Topic: Corporate scams and rackets
Scientology's Hubbard Convicted of Fraud in France, 1978 Long before France pressed these latest fraud charges against Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted of fraud in that country, and sentenced to 4 years in prison.by Lilly von Marcab
(libertarian)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
By now, most people have learned that the nation of France has decided to prosecute Scientology's French organization, along with seven of its top managers, on fraud and drugs charges. News articles about the case usually mention that Scientology was aquitted of fraud charges there in 2002; sometimes they mention that Scientology officials were convicted of fraud in Lyon in 1997 and in Marseille in 1999. Surprisingly, however, the fraud conviction of the cult's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, on fraud charges in 1978, does not seem to be mentioned in any of the English-language reports.
After a seven-year public inquiry and a lengthy trial, the Paris Tribunal found four top Scientologists, including Hubbard, guilty of making fraudulent claims that physical cures and professional success could be achieved through Scientology. Hubbard, who did not attend the trial, and had already fled the country, was sentenced to four years imprisonment.
The judge concluded that the facts and statements by the witnesses were "ample proof" of the veracity of the charge.
Quoting Hubbard's own words, the judge found that Scientology made false promises with the sole aim of "increasing the financial revenue."
An article from the Catholic Sentinel reports that "the court examined evidence of large profits made by an organization which declares itself to be non-profit, the psycho-therapeutic nature of a treatment dispensed by people with no medical qualifications, and the claim made by Scientology to be capable of curing some 70 percent of human illnesses,"1 such as radioactive burn from the effects of an atomic bomb, etc.
Hubbard never served his prison sentence because he was essentially on the run from the law, sailing in the Caribbean on his yacht Apollo, trying to avoid not only French authorities but the US authorities as well. In 1978, the US Federal Government was preparing for the trial of Hubbard's wife Mary Sue, and numerous other Scientology officials, on conspiracy and burglary charges. Hubbard, along with Scientology super-lawyer Kendrick Moxon, were named as "unindicted co-conspirators" in that case.2 This means the federal prosecutors were very sure they were involved, but couldn't quite generate the evidence for a sure conviction. Mary Sue and the others ended up serving several years in federal prison. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service had evidence that Hubbard was taking millions of dollars "off the top" of Scientology profits, and hiding it in overseas banks.3
Hubbard never returned to France, and was banned from the United Kingdom because he would not discuss his conviction with British authorities. Hubbard died in 1986 on his secluded California ranch.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Lilly von Marcab only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lilly von Marcab is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Scientologists are not told this about L. Ron Hubbard. They are not told he was convicted of fraud, nor that he was an undicted co-conspirator in what, to this day, remains the largest infiltration of the US government. If they find out that Mary Sue Hubbard was one of those who went to jail over the crimes, they are told that it was a big beat-up and that the 11 who went to jail just made some photocopies on government copiers and were charged with stealing the paper.
Posted By: General Public AYS
Date: 2008-09-10 01:33:04
So, apart from our Ron being a bigamist, liar, fraud, extortionist, tax evader, black magic and Crowley admirer, burglar, self professed anti-Christ, and murderer, he is also a run away Convict! Damn, I was about to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If someone should not follow a religion just because the founder of that religion had problems with "justice" one shouldn\'t follow the Christian religion either...
Also, if the article is true, Mr Hubbard could not defend himself and he was sentenced without he being there... definitely a "very advanced" justice system!
Also Scientologist are against the use of street drugs or mind altering drugs so I am very curious of what these "drug charges" are! Maybe it was told to take some vitamins but if that is the "crime" it is also a crime to sell fruits, eggs, milk etc as they also contain vitamins!
So this trial, if done following the law and justice, will end up with another victory for Scientology and another defeat for those who are against freedom of religion.
In this exact moment Scientology just surpassed the number of 100,000 parishioners following the courses on the new "Scientology basic books" This is a proof that the interest to know and study Scientology is increasing on a planetary scale.
