which was sent to, among others, defendants Heldt
and Weigand, Willardson stated that "a large portion, if not
the majority, of our high priority successful Collections
actions fall into the category of second degree burglary,
which is a felony." (Stip. 63.) If anything, this letter
indicated a clear recognition on defendant Willardson's part
that he was committing serious criminal acts. It also esta-
blishes that this knowledge did not in anyway alter his
actions or those of his co-defendants. Furthermore, it belies
his counsel's statement to the Los Angeles probation officer
that such actions were "moral and principled." Willardson
Presentence Report at 5, see also supra.C'est en effet le défendant Willardson qui, dans un courrier daté du 20 mai 1975 au Directorat du Secrétaire pour le Monde entier (scientologie), élaborait les raisons expliquant en quoi les crimes que lui-même et d'autres défendants commettaient étaient des infractions graves. (Stip 63-65, Pièce du gouvernement n° 32). Dans cette lettre, dont une copie était expédiée entre autres aux défendants Heldt et Weigand, Willardson disait "qu'une large part, sinon la majorité, de nos actions de collection haute priorité tombe sous le titre de cambriolage avec préméditation, une infraction grave". (Stip 63) S'il en fallait discuter, cela établit la reconnaissance évidente par le défendant Willardson qu'il savait commettre de graves actions criminelles. Cela démontre aussi que le fait de le savoir ne modifia en rien ses activités et celles de ses co-défendants. Cela annihile en outre la déclaration de son conseil selon qui il s'agirait d'actions "morales par principe".../...
Finally, it renders the probation officer's evaluation
highly questionable and, indeed, useless. One is amazed,
in view of the evidence, at the naivete of the probation
officer and his incredible lack of understanding of the
facts.Ceci rend en outre hautement douteuse et effectivement inutilisable l'évaluation effectuée par l'officer de probation. On s'étonne, vu les preuves, de la naïveté de l'officier de probation et de son incroyable absence de compréhension des faits. Comment donc, au vu des faits, peut-on imaginer dire "M. Willardson... ne paraît pas menacer les biens et les citoyens de la communauté..."
How, in light of the facts, one can state that
"Mr. Willardson . . . does not appear ... to be a threat
to property or to citizens in the community" is beyond
- 26 -
imagination. After all, it was in defendant Willardson'
office that the bugging and lock-picking equipment was found
by the FBI. It was also in that office that FBI Special
Agent Benavitez told the Court he had found a leather black-
jack. One wonders why a peaceful person would have such an
item in his possession. Similarly, defendant Willardson
was an active participant in the kidnapping of Mr. Meisner.
We submit that that act is more consistent with a person who is
a danger to the community.Après tout, c'est dans le bureau du défendant Willardson que l'équipement de crochetage de serrures et d'écoutes illégales a été découvert par le FBI! C'est aussi dans ce bureau que l'agent Spécial FBI Benavitez a découvert un nerf-de-boeuf en cuir. On se demande ce qu'une personne pacifique peut bien faire d'un tel attirail. De plus, le défendant Willardson fut un participant actif dans le kidnapping de M. Meisner. Nous soumettons le fait qu'un tel acte correspond bien mieux à une personne présentant un danger pour la communauté.
In light of the above, the United States is amazed by
the probation officer's statement that defendant Willardson
"appears . . . to be a man who can be trusted, and that evalua-
tion probably was also made by the Church leaders who encouraged
him to participate in this rather awkward tactic to defend
the perquisites and personnel of the Church of Scientology."
Presentence Report at 10. Such a statement is reminiscent
of the White House's description of the Watergate burglary
as a "third-rate burglary." Certainly, based on this proba-
tion officer's statement, Messrs. John Dean, Jeb Stuart
Magruder, G. Gordon Llddy, et al., could have been said to
be trustworthy and not a "threat to property or to citizens
in the community." Yet eminent jurists of this very Court
disagreed and imposed severe sentences of incarceration in
those cases.Au vu de ce qui précède, les Etats-Unis sont choqués par la déclaration de l'officier de probation disant que le défendant Willardson "paraît être un homme en qui l'on peut faire confiance" - cette évaluation ayant probablement aussi été celle des dirigeants scientologues qui l'ont encouragé à participer à cette tactique plutôt culottée destinée à défendre les gens et les profits de l'église de scientologie. (rapport de pré-sentence à 10.) Ce type de déclaration rappelle la description que fit la Maison-Blanche du cambriolage du Watergate, le qualifiant de "cambriolage à la petite semaine". Certes, si l'on se fondait sur les déclarations de cet officier de probation, MM. John Dean, Jeb Stuart Magruder, G. Gordon Liddy et cie auraient pu être définis comme "de confiance" et "ne constituant pas une menace pour les biens et les citoyens de la communauté". Pourtant, d'éminents juristes de ce même tribunal n'ont guère été d'accord, et ont imposé de lourdes peines de prison à ces gens.
