CONCERNS ABOUT CO$ MISCONDUCT.

From the Private Office of:

W. G. Hagglund
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville Ontario
L6H 3M9
905 844 6216
e-mail:
elrond@cgo.wave.ca

To: P.C. Crook at Metropolitan Toronto Police

Sir,

This next is more of a record of problems encountered at our last Demonstration this Saturday last, August 16, from 2 pm to 5 pm.

This demonstration was absent of onsite Police presence and the staff of the Church of Scientology of Toronto under the direction of Mr. Anthony A. Buttnor took full advantage of this situation.

No doubt you will have, or will be, hearing from Mr. Buttnor on these same matters.

My concerns:

A.] Sound.
The Church staff turned up the volume on external loudspeakers. The soundtrack included much shouting and the volume was so high that it made any normal street level verbal communication impractical other than by shouting ourselves. Which we did. Despite my request the sound remained high for more than 45 minutes ( 2:45 to 3:30 pm )
This situation was finally addressed and the sound reduced after a phone interview I had, (on site at 3:20 pm,) with a IRC correspondent in Las Vegas in which I mentioned this tactic and that I intended to complain to the Police. This individual called the Toronto Org and spoke to Mr. Buttnor and told him I intended to complain. Mr. Buttnor hung up on this gentleman, but then the sound was reduced.

B.] Stationing.
The Church staff took to stationing themselves in the sidewalk, singly or in groups, impeding our ability to move back and forth and causing the public to dodge either us or them or both. This was addressed only after a rather large citizen gave one of the Church staff an angry diatribe about their conduct and said she was going to call the Police. ( I do not know if she did.) This tactic was in use from 3:45 pm to 4:15 pm.

C.] Physical Intimidation.
As stated in our Code of Conduct for these demonstrations we are determined to peacefully demonstrate, as is our Right, but we are also prepared to suffer, without retaliation, physical attacks.
We are not interested in provoking such attacks.
As part of an information picket such as ours we seek to offer the public information by offering leaflets, pamphlets and intelligent conversation. Most often we are asked questions, however, upon occasion, we offer information in the form of a question to see if a member of the public wishes to engage in an informative conversation. This of course takes place in the area of our demonstration which was the sidewalk in front of and adjacent to 696, 698 and 700 Yonge St.
At 4:15 pm Church Staff placed a table in the alcove in front of 700 Yonge for demonstrations and placed a chair in front of that table *and on the sidewalk* and invited members of the public (or 'raw meat' as Church staff refer amongst themselves) to enjoy a demonstration.
I, and most others familiar with Scientology sales techniques, recognise this as the first stage of what is thought of by many, including myself, to be a con game. In this instance a member of the public had been engaged by a Church staffer in conversation about this demonstration. I overheard the staffer make a blatantly false claim and so I asked the member of the public, who was still standing on the sidewalk, if he would be interested in knowing the 'trick' to the demonstration. Before this gentleman could answer a staff member accosted me and thrust himself extremely close to me, positioning his face less than 2 inches from mine and shouted at me. I did not move. I replied loudly to the effect that I had the right to address the public on the sidewalk and that if he had a problem with my civil right to do so then he had a very big problem, because 'wog' law (as the Church calls civil rights ) takes precedence over Scientology law. This individual did not withdraw but remained close to me and 'in my face' and staring at me intently using a Church tactic called 'TR stare'. I told him I recognised what he was doing and I would stare back. He promptly failed this TR routine ( failure by Church standards is to blink first ). Which I announced in the Church training manner by crying the word "Flunk!". He appeared to withdraw and then thrust his face in mine again and tried this TR once more and promptly failed once more. Which I announced again. He then withdrew entirely at the urging of another Church staff member.
This entire episode was recorded on video and on sound tape by Church staff. (I would not rely on any copy they have tho' as it is written Church doctrine to "manufacture evidence". ) It was also witnessed by many staff members *all* of whom will have written 'KRs' or Knowledge Reports, by now. Members of the public and Picketers also watched this confrontation.
I believed, for the first few moments, that I was in imminent danger of being physically assaulted. I did not move away for a variety of reasons. First, I felt that were I to move at all, this man would have attacked me. Second, I have already made the decision that I will suffer such an attack rather than surrender my civil right to protest. I will not provoke such an attack, but I will not be intimidated. This is important for Church Staff to see. When a member of the Church enforcers (such as the OSA or Sea Org as this man is), tries and fails to publicly intimidate and 'handle' a Church ENEMY or Suppressive Person, then, hopefully a Church Staff member might question to themselves the efficacy of Church doctrine physically and morally. In this manner my refusal to be intimidated or even to have been beaten, without resistance, might benefit Church Staff.
Even the one doing the attacking.
I sincerely believe most of them to be victims of the deceptive and oppressive Management of the Church.

