If anyone has any doubt that DM has constructed a bridge to nowhere, he or she might want to spend a bit of time reading through the extensive trail of evidence Mary Jo Leavitt created which is lodged on the Scientology-cult.com website. I believe that is far better evidence than myself, MIke RInder, Amy, Jeff, Steve, et al could ever provide. That is because the insanity of the conduct at the top means a lot less if doesn’t transmit out to effect the product of the organization. Mary Jo’s evidence effectively documents those effects. The new “EP” of OT VIII is now in fact, “knowing and willing effect of, and complicity with, David Miscavige and his anti-LRH and anti-Scientology campaigns and programs.”
You think I am overstating it? Read just two of the knowledge reports that Mary Jo wrote when DM and his minions attempted to turn her into the brave new definition of OT VIII. I have included them below. Now, please realize that very few of the OT VIIIs handled it like Mary Jo Leavitt did. With a handful of exceptions, the OT VIIIs walked lock step down the integrity-shedding lemming leap demanded by Miscavige. Thank God Mary Jo held her ground and made a record of it. Any bridge that leads to a state of other-determinism, particularly suppressive other-determinism, is a bridge to a dark, ugly place.
You want to know what a real OT VIII looks and acts like? Get to know Mary Jo Leavitt.
Mary Jo’s reports:
November 26, 2007 to RTC Reports Officer
Things that shouldn’t be IAS interview/Reg cycle Ted Bragin, Marion Vugger
I was in an IAS reg cycle last Saturday the 17th of November with Ted Bragin from the WUS Office.
I had been told I needed to get an appointment for a briefing and I was hesitant as I do not have the funds to donate now and I am also very busy with my OTA hat as the OTA IC of Latam. Last year, in 2006 MV I donated 150K and in one month completed a Patron Meritorious cycle: I went from 15 K on the IAS to 250K in 12 months and it was a very BIG deal for me, I got into debt big time. I was thrilled and proud to do it but had to follow that up with a lot of production. I am a single woman and while I do own my business it is not one that makes so much profit to allow for such sizeable donations. I basically got a second mortgage on my house to do it.
After course on Tuesday the 13th, I was approached by Claire Taylor (FCS LA Fdn.) and was told I had to have an interview with the IAS, that all the OTs in the field had to be interviewed. There was no reference or no reason given to me. This is a generality and it is an arbitrary that “all OTs have to be interviewed”. I don’t think an enforced interview is OK, especially when I am active and have donated so much. But I reluctantly agreed.
Since Ted Bragin regged me before I agreed to get this briefing from him and asked him to please be brief as I had lots to do and did not want to sit there and tell someone how I did not have money. It is not OK to sit there and talk at length about debt, etc- it just brings one downtone and makes a postulate there.
I had set aside 1 hour for this and Ted was late (which was fine he was in another cycle) but when we started 20 minutes late I was anxious to get the cycle going. Ted made small talk, commenting about people who had made recent huge donations and told me I needed to be with that group of people, hang out with them. I said I had no time to hang out with new people, I was a bit puzzled at the comm. I asked him to please give me the briefing and he said it wasn’t a briefing, it was an interview, which he said was the new name for a reg cycle. I was BIs, I was told I was getting a briefing. It is not OK to lie about the purpose of a meeting, which was not what I agreed to do.
He then started to ask me about my finances and I said I did not want to discuss specifics or my debt, that I had expressed to him this. I did tell him I had no equity in the house. He became irate, that HE was the IAS and I had to disclose everything as I worked for the Church and per policy they needed to know. I asked him for a reference and he pulled out the Les Dane book and referred to the section on qualifying a prospect and said “This is LRH”. I protested this saying this was absolutely not LRH source and then asked him if then anything was mine, did I own anything? Did I have a say on my own finances and how I was going to handle them? It seemed so bizarre. Ted said I was now OT VIII and very self-determined but he “could show me what self-determinism was”. This was all done in a hostile tone. He went and got a staff member from the Flag office who is a trained Flag MAA and is on a mission here in LA, her name is Marion Vugger, and when I explained to her that I was not in agreement with the force of the cycle she told me I sounded disaffected! I am one of the most upstat and active OT Ambassadors and Scientologist on the planet, according to OT Operations Office Int who wrote this before my clearance for the ship to do OT VIII eligibility. Then Ted said, “you know I love you don’t you?” and when I said “no…” he said, “that is the first lie you say tonight, I would lie in front of you and give my life so that you and only you could go free” – it was all very melodramatic and introverting. What is one supposed to answer to that? Marion told me if I could not give money I needed to walk in and say to the IAS “what can I do for you”? I told her I was already very committed as an OTA and could not glibly say that as I would not be able to deliver. She did not answer that. I have to create income and am already very active helping the OTCs in Latam. Ted then said that we had to do it all. When I said I was already “doing it all” (I do not qual for the SO or staff and Ted knows this) he got angrier with me.