E. Cindy Raymond
-----------------
The defendant Cindy Raymond similarly had an active role
in both the burglary and theft conspiracy as well as the
cover-up conspiracy. She both initiated programs and pro-
jects as well as carried out the stategic plans formulated by
---------------------
5/ The Court may also recall the testimony adduced by
the defense at the motion to suppress hearings about the
seizure of guns.5/ Le tribunal peut aussi se souvenir du témoignage ajouté en preuve par la défense à propos de la motion destinée à faire disparaître les auditions quant à la saisie des révolvers. [PS: le traducteur webmaster a également constaté la présence d'un révolver dans les bureaux du Gardien scientologue parisien, vers 1977]
- 27 -
her superiors. Indeed, subsequent to mid-March 1977, she
fulfilled the role of "cover-up" coordinator, replacing
defendant Hermann. (Stip. 230-231 e_t sec[.) However, her
active role in furthering this conspiracy began long before
that promotion.
The evidence demonstrates that much of the Guardian's
Office correspondence dealing with the cover-up was kept in or
near defendant Raymond's office. (See, e.g., nn. 136, 138,
139, 111, 142, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153 and documents
referred to therein which related the earliest formulations
of the cover-up plans and significant event3, including the
arrest of defendant Wolfe on June 30, 1976.) This evidence
demonstrates that defendant Raymond was fully aware of and
assisted in every aspect of the cover-up and the earlier
conspiracy.
The evidence also establishes that it was defendant
Raymond who informed Mr. Meisner that false handwriting
exemplars were being given to the FBI, demonstrating her
complicity in the obstruction of the FBI's investigation.
(Stip. 209.)Les preuves démontrent par ailleurs que c'est la défenderesse Raymond qui informa M. Meisner qu'on fournissait de faux exemplaires d'écriture au FBI, ce qui démontre sa complicité dans l'obstruction de l'enquète du FBI. (Stip 209). C'est aussi la défenderesse Raymond qui établit la liste des cambriolages au district de Columbia et les détails de ces crimes. (Stip 210)
Furthermore, it was defendant Raymond who, at
this same time, compiled the list of the District of Columbia
burglaries and the details of those crimes. (Stip. 210.)
Throughout the fall and winter of 1976, defendant Raymond met
with Mr. Meisner approximately once or twice a week to discuss
the ongoing cover-up. (Stip. 215.) When Mr. Meisner expressed
his concern over the course of events, it was defendant
Raymond who arranged a meeting between Mr. Meisner and his
long-time friend, defendant Duke Snider. By virtue of her
position as National Secretary and because of her active
involvement, defendant Raymond was one of the persons who
received defendant Hermann's November 30, 1976 briefing
- 28 -
summary (Government Exhibit No. 139) outlining the history of
and plans for the cover-up. (Stip. 221-222.) On December 10,
1976, defendant Raymond outlined the refined cover-up plan
for defendant Weigand. (Stip. 222-223.) This included the
plan for containing the FBI investigation. (Stip. 223.)
Defendant Raymond's handwriting appears on some of the most
incriminating documents generated during this period. (See,
e.g., Government Exhibit No. 168.)
Defendant Raymond's appointment to the position of cover-
up coordinator in March 1977 reflected the confidence that
her superiors had in her ability to push the cover-up plan
to a successful conclusion. (Stip. 229-231.) That the con-
spiracy was ultimately unsuccessful in achieving the desired
results was not due to any lack of effort or initiative on
Raymond's part. Included, among these efforts, was a "friends
request" for the guards who had forcibly restrained Mr.
Meisner when the latter contemplated escape from the Guardian's
Office. (Stip. 244.) Indeed, as of May 13, 1977, defendant
Raymond was in complete charge of those guards (Stip. 247
n.190.) When Mr. Meisner eventually escaped from those
guards the first time on May 29, 1977, it was defendant
Raymond who notified her Guardian's Office superiors and
instructed the briefing of all persons who knew that Mr.
Meisner had been harbored by Scientology. (Stip. 249 n.191.)
Upon Mr. Meisner's return to Los Angeles, it was defendant
Raymond who was ordered to locate a new, more secure, place
to forcefully hide Mr. Meisner. (Stip. 251-252.) Finally,
defendant Raymond was one of the persons assigned to continue
the elaboration of the cover-up story subsequent to Mr.