D.] Stalking.
When Picket members took a break or left the Picket at its conclusion they were followed by Church staff. In particular when one of our more famous ( or infamous to the Church ) picketers took a break with others at a near by open air coffee shop, a Church staff member followed and deliberately selected a table adjacent in an effort to overhear any conversation.
No church member would seat themselves near 'SPs' or enemies without direct instruction to do so by Senior Church Staff. Unless ordered otherwise Church staff are under a directive to avoid conversing or being 'tainted' by the 'entheta' (bad stuff that ) of any SPs verbal communication.
I challenged this particular staffer on this activity and he did not deny it. Indeed Mr. Buttnor rushed to this man's side in case he might need help or, more likely, might admit anything.

I believe these tactics, especially A, B and C were opportunistically employed by Church Staff at the direction of Mr . A. Buttnor who is himself in a desperate situation with his Church Management. Mr. Buttnor has failed entirely to 'Handle' me and the number of individuals who are willing to risk Picketing the Toronto Org. has substantially increased in number in just four months from three to over one dozen that the Church OSA have photographed and videotaped. That this number includes the presence of one opponent whom they abhor very much (one who played a significant role in the Police Raid on the Toronto Org and in the successful Casey Hill Libel suit against the Church) and who *was* supposedly neutralised otherwise, is very embarrassing for Mr. Buttnor. Mr Buttnor was recently also very badly embarrassed by his less than stellar performance on a West Coast Talk show. He did so badly that as result of his on air denial of a statement attributed to his Church Founder an old audio recording of that statement was played by the talkshow host to refute Mr. Buttnor's assertion. This was a unique occasion and highly embarrassing for the Church. It was reported worldwide on the Internet and in some media I believe. Additionally Mr. Buttnor is likely to lose a law suit in which he is a defendant by Crosscomplaint.
This suit is rather important to him and the Church Management as it was launched initially by Mr. Buttnor against an Edmonton Police official. The grounds and conduct of Mr Buttnor's civil action may at best be described as 'an abuse of process' as I believe the Alberta Court has. Mr. Buttnor, by Church standards, is in very bad odour and may likely be ordered to either volunteer for the RPF ( Church slave labour/ rehabilitation project force) or face being 'Declared' or excommunicated, in Church parlance. The Police official who is the Plaintiff by Crosscomplaint could well be awarded a compensatory sum by the Court or a Jury exceeding that which Mr. Casey Hill received. Others of much higher rank than Mr. Buttnor have been sent to the RPF for much less or have left the Church if they could and been 'Declared as Enemy and a Suppressive Person' to be subjected to the infamous Fair Game Policy should they not mend their ways.
In my personal opinion I believe Mr. Buttnor needs a personal 'victory' of some kind, to try and remain in good graces with his US based superior, Mr . David Miscavige. Mr. Miscavige has enough problems facing his Church in other venues and will not likely tolerate much more of Mr. Buttnor's inept activities and 'handling' of Ontario based 'Suppressives'. The Toronto Org is already heavily in debt to the main Church of Scientology requiring payment of $490, 000.00 US per annum. This on a mortgage debt of nearly six million in 1991 and due for total repayment by December 24, 2011. And that is only possible if the Toronto Org has not or does not default in anyway. My information is, with depressed income stats, the Toronto Org is in a struggle to meet this years payment.

I mention all this to convey to you I believe, as I have said, Mr. Buttnor may well be in desperate straits and therefore a repeat of obstructive anti-demonstration activities, which he must personally orchestrate or permit, is very likely, should they not be officially addressed by civil authority.

I know that these are times of staff cutbacks and restrictions and I wish to make it clear from the outset that I fully appreciate the difficulties of the Metropolitan Police in accommodating Demonstrations such as these and handling other more pressing duties. I have absolutely no complaints about the conduct of the Metropolitan Police of Toronto. I still feel the type of Demonstration I am leading should not necessarily require the presence of onsite Police Resources. However, the Church of Scientology is internationally infamous for its internally mandated disregard and contempt for the civil laws of many nations, including Canada. Common civil law is referred to by the Church of Scientology Management as "wog" law and is generally regarded either as inconvenient or useful to the extent it can be manipulated to harass anyone whom they regard as an 'Enemy'.

I believe a short communique to Mr. Buttnor from the Metropolitan Police is in order (or even better: a visit). This to explain to Mr. Buttnor, despite the aggravation, civil demonstrations are not only legal, but not to be interfered with as was done this Saturday last. I believe this should be sufficient. Thus, frequent police drivebys would only be necessary rather than tying up valuable Police Resources to directly curtail any further uncivil activities of the Toronto branch of the Church of Scientology towards legally constituted Demonstrations of Protest.

Sincerely Yours,

W.G.Hagglund

wgh/ser
CC: Lists A, C and F.
Legal Dept.
Media List.