What could be more important in criticizing collaboration with Scientology than making sure one's own house is clean first? From the Jewish support of Scientology's tax exemption, it can be seen that collaboration with a cult, even if not particularly advisable, does not necessarily involve culpable conduct. From a critic's point of view, however, libeling critics is self-defeating. Therefore this critic-oriented report focuses on collaboration in the area of libeling critics.
One well-known critic who has been collaborating more and more openly with Scientology in criticizing critics without using rampant libel is a German author named Renate Hartwig. Before Mrs. Hartwig began open collaboration, however, she wrote quite a bit about covert collaboration -- funded by German taxpayers. In case that sounds implausible, suppose there were a US government office that tracked Scientology. How long would that office operate Scientology-free? Associated with that comes a conundrum of equal importance: which would be worse -- Scientology unbridled or another corrupt government office?
Free translation of posts from a German-language Usenet news group
concerning
Renate Hartwig and Ursula Caberta
Renate Hartwig has worked with her husband, Paul, in the "Robin Direkt" group, which has helped many people deal with Scientology. Renate, a well-known author, has written a half dozen books on the topic. Over the years she has aggressively questioned state-funded "sect spokesmen" (or "sect commissioners," i.e., official representatives of church and state whose job it is to deal with sects) about their use of taxpayer money. She eventually decided she'd be better off with Scientology.
From: Norman Suchanek
Subject: "Das Netz" (ZDF): but no smoking gun!
Date: 2000/08/14
Newsgroups: de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology
On June 23, 2000 the Hamburg State Court released its decision on case number 324 0 510/99. This concerned Caberta's lawsuit against the ZDF because of "das Netz" program. That program said in its broadcast:
In Dusseldorf there is a lawsuit by Renate Hartwig against Reiner Fuellmich. She wants a judgment to keep him from putting her in a bad light. Renate Hartwig won the first hearing.
[ Note: in the meantime, she's also won the second hearing. ]
Who Reiner Fuellmich named as a witness in this hearing is worthy of mention: Ursula Caberta. Mrs. Caberta is the chief of the Interior agency's office on Scientology in Hamburg.
Mrs. Caberta, however, is herself in a similar position before the court. She has also been prohibited by court order from making statements against Mrs. Hartwig that, in essence, agree with those of Reiner Fuellmich. Back then the court assessed Caberta's statements as "defamatory criticism."
We asked Ursula Caberta for an interview repeatedly. The first appointment she canceled abruptly. That was the same week we got a cancellation from Reiner Fuellmich. Is there a relationship between Reiner Fuellmich and Ursula Caberta?
[ Note: I think so. In Hartwig's case against Fuellmich, with Caberta as a witness, the following happened in court: after Caberta was questioned on the stand, she sat down right next to Fuellmich, the accused, and put her arm around him. ]
In May 1999 we sent our questions in writing to Ursula Caberta and Reiner Fuellmich. Fuellmich answered, but stipulated that we did not have his permission to use his statements on our broadcast. Caberta just ignored our questions completely.
Despite inadequate response, one thing is clear to us: Scientology has apparently succeeded in spinning a network in which adherents and opponents, perpetrators and victims, those manipulated and those not affected, can no longer all be distinguished from each other. This appears to be Scientology's new strategy: instigate confusion and ignorance as to who is friend and foe.
On August 24, 1999, Caberta got a temporary order against the ZDF prohibiting them from repeating the statement:
In May 1999 we sent our questions in writing to Ursula Caberta ... Caberta just ignored our questions completely.
Despite inadequate response, one thing is clear to us: Scientology has apparently succeeded in spinning a network in which adherents and opponents, perpetrators and victims, those manipulated and those not affected, can no longer all be distinguished from each other.
With her renewed complaint Caberta now wants to permanently prohibit the ZDF, the production company and journalist Jens Monath from citing the named passages. "It is this accusation in particular that the accused [ZDF, etc.] relies upon in saying that one might assume that she [the complainant] herself had not even noticed that she was being manipulated by Scientology."
The complainant denies this, "Even if the complainant [Caberta] for personal reasons should not be convinced of Mrs. Hartwig's competence, it is obvious in any case that the complainant supports any method of discrediting Mrs. Hartwig, and in doing this would fall back upon the Scientology documents. Therefore the criticism that a clear difference between those being manipulated and those who remain unaffected does not exist, referring to the complainant, is permissible."
Background:
It has long been known that libel is one of the usual tactics of Scientology's intelligence agency.