Any religion, at some point, has been attacked, and now a judge in France decided to work against one of the most open and ethical religion on the world today.
I don\'t need a french judge to tell me if I can follow or not a religion... I can decide for myself.
If in Europe we have freedom of religion that means "WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION" and no goverment or judge can dictate which are the religions that can be followed in that country.
Frank G, it's different. Hubbard COULD HAVE defended himself, but he FLED THE COUNTRY. He knew that they had enough evidence to convict him.
Your figures on book sales come directly from Scientology. They are false. Mainstream demographic surveys show that there aren't even 100,000 Scientologists in the world. Here in Australia, only around 2500 people ticked the "Scientologist" box under "Religion" in our 2006 census.
You are free to have whatever religion you please. Nobody questions this. The problem is with the Scientology ORGANISATION. Not the beliefs -- the MANAGEMENT of the church.
Most Scientologists are, fine, well-intentioned, ethical, very nice people, trying to do their best in this difficult world. They are unaware of many things the church does that are bad. They are told not to believe anyhing unless it comes from the church. They are told not to research or think critically about anything -- only just ask the church. They are told a lot of highly exaggerated or false stories about Hubbard's life. Meanwhile, the church keeps thinking of new gimmicks to keep the money flowing in, including a massive squirrel-a-thon. If you want to see an analogy for your progress on the Bridge, look up "Sisyphus" on Google.
Frank, one day you may join the thousands of other former Scientologists, many of them from the top levels, who now understand what a racket the Scientology organisation really is.
Yes we are supposed to have FREEDOM OF RELIGION. But that was screwed up when all religious organizations are tax-exempted. So now the government is in the business of deciding which organization is a religion and which is not. Therefore we don't fully have a freedom of religion as long as religious organizations are treated differently than private groups, entities or companies that have to pay taxes. I am against the taxes, but if taxes are going to be collected selectively then there is NO FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
If other religious organizations are receiving tax-exempt status then as much as I dislike Scientology, it should be considered a religion too like maybe Santeria, Satanism, Witchcraft, Swingers, or even Athesim. Maybe even Libertarianism, Nolan-Chartism, Disney or Amway-Network-Marketingism. Any belief or disbelief is a religion, therefore any social gathering could also be a religion. There are a lot of honest no-scam Atheist groups applying for tax-exempt status with no luck getting the tax break. Yet beliefes based on no-proof, or fairy tales, or aliens get their tex-exemption. That is BS.
One more point to consider: Some evangelical organizations are encoraging their respective Pastors, or whatever their leaders are called, to endorse political candidates in their sermons or preachings. IRS want to take over their tax-exempt status if they go through with it. So now the government is not only slecting which religious institutions are tax-exempt or not but also limiting their freedom of speech at their private gatherings by threatening. If the pastor wants to endorse a candidate he should be allowed to do so.
Real Solution: Make everything tax-free and let the individuals decide with no government intrusion what beliefs to follow if any no matter how stupid or cult-like they may be.
To Frank G., You are obviously blind to the fact that L. Ron Hubbard was indeed a criminal. But let us put that aside for the moment.
Scientology is against ALL drugs that alter the mind, legal or not. L Ron Hubbard admitted in his own writings to his wife Mary Sue that he was "popping pinks and purples" and "drinking alot". Medication abuse is still drug abuse, and the fact that he created a "religion" that does not support any type of drug use and yet he is popping pills. I have never seen, nor has my grandmother - a Registered Nurse for 45 years, a vitamin that is pink or purple unless it was Flinstones Vitamins. Add in the fact his blood work at time of death showed a large ammount (possibly leathal) of Vistrol shows he was abusing drugs. Why do you think a day after his death he was cremated within 24 hours? It was to hide the fact he may have overdosed, but we won't know because of the letigious nature of Scientology.