Meisner1s second and final escape. (Stip. 272.)Au retour de [la première évasion] de M. Meisner, à Los Angelès, c'est la défenderesse Raymond qui reçut l'ordre de trouver un nouvel endroit plus sûr pour cacher de force M. Meisner (Stip 251-252) C'est finalement la défenderesse Raymond qui fut l'une des personnes chargées d'élaborer une histoire pour couvrir la seconde et finale évasion de M. Meisner. (Stip. 272)
- 29 -
Regarding the first conspiracy, the "uncontested"
evidence shows that the defendant Raymond recruited the defen-
dant Wolfe as a covert operative to be placed at the IRS.
She was also immediate supervisor of Mr. Meisner and as such
in constant contact with him regarding the almost daily
burglaries being committed. [See also her role in criminal
activities against private organizations and citizens in
section V infra.]A propos de la première conspiration, les preuves "incontestées" démontrent que la défenderesse Raymond recruta le défendant Wolfe comme agent caché à placer à l'IRS. Elle était aussi la supérieure hiérarchique directe de M. Meisner et en tant que telle, en contact quasi journalier avec les cambriolages commis. [Voir aussi son rôle dans les activités criminelles contre des organisations et citoyens privés, à la section 5 infra]
In view of the above, it is hard to understand how
defendant Raymond could state that she "became aware" in 1974
"of the infiltration of certain government agencies," and
that she did not believe that the activities were "illegal."
Presentence Report at 7. She had to have been aware of the
infiltration of Government agencies since she initiated many
of them, including that of the IRS. That a person of her
age and intelligence did not know that burglaries, thefts,
buggings, forgeries, destruction of evidence, perjury to a
Grand Jury, harboring a fugitive, and other serious crimes
were illegal is so mind-boggling as to be absolutely incredi-
ble and unworthy of belief.Au vu de ce qui précède, on a du mal à comprendre comment la défenderesse Raymond soutient qu'elle "aurait pris conscience" en 1974 "de l'infiltration de certaines agences gouvernementales" et qu'elle ne croyait pas que ces activités fussent "illégales". Rapport de pré-sentence à 7. Il fallait bien qu'elle connaisse l'infiltration des administrations puisque c'est elle qui en avait initié bon nombre, dont celle de l'IRS. Qu'une personne de son âge et de son intelligence n'ait pas su que les cambriolages, vols, écoutes illégitimes, faux, destruction de preuves, parjures pardevant un Grand Jury, cacher un fugitif et autres crimes graves fussent illégaux est tellement renversant que c'en est absolument incroyable et indigne de la moindre foi.
Indeed, it indicates that Ms.
Raymond still fails to understand the serious nature of her
crimes. Her insistence in hiding behind the religious tenets
of her organization to explain her criminal activities not
only casts grave doubts upon her own remorse, but also upon
the representations of her co-defendants that their religious
tenets prohibited the commission of illegal acts. In this
instance as well, the Los Angeles probation officer appears
to have been clearly in the dark as to the evidence when
he wrote his "evaluation" of the defendant Raymond, although
even he had to recognize that "she actively participated" in
her criminal activities. Presentence Report at 10.Cela indique aussi que Madame Raymond continue à ne pas saisir la nature grave de ses crimes. Son insistance à se cacher derrière les croyances religieuses de son organisation pour expliquer ses propres activités criminelles jette non seulement le doute sur son remords, mais aussi sur ce que disent ses co-défendants quant au fait que leur religion leur interdirait les actes illégaux. L'officier de probation de Los Angelès paraît également, dans cet exemple, avoir pataugé dans le noir .../...
- 30 -
In supra, defendant Raymond was aware of and actively
participated in both conspiracies from start to finish. Such
activities necessitate forceful treatment from this Court,
in the form of a maximum period of incarcertion.
Gerald Bennett Wolfe
--------------------
While Gerald Bennett Wolfe did not have the strategy-
planning role of the defendants already discussed, he
nonetheless played a pivotal role in the defendants' concerted
endeavors to cover-up the burglaries, thefts, and buggings
they had perpetrated. Thus, it was Wolfe who willingly and
willfully lied to the federal Grand Jury during its investiga-
tion into the burglaries and thefts which he had committed
on behalf of the Church of Scientology. However, Wolfe's
involvement in the cover-up did not begin with those perjurious
statements, and his false declarations do not encompass the
entirety of his criminal acts in this regard.
On June 14, 1976, only three days after his encounter
with the FBI in the United States Courthouse, defendant Wolfe
met with defendants Willardson and Weigand and Mr. Meisner to
prepare the cover story which defendant Wolfe was to give to
the FBI. (Stip. 184.) During that meeting, the details of
the cover-up story previously outlined by defendants Heldt,
Snider, Weigand and Willardson were created. (Stlp. 185-187.)