In the comprehensive grounds for judgment it says, among other things:
"The admissible complaint is unfounded."
"These papers are part of those the complainant [Caberta] give him [Fuellmich], and the complainant had to have known, in light of her many years of experience as director of the Work Group Scientology with the Interior Agency, that Dr. Fuellmich, in proceeding against Mrs. Hartwig, was employing the same strategy used by the Scientology organization."
In other words: Fuellmich's legal action against Hartwig was entirely to the same effect as that of Scientology.
The grounds for the decision also said:
"Finally, it cannot escape notice that the complainant is the leading member of a government agency, indeed the official work group whose mission consists, among other things, of researching the Scientology organization. It is hardly consistent with the required obligation of neutrality for the complainant to support a third party, namely Dr. Fuellmich, whose private interests consist of discrediting a critic of Scientology [Hartwig]."
Also, on page 19 of the decision in the grounds:
"In view of these circumstances an assessment of the complainant's conduct, specifically that the complainant [Caberta] let herself be manipulated, is a permissible critical assessment, so that the complainant cannot have the statement - that the complainant could be manipulated - prohibited."
I have a question here: Why did Caberta violate her obligation of neutrality with regard to Hartwig? (She and her agency more often than not have to answer up to Scientologists who say that passing on information about them is subject to the obligation of neutrality.) So why? Envy of the competition? A baser motive like revenge or hatred? Incompetence? Or for other reasons unexplained as of yet?
The grounds of the decision also sheds light on Fuellmich's motive:
"Moreover, Dr. Fuellmich's real objective consists of letting the opponents, namely the Schauls, be described as members of the Scientology organization; this is also - under the premise that the Schauls are neither in Scientology nor have anything to do with it - in the interests of Scientology, because the slanderous effect of the accusation of being in Scientology would decrease business for Schaul's salespeople, thereby giving the Scientologist competitors an advantageous position in getting the market."
The court would not have arrived as such far-reaching consequences without basic proof. Could the judge have come upon a "smoking gun?"
Norman
P.S.: The above is only one - albeit significant - excerpt from the comprehensive court decision.
[The following are excerpts from a 1997 book by Renate Hartwig posted by Bodo Staron. The web title of this web page is derived from two of Hartwig's books.]
From: Bodo Staron
Newsgroups: de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology
Subject: Text aus "Im Visier" Kapitel "Das Gesetz der dritten Partei" - lang!!
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 14:25:47 +0200
pages 342 - 347
Every time two people argue, a third one is smiling, as they say. The Scientology organization even has a policy entitled, "The Third Party Law." It presumes that there is always a third party who instigated the argument or profits from it. Could it be that the dispute among critics has been deliberately instigated, and that these cross-connections continue to exist?
The fact that, during a civil dispute with me, the Scientology attorney brought up a publication by Steven Goldner surprised not only my attorney, but also the journalists and audience who were in the court room that day. I would have seriously reflected upon the kind of information I was providing if the opposing side spoke so highly of it. Over the course of time, of course, I became aware of what was behind this.
With my facts, names and discovery of hidden lines I perhaps had come upon a spot considered to be armored and secure. Since then there have been several people who followed this manner of operation, but they are still in the minority. It is enough, however, just to touch upon something. A greater awareness of the danger arose, and a few politicians were moved to take a clear stance. Something was accomplished. All endeavors by Scientology, their libel lackeys, their legal attacks, their attacks even into my closest family circle, and the innumerable violations of my personality rights - all of them failed their purpose. I continue and go the path of aggressive discussion.
And behold, after the release of my book, "Scientology - ich klage an!" the Scientology organization got an auxiliary detachment from the enemy camp. Michael Schmidt, the journalist who had contact with Scientology, got his church brethren to do battle against Hartwig before the camera. Scientology's version of the Third Party Law was in full swing there. A third party is used to sow discord. In this case the third party was Michael Schmidt, the journalist. Germany's state sect spokesmen let themselves be manipulated and expressed themselves impressively similar to the leaflets against me Scientology is still producing this day, in 1997, and which contain the same words.
