** Biased Journalism **
V2no18 The Jackson Story

26 Sep 1996

A report by by Shelley Thomson.

     **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for 

     the shortcomings of the professional news media.          

     Copyright 1996 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.  

     Mail, articles and comment may be directed to .  

     Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the

     following:  harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the

     net immediately.        

**Biased Journalism**  Volume 2, issue 18      September 25, 1996.  


Contents:  A Knock On The Door:  The story of Alex and Ariane

           Jackson.  Introduction; Interview with Alex and

           Ariane; Visits by OSA and Alex's Conclusions;

           the Police Report; the Negotiation transcript;

           A Message to the Net.


Read at your own risk.  This is **Biased Journalism**!

1.  A Knock On The Door

        In September on ars Ariane began her story this way:

        "My name is Ariane Jackson and I intend to share some of the

information I have concerning the cult known as Scientology.  This

information covers the experiences of myself and some of my friends

and relatives during many years.  Some of this information is

supported by very complete, original documentation.

       "I was involved in Scientology for 17 years and I attained the

highest available level, called "New OT8, Truth Revealed". I was also

trained as an "auditor" to "Class 6" and I have studied the

"technology" of "Class 12". I was a staff member at Flag Service

Organization, Inc. in Clearwater, Florida.  My husband [Alex] was

involved for 20 years, attained "Clear", was trained as an auditor and

was also on staff. My ex-husband [Albert] was involved for 14 years,

attained "OT7, Cause over Life", gave his fortune of several million

dollars to Scientology and died at the age of 59, within days of being

audited at Flag!

       "In Dec, 1995 my husband and I approached the "church" of

Scientology and requested that steps be taken to repair the damage we

had experienced as a result of our involvement.  We met with a

representative from Flag and specified the damage as clearly as we

could... [They received the cold shoulder.  Brian Anderson, Church of

Scientology, Flag Service Organization, replied accusing them of

blackmail and an attempt to extort funds.  Independently the church

contacted the Procureur General of the State of Geneva requesting

a police investigation for blackmail and extortion; this went to

a hearing, and was denied; the church was required to pay the

Jacksons' costs.]

        "We received a third response during a live TV broadcast in

Paris when I was interviewed and described some of my experiences in

the cult.  The Scientology representative stated that I had made an

offer to withdraw from the show if they paid me 17 million dollars.

This I had never done.  I have filed a suit for defamation."

Ariane goes on to describe what she plans to reveal:


        "1. The destructive effects on myself, on my personality, on

my behaviour and on my life of receiving Scientology levels including

OT8, auditor training, "ethics", and being subjected to the level of

control exercised by Scientology staff on other staff and public.

        "2. The various methods used to persuade my ex-husband to pay

money.  These included daylong interviews by groups of salesmen,

"investment opportunities", donations to translate a book, donations

to "protect Scientology", etc., etc. Two of the "investment

opportunities" where he loaned almost half a million dollars in 1989

to a "patron" and a "patron meritorious" of the International

Association of Scientologists"(IAS) turned out to be very bad

"investments"....My ex-husband tried for MORE THAN FOUR YEARS to get

them to pay what they owed but failed and actually died in the

attempt.  Their failure to repay him added to the fact he had given

so much of his money to Scientology ruined him financially. The

stress arising from his bad financial position aggravated a heart

condition for which he could not afford proper medical care and

which he had been persuaded Scientology would resolve. This illness

killed him before he could recover the money owed to him.

       "The "church" of Scientology was fully aware of this

situation and was actually claiming to be administering "justice" in

the affair, since my ex-husband was prohibited, by Scientology policy,

from taking ANY legal action. At the time of his death Darling and

Rhyner owed him around 650,000 dollars!! This is the "result" obtained

by the cult's business and ethics "technology". Darling raised his

status in the cult from "patron with honors" to patron meritorious

shortly after my ex-husband "invested" in his company. This step is

achieved by paying IAS around 150,000 dollars..." 

        "3. The effects of Scientology on my life as a wife and

mother, including two divorces, a husband (to whom I was married

before the ex-husband already mentioned) who was persuaded by auditing

that he was Jesus Christ reincarnated and could perform miracles but

could not keep a job to support our three young children.  How I

allowed my children to be taken from me.

        "My husband and I, during the period of our involvement, had a

total of 4 divorces and 5 marriages with 6 children involved.  To

prove this problem is not confined to just my husband and I, a review

of the marital experiences of all my ex-husbands and his ex-wives

gives totals as follows:- for 6 Scientologists, 9 divorces, 11

marriages and 13 children with broken homes.  Of these 6 people only

3 are currently married; my husband and myself are two of them.  Only

two mariages have survived and one of them is mine.  (I have just

heard that my 16 year old daughter, who is at the cult's center in

East Grinstead, England, is MARRIED!) This is the result of the

cult's "technology" for resolving marital problems..."


Albert Jaquier ultimately wrote to both David Miscavige and Guillaume

Lesevre [Executive Director International] pleading for assistance in

collecting his money from the Scientologists who had borrowed it.  He

asked Lesevre for a refund of the money his major debtor had donated

to the church to earn "Patron Meritorious" status.  Nothing happened.

One of his many faxes to Scientologist Jody Darling was finally

answered as follows by Robert Eakin:

"Mr Jaquier

Quit being a victim.  You will be paid when there is money available

to pay you. Right now all monies are invested towards production that

will result in funds to pay you-- no matter how much time and paper

you waste this way it will not result in getting paid any earlier.

Your entheta comm is not OK and you have been deadfiled (Scientologese

meaning any communication received from Albert would be immediately

filed away, not shown to anyone and not answered.  It is from a

policy used by Scientology orgs to deal with critical mail they

receive).....I do not pass this comm on to Jody nor do I give him

your repetitious.......(illegible)." (end of quote)

On March 2 1994 the Deputy Chaplain for Courts wrote admitting that

Darling's loan had been arranged by an IAS salesman named Hans Peter


Ariane published the last series of entries from Albert's diary.  It

is a wrenchingly sad chronicle of his last struggle against poverty

and illness.  As his business failed, due to the unpaid loans, his

health declined.  He was unable to afford medical care for the

illness which claimed his life, and which he had once believed that

Scientology could cure.

After many difficulties with the church in Europe Alex and Ariane

and Michael, Ariane's nine-year-old son by Albert, arrived in the

United States.  They were found by OSA with shocking


2.  Interview with ariane and Alex Johnson  -  9/16/96

[We will talk with both Ariane and Alex Jackson.  We begin with

 Ariane, who is AJ, below.  Ariane speaks excellent English with

 a musical French accent.  Alex, whom we shall meet later, has a

 Scottish burr.]

bj:  I gather you've had some interaction with OSA.  Did this happen

     because you posted your story to the internet?

AJ:  Yes, I think it happened because I posted OT VIII to the


     [actually Ariane posted a description of OT VIII from her own

     memory, not the church document.]

     Because they are very worried, they have a lot of attention on OT

     VIII because I think it was the first time the new OT VIII was

     made public.

bj:  so you think it was the OT VIII and not the story of your


AJ:  Yes, I think it was that too but they have a lot of attention

     on the confidential material.

     I am sure the story of my ex-husband has a lot of importance too

     because I don't think they want that public, you know.  It is not

     nice for the church.

bj:  well, what makes you think this OT VIII is correct?

AJ:  Because I did it.  I did it in '88.  So I know what I have

     written is right.

bj:  what kind of results did you get?

AJ:  Nothing really.  Incredible disappointment.  Because there is

     a lot of hype in the church around OT VIII.  Like 'we have

     abilities, we have a lot of skill,' and I had nothing.  I came

     back, I was sick, I was in bad shape, I had a headache, I had

     absolutely not what was promised to me.

bj:  and did you tell anyone in the church that you were unhappy about

     your results?  

AJ:  No because if you tell that to somebody you have to back to do

     other action or to do ethics.  And I had absolutely no desire to

     do anything else.

bj:  did you leave the church at some point?

aj:  I didn't [leave] until 1993.  I did some courses, but no I didn't

     speak at all about my disappointment.

bj:  what is causing you to speak out now?

AJ:  In 1993 [my husband and I took a withdrawal] from the

     church and we began to think about that.  We read the book of

     Corydon [Bare Faced Messiah] and A Piece of Blue Sky  [by Jon

     Atack].  It [the church] was a lot of lie.  The reality was

     totally different than what they showed to us.  And I had a lot

     of [ethics actions] and duress with them.  I couldn't see my son

     during seven months because they show my ex-husband that I was

     somebody ugly, or somebody dangerous for my son.  I had a lot of

     problems with them in fact.  I was under duress very often.

bj:  what happened when you finally left the church, and what made

     you do that?  And how did you leave?  Did you tell them you were

     leaving, or were you declared, or what?

AJ:  When I decided to leave the church I had my three older children

     who were working in the church.  So I decided "I don't want to do

     anything, I don't want to speak about anything because I want to

     stay in a relationship with my children."  And it was in November

     of 1995 I went to Switzerland to be a witness for my friend who

     was an ex-scientologist, and the fact [that] I go as a witness

     makes my decision public.

bj:  in a court trial against the church?

AJ:  Yes.

bj:  did your friend want his money back, or what was the situation?

AJ:  No, he doesn't want his money back but he had a lot of problems

     with the church.  In fact he was very disappointed and he had the

     problem with his throat--he's a musician--and he said to let him

     go by a medical doctor.  They do processes on him [instead] and

     it doesn't resolve his problem so he decides to leave the church.

     He was OT VII, he was very high.  And I did a witness because I

     know him since a long time and I know him, he's a friend.

bj:  how many years were you in the church?

AJ:  Seventeen years.  I began in '76 and left in '93.

bj:  did it cost you a lot of money?

AJ:  Yes.  I did a calculation with my ex-husband.  It was $47,000.  

bj:  often people pay more, or so I understand.

AJ:  Yes.  My ex-husband paid around five million dollars.  But not

     just for courses and other things, but he gave a lot of

     donations.  [and the bad loans -ed.]

bj:  well, what caused you to put OT VIII on the internet?  

AJ:  Because I saw the old OT VIII which was on internet was not

     correct.  And [I don't want for other people to go as far as

     this and not be aware of what the level is about].  It is really

     to make people aware of the lies.

bj:  when you thought about posting it to the internet, was this

     a scary thought for you?  What did you think the church would do?

AJ:  yes, it was a scary thought.  I know that I will receive

     harassment.  Because I know the church doesn't want that known

     and believed, but for me, I have to inform other people that

     these charges, all that is wrong and is false.  If someone goes

     in scientology and pay a lot of money, certainly at the end he

     will be disappointed.  He will have debts or a lot of problems.

     This why I decided to post OT VIII.

bj:  when you were sick after you finished OT VIII, what happened to


AJ:  I had a very bad headache.  I had fever, I had a cold.  And I was

     so ashamed, you know, to be sick because when you finish OT VIII

     you should be able to undo any sickness.  So I hide from other

     people from the church because for me I couldn't understand why

     I am sick.  Even a little cold is not normal.

bj:  [sympathetically] how long did this sickness last?

AJ:  One week.  But very often after I get headache, and cold or

     fever.  Very bad headache.  But I didn't say anything about it

     because I wanted no more heartache.

bj:  do you usually have bad headaches, or was this the first time?

AJ:  No I had these kind of very bad headache after some of my OT

     levels, like OT V, OT VII  I was sick.  After OT VIII I had this

     bad headache and bronchopneumonia.  I will not say it is because

     of OT VIII, but for me I couldn't understand why I am sick when I

     have done this level.

bj:  you felt ashamed.

aj:  Exactly.  

bj:  so you posted OT VIII and then what happened?  You waited for

     the roof to fall in?

AJ:  Yes.  Really I didn't think it will be as fast as that.

bj:  what happened?

AJ:  I think two days after we posted OT VIII they found us.  They

     arrive and-

bj:  how do you think you were found?

AJ:  I have no idea.  Because we just arrived from Switzerland three

     weeks ago.  And nobody knew where we were living and our phone

     number.  It is possible they followed me.  I have no idea.

bj:  So what happened on the day that you knew they had found you?

     How did you know?

AJ:  because they arrived at the door.

bj:  who?

AJ:  Three people from OSA.  It was around eleven o'clock [in the


bj:  a bright sunny day?

AJ:  [amused] Yes, a bright sunny day.  Like we have in Florida.

bj:  and did see them coming?

AJ:  No.  I heard the knock at the door and I saw these two women and

     a man.  And they said "we are with the church, don't close the

     door."  And they were in civil [casual clothes].

bj:  did they look well dressed?

AJ:  Yes.  The women had pants and the guy had pants with a shirt.

     But very nicely dressed.  Very clean.


     They said "we are from the church.  Don't close the door."