I was told I had to give “everything” to the IAS, that I work for the Church and that I had to be there on the same terms as the SO and that COB needed funds NOW. When I said I could not give what I didn’t have, that it would be out ethics, he got furious and said, “don’t you think LRH was out ethics when he almost broke his back researching the OT levels? He was out ethics on the first dynamic and on the second dynamic, he had a family, he was a husband, don’t you tell me you can’t be out ethics!”. He turned to Marion and she nodded in agreement! At that point I just remained quiet and decided I needed to not protest anymore to end the interview. I said I was working on creating more income; that I was with the program and understood what I was being told. At that point Ted told the MAA that I was more active than over 90 % of parishioners he knew and then told me I could leave. Marion left the room and Ted offered to walk me to my car. As we walked I chatted lightly and he asked me 3 times if I was OK. I was not showing any signs of not being OK, it was as if he was concerned that the cycle had been very rough and he wanted to be sure I was OK.
Ted looked very tired; I have never seen him this aggressive. I am not sure what references they are operating on but this type of treatment and comm. is unacceptable and the comment about LRH being out ethics and making it OK and even necessary to be out ethics to be an upstat IAS member, is completely unacceptable. I think this needs to be looked into.
This is true,
Mary Jo Leavitt
OT VIII, OTA IC Latam, Patron Meritorious, FSM
RTC Reports Officer Int
Mary Jo Leavitt, New OT VIII September 20,2009
CO OSA Int
PR Aide OSA Int
Legal Aide OSA Int
International Justice Chief
Snr I&R Chf HCO Int
Ted Bragan, IAS WUS
Tiana Lake Snr MAA CLO WUS
Cherie, Snr HAS CLO
Jon Lundeen, CO ASHO Fdn
Lon Kloeffer, Dir I&R CLO
Out tech (Out KSW), Abuse of Position
Snr I&R Chf HCO Int
Ted Bragan, IAS WUS
Tiana Lake Snr MAA CLO WUS
Cherie, Snr HAS CLO
Jon Lundeen, CO ASHO Fdn
Lon Kloeffer, Dir I&R CLO
This report is written and routed as above because of the potential liabilities such activities can bring about if perpetrated upon terminals less understanding than myself, liabilities that can have severe repercussions on PR and possibly legal lines.
Recently, two SO members entered my property by jumping the gate of my house without permission. I wrote a KR on the SO members who were from the CLO WUS ‐ and sent it to RTC, copy to MAA CLO WUS and the parties involved; it turned out one of those men was the Dir I&R CLO (Lon Kloeffer). See attached.
Two weeks went by and I went back on course at my agreed‐upon time. On the way out of course, on a Wednesday (August 5, 2009) I was approached in the parking lot by the D/ED of LAD (Mark) and asked if I could go to an IAS interview for a few minutes. I said I did not have time (which was the case), and besides these interviews are never a few minutes. I also said that I did not have any money to donate and the interviews were reg cycles, so I was going to pass. Mark then said to me it was not an option, that it was mandatory. I looked at him surprised and said, “Mandatory? Q1 is self determinism and we have power of choice!” I also said he could tell the people who had sent him that I was not going to an IAS briefing and to take me off their lists (for potential reg cycles). And then I left.
That night I received a call from the CLO Dir I&R (that went to my answering machine) saying I needed to come in to see the CLO Dir I&R immediately. My daughter Joanna, who is also my Communicator, called as soon as she got the message. She was told there was a KR written on me that required me to show up within 24 hours, because I was being summoned by HCO; yet they would not give further information on what it was about. It being a workday the next day, and I was flat‐out with work, Joanna arranged for me to go on Saturday tentatively and got OK from the Dir I&R to postpone the meeting until then. Joanna told the Dir I&R (who refused to give his name) that she would talk with me the next day and see if it was possible to go any earlier in the week. This was agreed and fine. It was late at night and I had already retired.