On the following day, subsequent to his return to the District
of Columbia, defendant Wolfe discussed the plan with defendant
Hermann, and then met with the Scientology-selected lawyer to
give him the agreed-upon story. (Stip. 188.) Thus, it is
clear that, from the outset, defendant Wolfe was critically
involved in the conspiracy of which he was found guilty by
this Court.
- 31 -
Following his arrest by the, FBI on June 30, 1976, defen-
dant Wolfe began to actively execute the cover-up story. He
told the United States Attorney's Office that the false cre-
dentials he had forged with Mr. Meisner were part of "[a]
lark gone sour." (Stip. 193.) Far from being an unwilling
participant in the cover-up, defendant Wolfe expressed concern
that the Government might attempt to strike a deal with him
to become a Government witness, a possibility which he found
highly distasteful. (Stip. 229.) Later on, defendant Wolfe
gave his probation officer and District Judge Thomas A.
Flannery the same false story which he had earlier given
the prosecutors and which he eventually told the federal
Grand Jury. Certainly, this was not the expression of a
person coerced into "going along."
Of course, defendant Wolfe declined the invitation to
cooperate with the government in return for a guilty plea to
an unlawful entry charge carrying a maximum of six months
incarceration. Thus, on May 18, 1977 he entered a guilty
plea to a felony charge of wrongful use of a Government seal,
which plea was a crucial stage in the cover-up plan. (Stip.
246-247.) Then, on June 10, 1977, defendant Wolfe was
sentenced on the charge, following which he was subpoenaed to
appear before the federal Grand Jury. (Stip. 252.) During
his testimony under oath, defendant Wolfe lied on no fewer
than four occasions, giving the precise story that the defen-
dants had previously constructed with his assistance. (Stip.
255-265.) Indeed, that testimony conformed in every detail
to the prepared story. Again, we suggest that this was not
a half-hearted endeavor on his part.Durant son témoignage sous serment [devant le Grand Jury] le défendant Wolfe mentit au moins quatre fois, répétant l'histoire précise que les défendants avaient concoctée précédemment avec son assistance. (Stip 255-265). Ce témoignage confirmait en détail l'histoire élaborée. Nous suggérons à nouveau que ce comportement n'était pas du tout tiéde.
As further indication of defendant - Wolfe's willingness
to participate in the cover-up, it must be noted that defendant
- 32 -
Wolfe immediately went to the Church of Scientology office
the District of Columbia so that he could be debriefed. (Stip,
265.) The purpose was, of course, to enable the Guardian's
Office to conform other testimony to Wolfe's. (Id.) Copies
of the debrief were circulated throughout the Guardian's
Office and indeed given to Mr. Meisner himself, (Id.) Thus,
all defendants except for defendant Thomas were aware of
defendant Wolfe's false declarations.
Had defendant Wolfe agreed to help the investigation,
his knowledge of the details of the burglaries and thefts
would have been invaluable. However, defendant Wolfe did not
choose the honest path. Consequently, his sentence must
reflect this conscious choice to subvert the lawful processes
of this Court.
As this Court is aware, defendant Wolfe, at his counsel's
direction, declined to give his version of the events in
question to the Probation Office of this Court. This together
with the defendant Wolfe's behavior and demeanor throughout
these proceedings reflect his totally amoral reaction to
the charges to which he pled guilty on June 10, 1977 and of
which he was found guilty by this Court on October 26, 1979.
Of course, defendant Wolfe stands before this Court as
twice convicted felon. To suggest, as does the Los Angeles
probation officer, that defendant Wolfe has been "manipulated
by the upper echelon of the Church of Scientology" is similar
to suggesting that James McCord in the Watergate burglary
had been manipulated by the White House and,therefore, should
escape the severe punishment which District Judge John J.
Sirica imposed on him. That argument is as absurd in the
instant case as it was in the Watergate case. Indeed, the
probation officer, must have recognized that fact when heSuggérer, comme l'a fait l'officier de probation de Los Angelès, que le défendant Wolfe "a été manipulé par les échelons supérieurs de l'église de scientologie" revient à suggérer que Jame McCord, lors du cambriolage du Watergate, avait été manipulé par la Maison Blanche et qu'il serait donc normal de ne pas le punir sévèrement comme l'a finalement décidé le juge de District John J. Sirica. Ici, l'argument reste absurde, comme lors du procès du Watergate. L'officier de probation aurait dû
- 33 -
concluded his evaluation by stating that "considering the
nature of the offense and the defendant's willing involvement,
a sanction in the form of a suitable punishment is warranted."