     And I was so surprised because I never thought it would be the

     church of scientology.  They just said "the church."  I thought

     maybe it is another church, like a Baptist church.  So I said

     "I want to ask my husband," and I closed the door.  I asked Alex

     to come, and he opened it, and they told him they were the church

     of scientology.

     And Alex closed the door and they spoke through the door.  They

     asked Alex to speak to them, because they had a few questions to

     ask him.  [Ariane talks to Alex]

     They said they wanted to speak with us because they just wanted

     to ask a few questions, it will be not long.  And as they were

     speaking through the door we go to our bedroom and Alex opens

     the window.  And we begin by speaking through the window.  

     They asked about the post we did on Internet about confidential

     work.  And they said you know, it is trade secret and copyright.

     And things like that.  And Alex said "tell us what you want.

     But we will not answer to any questions."  So they begin by

     speaking about trade secret[s] and copyright[s].  They said

     they don't want to use a lawyer.  They would like to do a normal

     speech with us to handle the situation.  They don't want to use

     a lawyer if they don't have to use a lawyer.  And they go on

     a little bit like that.


bj:  yes, I see.   It sounds like Alex is pretty much on top of the 

     situation.  What is his background?

AJ:  Yes, he's on top because he speaks better English than me.  And

     he has more strength.  Me, I am more scared about them.

bj:  Has Alex been in the church before?

AJ:  Yes, for twenty years.  He left at the same time as I did.

     He began in Scotland.  But he went less far in the upper levels.

     He went as clear, and I went way up.


[now Alex Jackson takes up the story.  He is AL, below]

bj:  The church people found you and you were talking with them

     through the bedroom window.

AL:  I said "We are not answering any questions.  We simply want you

     to say your piece and then go.  So they spoke about how they had

     a legal responsibility to safeguard their trade secrets and they

     had to show their lawyers who were putting pressure on them to

     demonstrate to the lawyers that they were taking effective action

     to protect copyrighted trade secret material.  They didn't want

     to resort to legal action because nobody won except the lawyers.

     It was expensive for them and expensive for us.  And they

     described the gory details of how a lawsuit would basically

     destroy our lives.  


bj:  well, let's get to those gory details.  What did she say?

AL:  Well, she said at one point, "you want a life.  You have

     children."  She looked in Ariane's direction.  You don't want to

     leave [them with nothing].  Use all your money" and she goes on

     and on.  Because when you go in the court system you're on

     the conveyor belt and just, whoa, and do you know what it's

     like?  And they said, 'it's like a war.'  It's 'terrible,

     terrible, terrible.'

     That's been the tack all the way through in all the meetings.

     With any pretext they'll start on stories about Dennis Erlich,

     about Grady Ward, Arnie Lerma, about what it's like for these

     people.  They paint a picture that they don't have a life

     anymore because they decided to make a legal thing against the

     church of scientology, they just don't have a life anymore.

     It's finished for them.  

     I shut them up because they just kept going on about it.   

bj:  What did they want from you?

AL:  They wanted an agreement that we wouldn't divulge any more

     confidential materials such as OT VIII and the Running Program,

     that we had divulged.  And they didn't mention a release, they

     just kept saying that we have to ensure that nothing else, no

     more of our trade secrets are made public, go on the Internet.

bj:  did they ever show you the document they wanted you to sign?

AL:  Not the first day.  The second day they produced it.

bj:  So the first day, how long did the interaction last?  

AL:  An hour.  It is difficult [to judge], we were so wrapped up.

     Ariane reckoned that it was more than an hour.

bj:  at the end of that hour how did you feel?

AL:  Ohhh.  Stressed out. 'How did they find us?  What are we going to

     do?  Are we in legal trouble?'  [and so on]  'What will we do?

     I think we handled it well, but I don't know.  Maybe we said

     something [we shouldn't have], you know?'

     The fact [is] that we didn't answer any questions, or, we

     certainly didn't give them any agreement.  Toward the end they

     were pushing for an agreement, they said well,--I had the

     impression they had to go back with something-- they said, well,

     we need your assurances.  Are you going to discuss this with us,

     or are you going to continue to post stuff, or can we resolve

     this, is it going to become a legal matter?  And we just said,

     we're not making any agreement.  

bj:  Did they say they'd come back the next day?

AL:  Well, they wanted to go wait in the car for a half hour, and then

     we give them a decision.  They said 'well, how long is it going to

     take you to decide what you are going to do here?'  I said "we're

     slow.  We have a thing about decisions.  We're not too fast on

     decisions."  And they got angry.  They wanted that decision, they

     wanted a promise, they wanted to take something back with them.

     They were unhappy.

     At the end it was getting repetitive.  They were trying to get

     something.  And at the end I just said you are not getting any

     answers, you are not going to get any promises, you are not going

     to get any agreements from us.  Do you have anything else to say

     that you have not previously said?  If not, please go.

     They realized they were not getting anything.  So they left. They

     were unhappy.

bj:  I see.  Now what did you do after they left?

AL:  We discussed it.  How did they find us?  We patted ourselves on the

     back.  We obviously handled it good.  What do we do now?

bj:  do you think anyone stayed to watch your place?  Were there any

     watchers outside that you saw?

AL:  No.  

bj:  Did you worry about that?

AL:  At the time I don't think so.

bj:  Well, did they come back the next day?

AL:  They came back the next day, yep.  It was after lunch.  The same

     three.  I can give you two of their names.  The woman who was the

     chief spokesman, her name is Jacqueline Kevenaar.  She's from

     Holland.  She said she was from CSI but later I said, "Are you

     OSA?" and she said "Yes."  But then later she changed it back to

     CSI.  So officially they claim to be CSI.  

     The guy, his name is Edward Parkin.  The third, her name is Joan.  

BJ:  What were their faces like?  

AL:  Oh, full of warmth.  And friendly and understanding.  Very very

     nice.  And when we started talking through the window they were

     saying 'oh, you've had bad handling.  We would like you to know

     that we realize that this situation has not been handled well.

     Your concerns should have been addressed before.  That was an

     error on our part."  and blah, blah...  

     Because we had a meeting in Geneva with someone from Flag in

     December 1995.  When we told them what we considered the damages

     that we received as a result of being involved.  And after that

     we received a complaint in Geneva that we had attempted blackmail

     and extortion.  We won it, but they appealed it twice.

     Eventually they had no more appeals to go.  So I mentioned this

     to them the first day and the guy said "yes, but it was dropped!"

     as though this were a good thing for the church of scientology.

     And I said "well, so we had your reply."  And they said "well,

     that was done by the church in Zurich and it was actually

     done without our permission.  And it shouldn't have been done.

     It was a bad thing, it was a bad idea.  We didn't agree with that.

     They shouldn't have done it."  blah, blah, blah...

     The first time they were relieved they could speak to us and they

     were nice.  [they said we had] bad handling.  We could have said

     L. Ron Hubbard [untranslatable] and they would have said "you're

     so right, it's true".   You know, that kind of thing?

bj:  How old were these people?

AL:  Fortyish, late thirties.

bj:  Did the women wear any makeup?

AL:  Yes, they were wearing makeup.  Not a lot, a little bit.  They

     [the women] both said they had been in scientology more than 20

     years.  The chief spokesman  was a tall, slim blonde, kind of

     sandy blonde.  The other woman was shorter, longer hair, less

     pleasant, more hard looking.  They guy is a little bit, kind of,

     goofy.  But I think it's an act.  

     There was another visit later the same day.

     We were eating dinner.  We heard the knock on the door.  I

     didn't answer the door; I just went straight to the window.  And

     she had the Jody Darling post.  It's the second post we put on.

     It's about this guy Jody Darling.  He's high up in the church,

     he's public.  And he borrowed $200,000 from Ariane's ex-husband

     but he didn't pay it back.

     She had a printout.  She was outside the window waving this thing

     at me.  And she was angry.  She said "Look, this is the kind of

     thing that we can handle.  I have the authority to do something

     about this.  I could have handled this.  This is what I want to

     handle.  Right now you are eating" -I was chewing- "but we'll be

     back tomorrow and we'll discuss this.  And we'll handle it."

     This was the blonde, Jacqueline.

bj:  So on the second day they showed up after lunch.

AL:  Right.  The first thing, they started discussing the money thing

     with [Ariane's] ex-husband and Jody Darling.  She [Jacqueline]

     wanted some more information about that because she said "we can

     assist you, we can resolve it with Jody Darling, by finding him,

     getting him to Clearwater.  We'll take care of everything."

     They were shouting about this money, and Ariane said "I don't

     like the way this discussion involves me."  She noticed the way

     the neighbors were starting to look, so she said "why don't we go

     somewhere?"  So we went to Denny's.

     We arrived and it was very nice.  It was relaxed, it was

     friendly.  Jacqueline had a pad.  She was very businesslike.

     She was asking questions about the estate of Albert, Ariane's

     ex-husband and what was happening.  And she actually knew that it

     was stuck in probate here in Clearwater.  She knew that, she was

     fishing to find out what we were doing.  Because--the executor

     in charge of this estate--she wanted to know if we were working

     with him to do any recovery on these debts.  

     She was pretending.   She said 'I need the information so we

     can work with you to do this, to solve this'  but she was

     actually trying to get information, to find out if we were

     working with the executor, she wanted to know if I had a lawyer,


     When we were in Switzerland we had this guy representing us

     that they absolutely hated, and she wanted to know if we were

     still working with him.  We're not, and I told her that.  We

     probably told her more than we should have.  We fell for the

     story that she wanted to help us with this estate thing, but

     later we thought that she was trying to find out what danger

     we would present legally, you know.

bj:  How long did the conversation last?

AL:  In Denny's?  It was over an hour.

bj:  You just had coffee?  Or did you have food?

AL:  It was right after lunch.  We just had some coffee.  They had a

     bagel and a muffin or something.

bj:  Did she ask you to sign anything?

AL:  That was when she produced the release.  

bj:  Oh, really.  Did you keep a copy of it?

AL:  They refused to give us a copy.  I asked for a copy, they said

     "no, you can't get a copy."  

bj:  They wanted you to sign it and they wouldn't give you a copy?

AL:  No.

bj:  Well, what did it say?

AL:  Well, the first paragraph, I didn't even read it because it was a 

     list of people and churches and parts of the church that we were

     waiving any and all claims against, past, present, future, known,

     unknown, uh, whatever.

     Ariane had a version in French which was actually different

     from my version.  It was a totally different version.  [In] my

     version, after waiving all claims, there was a little bit in the

     top paragraph that said, I don't know how it was worded, but it

     mentioned that we had violated their copyright and in exchange

     for them not taking action on that, we were signing this release.

     It waived all our claims.  And then it said "I promise not to

     discuss or speak about anything I have experienced in scientology

     including experiences on staff and other information that is not

     widely known," and then went on to say anything confidential,

     anything blah, blah, unless I am subpoenaed.  If I am subpoenaed

     I promise I will immediately notify them.  At the end, I affirm

     that I am not under the effect of drugs, alcohol, bla, bla, bla.

bj:  Did you sign it?

AL:  (emphatically) No.  It also said, 'for each and every

     infringement I promise to pay $10,000.  

bj:  Was there any type of time limit on this contract?

AL:  No.  I mean it was past, present, future.  No limit.

     Ariane's had some extra on it.  She was not to speak to her 

     family, her children.  And they couldn't speak about it

     [scientology].  She could not divulge any of her experiences to

     them and they could not divulge any of her experiences to anyone


bj:  So the woman showed you these things.  And then what happened?

AL:  I started shaking my head as I was reading it.  And when I 

     finished it I said "can I have a copy?"  "No."  So I just gave it 

     back to her.  "Do you have a problem with it?" she said.  "Look,

     if there's a part--you don't like this one?  Anything you have a

     problem with, we can take it off.  If you want to write one

     yourself, you can write one yourself.  We can work something


bj:  Well, that sounds pretty reasonable.  What did you say?

AL:  [Laughing]  I said "we're not signing anything."

bj:  And she said?

AL:  I think she went back on, "we have to protect our

     confidentiality.  There has been a breach already, you have

     breached your agreement, you have violated our trade secrets and

     our lawyers are putting pressure on us, are demanding that we

     take action, that we get something equivalent to a court

     judgment, a restraint so that there will not be any further

     quoting or publishing of our secret church scriptures."

     We just held our position.  "We are not signing anything."

     And she said, well is there a point you have a problem with?

     And she actually scored one out, she took her pen and scored one


     I didn't want to have a discussion with her.  It sort of became

     a standoff.  One of them said "you need to talk to your lawyer."

     Because she knew we didn't have a lawyer.

bj:  Now were all three people present at this meeting, or just this

     one woman?  

AL:  All three.

bj:  And you didn't want to sign anything without legal advice.