The next morning, Joanna gave me the message and I called the Dir I&R first thing; I got an answering machine so I left a message saying I wanted a copy of the report so I could see it before it was time to go to the CLO on Saturday (which was the earliest possible time I could go in). I had no idea what that could be about, all I could think of was the comm cycle about the IAS interview that previous afternoon.
Then around noon (approximately 3 hours after I left my message) a man in an SO Officer uniform showed up at the gate of my home/office. He identified himself as the D/CO of the Ethics Org now established in the CLO. Instead of giving me a copy of the KR, he handed me an “HCO Ethics Summons” (attached). He said I had 24 hours to report to the CLO yet would not tell me what this was about, only that it was very serious. I told him I could only think of the IAS comment the day before and that this was a violation of ethics gradients (Ref: HCO PL 29 APR 65 Issue III Ethics Review). He said ethics gradients did not apply in this situation (per policy, however, they only do not apply when an SP act is committed but I didn’t say anything.) We spent 45 minutes talking. I had pressing work and calls that had to be delayed‐ this was right in the middle of my production. I agreed to go to the CLO on Saturday at 10AM.
Joanna then originated that the HCO Summons claimed there had been repeated attempts to get in communication with me, yet she as the Communicator had only received one communication, the phone call the night before, and she had been specifically in comm on the cycle. She called the Snr HAS to get clarification as to what was meant by “repeated attempts to get in communication with no avail” and after a few phone calls it was determined to be a mistake, the Snr. HAS said there had been a misduplication and the HCO Summons was supposed to be withdrawn from my ethics file as it actually did not apply per se, because I was “in comm” and showing up on Saturday. It was understood that the appointment “would not be long” and would be under an hour. Joanna had scheduled important appointments previously for that day, but we were fitting in this appointment with the CLO; Joanna made sure it was agreed with the Snr. MAA CLO and the Dir I&R CLO that it would not take long.
On Saturday, August 8, 2009, I had to wait half an hour before the Snr. HAS came out to meet me. I reiterated that I only had a couple of hours set aside for this (a long time with my schedule). She was not pleased I had a limited amount of time and went to check with someone to see if it was OK. Then 15 minutes later another Sea Org member who identified herself as an HCO terminal said she was giving me an interview and I should follow her. As we walked across the street towards the canteen I asked her what this was about and I saw in her hand my KR regarding the SO members jumping the gate, and I said, “Oh, it’s about that? I’ll be happy to pick up the cans to tell you what happened.”
And on the cans, I did. After she was satisfied about my recounting of the episode, and I FNed throughout (she never indicated it, though; I could see her making big circles on the worksheet) she then showed me the “Knowledge Report” written by the Dir I&R CLO which was contrary to my KR. Every paragraph in that report was an alteration of the facts. I told the lady giving the interview that this was the case and that I never got a copy of this report and wanted to have it (Ref: HCO PL 1 May 1965 Iss I Staff Member Reports) and she assured me I would. She did not give me a copy, and (over a month and a half later, on the 28th of September) I finally received a copy from the Chief MAA FSSO. (See attached, and the False Report Report regarding it.)
After that the questions turned to the subject of the IAS. What did I think of it, how are my finances, do I have off‐shore accounts, any illegal activity with my business, any missing licenses or permits, who are my friends, do I have a 2D, a husband, a boyfriend (she really pressed on this one), what do I do on my spare time, am I connected to disaffected people?
I am an OT VIII with an incredible ethics record as an examination of my file shows. And yet the assumption of the interviewer and these questions was that I was out‐ethics and even criminal. I had to prove the contrary through my answers and while holding the cans (illegal use of auditing, Ref: HCO PL 18 Oct 1967 Iss III Policy and HCOB Alterations High Crime.) She also asked about my children‐ my son Greg, does he write a lot of reports? My answer‐ yes, I taught my kids well, to write reports of any Out‐ KSW or out‐tech. Greg has had a lot of trouble at LAD just staying on his Academy levels when he is pressured to do “Basics lineup”. What about my daughter, Joanna? All my answers were satisfactory to this terminal. I was FNing and in comm.