At first the situation took me unawares. It was only with the help of people in my personal environment, mainly from my husband and our friends and the friends of "Robin Direkt," that I was able to attain an inner distance from these attacks. One of the ex-Scientologists who we became acquainted with in a different country had audited people from Scientology's "Guardian Office/OSA," their secret agency, back when he was on staff. He said the following:
"The fact of the matter is that they have checked through all the books to discredit you in some way, just like the policies say, to ruin your reputation, to make you unbelievable and overwhelm you with processes. You need not believe that this sort of attack works or that decomposition follows. Look at your own situation and you will see how people from all corners are clamoring to put you in situations you have to deal with. You probably have your toughness and your thick skin to thank for getting through it again and again. What are they supposed to do? Just leave you alone and let you continue? That's not how it goes, Renate, you know what the situation inside Scientology is like, too.
Even back in 1992 staff was told that Hartwig would do herself in before long. They couldn't get to you with their own policies, so they work up all those they want exploit and tell them that, with their courses, they can handle people. They said your book would be banned and kicked off the market, and that nobody else would want anything to do with you. And then what happens? Then every evening you step up to the podium in a different city and rail on for hours about their facts, data, structures and machinations. The halls are packed, and for Scientology this is scorched earth. What do you think, are they going to do anything else? If anything happens to you, that's when they'll really put on the pressure. Not to mention all one has to do is look at Paulette Cooper's case to see how many avenues have yet to be explored. Now something very "praiseworthy" is taking place: the crew of those who hold themselves out to have a public reputation of being "serious" have united against you. And a journalist - one more thing - is all of a sudden the mediator between fronts. From Caberta he gets hot tips and the names of your contacts, and Scientology gets the investigation results. You think the Scientologists might be toasting each other these days? Even though they are against alcohol, at some levels the champagne corks will be popping."
I've been on the telephone with this former member more and more these days. He is one of those who not repress their own guilt, but speak about it with the finesse, coolness and candor he himself had as a Scientologist for the only type of person with a real reason to exist for him at that point in time, namely the Scientologists! He liked to regard all others as people who could still be drawn over to one's own side, or, to put it mildly, as people without rights who could be lied to with no second thought.
He's the one who advised me just to look back in our own country's history, especially in the theory, and there I would find striking parallels to the cynical system regard the alienation of critics and those who believe differently.
The following applies in Scientology:
"The usually unsuspected and 'reasonable' third party, the bystander who denies any part of it is the one that brought the conflict into existence in the first place."
In another place in the same instruction of 26 Dec. 1968 Hubbard shows that he learned a political lesson from history, and that he knows how to use this knowledge:
"The revolutionary forces and the Russian government were in conflict in 1917. The reasons are so many the attention easily sticks on them. But only when Germany's official state papers were captured in World War II was it revealed that Germany had promoted the revolt and financed LENIN to spark it off, even sending him into Russia in a blacked out train!
One looks over 'personal' quarrels, group conflicts, national battles and one finds, if he searches, the third party, unsuspected by both combatants or if suspected at all, brushed off as 'fantastic'. Yet careful documentation finally affirms it.
This datum is fabulously useful."
How would an organization like Scientology put this directive into action when they want to involve one of their opponents in a dispute? Would they take the role of one of the two parties in dispute, or that of the instigator, the "third party"?
We calmly continue the thought. Take a look at fascism. An insidious process with a gigantic propaganda apparatus made this regime of insanity possible. In Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," which he wrote during his stay in Landsberg prison, there are concepts similar to those of the Scientology system, like silencing and removing disagreeable contemporaries and critics who get in the way. It is this systematic dismantling of a person's reputation that is one of the most important tools of the Scientology organization. The ones to silence are those who uncover and promote public discussion about Scientology's true intentions. Critical voices are not allowed. One woman who would know this, having acted as an "ethics officer" in a Scientology managed form, Jeanette Schweitzer, said on the "Talk im Turm" show of May 25, 1997, "Once one becomes critical, then things explode." She was talking about her personal experiences with Scientology.
Unfortunately things also explode in the critic's informational scene when one becomes critical. And that is exactly the mode of conduct I experience from both sides. Now who is the smiling third party? And how is it possible amidst so much expert knowledge that people suddenly have to reach for a banal directive of Scientology -- "The Third Party Law"? Must that be?
A 26 Dec. 1968 Scientology instruction says:
"Quarrels between an individual and an organization are nearly always caused by an individual third party or a third group."
and
"Tracing these down, one comes upon incredible data. That is the trouble. The incredible is too easily rejected. One way to hide things is to make them incredible."