AL:  Right.

bj:  And what was their response?

AL:  "Go talk to your lawyer.  And we'll meet again tomorrow."

bj:  And then?

AL:  And then we left on good terms.  It was very nice.  Everyone was

     smiling at everyone.  We felt we were making progress.

     We had a meeting the next day.

bj:  Where did you meet?

AL:  Well, the next day I had received some advice.   [someone]

     suggested not meeting with them or else taping the meeting.  

[Alex and Ariane discussed how to tape the meeting.  They

 decided against surreptitious taping as being underhanded and

 'playing their game.'  "We decided to open the door and shove the

 microphone in their faces," Alex said.  And that is what they did.]

     I opened the door and I said "do you mind if we tape it?"  They

     went white, and they said "No, sure, go right ahead."  And I said

     "we can't go to Denny's, I'm connected to the stereo.  One of you

     can come in.  You can come in [to the blonde] but we don't want

     three of you in here."  

     She said "well, can Ed come?  Because he knows about legal things."


     I said, "no, you come yourself and we tape it, or nothing."   So

     she was in agreement, she wanted to tape it because I was

     taping it.  But his tape recorder wouldn't work.

bj:  So he had a tape recorder with him?

AL:  Oh, yeah.  

bj:  Do you think he had used it before, maybe to tape things you


AL:  No, because it was like one of these tiny ones.  And it was in

     his briefcase, which was probably too far away to pick up


bj:  Ok.  So he was just using it right then only it wouldn't work 


AL:  Right.  I don't know if he just said that or not.  But then he

     went off to get batteries for his tape recorder and he came back

     about ten minutes later.  At that point she didn't want to come in


Al:  "Well, why don't you stay on the doorstep?  We'll have a

     meeting on the doorstep."   But she didn't want to do that

     because of the neighbors.  So I had a discussion with Ariane and

     we decided to allow the two of them in.  So the two of them came in.  

     They produced a general release again.  And they were pushing,

     pushing, pushing, and pushing.  And then there were the horror

     stories about Arnie, about Grady Ward, about what it's like to

     engage them in litigation.

[On the tape we hear Alex opening the door and saying hello, do you

 mind if we tape it?  Not at all, the scientologists reply, sounding

 nervous.  Alex calmly presents his demands.  He has described

 Jacqueline as upbeat, but she has a hard voice.  The emotional

 subtext of this meeting is tense and unfriendly.]

[Alex begins with the date, September 13, 1996 and his address.

 He asks the scientologists to identify themselves.  Jacqueline

 gives her name and states that she represents the Church of

 Scientology International.  Edward gives his name and states

 that he also represents the c of s Int.  "I am not a lawyer.

 We are civilians.  We represent our church, and we would like

 to speak to you and your wife to amicably resolve what, based

 on our conversation today and yesterday, is some kind of a


bj:  So how long did the meeting last?

AL:  Almost an hour and a half. 

bj:  What ended it?

Al:  Well, they spoke about the release and they wanted it signed.  I 

     said this is a general guide, this is a shut-up about all of our

     experiences.  She said no, no, you don't understand.  It's just

     for your experiences on staff and the confidential materials.  So

     I actually read to her one of the paragraphs that specifically

     said "I promise not to say anything about my experiences in 

     scientology including staff."  And I read this to her two or three

     times, and she kept saying 'well, you interpret it means anything

     but it's really just on staff.'  

     It was becoming silly.  I looked at the guy and he was

     smiling.  And I said "he can't keep a straight face."  He was

     nodding and saying "this is general, this is general" so I 

     dropped it.  

     They did the confidential, all that stuff.  And then she

     was ready to leave, and they stand up to leave, and I said

     "wait a minute.  Whoa, whoa.  What about the state of our 

     [concerns]?  What about over a million dollars that is owed

     to this estate by a scientologist?"  Between the two meetings

     we had [posted] the diary of Albert.  Now with interest [the

     debt] is over a million dollars.

bj:  You are talking about the scientologists who owe money?

AL:  Yes.  And I'm talking about Darling who borrowed the money

     from Albert, and shortly after he paid the $150,000 to IAS.

bJ:  Is that all on the tape?

AL:  Yes.  

bj:  Well, let's move out to how that meeting ended.  

AL:  It was friendly.  There was laughing and joking.  Just

     before the end the guy said something strange.  He said "it

     is difficult to get people to do something that is requested

     by two people who are guilty of suppressive acts, who by

     church tenets are guilty of suppressive acts, which are the

     absolute worst--(Alex can't remember the exact words)

     actions anyone could do against the church."  I didn't

     realize he was referring to *us* as the people who were doing 

     the worst possible acts against the church.  

     That was just before the end.  And it kind of became

     heavy.  But the meeting finished.  They wanted to come by

     the next day, which would be Saturday, but we said that we

     have a friend all weekend.  There will not be a school.  We

     will not discuss this in front of him [Michael]; we don't

     have anybody to take care of him.  

     They said "oh, we can come and Joan can take him to

     the pool and play with him, [!] maybe we can all go to the


     No, it will be Monday before we can have another

     meeting, [Alex said].    They said "well, we'll come back 

     tomorrow.  We'll just check.  And if we can, we can ask you 

     some questions or have a re-discussion."  We said ok, fine. 

     And on Saturday we took off at lunchtime for the beach to

     make sure we weren't there.  They came back Saturday

     evening around 8.  I answered the door.  It was her and the


     She said "I just have some questions about Albert's

     estate."  And I said "no, I refuse to discuss this in 

     front of the child."

     I think they are using that [the estate] as a hook

     because they think that is the thing we want to talk about.

     They think we want money from them,  and so 'if we talk

     about that they'll talk to us'.  She said "just a couple

     of questions."  I said no, it will have to be Monday,

     sorry, goodnight.  

     We decided Saturday that we are finished with the

     meetings.  We have the tape, and there is nothing more we

     have to gain.

bj:  What do you want to do now?

Al:  Put the ball in their court.  We don't think they have

     a valid legal action.  Although that's never stopped them

     before.  I mean, they can start harassing us with legal suits

     that have no validity.  But they have a problem because

     they run the risk of OT VIII, if they want to do a suit

     against us they have to prove that Ariane infringed their

     trade secrets or their copyrights.  They run the risk of it

     being discussed in the court.  So I think that they are in a

     sticky position.  

     Their first attempt was, 'maybe we will get these

     suckers to sign something.  Scare them, and get them to

     sign something.'   If that doesn't work they'll probably

     get together with their lawyer 'what can we do?' 

bj:  Have you noticed anything else?  People lurking outside

     the house, or being followed or anything?

Al:  Nope.  Yesterday Ariane's car, the little door for the

     fuel cap was open.  I felt 'aw, they put sugar in the gas,'

     so I drained some gas off to check.  We are sort of paranoid,

     you know?  [He describes some other precautions he takes to

     preserve their privacy.]

     Last week when they were here every day--Wednesday,

     Thursday, Friday--we were just wrapped up in it.  That's all

     we talked about.  That's all we thought about.  We couldn't

     sleep.  We were just stressed out.  

bj:  What would you like to have happen right now?

Al:  A normal life.  We came here to try and have a normal life.

     We felt that we had to do something, that we couldn't just go

     off and drop scientology, go into a new life without saying

     something.  It wasn't revenge.  Because we've had three

     years of going through the original suicidal depression.  

     I don't know if you know about that, but I think it's common

     [when people leave the church].  Because you're hyped up on all

     this hope.  You know that every problem in your life will be

     resolved by scientology.  That is a promise.  Then you read a

     book and a month later all that hope is gone.  You have a life

     that has been stopped for twenty years or something.  And

     your development and normal maturity hasn't occurred for

     twenty years.  And you're confronted by, you're middle

     aged, you are confronted by a life that is destroyed, and

     no money.  All these wierd ideas about people and how

     they're all wogs and stupid, and filled with BTs and 

     clusters, and crazy,  And you now have to confront this

     without the scientology crutch.  

     And you also have this idea that 'a body is just a body.  It is

     something that you use sixty years and discard.  And this is

     turning around in your head and you're saying 'this life is

     basically finished.'  I'm talking personally.  I just had the

     idea that I should just scrap this and go be a baby again, you

     know?  I mean, you look at your life and-  it's like coming off

     of drugs, I imagine.  I don't know, I've never experienced that,

     but I imagine it is like that.  In alcoholism, everything is ugly

     and you've got to confront that.  And you don't want to.  And you

     don't have anything to use to confront it with. 

bj:  Well, what do you want to do with your life now?

Al:  Get some kind of professional qualification, get some kind of way

     to make money other than driving a truck, which is what I've been


bj:  Do you need help with that?  Do you have any type

     of support?  

Al:  Actually we managed to borrow some money when we were in

     Switzerland from different people.  So that was why we came here.

     To study, and to do some stuff.  We'd like to be able to continue

     that without fear and harassment and legal actions, and having

     to spend all the money on a lawyer.  Depends on what they do.  If

     they give us notice of a legal action we need a lawyer, they need

     a retainer, and then... we just didn't think about this before we

     made the posts.  

     We didn't feel that we could just go and drop it and forget it.  

bj:  How do you feel now?  Are you worried about the church

     doing other things?

AL:  Yes.  Our viewpoint is, they have to do something.  They

     can't allow us to be-  we have some very damaging information

     on the money, Ariane's ex-husband, some of Ariane's experiences

     with her children and friends and acquaintances that were

     blown, OT VIIIs that were sick, problem... so we would like to

     be able to expose all this shit.  But I don't think that they

     can allow that to happen.

bj:  They can sue you for copyright infringement, but I don't

     think they can stop you in any legal way from publishing your


AL:  Ariane's ex-husband kept incredible files on all this financial

     craziness.  Fraud, loans...ah, it's a mess.  It's terrible, what

     they do to you to get money from you.  And the money always ends

     up in the same place.  It always ends up in the church.  You have

     these guys doing all this craziness and getting their cuts and

     their commissions, but they have to be putting it in the church.

     The rich guys that come to Clearwater, and these vultures sitting

     waiting--it's ugly.  And they come in and take these guys, they

     offer these "investments" but they're not investments.  They're

     called investments, but the money is actually going to the church

     of scientology.

bj:  Is there anything you would like to say to the people

     on the internet who are reading this?

Al:  [thinks for a minute]  Yes.  My personal opinion is

     that scientology has within it the seeds of its own destruction.

     I don't know when it will happen, but it will happen.  Because

     Hubbard, when he was alive, he changed it.  He had to change

     it to get new gimmicks and new stuff all the time.  And he had

     to explain why it didn't work, make a discovery about why

     it didn't work.  And since he died they keep changing it, they

     keep discovering his notes that someone had stolen and blah,

     blah..  So they keep having to change it to say well, the reason

     it didn't work was because, and then they'll fix that.  A year or

     two later, 'well, we've made another discovery,' and so despite

     that they cannot change what he wrote, and he wrote some 

     crazy stuff, it will come back on them.

     Twenty, thirty years after the guy's dead they cannot still be

     finding his notes!

     They are going to be stuck in the trap of what he wrote.

     And this is what he wrote.  His purification rundown cannot be

     changed as medical knowledge progresses.  In twenty years it

     will be so obvious that the purification rundown is just

     nonsense.  And then they will do research on the E-meter and they

     will find that it doesn't work, Etc, etc.  Science will cut

     something out.  It will just become antiquated because

     they can't change. It's not science.  It's supposed to be

     science.  It isn't science.  It's faith.  It's lies and 

     it's going to stagnate.  

bj:  how long have you and Ariane been together?

Al:  Since 1990.  

bj:  Do you have any children?

Al:  No.  Well, we have Michael.  [son of Ariane and Albert]  He's

     nine years old now.  

bj:  How's Michael holding up under this?

Al:  Very well.  He's, his story is a crazy story.  Because when

     Albert and Ariane separated in 1990 she was told by the ethics

     officer to give custody of Michael to Albert.  Then a few months

     later Albert was persuaded that she was suppressive and bad, and

     so he would not allow her any contact with Michael for seven

     months.  Which made Michael crazy.  And then four years later he

     lost Albert.  You see, he had lost the stability of Ariane and

     he became stuck to Albert.  And then he lost Albert.  The guy

     didn't know what was up for a while.  

bj:  Terribly hard.

Al:  Nightmares, hyperactive, and scared, you know.  If he doesn't

     know where Ariane is he freaks.  

     He asks what's happening and we try to explain it to him in a way

     that doesn't scare him, that doesn't just feed him a line and

     treat him like a child.  Because he resents that.  

     He found his dad when his dad died.  By the time his dad died he

     stayed with his dad through the week and he came with us on the

     weekend.  And his dad died Saturday night in the night.  We took

     Michael back on the Sunday evening.  Michael went into

     the apartment and his dad was laying on the bed.  Michael went

     over to him and his dad was cold.  That was when he realized

     there was something wrong.