Next point. How is this a victory for Scientology? It proves that L. Ron Hubbard is a criminal and everything Scientology says about him is filled with lies and half-truths. Public records show he never graduated from college. He was kicked out by his second semester. He was dischaged from the Navy for several infractions, but due to a plea deal he got a Lt J. G. rank but could not serve again.
This may actually be truth...100,000 members. That is less than 10% of what is claimed by Scientology. But how many of the 100,000 are sitting in the SP Hall and the RPF being held against their wills and force to d,o up to 20 hours of labor for what I make in 2 hours at my job, including childern? How many of those numbers are from those that took the "personality test" online and never followed through?
Now you are claiming ethical religion? How is it ethical to enslave childern? How is it ethical to deny life saving medication and treatment from those that need it? How is Fair game ethical? Fair Game still exists and the court records prove that. While Scientology claims it has stopped, it is in name only.
You are right, you don't need government to decide what is a religion. You need government to keep you away from the dangerous cults like Scientology. And yes government can decide. And Europe is not a country asshat.
Proof that Scientology has always been a criminal fraud, eh guys?
I can't believe it's still legal in some countries, let alone recognised as a religion in the U.S.!
I smell the work of secret back-handers to certain officials... But pish, that's the last of Scientologys 'skeletons in the closet' that they should be worried about.
Lilly, you are leaving out half the truth, namely the outcome of the appeal procedure in 1980 which - I let you in on that - said the opposite. Please do some more research and update the article, thanks.
Posted By: General Public AYS
Date: 2008-09-15 12:21:53
Here's one for you Louanne: was LRH really convicted for fraud in the 1970's by the French or not? Can you answer that one honestly please, or at least acknowledge the question if you don't want to answer it?
I understand it may be embarrassing for you, but maybe you could give me a reason for this blot on his character.
"Hubbard was not in the country at the time of the trial, and didn't retain legal assistance. The case was subsequently appealed by one of the other convicts in 1980. During this appeal, the court indicated that all those who had been convicted could be pardoned, if they filed their own appeals against the original ruling. A second defendant did in 1981, and the fraud charges were canceled by judgment on November 9, 1981. Hubbard himself never took any action, and the fine was never enforced"
So it was a member, and not Hubbard himself, that won the appeal. True that this resulted in a recognition in France, but the still on the run at the time and was never cleard of fraud charges. But I digest, that does not address the issue.
It is not difficult to gain recognition as a religion. It's quite simple, actually, as long as you come up with certain doctrines. To me, the recognition means far less than the fraud charges.
More than 100,000 persons are just on the basic courses but of course there are many more scientologists! If we should count as christians only those that, in this moment, are on a course to study the bible probably we would arrive to a figure that is less than the scientologists.
To Akuma.
Have you read any book from Hubbard?
Have you observed with your eyes what you are saying?
Do you think a church should not defend itself if it's been attacked with lies?
Did you go in any church of Scientology? Have you seen any children enslaved there?
Do you really believe in everithing you read on the internet?
For what I can see you are a person just willing to gather fragments of negative data on Scientology and even try to worsen them.
Why don't you turn off the "anon" side of your mind and start to find what useful data you can find in Scientology?
"useful data" . . . . . ahhh, yes. All of the journalist's reports, court records and objective information from the last 50 years will never be acknowledged by a Scientologist. All of the factual data, often obtained at great personal cost, that lays out the criminal acts of this organization, will never satisfy one who has been indoctrinated by this group.
And here they sit, purporting to engage in rational arguments, after having been relentlessly programmed that as a matter of principle, ANY "entheta" information - anything that halts or slows the growth of this scam of a business - is a "lie" created by a "criminal." Know what you are dealing with, anybody here who seeks to debate frankg or the other "Ron-bots". All you are to them is an obstacle to be overcome "by any means necessary". Scientology "Fair Game" policy has its hard side (rape, murder, drugging, intimidation) and also its soft one (black propaganda, attempts to control media etc). Welcome to a display of it in action - frankg and his ilk are just doing their job, as they have been ordered to.