Really unbelievable now is the situation set off by the chairman of the "Aktion Bildungsinformation" in Stuttgart (ABI). As background, we've had information about the "ABI" pouring in for a long time. Some of this information comes from citizens and businesses, but internal ABI material also comes into our hands anonymously. We immediately take precautions with the anonymous material, because of the terminology. Like much other incoming anonymous material it is filed and forgotten. Apparently this situation didn't suit someone, and the ABI also received an anonymous letter that reeked of suppositions, libel and false assertions of fact. The ABI chairman did not recognize the criminal relevance of this and copies were made of my grown child's private bank statements (!), along with bank documents from "Robin Direkt."
This fact alone should have been enough to make a so-called "expert" suspicious. It is not in any way usual to forward bank statements like this to others without taking precautions. Maybe it is "only" a question of character and style. Instead of getting in touch with me, the chairman of the ABI consumer center, Eberhard Kleinmann, made a grievous error: he forwarded this anonymous message on to the editors and made it accessible to establishments that did public information work against Scientology. The scandal was perfect, as Eberhard Kleinmann opened a dispute against "Robin Direkt" and Renate Hartwig.
This attained that which served Scientology: a third party situation with Scientology at the advantage. Of course the smiling third party is happy when its opponents fight each other. I was and am enraged about Kleinmann not only distributing an unverified anonymous message, but that he even used the accusations in the anonymous message himself. Anyone who really knows Scientology and seriously operates against it knows that sowing the seeds of strife (to Scientology's benefit) is one of the organization's usual methods of denouncing and discrediting critics in public. We find it interesting that an association like ABI would fall for a trick like that. In this case there is only one smiling third party -- Scientology!
It is macabre that I am forced to defend myself not only against the attacks of Scientology, but in this case also against completely senseless and unprovable attacks from within my own ranks. In diverse disputes among Scientology critics, the typical symptoms of Scientology instigation manifest themselves. Stages for sideshows are created to tie up the powers of the informers and to involve them in different disputes. The corresponding Scientology directives show that the flames of such dispute can and must be sparked and fanned.
Subject: Aus "Im Visier" Kapitel "Propaganda statt Auseinandersetzung" Teil 1 LANG!
Pages 348 - 356
I can very well manage if someone uses clear facts to show me that I am mistaken in a case or that I have to change my point of view because I've overlooked something. I think this is essential, too, living in a democracy. The discussion with Scientology is difficult because Scientologists are not interested in dialogue, but in using the same old text to sidestep any discussion or in using special drills to execute rhetorical methods of control.
This case, however, does not involve Scientologists, but people who don't do anything to fuel the [anti-]Scientology train so as not to get their hands dirty, but nevertheless have jumped on the train and come forward as judges of what is now the right or the wrong information. I confess that not everyone can or even wants to go along with the way I've publicly involved myself with Scientology.
Every person who tries to achieve a better understanding among the public on the theme of Scientology is important. I have often met with antipathy when I comment that those taking part in the discussion are not able to stand up to Scientology's attacks. I am not accusing anyone of acting differently than I do. But I accuse those who trivialize the situation of being, whether they mean to or not, useful idiots for Scientology. If this trivialization is to continue, then it contributes to the suppression of aggressive information work.
One of the most serious examples of trivialization, along with cowardice and an entirely vile comparison, is the publication by Christ and Goldner in which I am compared to murdering terrorists. Angelika Christ and Steven Goldner are not Scientologists! Mrs. Christ, from former East Germany, really seems to have a grasp on the Stasi directives on eradicating a group. Having lived there, she would have first-hand experience with this type of targeted propaganda measure.
At this point, I would like to make one thing clear: I am not acquainted with either Mrs. Christ or Mr. Goldner. Neither has ever spoken with me. Never have they had or sought out any sort of contact with me. I didn't even know there was a Mrs. Christ or a Mr. Goldner - up until they both wrote a letter to my publisher in November 1995. Almost simultaneously with the release of my third book, "Scientology - Das Komplott und die Kumpane," the Christ/Goldner work was published by the Econ-Verlag, the publishing house Dr. Kind was in before he founded Metropolitan-Verlag. Thankfully I have no problem at all with different viewpoints in this discussion being published. A broad spectrum brings a broad discussion.
After the book's introduction was written by Mrs. Caberta in her function as the Work Group Scientology director for Hamburg's Interior Council, a journalist who was completely beside herself after reading the proof copy telephoned me. "Mrs. Hartwig, what's going on here is a big stink. I have no idea why you would let this happen."
"What should I not have let happen? After all, we go our way, and there are countless ways in this country to approach this theme. I do not intend to have a monopoly, nor do I intend to support one."