3.  OSA on Candid Camera:  notes by the Jacksons      



        We received our first visit from the cult's representatives on

Wed Sep 11. Ariane answered and, when she saw who it was, shut the door

in their faces. They stood outside the door, three of them, for about

10 minutes, pleading with us to speak to them. I took their photos;

they smiled.  They refused to go away.

        We decided to let them say their piece, so they could go away

since we knew they are not allowed to return without a "product".  We

spoke to them through a window, and asked them what they wanted to say.

They were unbelievably NICE, full of "ARC", warm.  The chief spokesman

was a blond who identified herself as Jaqueline Kevenaar, from OSA

(she also said she was from CSI), the other woman did not give her name

(she was later identified as Joan), she was dark-haired, and the third

was a man who gave his name as Edward. They sympathized with us, said

our situation had been handled very badly by previous "church"

members, etc., etc.

        It's a drill.  We were not impressed.  Whatever we said (we

did not say much) they were in total agreement, nodding vehemently, as

if it was the very thought they had.  We got bored with this and

pushed them to get to the point.  They said, still very nicely, that

our posts on OT8 (they admitted it was OT8) and the Running Program

(more confirmation) were in violation of the agreements we had signed

when we were given access to the data.  They were referring to

"non-discosure bonds" which are supposed to be signed before someone

is allowed to see anything "confidential", and [which] state that

he/she promises to pay $100,000 (or $1,000,000, or another amount

depending on how "hot" the data is) if he/she divulges or discusses

any of the data.  Not only is the legal validity of these bonds

questionable but they get lost and they forget to make people sign

them sometimes.

        Meanwhile, back at the window, which we had now opened so

they did not have to shout, they said they wanted to resolve the

conflict between us and the cult without resorting to lawyers, because

"nobody benefits but the lawyers", and it would be much better for

everybody concerned if we could discuss it.....(bla, bla, bla).  They

spent a great deal of time describing how gruesome it would be for us

if we refused to talk to them and forced them to resort to legal

action.  Jaqueline said to Ariane, " I am a mom too. You

have children, you want to get on with your life, you don't want


        Jacqueline assured us that she has the power to totally

resolve our situation, because she is from CSI and not Flag.  She

said their only concern was that we had "violated" our signed

agreements and divulged their "sacred church scriptures" and that

was against the law and they had an obligation to protect their

religion.  She said they had no desire to prevent us from speaking

about our experiences and if we wanted to say "I worked 48 hrs

straight in the galley" we can say that.   All they wanted was

to ensure that no more confidential data appeared on the Net.

        They pushed for something from us, an agreement, a promise,

anything, and it became repetitive.  We said we had to think about it;

they said "for how long?  we'll wait in the car a half hour". I said

"we are slow, we have a thing about decisions, it comes from our

ethics experiences".  The dark-haired one got angry, said "why don't

we just acknowledge the past and handle what is here right now".

        We reiterated that we were not answering any questions or

making any agreements or promises.  They continued to push and try to

find some way to make us more amenable to being manipulated by them.

They referred to Ariane's statement about being uncertain that it was

the correct decision to post OT8, and tried to work on her uncertainty.

Didn't work. They tried to make us more relaxed using a technique

described by Hubbard where the exact reason for someone's anger

or annoyance or upset is supposedly located and then indicated to the

person.  Didn't work.  Of course, no matter how nice they are, we know

they think we are Suppressive Persons and Scientology won't work on us

for that reason.

        An interesting point came up when Jaquelin was assuring us

how familiar she was with our situation. I joked that she had probably

read our pc folders (folders containing all the supposedly

"confidential", intimate details of our lives that we had revealed in

auditing).  She admitted that she had but in a later visit denied that

she had but admitted that Joan had.  SO OSA IS STILL GOING THROUGH PC

FOLDERS. Under the circumstances, there is no pretext for them going

through our pc folders, we are SP's and ineligible for auditing.  The

only possible reason would be to find data they can use to manipulate,

embarass or intimidate us.

        Eventually we had to tell them to go away because it was

obvious they would stay until we did so.  They left their phone number

which is the # for OSA Legal, (813) 461 3052.


        The second visit was very brief and Joan was not there.

Jaquelin waved a printout of our post on Jody Darling and Ariane's

ex-husband, Albert Jaquier.  She appeared to be angry, and was

red-eyed.  She said that it (the situation with Darling) was something

she could resolve, she had the authority to resolve, etc.  She said

she did not have time but would return the next day.  Edward did not

say much, if anything, but nodded in confirmation of whatever she

said. They left without being told to.


        By the time they arrived, all three, for the third visit,

around 2pm, Thursday Sept 12, we had posted Albert's diary.  They

still managed to paste smiles on.  They used the hook of Albert's

estate to persuade us to talk to them.  When they started shouting

details through the window we suggested we adjourn to a nearby

Denny's and they were more than happy.

        At Denny's, Jaqueline was all business with pen and notepad

ready.  Under the pretext of ascertaining what the situation was with

the estate so they could "help", they pumped us to find out what we

had done and were doing to recover the money owed by Scientologists

to the estate (around $1,200,000).  Who was the executor?  Who was

representing us?  Etc., etc.

         When we had told them all they wanted to know and they had

given us the impression they were sincere about "helping" us get the

money owed by Scientologists to Albert's estate and therefore to

Ariane's son, they brought up the subject of our posting OT8 and the

Running Program.  They produced copies of a document titled "General

Release", copies of which they refused to give us.  Ariane's copy was

in French and was also differently worded.

        This release began with our waiving any and all claims, past,

present and future, known and unknown, against all these individuals

and entities that seemed to cover everyone connected with Scientology.

It also made us promise never to speak about "anything" related to our

experiences or knowledge of Scientology.  We also had to promise to

notify them if we were subpoenaed and had to speak.  It also included

that we would pay them $10,000 for each and every infringement of it.

Ariane's also stopped her speaking to her family members and them

speaking to others.

        We refused to sign, at which point Jaqueline said that they

could take off anything we did not like and she began drawing lines

through the parts she thought we did not like.  We reiterated that we

would not sign.  They continued to push and tried to interpret it for

us and persuade us that it did not say what it obviously said.  It was

not well done on their part, and was almost pathetically inept.

        During this meeting we also had a kind of theological

discussion, if that is actually possible with a Scientology fanatic.

Edward asked us what we were thinking when we posted the confidential

materials, and why we did it.  I tried to explain that I felt I had

been deceived by Hubbard concerning his "research" and his claimed

life accomplishments and I did not want others to have similar

experiences and lose many years of their lives before discovering the

truth about Scientology and Hubbard.  I mentioned that the data from

Gerry Armstrong's trial had shown me the truth about Hubbard.

        The women obviously did not know what I was talking about.

Edward jumped in and said first that Armstrong had stolen Hubbard's

papers and altered them, then he said he didn't alter them, then he

forgot what he was trying to say and Jaqueline had to jump in and

rescue Edward.  Both of the women asserted that they had been in

Scientology over 20 years and they had heard everything negative there

was to hear and not once had anyone ever been able to get them to

question Scientology.  They were proud of that.

        I thought about pointing out that that statement told me more

about their inability to question than it told me about Scientology,

but I had the impression they would not understand.  Joan was going

on at length about how many people had benefitted from Scientology

and, just because we had not, we should not try to spoil it for them.

She said she personally was very happy and had been lucky enough to

benefit greatly from Scientology and had not had negative experiences.

        I argued that it was not Hubbard's view that she had

benefitted because of luck, it was his view that if someone had bad

experiences, or was "unlucky", it was because that person had done

bad things in this or an earlier lifetime.  I even referenced the

issues covering it, but she did not know what I was talking about.

The discussion just petered out.

        I mentioned the spamming of ARS, and had to explain what

that was.  They looked at each other and said, "Who is doing that?"

They said they did not get to see ARS but someone gave them copies of

posts that they needed to have.

        At the end of the meeting, it was jovial, everyone was

smiling.  We were going to check on some points on the estate of

Albert.  They were apparently happy with the progress they had made,

they had got us out of our appartment, into Denny's, relaxed about

talking to them, they had introduced the release and started to

handle our disagreements.  We separated "on good terms".


        The third visit took place on Sept 13, between 3 and 4:30pm,

in our apartment. The participants were Jaquelin, Edward and

ourselves.  [The session was taped.  A transcript made by **Biased

Journalism** follows this account.]

        At the end of the third visit we told them we would not be

able to meet with them again until the following Monday.  They were

unwilling to accept that and said they would come by and "just check"

to see if they could talk to us.

        We made sure we were not at home all afternoon Saturday.


        The fourth visit was also very brief. Jaquelin and Edward

came around 8:30pm Sat 14 Sept and she said she wanted to ask some

questions about Albert's estate.  I told them to come back on Monday,

but they persisted and I had to close the door in their faces.  They



        On Wed 18 Sept we sent a fax to Brian Anderson, OSA Flag

telling him we did not want any more visits or any harassment from

representatives of any of the cult's organizations.  We also mailed a

copy of the fax the same day.

        That same afternoon, around 5:30, Jaquelin and Edward came

back and told me they had a very good offer to make to Michael,

Ariane's son who has a claim on the $1.2 million owed to his

father's estate by Scientologists.  They wanted a meeting and I agreed

to have one the following day because if I hadn't they would have

stayed until I did.  They left.  We made sure we were not at home at

the agreed time for the meeting the next day.


        On the evening of Thursday Sept 19 around 8:30 Edward came

alone and said he had come alone and wanted to discuss it.  I told him

to put it in writing; he persisted with the same line, and I closed

the door in his face.  He left:  Jaqueline was driving the car.

        Ten minutes later he returned with a note written on Fort

Harrison memo paper that said

                                              Thursday 7:45pm

              We invite you at Denny's in 30 minutes from now.


        It was unsigned.  Needless to say we did not go to Denny's.


        On Friday morning, Sep 20, we were returning to our apartment

after jogging and they were waiting outside.  Ariane was so scared

she went and hid in the laundry room and did not enter the apartment.

When they saw me coming towards the appartment, they came and

followed me the last 50 yards or so and were yelling at me such things

as "Where are you getting your advice, Alex?  From Armstrong, is it

Armstrong?  Or Vaughn Young who just spent 2 days in deposition.  Or

Dennis Erlich?  You are getting bad advice.  You are making a bad

decision.  What are you scared of, Alex, what is it, why are you so

frightened?  We just want to discuss it.."etc., etc.

        They were still doing this when Ariane appeared from the

laundry room and they started on her with the same kind of verbal

attacks and harassment.  She was really scared.  We got into the

apartment and locked the door and immediately called 911 and told them

what was happening and gave them the details.  When I was on the phone

I could here them yelling at us outside the door.  The 911 dispatcher

said a deputy was on his way and asked for the tag # of their vehicle

but I could not see it through the window, because they never park

directly in front of the appartment.

        When I hung up, I went out with pen and paper to get the tag #

and they followed me from the door of the appartment to their car

yelling at me that I was not scaring them, they were not scared and I

could not scare them. I ignored them and went back into the apartment.

        They loitered ouside the appartment and continued to yell

through the door at us.

        The deputy arrived shortly after and spoke to them briefly

then came to see us.  I showed him a copy of the letter I had sent

telling them to stay away.  He asked if we had been involved in the

cult and were we no longer involved.  We said yes.  He explained to me

that he could have me give them a warning in front of him telling them

to stay away and, if they came back after that, they can be arrested.

        I went with him and he told them he did not know what was 

going on between them and us but I did not want them visiting.

Jaqueline tried to be smart and snapped that it was "civil", so

he told her the place for it was in court.  He explained to them the

"trespass warning" he had explained to me and had me tell them to stay


        As I did that, they all looked at me and the silly smiles and

"ARC" were totally wiped off their faces. They looked at me like I

was something Xenu had vomited up.  They tried to interrupt me and the

deputy shut them up.

        I returned to the appartment and, as I left, I heard him

demand to see their ID's.  Another deputy had arrived by this time and

the deputies took down their names etc.

        Later, the deputies came to see us and got our names etc., and

told us to phone immediately if they returned.

        That was the last visit.


        The most useful conclusion I can come to after observing, and

experiencing, this activity is that these individuals are _infantile_.

Their behaviour is similar to that of children.  This is supported

by traits such as their earnestness about trivia, selfishness,

naivete, devotion to a cult, lack of realism, lack of critical

ability, and behaviour more appropriate to a children's TV show than

real life.  When they collide with reality which does not subscribe

to their science fiction delusion, you can see their obvious

inadequacies and their inability to deal with something that has

been described to them in a distorted way.

        For example, there is no word in Scientology for a critic of

Scientology who is a "good guy", so they cannot have that concept.