I asked her why this whole cycle was so heavy‐handed and she said the “field of OTs is very disaffected and very disenchanted and there is an investigation going on. We have found a lot of enemy line regarding the Ideal Org program and the Dir I&R often has doors slammed in his face. He thought you were acting in a disaffected fashion so he thought you needed to come in” – words to that effect. What confirms this is that this “False Report” he wrote was not acted on until two weeks after my report was written and delivered. But really, the reason for his report and “Ethics Summons” was the IAS interview and the 10 million dollars quota of parishioner money the CLO had to collect from us NOW.
When we were done I was told by the Snr HAS CLO that I needed to watch the MV4 event, the IAS event and then stay for another interview. Because of the way this was communicated, I asked if this was mandatory? The Snr. HAS CLO responded, “Yes! Absolutely, you need to do this now.” I said I had two previous appointments I could not reschedule so I would return around 5 PM.
I then saw the MV event and then it was time for the “interview” – Teddy, Jon Lundeen and Snr MAA CLO.
I made it clear I was handling debts as I had donated to the IAS 250 thousand dollars in the course of a year and was still heavily in debt (in addition, over the years I had donated 105K to SuperPower and approximately 60K to the Ideal Org program, and 20K to other programs such as the Library Campaign and Basics campaign). I shared that my business had not done as well this year but I was going up the conditions and my application of ethics tech was working and going well. Then they started with the doom and gloom that times were so bad and things were so desperate, I needed to go ahead and “do or die in the attempt” and other quotes from KSW1 completely out of context. Despite a rising emotion from my interviewers, I remained calm and told them I was not going to go into further debt and that I was not turning over my credit card. Teddy screamed at me saying I had a closed mind and was not allowing him to do his job, that I had to tell him my personal finance data (and then he referred to the Les Dane “Sales Techniques” as his source for that) and kept invalidating me, cutting my comm., saying he did not like how I grimaced, etc. When I could say something he would write it down and often he would leave the room to talk to someone else about these notes he was taking.
Then Jon Lundeen, whom I know well and who even trained me on being a Registrar when I was in the Sea Org at Flag, told me the IAS cycle was so important he was spending 90% of his post time wearing that hat. And the Snr MAA said she, too, was doing that, that she was in charge of the entire PAC Base IAS quota. They said this with pride! That they are off‐post and off‐hat 90% of the time!
At one point Jon and I were alone and he told me a story about his daughter stealing things as a youth in the SO and that he got a knock on the door in the middle of the night, a dreaded moment, where he was told he had to leave the SO unless he handled his daughter. He told me he was not about to give up the SO and his life in it, so he borrowed 30K to send her off to Delphi in Oregon. (As an afterthought he said he didn’t remember if he ever paid that debt) and that his daughter was shortly after that expelled from Delphi for her “stealing” (i.e. kleptomania). Her mother, Edie Lundeen, (Class XII) (finally) gave her some auditing and it quickly resolved and now his daughter is posted at Int. But the point of his story was that, in his words, COB had gotten that “knock on the door in the middle of the night” and we all had to do the impossible to raise this money; that any bad consequence for incurring more debt was not important. It really sounded like the end of the world. Jon was very agitated.
Teddy said we needed to complete establishing an AO in Latam and I said that was years away as each org in Latam had to become Ideal and as far as I knew they were not even solvent. I was bewildered that they would say this was such an urgent cycle, and expressed that to them. Teddy would write all this down on a paper and would not answer my questions. He then became angry and went for the full‐out make‐wrong and invalidation technique I had previously experienced from him (see my KR of an IAS interview with Teddy in 2007). I remained calm during the whole interview. They, instead, turned quite upset and were often screaming and turning red. And as they saw that this did not have an effect on me, it became worse, i.e. intensifying their misemotional outbursts.