She replied angrily, "There's already a monopoly. You are alienated. Journalists who mention your name find themselves in the middle of a big discussion about you, and we haven't talked about the subject of Scientology for a long time. And now two people have come out of the blue, nobody knows where they came from. When they are asked why they have gotten involved in this theme, something about a niece comes into play. I've looked closely at what's happening: Goldner is a business advisor and Christ is with the 'SINUS" group, and that looks more like a business relationship."
"You have to look at things objectively. There are many, many parents' initiatives, individual fighter and groups who don't have any [financial] support. I know that from personal experience. In recent years we haven't gotten a single German mark of tax money, but nevertheless we managed to put a citizens' initiative against Scientology on its feet."
For some reason the journalist was put out about me not being ready to reach for what she was holding out to me. Then she asked me, "Mrs. Hartwig, are you a terrorist?", and I became quite upset. "What kind of question is that?" "These two people compare you with a terrorist who murders. Do you even know Goldner and Christ? Have you had a quarrel with them? Have you somehow attacked them?"
"Once again, this time slowly. What makes you think the two described me as a terrorist? In what connection? I don't know either one of them. I have had no contact with these people and have never had a conversation with them. Yourself know how I've been alienated. My sort of information is like a thorn that gradually works its way deep into the flesh."
"One thing I can tell you for sure: if the Scientologists heard that, they would celebrate. Here's another little goody: the attorneys for this book are Scheele and Zielcke. Now all we need is for one of the critics to hire Mr. Bluemel the lawyer, who's been representing Scientology for years. Then they'll be happy and smug, won't they?"
The journalist was right: the authors mentioning the full names of attorneys S. and Z. in this particular book was peculiar. There was an entire chapter devoted to an accusation about me supposedly libeling the two lawyers. There was not a single syllable about me not being the only one who had a disagreement with Dr. S. on this issue. Besides that, I never made an effort to deprive the Scientologists of the right to legal assistance. I was only concerned with the ways and means by which S. vehemently brought the discussion about religion and the personality rights associated therewith to the foreground. [Personality rights are of great importance in Europe. - editor.]
Perhaps he was hired to push personality rights coincidental to some other legal dispute. In my opinion it will probably never be clarified whether the Scientologists used him with or without his knowledge to covertly advance their "Clear Germany" strategy. I wanted to know from S.'s law office where the line was between personality rights and implementation of Scientology strategies. I think that an attorney would have to know precisely at which point he could no longer protect his function and particularly his contacts from the infiltration conducted by Scientologists to attain influence and power. It could be that S. did not have a clue when he became acquainted with Gerhard Haag, whose case I've already described.
But somehow the discussions with journalists did not mesh with the legal threats to sue editors, which S. and partners faxed out if journalists even so much as cleared their throats. Neither did it fit that all the legal representatives in his office were part of the Scientology clique, and that does not just mean those who buy Dianetics books. "WISE" licensees, "IAS" members and contributors to the war chest are all people who, based on Scientology organization policies, are obligated to promote the structure of Scientology and to see to it that Scientology continues to gain influence and power in this society.
In the open publications that S. signed his name to as an attorney and as the business manager of "Fair Press" he talks about "outing," and he talks about religion and discussions of worldview. There are now only two possibilities. The one is that S. has no clue, he has simply kept his eyes in his Basic Law files and never noticed what was happening around him. But that is not the type of impression Dr. S. gives me at all. The main strike against this are the legal proceedings in which I had to defend myself from Scientologists and for which this law office, among others, represented the plaintiffs.
In that case, the entire discussion in the courtroom was only about religious freedom, worldview, Article 4 of our Basic Law [concerning religious freedom] and personality rights. All the arguments, evidence and facts I put on the table to show the court that this was a Scientologist that I had named because he misled, obscured and diverted people in society to establish a totalitarian system were swept from the table by this particular law office. S. cannot say he didn't know anything. In the proceedings against me he represented individual Scientologists, such as "IAS" members, "WISE" licensees and contributors to the war chest, and the only way the the facts ever got on the table was through the legal responses I submitted.
Why did S. suddenly become cautious in 1995 and drop his client? I never said he should drop his client; all I did was warn that things had gotten mixed up and that an attorney should have limits in a legal state. He himself must have recognized when he was being used in his function and when the matter was no longer about justice or injustice. Then in 1995 the book by Christ/Goldner came out, and it was not exactly described as an real attempt at information, even by journalists. The book review section of issue 12 of an SPD newspaper "blick nach rechts" called it "Trivialization instead of Information."