Now they have to come and talk to Ariane and me and we are not

frothing at the mouth, and we are not ugly, and we appear to be

sincere.  But they "know" that cannot be true so they have to

conclude that we are pretending, and we actually are evil.  As a

result they are trying to deal with situations different from the

actual situations, and are suffering from delusion to that degree.

        Yes, they are dangerous in the same way that juvenile

delinquents are dangerous, and they are used and manipulated by

others and they can be very, very cruel. They are, in fact,

very cold emotionally.

        I think the most effective,and true, statement that can be

made TO these people would be "GROW UP AND GO GET A REAL JOB!"

                                                    Alex Jackson.

                                      rom sthomson@netcom.com 



4.  The Police Report

        **Biased Journalism** obtained a copy of the police report.

It is dated 9/20/96.  The report was made at 11:35; the unit was

dispatched at 11:36 and had completed the call by 12:03.  The

description is listed as TRESPASS WARNING.

        Alex Jackson is listed as the Complainant.  Subject 2

(Suspect) is Edward W. Parkin, a 37 year old white male.  Subject

3 (Suspect) is Jacquelin Kevenarr, [note: this spelling is

different than the one obtained by Alex, which was Jacqueline

Kevenaar.] a 46 year old white female.  Subject 4 (Suspect) is

Joan Ellen, a 45 year old white female.  All three Suspects gave

the same address and telephone number:  6331 Hollywood Blvd.,

Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90028; (213) 960-3500.   We called

the number and determined that this is the Church of Scientology


        The Sheriff wrote:  "I arrived at the complainant's

 residence.  I made contact with Alex.  ALex stated he resigned

 from the Church of Scientology earlier in the month.  Alex stated

 that three members from the church came to his door and started

 harassing him.  Alex stated he asked them to leave, but to no


        "In my presence, Alex told the three members of the church

 he did not want them back on his property.  I explained to the

 church members that they have a Trespass Warning against them.

 They understood if they came back they could be subject to

 arrest.  The church members then left the property."


5.  Negotiating with OSA

OSA interview tape

September 13, 1996

Alex & Ariane

Alex:   Hi, guys.  Do you mind if I tape the conversation?

J,Ed:   Not at all.  Do you mind if we do?

Alex:   Sure.  Are you all ready?

Ed:     no

[Alex:  we can't go to Dennys, obviously.  We don't want to

discuss it on the balcony.  We also don't want all three of

you in our apartment.  So we'd be willing to discuss it with

you (to Jacqueline) alone and on tape.  Do you agree with that?

J:      Can Ed be there was well?  Because he knows a lot about

        legal and stuff.

Alex:   No.

J:      ok.

[Ed gets out his tape recorder but it doesn't work.  While he

fiddles with it:]

Jacqueline:  is there a reason why you don't want all of us in here?

Alex:   It's just our preference.

[Jacqueline explains that Ed's tape recorder is dead and asks where

they could find batteries.  Alex describes a hardware store, and

they leave to get batteries.  Tape resumes after their return:]

Alex:   this is September 13, 1996 [gives his address] and I am Alex

        Jackson.  Do you want to identify yourself?


J:      Jacqueline Kevinaar.

Alex:   representing?

J:      I am representing the Church of Scientology International.

Ed:     My name is Edward Parkin and I also represent the Church of

        Scientology International.  I am not a lawyer and neither is

        anyone-unless you are- none of us are.  We are civilians.  We

        represent our church and we would like to speak to you and

        your wife to amicably resolve what I think, based on our

        conversation yesterday, the day before, is some kind of a


Alex:   I would also like to record that my wife, Ariane Jackson, is


J:      So, I thought we met yesterday, we went over the whole


Alex:   So you don't want to come in alone.

J:      I'd feel better about the full cycle because this is a meeting

        where we want to settle things.   We want to sort things out.

        We want to come to an agreement.  We want to resolve the

        problem created by you guys putting confidential church sacred

        scriptures on the internet.  You are bound by confidentiality

        agreements not to do so.  Does [?] till your death.  So we

        have the church's concern, which is, the official position is,

        that we have the obligation, we are obliged by law to sue in

        order to protect our rights to this material.  If we don't

        take any action whatsoever, we sit by and we don't do

        anything,  then we might lose our rights because we don't

        protect it.  We're not diligently protecting our rights to

        the upper level materials.  Which we have to do.  That is our

        trust.  That is the law.  This is what the law requires of the

        owner of upper level or sacred materials or trade secrets.

        Ok.  So we are obliged to sue.  However we have come here in

        total peace.  That is something that must be believed because

        that is the truth.  We come in all fairness to see if we can

        work out an agreement where you agree not to breach those

        upper level, trade secrets on the Internet and in that case,

        that will be equal to a judgment to us, just laying out the

        position here, it would be equal to a judgment to us, so we

        are protected as the owner of the materials.  And that is

        really the bottom line on that.

        Now, if we go ahead and sue and do all of these things

        we also wanted to tell you, in all fairness because I think

        you should be aware of that, and because of our obligation we

        have to sue, it will be expensive, obviously.  There will be

        lawyers involved.  There will be all sorts of things.  The

        financial hardship on ourselves in order to have to do this

        and on you is I think worse than if we can sit down and simply

        agree that you won't breach the agreements you signed.  That

        is why I have come.  Within that parameter I think it's only

        fair that the two of us can talk to the two of you.  I'd feel

        better about it and I'm sure you don't want me to feel bad.

        I don't want you to feel bad.  I'd feel better about it.  I

        think it's only fair.

Ed:     You put us at a disadvantage.  It ceases to become an

        even playing field at that point.  If that's the way you want

        to do it, you're putting us at a disadvantage and then I think

        you're going to be creating problems for yourself.  Because we

        have requested that it is both of these representatives of the

        Church of Scientology Interational who are here to, as it were,

        represent our interests.  And you and your wife together to

        represent your interests.

        If you're putting one of these representatives at a

        disadvantage by not having the other, then it's not an even

        playing field and whatever may or may not get worked out or agreed

        to at that point, it then becomes inequitable.

[Ed and Jacqueline are skilled negotiators.  A good negotiator haggles

 over everything:  the room, who is present, whether they sit or

 stand, etc.  The objective is to get the other party involved in

 the process.]

Al:     in that case we'll conduct a meeting here.  [Alex means

        the doorstep]

[They natter about it, but the scientologists don't want to talk

 on the doorstep.  They'd rather go to Denny's, but Alex's tape

 recorder is in his stereo.  He can't move it.  Ed offers to make

 a tape and give Alex a copy, but Alex dismisses the idea.]


Al:     right now we have an event playing field.  We don't have

        particularly perfect conditions.

Ed:     no we have very bad conditions

J:      Just because of the neighbors

Ed:     One of your neighbors tried to follow us when we left.  The

        one in a Lincoln, gray, a gray Lincoln Continental.

[Alex and Ariane close the door to discuss the matter.]

Alex:  come on in.

[nattering about arrangements]

J:      I'm just curious.  Did anything happen?


Alex:   No, we just discussed it.


J:      I thought maybe you got upset about something.

Alex:   No.

J:      [refers to yesterday's shouting match about money]

        We basically explained what the whole purpose of the whole

        thing is.  Obviously a lot of cycles have to be sorted out

        and we are more than prepared to do that.  However-

Alex:   Could you be specific?

J:      Specifically like the thing we went over for instance

        yesterday with Albert's estate.  There are real problems.

        I'm sure we can assist sorting that out.

Al:     Are you referring to Jody Darling, a debtor to Albert's estate

        and a Scientologist, Hans Gaspar Rhymer [J's beeper goes on]

        another Scientology debtor to Albert's estate, and other-

J:      Like the document you gave me?  You gave me a document which

        listed out the names of debtors.

Alex:   Scientologists owing a total of just under one million dollars

        [?] eight and a half years ago.

Ed:     I don't remember the exact figure and I'm not sure I have the

        document here, but that's what we went over.

J:      We are prepared and we are willing to sort that out.  To do

        whatever the church can do to sort that out.  And basically

        continued.  Many actions the church has already done to sort

        this matter out, but didn't complete the cycle.  That's all I

        wanted to say.

Ed:     Right.  Exactly.  Now the things is, a communication was not

        delivered yesterday.  And the bottom line as we see it is that

        there are two ways that this can go.  The two ways are, we

        either work it out and resolve it or we go the other route,

        which is in the law courts.

J:      And this is really, what you have to understand about this-

Alex:   We have several different matters to resolve here.  It would

        be to everyone's advantage and for the record I want to have it

        clarified that we specify whether we're talking about -

Ed:     I thought I did when we introduced ourselves and I put a

        little preamble, I stated -

Alex:   The confidential materials.  We also, we will be discussing

        something that is our concern, which is the money owed to

        Ariane's son by Scientology that we have discussed.

Ed:     w-w-w-w  Ariane's son did not loan Scientologists any money.

        Albert Jaquier loaned Scientologists, as I understand, the

        documents that you presented and so forth, you know, money to

        individual Scientologists.

Alex:  The money was not repaid and is currently owed to the estate of

        Albert Jaquier and Ariane's son is an inheritor in that


J:      That's what we went over already.  You gave us the

        documentation.  That is a known fact.   I don't think that's

        in question.  So we have two matters now.  One matter is our

        claim for our protection in terms of confidentiality, the

        other claim is Albert's estate.  And I think those are the two

        things we want to sort out.

        Now, I think, and that's our position, that the matter of

        posting confidential materials and coming to an agreement not

        to do that or not to breach any further agreements or whatever

        is something that we have an extraordinary amount of attention

        on.  As you can understand.  So far anybody who breached our

        right in terms of doing that, we either went to see him, some

        of them we went to see just like we did with you, to give him

        the opportunity to settle and have an agreement with us that

        they won't do that, knowing well that based on earlier signed

        agreements it is not ok to do it, in fact it is a breach of

        the contract.  Others didn't want to do that, so we saw them

        in court.  And we litigated because, and this is something

        I want to make completely and totally clear, so it is fully

        understood.  It's not like we want, we're desperate for a

        court case.  No, we have to.  We are obliged to do this.

        Because we have to protect the right to something which we

        hold confidential.  If we said, well, this part of what we

        studied cannot be revealed then we also have the obligation

        to make sure that doesn't happen.  When it happens we have to

        come to judgments that enjoin people from doing that.  Like

        injunctions, for instance.

        Like somebody like Dennis Erlich has an injunction.  He

        cannot do that.  If he does it he is contempt of court and

        that's a jail sentence in this country.  Do you know what I


Alex:   [irked]  We understand your legal obligation to diligently

        take action to protect your copyrights and trade secrets.

J:      The other thing I think we should inform, which is only fair,

        just in my view, so we could file a suit and litigate.  I'll

        let you guys cope with that.  I tell you, that is not a nice

        situation to be in.

Alex:   We know, because we've just had a suit from your church.  And

        we know how that is.

Ed:     The only thing is, one, it was in Switzerland, it's a

        completely different thing mainly because the holders of the

        trade secrets and copyrights are based here in the U.S. and

        those actions that have been brought on the basis of the

        copyright ownership and the trade secrets are brought by the

        churches housed in the U.S. and there are numerous precedents.

        Numerous precedents.  You are going from the early 1980's

        until the present time.  I don't know if you are aware of

        them, but we have Grady Ward, for example, the Internet

        character.  There is a preliminary injunction on him that

        prohibits any type of activity, or Keith Henson is another.

        I have - this is why I wanted to meet you because I am aware

        of these [?] I am intimately aware of them.  And I also know

        the effects that it [litigation] creates on people when for

        whatever reason they have violated our trade secrets and

        they wound up in a situation where the suit was filed and it

        basically goes on a conveyor belt in a law court.  Hugely


J:      I mean, we could tell you this one guy, what was his name,

        Arnie Lerma-  it's just that you need to know these things.

        You're not American citizens-

[She is wrong.  Both Ariane and Alex are American citizens.]

Ed:     But our lawyers say, 'you'd better come back with something,

        otherwise we have to.'

Al:     Ok. I would like to just make a fact on record that since

        your initial visit to us two days ago we have not posted

        anything, I think you will agree, we have not posted any of

        your confidential scriptures.

Ed:     To our knowledge nothing has been posted that has

        violated confidentiality.  Absolutely.

J:      That's correct, and I acknowledge that.

Alex:   So we are not dealing with a situation where we are insistent

        upon or continuing to post materials subsequent to being

        apprized of your position.

J:      [insistently] But if you would tell us-

Ed:     If say this [negotiation] broke down now, and tonight you         

        decided ok, well we're going to stick OT VII-

Alex:   I understand your responsibility.