Presentence Report at 11. We submit that the only suitable
punishment here, is a maximum sentence of incarceration.conclure son évaluation en déclarant "Considérant la nature du délit et le fait que le défendant s'y est impliqué de son plein gré, une sentence correspondante est nécessaire." Rapport de Pré-sentence à 11. Nous soumettons que l'unique sentence possible ici soit le temps maximal d'incarcération.
Mitchell Hermann
----------------
Notwithstanding his substantial role in the formulation
and execution of the cover-up scheme, 6/ the Government agreed
to allow the guilty finding in regard to defendant Hermann to
be entered on Count One of the indictment. The evidence
demonstrates that defendant Hermann was equally important to
the consummation of the conspiracy charged in that count as
he was in the cover-up conspiracy.
In July, 1971, when defendant Snider approved a project
to implement Jane Kember's order of November 21, 1973, requiring
the covert obtaining of documents in Washington, D.C., regarding
Interpol, defendant Hermann was the director of the branch
within the District of Columbia Information Bureau assigned
to acquire those documents. Thus, that project was assigned
to him. (Stip. 16.)
Also in- the summer of 1974, defendant Hermann, along
with Mr. Meisner, interviewed Scientologists for the purpose
of choosing a person to be placed as a covert operative at
IRS headquarters. That covert operative was to obtain all
documents in the IRS concerning Scientology. (Stip. 17-18.)
Subsequent to October, 1974 when Guardian Order (GO) 136.1
was issued, calling for the infiltration of numerous Government
------------------
6/ The evidence establishes that defendant Hermann was
involved in the cover-up scheme from its very inception.
Thus, defendant Hermann received the call from Mr. Meisner
on June 11, 1976 relating the encounter with the FBI in the
United States Courthouse, . and relayed to Mr. Meisner the
(Footnote continued on next page.)
- 34 -
offices, defendant Hermann exercised substantial authority
over the District of Columbia Guardian's Office's day-to-day
operations to enforce that Order. (Stip. 21-22.)
As part of his duties in this regard, defendant Hermann
participated in the bugging of the IRS conference concerning
Scientology on November 1, 1971*. (Stip. 22-32.) He was one
of the persons who first entered the IRS building to locate
the conference room (stip. 23) and then accompanied unindicted
co-conspirator Don Alverzo to place the "bug" in that room.Parmi ses devoirs à ce sujet, le défendant Hermann a participé aux écoutes illégales de la conférence de l'IRS, qui concernait la scientologie, le 1er novembre 1971 (stip à 22-23). C'est l'un de ceux qui sont entrés les premiers dans le bâtiment de l'IRS afin de localiser la salle de conférence (stip 23), puis il a accompagné le co-conspirateur Don Alverzo pour placer le micro dans la pièce. (stip 24)
(Stip. 24.) He also re-entered the conference room subsequent
to the meeting to remove the "bug" and, in the process stolen,
various papers which those in attendance had left behind.
(Stip. 25.) The criminal implications of this act were well-
recognized by those defendants who were aware of this activity,
as reflected in a letter from defendant Snider to Morris
Hudlong urging great caution in the handling of the bugging
transcript. (Stip. 30.)
-----------------------------
6/ (Footnote continued from previous page.)
instructions of defendant Weigand in order to avoid detection
by the FBI. (Stip, 171* et seq.) Following his participa-
tion in the formulation of "The cover-up (stip. 182-183),
defendant Hermann undertook the supervision of defendant
Wolfe upon the latter's return to the District of Columbia.
(Stip. 188.) Subsequently, defendant Hermann was the person
primarily responsible for coordinating activities in the
District of Columbia, and for keeping his superiors in Los
Angeles informed of District of Columbia events. (See,
e.g. Stip. 191 et_ seq., 212, 227.) The extent of his
involvement in, and knowledge of, the defendants' wilfull
attempts to subvert the Grand Jury's investigation of the
burglaries and thefts, is reflected in Government Exhibits
Nos. 139, 143, and 144. (Stip. 220-229.) Those three docu-
ments are briefing memoranda; the first outlines burglaries
and thefts in the District of Columbia and the cover-up
story which had been prepared; the second briefs the Guardian's
Office on the course of the FBI investigation and defendant
Wolfe's case; and the third further amplifies the cover-up
story.
While these activities do not indicate the totality of
defendant Hermann's involvement, they are representative
of that involvement and reflect the willingness and wilfull-
ness with which he engaged in the criminal activities that
marked the cover-up.
- 35 -
It was. defendant Hermann who initially supervised
defendant Wolfe during the early days of his employment at
the IRS. (Stip. 40.) In this capacity he became intimately
aware of defendant Wolfe's data-gathering activities, reporting
on those activities to Mr. Meisner, among others. (Stip. 40-41.)