The publishers said that the two had been experts in Scientology for a long time. The authors were said to have "information instead of panic" written on their banner. To perform informational work, however, one needs to know what one is speaking or writing about. This is apparently not the case with Christ/Goldner. For example, the Communications Course is not an introductory course into Scientology for managers, as the authors assert, but just one of the first courses the organization's customers are offered. In no way is "pre-clear" (pc) the first step to Scientology heaven, but a term used for anyone who is a customer in Scientology's auditing program. One becomes a "Patron" in Scientology only after having made a donation of $40,000.
The money goes to the "International Association of Scientologists" (IAS), who finance the war chest for campaigns against critics of Scientology. Scientology's "WISE" business association has nothing to do with "Patron" status. The list of mistakes and false information that this work by alleged Scientology experts contains could go on as long as you like. Is "trivialization instead of information" the new slogan in the dispute with Scientology? Or is this just systematically being made into a stage for a sideshow to quietly shove the subject of Scientology back into a drawer and then lock it up to keep everything from the public view? Would libel be part of this strategy?
From that point in time I knew that the "Adventure in Civil Courage" [from the title of one of Hartwig's books - editor] would probably not end so quickly, but just take on a new dimension. I knew at the same time that I would not only have to put up with buckets of muck from Scientology, but from people who held themselves out to be big specialists, who were even patronized by state officials when they publicly compared me to terrorists who murdered innocent victims. A tough pill to swallow, and on top of that the connection with S.'s law offices, which saw to the book's legal needs, according to Goldner. How times have changed, though, is shown by a letter of November 9, 1993, written from attorneys S. and Z. to state attorney Grolig.
This letter was delivered to me anonymously, and I made the state attorney's office aware of it. After I recognized Mr. S.'s litigiousness, it could be that someone wanted to know where I saw the public interest in publishing this letter as evidence. In my view it is the facts that are of public interest. That's because it probably wouldn't be normal for someone who herself had nothing to do with the situation to have access to documents in an open investigation being conducted by the state attorney's office. Despite this it seems that was nevertheless possible for Ursula Caberta. Although her post had no jurisdiction whatsoever in the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg, she visited the Stuttgart state attorney who was investigating the case. She apparently gained access to the documents in an open investigation against high-ranking Scientologist Haag and his attorney at that time.
Shouldn't some questions have been raised? For example:
Was Caberta's trip to Stuttgart listed as official business?
If yes, was looking into these files part of this business?
Did Caberta have a just interest in looking at these files?
Did the access to files occur officially, or was it a matter between the state attorney and Caberta?
Which information from this investigation did Caberta use? For whom? For what?
Did Caberta get copies of documents in the state attorney's office?
If yes, for whom? For her agency? Are there copies in Hamburg?
Did Caberta forward any copies? To who and for what purpose?
Is there a record of Caberta looking into the files?
In order for an outsider to discern the problematic connections and the associated open questions, the background must be revealed.
For one thing there was a connection between the investigation against Scientologist Haag and the investigation against his Munich attorney at the time.
Who really looked into how the attorney from Munich, Dr. S. and partners, could have found out about Caberta's access to files?
They complained in writing about this to state attorney Grolig. In doing so they mentioned that they would appeal to state attorney Grolig's boss.
Access to an ongoing investigation by a representative from a government agency from a different German state is highly unusual.
The accused also found out about this! And they pointed out the investigating state attorney's mistake to him in writing.
That should have been sufficient grounds for politicians and government officials to have second thoughts, but apparently that didn't happen.
Caberta did not get into any trouble at all for having attained, for my understanding, illegal access to files. Nobody even bothered asking about it. It was accepted as entirely normal. The attorneys concerned took it very calmly too, which is not usually the case with S. and partners.
Perhaps that was because the state attorney dropped the investigative proceedings?
Another fact of public interest: Ursula Caberta was asked on television about the above mentioned case of Scientologist Gerhard Haag. Besides this, that broadcast settled the case of attorney S.'s sworn testimony, discussed in this book (see the chapter "With lawyers in the Tyrol," p. 133).