J:      [brightly insistent]  And since there was already a breach,

        obviously we just say 'well we talked to these people, and

        they look honest, and I don't think they will do it.'  Our

        lawyers are going to say "well, you're nuts.  How do you

        know?"  Just face it, that's reality.  You have to have it in

        writing, you have to have something that is equal to a

        judgment.  In fact moreso because there was already an earlier

        breach.  So the respect for contracts was at that moment in

        time, no matter what the considerations, what the

        circumstances were, was not there in order to restrain the

        posting from happening.  So what will make this restrain the

        posting from happening?  You know what I mean?  Sure, there's

        always an element of risk there.  Of course.  And our

        interests, in the church interest, you want to make that as

        small as possible.  That's the bottom line.

        That is the situation we need to resolve first.  First

        and foremost.  Because that risk is there.  There is another

        thing you have to know, there is a certain time period in

        which you act.  When the infringement -  takes place, there's

        a clock that starts ticking and the sooner you act the better

        it is for the plaintiff, obviously.  Now we're in

        negotiations.  We are.  There is a reason you can say that

        clock will slow down a bit because we're talking.   We're

        trying to solve this without having to go to court.  But that

        clock still ticks.  And there is a point in time where we, you

        know, have to make a decision.  I'm telling you the straight

        dope.  I'm here to PR or anything.  Or make it all nicer or,

        well 'there won't be any problem'.  Because I think there will

        be.  And I think you should be informed of that.

Alex:   So within a certain time period we sign or you go legal?

J:      No, there isn't, like, 'ok we give you ten days.'  And if you

        don't sign in ten days- it doesn't work like that.  It works

        that from the moment of the infringement you have to

        diligently pursue making the infringement either invalid, or

        stop it, or prevent it from happening again.  You have to show

        that you have diligently done this and pursued your rights.

        If you sit back, let the time go forward, ...that is not

        diligently pursuing your rights.  So that's why we come here,

        we talk to you, and so on and so forth...

        So that's basically I think the first thing that we should


Alex:   Ok.  Yesterday you asked us both to sign general releases

        which were not confined to confidential material but included

        experiences that we had in scientology outside of what was

        even on confidential or involved in confidential, taking or

        receiving confidential material.  It was a general release

        concerning experiences of any kind.

Ed:     No. No.

J:      Not quite.

Alex:   Do you have a copy?

Ed:     "not generally known."  I remember the paragraph well.  5b, I

        think it was.  Anyway, "not generally known."

Alex:   The point I'm making is that it was not confined to our

        experiences of confidential activities or the release of

        confidential material in public places.

Ed:     Right.

J:      "in a public place," obviously.

Alex:   Why?

Ed:     Because we would like to contain-

J:      I'll tell you why this is.  Because this is while on church

        staff.  It says "I will never post or publish or attempt to

        post or publish anything relating to my experience with,

        knowledge of or information concerning the scientology

        religion or any of the releasees which are the parties in

        this contract, including any information which I obtained

        while on church staff and which is not widely known."

        In other words, by joining staff and signing your covenant

        you agreed that you can be talked to and you can engage in

        activities which are not normally accessible to anybody

        outside.  'I am a staff member.  I am privy to things the

        church is doing, the inner workings, the administration,

        the what-have you, organization inside.'  Which of course a

        public getting a service would not be free to do.  If I go

        and bank with the Bank of America I'm not sitting in their

        board meetings [fweet! interesting choice of metaphor!],

        you know what I mean?

Alex:   May I check this?  [papers rustle]

J:      [brightly determined]  And those are matters that are

        basically covered in the covenant, that you promised not to

        divulge any information which you received as a staff member,

        which you otherwise wouldn't have gotten if you were doing

        the Comm course.

Alwx:   Can I retain a copy of this?

Ed:     [flatly]  No.   Unless you sign it.  In which case, obviously.

Aj:     -because mine is different.  [Ariane's agreement, written in

        French, has different provisions than the one offered to


J:      Because each of you have to make that decision for yourself.

[the Jacksons read.  Nobody says anything for a minute.]

Alex:   This states "I will never post, publish or attempt to post or

        publish anything relating to my experiences with, knowledge of

        or information concerning the scientology religion or any of

        the releasees including any information which I obtained while

        on church staff and which is not widely known."  So therefore

        5b is not limited in any way to just experiences on church

        staff.  It includes experiences on church staff that are not

        widely known, but specifically says "anything relating to my

        experiences with, knowledge of or information concerning the

        scientology religion."

J:      So how to you interpret that?  What do you read in that?

Alex:   Well, the two key words are "anything" and "including."

        Because "anything" means "anything".  It means "anything

        relating to my experiences with, knowledge of or concerning

        the scientology religion or any of the releasees _including_

        any information which I obtained while on staff and which is

        not widely known."  So this "anything" includes this.   But

        it's not limited to this.

J:      Ok, I get it.  So that's how you interpret that clause.  Now

        I have another question.  Is there anything else in this

        release that you have a problem with.

Alex:   Yes.  I-

J:      Any other clauses

Alex:   I don't see the necessity of your requesting, or suggesting,

        or asking us to sign a general release when your stated sole

        concern is the matter of confidential materials.  Which you

        claimed you already have a signed written agreement on our

        part--do you have copies of those, by the way?  Can you share

        them with us?  Do you have them with you?

J:      No.

Alex:   Can you get them for us?

J:      [vaguely]  I guess so.

Alex:   Because we'd like to, we don't remember if we did sign, what

        we signed.

Ed:     [not sounding friendly]  You remember, when you signed, when

        you joined, you were both staff, right?  You remember

        signing a-?

Alex:   I actually don't remember what I signed.  I certainly don't

        remember the details.  And I certainly don't even know if what

        I signed was legally valid.  So-

Ed:     Well, that puts it all into the validity, and this, that and

        the other-  we don't want to go that way.  We don't want to go

        that way.

J:      That's where you go into court-

[scientologists are both talking at once]

Alex:   We also don't want to be scared or frightened into doing 

        something.  Like this general release.  It is unnecessary.

        It is extremely, it is a total gag on our free speech

        concerning the subject that we were involved in for more than

        half of our lives.

J:      Ok, well, just to correct one [?] of things.  Just let me get

        that straight.  Which is that you say 'well, why do I have to

        sign this if you already have it.'  Because we're not dealing

        with the original situation of you having signed the

        agreements and nothing happened.  You have breached the

        contracts.  So we need to settle the breach.  It is a

        different situation, a different circumstance.  There has been

        a breach, so you settle the breach.  We're not settling the

        earlier contracts.  Those are fine.

Ed:     Many settlement agreements, where there was a contract

        originally, and there was some dispute over it, and a

        subsequent settlement which resolves that.  That's very


J:      You resolve the new circumstance.  Ok.  Now if we look at this

        though, it says "general release."

Alex:   Let me ask your minimum requirement on this matter of

        confidentiality?  This is your minimum requirement?  What is

        your minimum requirement?

J:      Something that is equal to a judgment, that will protect our

        rights completely and fully.  That is what our minimal

        requirement will be.  Something that we could get in court.

        However we think we can do it without all the court, and the

        cost, and the lawyers and so on, because we don't want to put

        you up to a lot of expenses.  We really realize it's very


        Arnie Lerma, just up to summary judgment, is the first step

        in the case, paid $950,000.  I mean that's a horrendous

        amount.  It's just the lawyer fees.  And then, now he sits

        with a summary judgment where he has to pay us damages.  Now

        what position is that to be in?

Ed:     He was a staff member and so on, and he came in and out and

        so on and so on, many many times, and he did some

        confidential level, violated his agreements, we sued him--

        because we had to--and the court case, it was a fast track in

        Virginia, and we filed a summary judgment motion.  It was

        upheld and granted.  And we have a judgment in our favor.  We

        have damages awarded us for each of his infringements and he

        has to pay our lawyers' fees.  I know, I was sitting there

        when the Judge ruled.

J:      You know if we go that route it will be so bloody useless,

        because even if you would get Albert's one point two million

        dollars, you don't want to pay that to attorneys.  It's the

        last thing you'd want to do.

Ed:     Any money that you have now or would have in the future gets

        totally blown down the drain.

J:      It's expensive for us.

Alex:   We have no claim on Albert Jaquier's [estate].  Ariane's son

        has a claim on the estate.

[Ed has to change his tape]

Alex:   I just wanted to clarify.  It is Ariane's son who has a claim

        on Albert's estate.

Ed:     Understood.

Alex:   We are not claiming against Albert's estate.

J:      Ok.  All right.  So that is really the things we want to lay

        out.  And then if you get this thing going, if you, like,

        suspend part b here, because you have a problem with that.

        As far as I see it, and understand this thing, it tells you

        to do a few things-

[Alex breaks out laughing, but she plods determinedly on]

        You cannot breach anything that you know is confidential,

        maintaining the confidentiality  [Alex is still laughing.]

Alex:   I cannot listen to you and keep a straight face.

Ed:     I understand.  I know what you are laughing at.

Alex:   You can't keep a straight face [yourself]!

Ed:     Don't interpret what I'm doing!   I understand what you're

        laughing at.

J:      So, what it says is-

Alex:   Jacqueline, we're not signing it and we're not discussing it.

        We're not going to hack it to pieces and then- you understand?

J:      Uh huh.

Alex:   I understand your position and your obligation.  [his Scottish

        burr got the best of us here, but we gather he said something

        to the effect of, we are at an impasse, there is no reason to

        take this topic any further.]

Ed:     Good.  Let me clarify something to make sure I fully

        understand.  Now let us say, this release was directed solely

        to confidential materials.

[Fweet!  It looks like they are suggesting that Alex sign a

 legal contract, enforceable in a court of law, making all the

 the confidentiality agreements he may have signed in the past


Alex:   Well, we'd have to consider it.  I'm not saying anything.

Ed:     I'm not asking you to promise me one thing or the other.  I

        just said I can think with the cycle.  If it was restricted

        solely to the upper level materials and that basically-

J:      [She sees where Ed is going]  But there was a breach, and

        in settlement of the breach we enter into an agreement

        between you and the church that you will not breach on

        confidential, upper level materials; confidential

        information.  Which you know is confidential because you

        signed agreements to that effect.  That's it.

Alex:   That would be acceptable to you?

Ed:     [very controlled:  this is the big moment]  I'm asking if

        it would be acceptable to you.

Alex:   I'm not saying.  But would that be acceptable to you?

J:      I don't know either.

Alex:   We're going to have to have it checked.  We're not signing

        anything without having it checked.

Ed:     It would make our job a lot easier.

Alex:   If we didn't?  I'm sure.  But-

Ed:     [wants Alex to believe that the proposed idea is

        innocuous, so he makes himself a victim]  You don't know

        the pressure that comes to bear with the lawyers pounding

        on the table saying 'you are giving away your rights, what

        the hell are you playing at!'  'Give them away, fine:  we were

        led to believe that you considered your sacred scripture

        sacred and yet, you're letting them-'

Alex:   I understand your problem.

J:      The obligation is there.

Ed:     And we are here to resolve it.

J:      But it's not just, Alex, it's not just our problem.  You're

        involved in that problem.  You realize that.    Our problem

        goes to the extent that we have to go to the motions, get the

        machine rolling, instruct our lawyers, go to the court, get

        the witnesses, the testimony, this, that and the other; and

        you've watched L.A. Law [!!], you know how court cases go.

Alex:   [laughing]  There is a difference between our situation and

        the situation of Dennis Erlich or Arnie Lerma in that right

        now we are not posting.  Right now we are not actively

        posting any confidential materials.  And we have not for two

        days.  We have not subsequent to your first visit.  That is

        the difference.  That is something that you can tell your


J:      I am not sure if that would hold up in a court of law.

Ed:     Lerma posted to ars.   In fact he only posted once but it was

        sent out two times.

J:      Because a breach is a breach.  If you breach once, it's a

        breach.  The difference between a hundred breaches and one

        breach is very small.  A hundred breaches may show a

        continuous, you know- and despite this talking you might go

        back to your computer and post again.  And we talk again, you

        go back to your computer and post again.  That of course

        makes matters worse.

Alex:   Why?  You said we could post anything we wanted-

J:      I'm talking about upper levels-

Alex:   Okay.  You are talking about a hypothetical case.  I thought

        you were talking about Jody Darling and the diary.

J:      So that would make matters worse if you were doing that.

        Obviously you're not doing it.  You say you're not doing it.

        I don't know.  I have to believe you.

[Scamizdat? OSA thinks the Jacksons are Scamizdat?]