As I persisted on my position that I was not going to donate, Lundeen screamed at to me that I was an out‐ethics OT to have taken so long to pay off the IAS donation and that to doubt my ability to handle a large debt was a gross out ethics! He shouted that LRH had expected the impossible from him and I was very able and the same was expected of me. I then said I had arrived there earlier in the day with two hours for the interview, but ended up remaining there most of the day and night, and the cycle had been over 6 hours long and I was now leaving. As I stood up they all started to scream and at that point the Snr Dir I &R (Lon) walked in, crossed his arms and stated in a menacing tone, “You are not participating and what is going to happen is you need to get a roll back right now. You have been spouting enemy line all night”. I said, “Not participating? You mean I am not turning over my credit card? Absolutely not. And I already had a one‐hour interview where I came out clean and I am not doing another. It is 10 PM!” He said, “We will give you some vitamins to put down your throat, it will be fine”. At that point I said, “I am leaving” and the Snr. MAA blocked the door. I told her she could not do that and motioned her to move. At that point the auditor who had interviewed me knocked on the door and told me to go with her. Everyone in the room was screaming at the same time and I gladly walked out with her.
Once we were outside, the HCO auditor said she could overhear that things were getting intense and out of hand in there so thought she’d knock to get me out. I thanked her and told her I was not doing another interview, I was going home. She said we should at least walk a bit so I told her we could walk to where my car was parked. She asked me more questions about my debt and when I told her I was 300K in debt, she asked if that was the mortgage and I said no, that is separate from mortgage. She asked me why I didn’t tell them this and I said these were my personal finances and it was nobody’s business. She told me we needed to do this second interview anyway, she was holding a piece of paper that contained all the “enemy line” I had said, and I told her anything I said I meant, it came from me and was very straight forward. She said she could not do it during the week but next Saturday and she would call me to schedule me. I acknowledged her though I did not intend on picking up the cans again for this cycle.
She never called and then on September 15th, 5 weeks later, the Dir I&R CLO and Snr. HAS CLO came to my house while I was out. They told my son that I had blown an ethics interview and needed to go to the CLO. They left a hand written note for me to call the Snr. HAS as soon as I got the note. I called and got a voice mail. I left a message. I said, “This is Mary Jo Leavitt, I got your note. I am not going in for your ethics interview. Do what you have to do. Do not come to my house anymore.”
I have not heard since.
Summary of outpoints and LRH references
‐Overt misapplication of ethics tech with the purpose of collecting funds with no exchange, under duress. Many references exist including HCO PL 7 Feb 1965 Keeping Scientology Working Series 1, HCO PL 7 Mar 1965RA Iss III Offenses and Penalties, HCOB 15 Sep 1981 The Criminal Mind, HCO PL 1 Apr 1981R Interviews (“An Ethics Officer never spends any time sitting and arguing with someone.”‐LRH),
HCO PL 24 Feb 1972 Injustice, HCO PL 1 Sep 1965 Iss VII Ethics Protection, HCO PL 30 Oct 1971 How Ethics Gets Harsh, and others including standard Finance policies.
‐ Use of positions of power and executive postings, use of CLO HCO to collect money for the IAS, under duress. Refs: HCO PL 2 Nov 1970 Iss III Responsibility (“The power of choice is still senior to responsibility.”‐LRH), HCO PL 15 Dec 1965 Iss I Ethics Chits (“No person may be penalized for issuing an ethics chit.”‐LRH), HCO PL 7 Dec 1969 Iss II The Ethics Officer, His Character (“The job of the E/O is to disconnect and depower the criminal and so protect the group.”‐LRH), HCO PL 11 May 1965 Issue I Ethics Officer Hat, and others including many Div III and Div VI policies.
‐ Abuse of an OT VIII, outright invalidation and nullification of an upstat member. Ref: HCO PL 4 Aug 1966, ETHICS, Clears, Invalidation Of, HCO PL 23 Dec 1965RB Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists. See also, HCO PL 2 November 1970 Issue III, “Responsibility” “The power of choice of an individual is considered as opposition and as an overt act. When in fact, “the power of choice is still senior to responsibility. What one does against his will operates as an overt act against oneself. But where one’s will to do has deteriorated to unwillingness to do anything, lack of will is itself an aberration… In the decline of any state into slavery, as in Greece, or into economic strangulation of the individual as in our modern western society, doingness is more and more enforced and willingness to do is less and less in evidence. At length, people are doing without being responsible.” –LRH.
This is the kind of behavior and actions that indeed breed disaffection, and result in bad PR for the Church of Scientology.
This is true,
Mary Jo Leavitt