Today, of course, the course things took seems fantastic to me. There was the television broadcast in which Caberta appeared as an expert on the topic of Scientology. S., Z. and partners law offices were attacked in connection with Scientologist Haag. Caberta even had access to the state attorney's office files. I received a temporary restraining order because of this broadcast, among other things, even though I had nothing to do with it. The situation has not hurt the Caberta/S./Z. relationship. It came out in a 1995 publication by Christ/Goldner that Caberta and Z. worked together in harmony on this publication. Christ/Goldner's attorneys are called S. and Z.!
In the meantime Caberta, Goldner, Christ and Rennebach not only have a close friendship, but the S. law offices advise and represent "critics." Shouldn't that set one to thinking?
Here an ex-Scientologist wrote another quite openly that Caberta would see to it that the case of Renate Hartwig and Robin Direkt would be the next ones taken care of. I don't take this seriously at all. I know that an entire clique has spring up and that it is assiduously trying to not only ruin my reputation, but also to impede public information work. That which Scientology has been doing for years - muckraking - is now being done by the same people who are financed with taxpayers' money to distribute public information. Perhaps this is material for burlesque. It's just that the people it concerns can hardly keep track of what's going on. They remain ignorant.
Here the November 9, 1993 letter from attorney S. to state attorney Grollig should probably be reproduced as evidence, the one in which he complains about Caberta's access to legal files.
Perhaps S. has now changed his mind though, because he prevented the release of the letter in this book with a September 16, 1997 decision from the Berlin State Court, which prohibits us from reproducing the letter. I've appealed the decision. Mr. S. has not let up in the above mentioned litigiousness. It's worth pondering who S. is helping with this action? Also, why does he prefer to sue in Berlin?
Subject: Aus "Im Visier" Kapitel "Propaganda statt Auseinandersetzung" Teil 2 LANG!
pages 356 - 368
In considering all the attacks against me, one should also take a dispassionate look at the defense statements currently being distributed in Germany [which parties sign affirming they do not use the technology of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard in business operations. - editor]. In fall 1994, after my book "Scientology - Die Zeitbombe in der Wirtschaft" came on the market, Mrs. Caberta from the Hamburg Interior agency also started distributing defense statements against Hubbard technology, which, by the way, were properly formulated. They are not assailable in court, either, as they refer entirely to protection from Hubbard technology. The fact that these defense statements, for which there can be no mistake that we were the ones to invest many thousands of marks in to make them legally safe and that we were the first ones to publish, were applied by people who continually placed obstacles in our path is exemplary for the case in point. But even that made no difference to me, as I was not at all concerned about copyright. I wanted for this defense statement to stop Hubbard's technology in society. We selected the wording and had lawyers review it repeatedly for the purpose of it quite definitely being able to protect us from Hubbard technology, if we invoked existing corporate law. Federal surveillance agents, civil, labor and criminal rights advocates, and even a judge have said: We cannot alienate someone because of their membership in something. This is the crux of the matter. Scientologists do not sign the defense statements, which I developed, because they run the risk, if they do, of having to be involved in court proceedings in which Hubbard's technology/ideology would have to be explained. The Scientologists are not being asked to sign a statement that says they are not members of Scientology.
Nevertheless it's unclear to me why a state official, even though she copied the right defense statement with the right wording, forwarded it with the wrong wording in the Christ/Goldner publication, supported by the attorney's of the law offices of S. and partners. The attorneys advising Goldner already knew who they would have to take on board to give the whole thing a special flavor:
"... how does one formulate the demarcation? A good model is provided by a text written by the German Brokers Syndicate about the statement of incompatibility, augmented with an addition by Ursula Caberta, Dr. A.Z. and us. (...)"
An alliance is created. An attorney from law offices, which for years have fought tooth and nail against any critical voice in favor of Scientologists' personality rights allegedly based on Article 4 [religious freedom clause] of our Constitution, is now advising critics who sell themselves to the public as experts in economy and industry in the fight against Scientology. The whole thing takes its flavor from the involvement of Ursula Caberta in her post as director of the Work Group Scientology in the Interior agency as having been established by the state because of the dangers of the Scientology organization.
It is a lie if Christ/Goldner assert that the contract on which their text is based is a sample from the German Brokers Syndicate. On April 23, 1996, the German Brokers Syndicate (Ring deutscher Makler, (RDM)) in Hamburg verified for me in a telephone conversation with its Hamburg state association that they had received the statement in approximately November 1994 from Ursula Caberta, Work Group Scientology, Interior Council. I received text to that effect by fax. Legally, this text is 100% proper. On what basis now has Ursula Caberta, according to testimony from Christ/Goldner, changed/augmented a contract that was air-tight? On what grounds are Christ/Goldner lying when they assert this was written from an RDM sample? Didn't Caberta get to read the passages that contained her name? If she read them, did she accept the text? If yes, why? On what grounds did an attorney, who for years has been hired by Scientologists for personality rights and who defended them in court, get involved with something that could stop Hubbard technology? Who does the rewording of the contract benefit?