What is the directive to Scientologists on this matter?
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV
. . . ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD Copyright (c) 1967 Founder by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The sacred words of L. Ron Hubbard. Let us meditate upon them. Amen.
Sorry, maybe it would be safer to say "extract from copyrighted material utilized under Fair Use standards!" Oh, and since these folks loooove to state that things are taken out of context, you can read the full document here:
http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
And yes, this includes the later document by Hubbard 'rescinding' the Fair Game policy, which they love to quote as a claim this is not longer done. Go read it - it only states that they may no longer SAY there is Fair Game, and explicitly indicates that the policy is still in effect. Do your own research.
As I understand the situation, the suit was later dismissed.
It is somewhat expensive to bring legal suit. And when the details were brought to the light of day, the suit was dismissed. That was years ago
So hey, U gotta ask yourself, how important is it when a legal suit is first brought, and then dismissed? In this particular suit there was no wrong doing, the suit was fabricated. This has been the situation with many suits against Scientology. Good money is spent to bring a suit, the Church defends itself, the people who bring the suit, pay the court costs. Russia did that not too long ago in front of the European Court of Human Rights,. Russia paid court costs and paid damages to the Church.
The criminal charges were cancelled three years later, which isn't the same thing as dismissed. During those three years, Hubbard was a wanted man and never faced the court to proclaim his innocence. The requirements given by the court for a pardon involved filing an appeal, but only two followers did so.
"Fair Game" is one of the key attack points for scientology critics. What they usually mean is that they feel inconvenient if someone checks out what they are actually doing and how this violates other people's rights. I understand that especially those who have something to hide so not like this approach, but it has nothing to do with "Fair Game". Here is what "Fair Game" was when L. Ron Hubbard used the term forty years ago:
What is "Fair Game"?*
There is a rumor around that a former member of Scientology could be declared "Fair Game", meaning that illegal actions could be taken against this person with Church officials closing both eyes. This is nonsense and has no evidence at all.
A policy of "Fair Game" does not exist within the Church. There was an early policy called "Fair Game" that was cancelled in 1968. The purpose of that policy was to make it known that a person who has left the Church was no longer entitled to the privileges of membership. L. Ron Hubbard himself testified on this in 1976 (link below), making clear that nothing of this meant to violate the law. And that did not happen either.
Scientology critics sometime interpret any lawful action the Church takes to defend itself against their claims or treatment as "harassment" and "Fair Game". The Church does use the same legal tools that anybody else can use, such as lawful information gathering and evidence collection, to defend themselves from unfounded suits, to enforce a legal right or to guard against infiltration and sabotage. This is so common amongst religious organizations as to be routine.
The Church is also within its rights to question the motives of people who would seek to destroy it and to defend itself with lawful means. Other religions also question the motives of those who would seek to destroy them, as well as taking lawful measures to protect themselves, as these examples illustrate.
Basically, Scientology defends itself from attack, by legal means. Just like any other religion would do.
And the misinterpreted policy of "Fair Game"? It is used as an attack method by apostates and hatemongers. It is not a policy used by the Church, it was cancelled 40 years ago. And when it was used, it was not used as is alleged.
Event adamant critics of the Church of Scientology have testified to that. For example, in a most interesting set of declarations an ex-Scientologist said:
"...it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term "Fair Came". They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the context of litigation so that they can win money or force the Church to settle."
and
"The term "fair game" has become a catch phrase for those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and that those allegations were nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them. From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that "Fair Game" as they portray it is not Church policy. "Fair Game" exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church."
whether or not the policy was ever cancelled is made irrelevant by the usage of techniques which closely resemble the practice. Youtube has countless videos, and many anectdotes (with supporting dox) exist at [link edited for length].
If it's not official policy, it would seem that it's still widely practiced. Especially worth noting is the video (on the above link) of a protest by CoS members at an individual's home.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