Indeed, defendant Hermann participated in a "trial run" at
the IRS in December 1974 to demonstrate to defendant Wolfe
the ease with which offices could be entered and documents
stolen. (Stip. 37-38.) Along these same lines, it was at
defendant Hermann's home that defendant Wolfe was first
introduced to Mr. Meisner in December 1974. (Stip. 40-41.)
At that meeting, defendant Hermann instructed defendant Wolfe
to continue obtaining IRS documents from the office of IRS
attorney Barbara Bird. (Stip. 41.) As the evidence esta-
blishes, all documents obtained in the District of Columbia
were forwarded to the Guardian's Office headquarters in Los
Angeles. Subsequent to January, 1976, almost all such documents,
and the memoranda describing them, were sent directly to defen-
dant Hermann, who held the position of Southeast US Secretary
within the Information Bureau, and as such exercised immediate
supervision over the Information Bureau in the District of
Columbia. (Stip. 44.) However, from January through March 1975,
when he was transferred to Chicago, the defendant Hermann
exercised immediate supervision over defendants Wolfe and
Thomas as well as other covert operatives including one at the
Drug Enforcement Administration and three others in private
industry. (Stip. 46-47.) In this capacity he wrote Government
Exhibit No. 13, a memorandum to defendant Raymond summarizing
documents stolen from the IRS Chief Counsel's file room
pursuant to GO 1361, Target 10.(Stip. 47.)
- 36 -
During his tenure in 1976 as Southeast US Secretary,
defendant Hermann received and forwarded numerous stolen
documents and memoranda regarding those documents. (S_ee, e.g. ,
Government Exhibits Nos. 46, 59, 60, 61.) He was also the
person who notified Mr. Meisner that Don Alverzo would be
returning to the District of Columbia to assist in gaining
entry to IRS offices which had been placed in a special high
security area. (Stip. 101.) Defendant Hermann reported on
Alverzo's "mission" in Government Exhibit 56D.(Stip. 104.)
It was defendant Hermann who recommended that Mr. Meisner be
given an award for his achievements in the burglaries of IRS
offices noting that "10-12 feet of material" had been obtained
from the IRS. (Stlp. 118-119.) It was also defendant Hermann
who directed Mr. Meisner to obtain a false IRS identification
card (stip. 119-120), and it was defendant Hermann who moni-
tored the illegal activities through June 11, 1976, including
the burglaries into, and theft of documants from, the various
offices within the Department of Justice (see, e.g., Government
Exhibits Nos. 93 and 95) and the office of Assistant United
States Attorney Nathan Dodell. (Stip. 157-159 and Government
Exhibits Nos. 98-100, 103 and 104.)
The telephone call placed by Mr. Meisner to defendant
Hermann after the June 11, 1976 encounter with the FBI agents
reflects the defendant Hermann's critical position in both
conspiracies. Subsequent to that phone call, defendant
Hermann initiated the Guardian's Office response to this
crisis situation, which, of course, led to the cover-up
conspiracy. (Stip. 174 et seq.)
In his statement to the Los Angeles probation officer
defendant Hermann also attempted to justify his criminal
- 37 -
behavior by suggesting that he acted in response to his "per-
ceived persecution" of his Church. Presentence Report at
5-6. In light of his criminal activities against the American
Medical Association, Clearwater Mayor Gabriel Cazares, and
others as outlined in section V infra, his explanation must be
rejected. If the defendants and their organization perceived
that they were being persecuted they should have resorted
to the lawful means available to all citizens for the redress
of grievances. Violations of the law and the subversion of
the judicial system can never be justified.Si les défendants et leur organisation s'estimaient persécutés, ils auraient dû faire appel aux moyens légaux accessibles à chaque citoyen afin d'obtenir le redressement des dommages. Les violations des lois et la subversion du système judiciaire ne peuvent en aucun cas être tolérées.
As the above recitation clearly dsmonstrates, defendant
Hermann was involved in and was aware of, virtually every
aspect of the numerous burglaries and thefts, the IRS bugging,
and the forgeries of Government credentials charged in that
conspiracy. Indeed, he acted as a conduit for the flow of
information through the various branches of the Guardian's
Office. As the probation officer concluded: "Covert activi-
ties such as the ones the defendant participated in, cannot
be condoned. The Court should impose a punishment sufficient
to impress this defendant of the fact that his offense behavior
will not be condoned." We submit that both to impress this
defendant and others a maximum term of incarceration is
mandated here.