Alex:   [indistinct]

J:      Yeah, but what appears on the Internet doesn't always show up

        right away.  It can take days to show up.  It's not like an

        instant-it's not email.  So I have to take your word.  Which

        I'm ready to do.  I mean, I don't think you are sitting here

        lying to me.  You know what I mean.  So.  But you have to

        realize a breach is a breach and to something which is a trade

        secret or a confidential thing it's sort of, because of the

        litigation that has occurred, factually we'd probably have

        been the first ones that ever litigated on these.  These are

        laws that we in fact almost wrote the book on.  Because the

        precedents and the jurisprudence--you know what that word

        means?--exists now on the cases that we have ongoing or have


        And if you look at a big access provider like Netcom, that

        is one of the biggest in the world,  they adopted rules where

        they will screen for any copyright violations and trademark

        violations.  That's unique.  Before our cases Netcom would

        never have thought about doing that.  In fact it wasn't the

        practice at all.  It was 'well, you folks, it's your

        responsibility.'  But it isn't, really.

        They wrote the whole- [Ed breaks in here.  He wants to get

        back to the topic.]

        So these are not minor matters.  We're creating all the law

        and definitely jurisprudence on the whole subject.  So-

Ed:     Add to that our own lawyer.  Our lawyer is _the_ trade secret

        lawyer in the whole country. [presumably he is talking about

        Roger Milgrim]

J:      He wrote the book on the subject.  But besides that-

Ed:     It's not just us here, it really is something.  Do you

        appreciate that?

J:      Since 1950 there's been people that didn't agree with the

        church  of scientology.  1954, the first church started.  But

        even before that.  And they had their say.  And they had their

        things to say about it.  And it may not have been good.  I've

        seen, in my 22  years [in the church] I've seen stuff, you

        know, obviously there   have been people that weren't happy

        and they've tried all sorts of things.  Look at people like

        David Mayo.  That was a battle and a half.

        It's like they weren't happy with what they got out of it.

        Okay.  There's one thing otherwise, there's another thing I

        just wanted to tell you just apart from anything else.  Which

        is that just saying 'okay, it's all the church's fault that

        I am in this position' is factually not honest and not true.

        Because it really isn't the church's fault, you know, like

        whose fault?  Who was in the church?  What has happened?

        What was applied or wasn't applied?

        There are numerous circumstances-  Just like, for instance,

        you cannot hold the Pope in the Vatican responsible for what

        his millions of followers do.

Alex:   We understand that.

J:      So you can talk about bad experiences but even then there is

        enough to say about that too.  Understand, there is enough to

        say about it.  Your side of the story.  There's other sides to

        that type of story.  Other people had their own experiences

        with the same situation as what occurred.  And they have lots

        of things to say too.  It's a game in other words, that okay,

        my viewpoint, your viewpoint, Joe's, Bill's, Fred's, Peter's

        viewpoint; we have all these viewpoints.  What do we achieve

        with it?  I don't think we achieve much.  The church is still

        there.  You know, but we are being thrown to our fates as over

        the years is a lot but we're still there.

        If we would have done one percent of what we are accused of,

        we wouldn't be there.  Not a soul would want to come into the


Alex:   Okay.  That's all right.  That's all right. [wants to move on]

J:      Yeah, we can go over that a little -

Alex:   We need to go get proper legal advice before we enter into an

        agreement.  We understand your position, your requirements,

        your minimum requirement.

Ed:     I just wanted to make sure that we are tracking.

Alex:   This would be your minimum requirement:  a promise on our part

        to not divulge specifically upper level confidential materials

        past XEW [?] - through OT VIII.

J:      Yeah.  Or matters such as the Running Program.  That is not

        something that you can read in HCOB's or you can buy in any 


Alex:   Confidential.

J:      Yes.  That's not stuff you can buy anywhere.  You know it's

        not "Dianetics:  The Modern Science of Mental Health."

        That you can talk about to your heart's content.  It's

        publicly available.

Alex:   So that would be acceptable?  You have to have a verification

        on that, right?

J:      Yeah.  We-

Alex:   For you that would resolve your problem, would be a promise-

Ed:     [edge in his voice]  An immediate promise.

J:      [unwittingly sabotages Ed] Well, you see we have to go back

        about that.  You have to go back about that.  I cannot

        guarantee here or now that that would be the end of all our

        problems.  I cannot guarantee that.  Because I don't know.

Ed:     I'd like you to [garble] totally your own way.  If you want to

        think about some[thing] you can.  It's totally up to you.

Alex:   That will be our discussion of experiences outside of

        confidential material, that you are to discuss.  But the

        matter of your problem that you have discussed concerning the

        upper level material would be possibly resolved to your

        satisfaction when a promise on our part that we would not

        divulge in the future any of the specified materials which

        are primarily technical materials-

Ed:     Yes.

Alex:   Okay.  So that is something.  Because we can't have a copy.

J:      Well, if you will not agree to this then it is useless to even

        talk about it.  But if we can set parameters like you just did

        then I think we can come to an agreement.

Ed:     Because that gets the legal stuff out of here.  Then we can


J:      Then we have something concrete to go with.

Alex:   Okay.  Why don't you guys drop something [tape switch].

[chatter about Michael]

J:      [brightly] Well, I think we're basically done, right?  I mean

        we do this-

Alex:   Your problem, Jacqueline.  But one of our concerns yesterday

        was that our concern was basically blown off, and most of

        the time was spent discussing your concern.  Our concerns

        have not, to our view, been adequately discussed.

J:      I get it.

Alex:   --Or resolved.  Or even a resultion instituted.  Because-

        let me finish-  this, situation with debts owed to the

        estate of Albert, which is currently stuck in probate, from


J:      Is he okay?  [she is talking about Michael.  Ariane has

        been on the telephone.]

Alex:   So the situation with regards to the estate of Albert.

        Albert, it's obvious from what Albert wrote and communicated

        to various individuals in different parts of the church that

        he considered that the money that he had thought he invested

        in the company of Jody Darling was, or was maybe not directly

        but enabled Jody Darling to pay $150,000 to the International

        Association of Scientologists shortly after; and then

        subsequent to that Jody Darling became delinquent on that

        debt and when Jody Darling was arranging that debt, that

        loan, he was sending faxes from the office of the

        International Association of Scientologists in Clearwater.

        Now, Jody Darling currently owes the estate of Albert over

        $300,000.  Do you contest that?

J:      No.  I've seen at least the - [indistinct]

Alex:   Okay.  This is our concern.  You have your concern: this is

        our concern.  Now, yesterday we discussed probate laws and

        it is possible if not probable that Jody Darling doesn't

        have the money to repay this debt.  Right?  Either he

        doesn't have it or he doesn't want to pay it.  He hasn't

        paid it.  He has been delinquent for about four years.

        He was refusing to communicate when he was delinquent.

        So what your suggested solution has been to get Jody

        Darling in Clearwater and to attempt to make Jody Darling

        good upon his debt.  That has to go to the estate and

        that has to be probated, etc., etc.  Now it is true that

        Michael won't actually need it or get it until he is

        eighteen.  But if Jody Darling doesn't have it and he's

        [claiming] bankrupt, then- what I am trying to say is

        that the International Association of Scientologists

        received $150,000 from-

J:      You don't know that.

Alex:   Yes!  His photograph's in Impact [magazine]!

Ed:     I understand that.  I understand that.  I also know that

        Jody Darling borrowed vast quantities of money from

        innumerable, many different people.  I don't know it

        was Albert's-

Alex:   I- that is- you can't follow dollar bills through a bank.

        You see what I'm saying.  But he's a Patron Meritorious

        and listed as such.  Therefore he paid IAS $250,000.

        When he borrowed the money he was a Patron With Honors.

        That's $100,000.   He paid $150,000 shortly after the-

        you understand?

J:      What's the significance there in terms of what he did with

        the money?

Alex:   [trying not to lose his temper]  IAS received money from him.

        He received money from Albert.  He didn't-

Ed:     So you are trying to show a chain of title of the money?

Alex:   He got $200 [thousand] from Albert and at the same time he

        paid $150 [thousand] to IAS.  He arranged it from the IAS


J:      Just one thing you have to explain.  What's the significance

        of where that money went for you?  For you, or for Michael,

        or for the estate?  That's my only question here.

Alex:   Okay.  Let me mention a similar situation.  Edwin Baer also

        borrowed money from Albert.  Edwin Baer got a refund from IAS.

        We have evidence that he got a refund.  That's how he repaid


Ed:     [derisively]  Huhn.

J:      That money went to Albert?

        [everyone talks at once]

Alex:   We can read it because it's in French and then we can

        translate it for the record.  Edwin Baer's letter to

        Albert, stating that he had arranged the refund from IAS-

        just translate it [to Ariane]

Ariane: Okay.  It says "I-

Alex:   This is from Edwin Baer in Switzerland.

Ari:    It says "I work

Alex:   Give the date.  To Albert Jaquier:

Ari:    5 October 94.  "I worked during the [?] week with the DED

        IASA to find a solution for the money which is owed to me,

        that I did not receive yet.  I had to do a CSW asking a part

        of the money I had loaned to an [?] to ask that it be

        reimbursed by IAS.  And he said that it is an irregular


J:      So basically what you are saying is that if Jody is not

        able to pay the money back out of his own pocket IAS

        should be doing that for him.  Is that what you're

        explaining to me?  Or, there is a possiblity for IAS to

        do that?

Alex:   Yes.

J:      I get it.

Alex:   Yes, since they were a beneficiary, not necessarily

        directly, but they benefitted in the time period.  You


J:      Yeah, I do.

Alex:   And we can say well, if Darling had not paid IAS, he would

        have been in a much much better position to have repaid

        the debt to Albert.  I haven't, since by church policy

        Albert was prohibited from taking legal action against Jody

        Darling and his other debtors.  This was by church policy

        [and] resulted in Albert being unable to, and before he

        died, then since he was prohibited from taking legal

        action and the church at that time, and we have evidence

        of this, claimed to be administering justice in the

        affair, and failed to force or ensure that justice was

        done in time, as evidenced by the fact that the money

        was not repaid and Albert died.  So that he couldn't go to

        a lawyer.  He went to his church.  And I think the evidence

        demonstrates that his church failed him.  And handling

        --you told me the first day that December 94, Jody

        Darling was denied services at the church of scientology.

        At that time Albert was dead.

        This situation had been brought to the attention of the

        church.  This is chronologically laid out in the post.  It

        had been brought to the attention of the church several years

        earlier when Albert was still alive.  The church failed.

        They prevented him from seeking legal action.  And they

        failed to provide any substitute justice that was effective

        in time.  Because if Jody Darling had paid when he said he

        would pay, Albert could have paid for and received the

        medical attention he desperately needed to stay alive.

        And we cannot definitely state, but it is a possiblity that

        right now you would be talking to Albert, not us [if Darling

        had paid].

J:      I understand what you're saying.  I understand what you're


Alex:   I am not finished.  Michael Jaquier was seven years old when

        his father died.  He lost his father.  Now you may consider

        that all he needs is a rud session, but he lost his father.

        He loved his father.  Several years before that he had lost

        his mother through the policy of disconnection, for a period

        of seven months.  Michael's story has not yet been

        [indecipherable].  Albert was his stable parent after he

        was disconnected from his mother.  With Albert's death he was

        disconnected from his father.  You understand?

J:      I do.  I hear what you're saying.   I hear what you're saying.

Alex:   And my impression is, I still see Michael sitting sometimes

        and he will be reminded of his father and you can see, he

        looks off a little distance and his eyes mist over and he

        doesn't speak of anything or say anything, but you know

        what is happening with the guy.  You understand?

J:      I hear.

Alex:   Yes, he's recovering.  Yes.  Yes.  The nightmares he has,

        they're not as bad.  You understand?

J:      I hear you.

Alex:   Your church is involved in that, Jacqueline.  Specifically by

        preventing Albert from what was available to

        non-scientologists, which was the courts of law and civil

        action.  He was prohibited from doing that.  He would have

        been declared or susceptible to declaration as an sp if

        he had done that.  So he couldn't do that.

J:      Can I ask a question?

Alex:   Sure.

J:      Because those are like, heavy accusations.  And I don't have

        necessarily a counter-view on that because one of the things

        we are doing is still going through all of the data.  As I

        said, a week ago I didn't know you, a week ago I'd never

        heard of Albert Jaquier.  So we're still going through

        everything.  And we're talking to people and getting _all_

        the data.  We have your story, which you posted.  We have

        what you _claim- is Albert's diary, which is in the post.

        I don't know if that is a literal representation of it.

        But we have files and we're going through this.  So we

        still have to, and you have to grant us a bit of time

        to sort this thing out.  For you this is a cycle that

        has been taking years and years and years.  You are

        intimately familiar with the things that went down.  For


Alex:   Your church was first informed in 1991 when Jody Darling

        was initially delinquent.  And so-

J:      [very reasonable]  I've seen in the files, I've seen

        justice actions, I've seen board of investigations, I've

        seen Chaplain's Courts and about this much correspondence

        about the cycle.  It isn't like, you know, nothing

        happened because I tell you, these files are _thick_.