Sharon Thomas
-------------
Defendant Sharon Thomas was found guilty of Count 17 of
the indictment, charging the theft of documents and photocopies
thereof from the office of John F. Shaw, Special Assistant to
the Assistant Attorney General for Adminstration on April 29
1976. At the time, Ms. Thomas was employed as a secretary
to two attorneys within the Information and Privacy Unit of
the Department of Justice's Civil Division. The evidenceLa défenderesse Sharon Thomas a été déclarée coupable de la mise en examen charge n° 17, vol de documents et photocopies dans le bureau de John F. Shaw, assistant spécial pour l'Administration de l'Attorney General (Ministre de la Justice) , le 29 avril 1976. A l'époque, Madame Sharon était employée par deux avocats de l'Unité Information et Privauté de la Division civile du Ministère de la Justice. Les preuves
- 38 -
establishes that Ms. Thomas was actively involved in the con-
spiracy to burglarize Government offices and steal Government
documents, and to that end had secured her position at the
behest of the Guardian's Office. Her duties included the
monitoring of Justice Department offices to give the Church
an early warning system to any potential subpoena, civil
suit, or arrest warrant against L. Ron Hubbard or Mary Sue
Hubbard, to steal documents legitimately withheld from the
Church under the FOIA, and to obtain all documents relating
to Interpol.démontrent que Mme Thomas était activement impliquée dans la conspiration destinée à cambrioler les bureaux du gouvernement et y voler des documents, et qu'elle avait caché son appartenance à l'Office du Gardien scientologue [pour pouvoir y parvenir.] Ses devoirs comprenaient la surveillance des bureaux du Ministère de la défense afin d'alerter l'église en cas de mise en examen, de mandat d'arrèt contre L. Ron Hubbard ou Mary Sue Hubbard; ils incluaient aussi le vol de documents légtitimement non communiqués à l'église qui les réclamait selon le FOIA [loi sur la liberté d'information, ndt], et d'obtenir tout document en lien avec Interpol.
The documents which Ms. Thomas stole from Mr. Shaw's
office, with the assistance of Mr. Meisner, concerned Interpol
and the United States' continued participation in that organi-
zation. At the time of the theft, Mr. Shaw was the person
coordinating the transfer of Interpol from the Department of
the Treasury to the Department of Justice.(Stip. 150.) The
uncontested evidence establishes that Ms. Thomas and Mr.
Meisner carried out the theft by entering the Department of
Justice building in the District of Columbia after 5:30 p.m.
using defendant Thomas' identification card. (Stip. 151.)
They proceeded to Mr. Shaw's office on the first floor of
that building and entered it forcibly, by slipping the latch
through the use of a piece of plastic. (Id.) Once inside,
they discovered a five to six inch high stack of documents,
all related to Interpol. Mr. Meisner and Ms. Thomas then
removed these documents, and proceeded to the fourth floor
of the building where they made copies. The documents were
then returned to Mr. Shaw's desk (Id.), and the copies were
taken from the building.[résumé du passage: elle-même et Meisner ont pénétré par effraction dans le bureau de M. Shaw, pris une grosse pile de documents liés à Interpol, les ont photocopiés et ont remis les originaux à leur place: la scientologie voulait à l'époque se débarrasser de possibles recherches internationales criminelles]
In perpetrating this theft and others discussed at length
in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence, Ms. Thomas notEn perpétrant ce vol et d'autres largement abordés dans la stipulation d'évidence "incontestée", non seulement Madame Thomas
- 39 -
only forcibly entered offices which she had no right to be
in, and took property which was not hers, but also breached*'
the position of trust which she had been afforded by virtue
of her position as a Department of Justice employee. Simply
put, she was a covert operative, engaged in acts of deception
for the Church of Scientology.a pénétré par effraction dans des bureaux auxquels elle n'avait pas accès, mais elle a de surcroît abusé de la position de confiance dont elle disposait du fait de son emploi au Ministère de la Justice. Plus directement, elle était un agent caché impliqué dans des actes de tromperie pour le compte de l'église de scientologie.
Defendant Thomas had been a dedicated operative for the
Church of Scientology since the early 1970's when she was
recruited by the defendant Snider (who was then Assistant
[words missing there - mots manquants ici en anglais]
tive within a dissident Scientology group. From November
1973 to July 1971*, defendant Thomas was a Scientology agent
at the American Psychiatric Association. She was then placed
as a covert agent at the United States Coast Guard Intelligence.
In 1976, she was to be transferred by the Guardian's Office
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service when the issuance
of Guardian Program Order 158 made her need at the Department
of Justice more imperative.Thus, the defendants determined
to have her infiltrate the Department of Justice. At all
times, Ms. Thomas was a willing and dedicated spy who worked
long and arduous hours plying her surreptitious vocation.
No one held a gun to her head as is suggested by her counsel
in his letter to the California probation officer. Indeed,
she even sought to solicit and recruit relatives to become
covert agents for her organizations. Counsel asserts that:Les défendants l'ont donc nommée pour infiltrer le Ministère de la Justice. A tout moment, Madame Thomas fut une espionne dévouée et volontaire qui travaillait de longues heures délicates à accomplir sa vocation clandestine. Nul ne tenait un révolver contre sa tempe comme le suggère son avocate dans un courrier adressé à son officier de probation en Californie. Elle alla même jusqu'à solliciter et recruter des parents pour devenir espions pour ses organisations.
Ms. Thomas could have introduced substantial
testimony through herself and others, which
would have shown threats and coercion by Mr.
Meisner, who held a position of religious
power over her. I do not mean this in any
mystical sense, but in a political sense.
Presentence Report at 6. That statement can only be des-
cribed as bizarre and so absurd as to be dismissed out of
hand. No one forced Ms. Thomas to beg this Court to find her
- 40 -
guilty of her crimes. She did so voluntarily and so stated
to this Court under oath. She willingly, in open court and
in front of a packed courtroom of spectators and television
and newspaper reporters, signed the "uncontested stipulation
of evidence." 'We certainly hope that her counsel is not now
suggesting to this Court that defendant Thomas committed
perjury before this Court on October 26, 1979. We, therefore,
will ignore counsel's absurd remarks to the probation officer.
Of course, Ms. Thomas not only chose not to give her version
of the events but instead of indicating any contrition or
remorse for her criminal behavior, attempts, through her
counsel, to minimize her acts. She contends that "there is
no evidence alleged by the Government that she ever knew
of any of the activities other than those she directly parti-
cipated in." While, we submit the evidence clearly shows a
knowledge on her part of all Guardian Orders, certainly, the
acts she participated in evidence sufficiently serious criminal
acts. That she and her counsel fail to recognize that is in-
deed sad and indicates the fact that she has yet to understand
or take seriously this Court's guilty finding of October 26.
One can only hope that a maximum period of incarceration,
and the period for innerreflection which that would provide,
might assist Ms. Thomas in comprehending the gravity of her
actions.
Ms. Thomas' pattern of spying against private organiza-
tions and thefts from Government agencies does not represent
the whole scope of her criminal activities. Her attempts
to recruit others as spies indicates the wilfulness of her
conduct. However, much more than any of the above, her
conduct against Clearwater Mayor Gabriel Cazares, discussed
at length in section V infra, establishes the breadth of herLes méthodes utilisées par Madame Thomas pour l'espionnage d'organisations privées et ses vols dans les administrations ne représentent pas l'ensemble de ses actes criminels. Ses tentatives de recutement d'autres gens pour espionner démontrent qu'elle le faisait de son plein gré. Mais il y a plus encore que ce qui précède: il y a sa conduite envers le Maire de Clearwater Gabriel Cazares, dont on fait longuement état à la section V infra, pour établir l'ampleur de
- 41 -
criminal mind. Involvement in setting up a fake hit-and-run
accident to in-effect blackmail a person (see section V infra)
is indeed a very serious offense.sa criminalité. Le fait qu'elle soit impliquée dans un accident pour provoquer une fausse tentative de fuite après l'accident afin de faire chanter la personne (voir section V infra) est effectivement un délit très grave.
Thus, the United States fails to understand the California
probation officer's suggestion that she "does not appear to
be a criminal type in any classic sense." Presentence Report
at 10. Nowhere does the probation officer mention defendant
Thomas' covert operations against the Coast Guard or the
Immigration and Naturalization Service -- offenses detailed
in the "uncontested" stipulation of evidence. We submit that
the evidence set out in that stipulation and the facts set
out herein establish beyond question that defendant Thomas
is indeed "a criminal type" in the "classic sense." How she
differs from a person from the ghetto who wilfully commits
a crime is difficult to grasp. In fact, the only difference
is that she has presumably had the benefits of an education
and has led a life devoid of any financial deprivation.
Thus, to that extent her wilfull criminal acts are more
blatant and premeditated.
Il s'ensuit que Etats-Unis ne comprennent pas la suggestion de l'officier de probation californien indiquant "qu'elle ne paraît pas de type criminel dans le sens classique". Rapport de pré-sentence à 10. Nulle part l'officier de probation ne mentionne les opérations secrètes de Thomas contre les Garde-Côtes ou contre le Service d'immigration et naturalisation -- des délits détaillés dans la stipulation d'évidence "incontestée". Nous soumettons ici que l'évidence accumulée dans la stipulation et les faits ici établis démontrent sans le moindre doute que la défenderesse Thomas est bel et bien du "type criminel" dans le "sen