        On the whole cycle, on whatever went down on that, you


Ed:     Albert.  A lot of letters.

J:      In Albert's case, he sent-

        [all three talk at once]

Ed:     Did he ever do a CSW to file a civil action with IJC?  You

        know, the policy that says, do a CSW-IJC if you don't hear

        back within a certain amount of time?

J:      Fine, it says you have to notify IJC.  It doesn't say you

        can't sue.  You have to notify IJC.

Ed:     That's what I think.  I haven't read the-

J:      Maybe this is something you can read.  We'll bring the

        policy tomorrow.  You can read it.  It's available.

Ed:     Okay.  I haven't seen it in the file, but he may well


J:      It's not, you know, you cannot sue, you cannot sue, you

        cannot sue.  You say the church prohibited him from

        suing.  I only know what the policy says.  This is

        where they talk about that.  I bring that tomorrow

        and show it to you.

        Because that is not something that I saw in the files


Alex:   Are you suggesting Albert should have initiated a civil


J:      No, I was just asking-

Ed:     If he felt that it was the only thing he could do

        then he should have applied that policy letter.  If

        that was the only thing that he felt he could do.

        Maybe he did.  I don't know.  We have-

J:      Did he ever file a complaint?

Alex:   You mean, outside the church?

Ed:     Yes.   That is exactly what I meant.

Alex:   I would have to check.

Ed:     Yeah, I'm not sure either.

J:      So that's the whole, again as I said, this is a cycle

        that you're emotional about.  And I hear you.  I

        understand that.  On the other hand, it is for us a

        fairly new thing that I haven't had on my lines for

        you know, up until a week ago, literally.  So I will

        familiarize myself with a couple of things.  Because

        I know, if I have all the information I know it can

        be resolved.  If I don't have the information there's

        nothing I can do.  You know what I mean?  That is

        literally where I come from.

Alex:   Okay.  Okay.

J:      I know this is a concern of yours.  I know that you have,

        your viewpoint, you know what happened, you have your

        data, there's also, hopefully there's a lot of other data,

        a lot of other people wrote a bunch of things about this.

        Albert's estate is something that I know for sure was

        discussed by a lot of people.  So. We'll just have to

        look at it.

Ed:     Yeah, you don't know what was done to get Edwin Baer

        to pay.   I just found out some of the stuff this morning.

        Yeah, I mean a lot of things.  You know, to make the guy

        take responsibility for, I know because our area of CSI,

        took a lot of cleanup of the guy, make the guy confront

        it, and so on and so on.

        Ah, the thing that I was thinking of is, us doing anything

        while we have this confidentiality thing hanging out

        there is a problem.  It really is a problem.  And the other

        thing is, ah,

Alex:   You're saying you don't want to discuss it?  Until you get-

Ed:     No.

J:      No.

Alex:   Well, you're jumping back on the confidentiality and -

[pause while Ed changes a tape]

J:      Well, let's say this.  We came to talk to you because of your

        posting.  That was the reason why we came.  The posting of

        confidential stuff.  In the course of dealing with the cycle,

        you know, we find out about the whole Albert cycle.  I

        personally was not aware of all that.  And I just have to

        see.  And we find that this is a point where you have a

        lot of attention.  Obviously.

Alex:   Uh, huh.

J:      Good.  So we came here to do a).  You come back to us so we

        find out there's also a b).

Alex:   Yep.

J:      Okay.  Now what we want to do, and I think this, in all

        fairness, we want to resolve this confidentiality thing.

        Because that is definitely a direct immediate risk for

        the church.  Where we have to know.  I'm not excluding,

        we won't talk about Albert's estate.  Absolutely not.

        I said, you have to give us some time to go through

        all the facts.  Which we're doing every day.  And that,

        you know, familiarizing ourselves but also talking to

        people.  You know I told you yesterday, Jody will

        come to Clearwater.  I want to talk to him.  I want to

        know from his mouth what happened.  And I have the

        right to do so, you know what I mean?  Certainly when

        there are these large sums involved, I want to know.

        So we'll have to work with this.

Alex:   [unbelieving chuckle]  I laugh because Albert heard that.

        In fact Albert heard that more times than-

J:      I know.  But I also said something else to you yesterday.

        Surely you remember that.  We have come here with full

        bargaining [power] to sort out [the situation].  And I can

        personally do that.  So.  That's it.

Ed:     You've got to give us a little bit of trust.

Alex:   Okay.  We have voiced our concern and you have voiced your

        concern.  We have to discuss it, we have to think about it.

        [to Ariane]  Your draft, may I see it?

J:      --work out what is the minimal requirement, we'll look at

        it.   And we'll come back, we'll have the same setting if

        you don't mind.  Is it an acceptable setting for you?

        Then we'll just take it from there.  I mean, really this

        is a thing that I don't think will be resolved in ten


Ari:    No.

Alex:   Well, it hasn't been ten minutes.

Ed:     And a resolution is a resolution.

J:      That's another thing that we want, when we walk out of

        here, when we part, it is a completely handled situation.

        A handled cycle.

Alex:   Yeah, but there are two different definitons of handled.

J:      Look, if you were not happy it would not be handled.  If

        you would go up and say, ok-

Ed:     Because you would say something on the Internet tomorrow

        and it would be the same thing-

J:      -'fuck you, go out of my live,' you know if you would say

        that it ain't handled.

Alex:   Ok, let me make a suggestion before we- this general

        release, to try to get us to sign this general release

        is unrealistic.  It's nowhere near a handling.  He knows.

        You know.  Get Real.  Get real.  Do you understand?

        [He is still polite, but the edge is unmistakable.]

Ed:     I do understand.

Alex:   We're not whining victims.  And we're not, you know,

        'you did everything, and look at everything that you

        did,' you understand?

J:      Yep, we do.

Alex:   So, get real.   Because we're real.

J:      Uh, huh.  [reflexively] Good.  

Alex:   [laughing]

Ed:     By the same token, uh, I, you know, we have to force people

        to do things.  Trying to force somebody to do something on

        behalf of somebody who by church tenets, or two people who

        by church tenets, have committed suppressive acts of the

        worst actions conceivable in scientology-

Alex:   Huh?  [puzzled.  He doesn't realize that Ed is referring

        to him and Ariane]

J:      [quickly]  What he probably is saying--I, I'll translate it

        for you.  You asked me to get real and I will, I am.  Also

        there is the other reality of your situation.  You see,

        the knife cuts both ways.  There is the reality of, if you

        choose litigation, if you choose to go that route, be

        real, because, know what you're sticking your foot into.

Alex:   I know.

J:      You know?  So that's what I'm saying.  I don't mind being

        told to be real.  But on the same hand, I want to tell you

        that, do the same thing.  Apply your own words of wisdom

        to yourself, to look at what's there at the end of that

        road.  Because it ain't anything pleasurable for any of

        us.  And that is the reality I'm dealing with and I

        come from.  You understand?

Alex:   Yeah.

J:      And as long as we have those realities I'm sure we can

        sort it out.

Alex:   [laughing helplessly]

Ed:     What?  What?

Alex:   uh, when I said get real I wasn't being a smart ass.  If you

        know, then when you see we're not going to go off happy.

J:      No, I don't-

Alex:   the general release- you see what I'm saying?  Don't waste

        our time, and don't let's start editing it, and stuff like

        that.  Do you see what I'm saying?

Ed:     [silky] You won't see that document again.  

Alex:   All right.  You know, different words with the same sense,

        you know-?

Ed:     I know.  You can read.  You understand what you read.  You

        understand legal sufficient to know what the significance

        of those legal terms are.

Alex:   Right.  Anything that is worth anything, that means

        anything.  Don't tell me [it isn't a general release

        when it is].

J:      That's how I understand it, you don't understand it that

        way.  Fine.  So.  That is the reality of that.

Alex:   You still think it means just staff?

J:      I don't think that it says you cannot talk about any of

        your experiences.

Ed:     This is true.

J:      We do _all the time_ on the Internet.  So how, you know-

        if it would say that you cannot talk about anything

        concerning scientology, then what are our five or six or

        seven or thirty-seven web sites for?

Alex:   [laughing again]

J       [plowing right on] --all the experiences with people, but

        the difference is, they are good and they are happy.  So

        it would be sort of stupid to say, well you can't post

        about scientology anymore.  I mean, that really, I

        mean it's like, there can never be such a thing.

        If you want to talk about scientology you talk about

        scientology.  We expect you to say the truth though,

        because otherwise you enter a whole other realm of

        stuff, which is libel and slander, which is a whole

        different ball game, or inciting to hatred.  If

        you say "I think that church is so bad that I think

        every one of you should now go and bomb the church

        or something," you can incite hatred.  In Florida

        there happens to be a statute that says, a law,

        if you utter words or publish, say something with

        the intention to stir up hatred against somebody

        else, a group or an organization or whatever,

        that's illegal and you're going to jail.  It's a

        criminal offense.  It's called a "hate statute."  A

        hate crime.  You cannot, and that's because of, well

        we're in the United States.  You have multicolored

        people, the Ku Klux Klan.  They're burning churches.

        Right now there's a whole flap going on where six

        hundred churches in the South of this country, you

        know, black churches, have been burned to the ground.

        So, the whole subject of hate crime right now is a

        much discussed thing.  It was on Newsweek this week;

        it's all in there.  You cannot say something that

        will incite an emotion of hatred toward the subject

        you're talking about.  So that's what I'm saying,

        you know.  Within the parameters of free speech

        there's also the criminal code of the United States.

        If I say "I'm going to kill the President of the

        United States" just saying it will lock me up.

        Not even, I don't even have to prove that I intended

        it, didn't intend it or what.  Just uttering these

        words.  And there's no FBI agent that will grant

        you your free speech for saying that.  You know what

        I mean?  So, there is a criminal code.  That's all

        I'm saying.  There is laws.  And within those

        laws you're completely fine.  Overstep the laws and

        you go to jail.  And particularly in this country

        that's a very black and white type of affair.

        So that's what I'm saying.  If you want to post your

        experiences and it isn't libel, it isn't slander and

        it isn't a hate crime, go ahead and do so.

Ed:     I've got a question.  So we're doing this document, we're

        modifying this thing, right?

J:      Yeah.

Alex:   You are going to modify that one?

Ed:     Allow me correct and amend what I earlier said.  Yes, we are

        rewriting from scratch.  What are you guys doing?   It's

        almost like a summary or recap.

Alex:   We are discussing it.  We are getting advice.

Ed:     From whomever you want to get advice from.  Good.  

J:      Okay good.  So, we meet tomorrow?  Same time, same setting?

Ed:     A bit earlier?

        [discussion about Michael]

Alex:   Well, he'll be here over the weekend.  Monday.  We're going

        to have him all weekend.  [He accidentally calls Jacqueline


J:      [joking]  Don't be snide on me.  I'm not snide on you.  

Alex:   [Laughs]

Ed:     Can we give you a call?

[Alex declines to give the number.  Jacqueline pushes for a meeting

 the next day.]

J:      We can work to resolve the situation.  We want to be diligent

        about this.

[discussion about Michael.  Alex does not want the meeting held in

 his presence.]

        I don't know.  Can he play in the pool?  And maybe Joan can

        be with him?  She likes a dip in the pool.  

Alex:   No.  If we can arrange something before Monday we'll call


J:      Well, let me ask you this.  What we can do is, why don't we

        come by tomorrow, say about 2 o'clock and we take it from

        there.  Like, if you can do it, fine.  If you can't, you

        can't.  I may not be in the office.  We're out and about

        too.  So I don't want to miss your call or have somebody

        near the phone or whatever.

Ed:     We'll be involved, we have to interview people-

J:      We'll be here two o'clock tomorrow.

Ed:     If you can't say we'll respect you.

J:      And then you can tell us.  If it's this weather he's playing

        outside.  You know, it wouldn't be a problem if he's in the

        house or watching tv or whatever.  We can take it from

        there.   Okay?  Let's do that.

Ed:     Very good.

Alex:   End of meeting.  Four thirty.  Or close to.


6.  A Statement by Ariane
















------------------ The End ---------------------------------------

   [**Biased Journalism** is distributed free in cyberspace.  To

   subscribe, send a message to <biased-request@clam.uchsc.edu>

   with "subscribe" as the subject.  Comments, article submissions

   and hot tips should be addressed to <sthomson@netcom.com>.

   Solid mail, checks and donations go to S. Thomson, 236 Stanford

   S/C, Suite 142, Palo Alto, CA 94304.  Separate issues of

   **Biased Journalism** are available via USA domestic mail at

   $5 apiece.  Foreign rates on request.  NEW:  back issues of

   **Biased Journalism** are available per issue, minimum of

   four issues.]