Scientologists who sign that contract laugh themselves silly, because it violates existing personality law, specifically, the law that Dr. Z. and his colleague Dr. S. have fought while representing Scientologists in court. The contract, which the law offices themselves reworded, violate this personality law. Countless people have gotten discouraged because of this wording and have been warned by their own attorneys against these contracts. So why did S. and Z. use this legally fallible passage, which inquires about membership, at all? Why are they infringing upon the current legal situation and risking legal proceedings the Scientologists could win if they took the legal path based on wording like this? Why did Uschi [nickname for Ursula] Caberta go along with letting her name be used to support a flimsy re-wording that contradicted existing personality law?
A television broadcast in which sect spokesman Dr. Wolfgang Behnk, among others, answered questions on the theme and structures of Scientology, triggered a very interesting conflict. In this broadcast, Dr. Behnk did nothing other than answer the journalist's questions and tell him, based on his experience, what had and could happen with Scientology. With that, Wolfgang Behnk's role ended. What would have come of that? An exchange of a huge number of letters commenced, the whole situation escalated, and attorneys were brought in. The editor for the SAT-1 "ran" broadcast came to find out that strict boundaries had been set for him as to what could and what could not be aired as public discussion. Then there was a court hearing. By the way, attorney S., who was one of the ones who appeared, did not submit his case in Munich, where both he and the editor resided, but in Berlin. He appears to prefer Berlin. I, too, have experienced quite a special kind of legal dispute there. Afterward Goldner went to court with his attorney on the "Focus" case not in Munich, where the editor's offices are, but likewise to Berlin. Obviously Berlin has something to offer!
The journalists asked Dr. Behnk for an opinion in his job as sect spokesman, which he did. That set off an avalanche of attacks. He wondered why he immediately got a long letter from Steven Goldner in which Behnk suddenly found himself on the same plane Goldner had selected for me, namely that of a murdering terrorist. None of the fine gentleman from the critic scene raised a finger when I was the target of this attack. But now the shoe was on a different foot. One of them, Wolfgang Behnk, was given the attribute of terrorist, in which connection I was mentioned in same breath. A cry of outrage pealed out from critics: one of us have been attacked; that must not be allowed to happen.
In the conclusion of his letter to Dr. Behnk detailing how Behnk had supposedly deviated from the "recognized" sect spokesmen, Goldner wrote:
"I also reserve the right to give a copy of this letter to other sect opponents. I would have preferred to develop a common point of view with you. What is your decision?"
Wolfgang Behnk responded adeptly. He is one of those who find the hue-and-cry raised against me very objectionable. At the time it also provided me with a glimpse of light, seeing how surprised he was at the facts that I had pointed out but no one else had wanted to see.
Rev. Dr. Wolfgang Behnk sent a signal from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria with his press release titled "Doctor S.'s methods of whitewashing," but which unfortunately was not very well distributed. What I found irritating about this press release was the part of the introduction that said:
"On May 13 the prominent Munich attorney, Dr. M.S., who has gained notoriety by representing Scientologists, distributed information to the press. With reference to two SAT-1 television broadcasts about the question of possible Scientologist infiltration into soccer association 1860 of Munich he stated that the Evangelical sect spokesman Dr. Wolfgang Behnk was involved as a 'state witness.' Besides that he said he [Behnk] had apologized 'for the two libelous shows' after the temporary restraining order against SAT-1. Neither one is correct. The sect spokesman did not make any assertions of fact about either the 1860 association or Dr. S. in the broadcasts, but simply gave general technical information about Scientology and posed questions to bring the matter to light. After S. found out that the function of 'state witness' did not involve asking questions, but the presentation of factual statements, he thrust the 'state witness' role upon the sect spokesman contrary to better judgment. When S. projects 'libel' upon SAT-1, then it must be said that he is bringing a deliberate 'crass falsehood' into the picture, meaning an actionable journalistic misdemeanor. So as to be able to bolster up this accusation, he sent Behnk a draft letter of an 'Open Letter from Reverend Dr. Behnk to SAT-1' with a line showing him where he should sign. Behnk was supposed to sign the letter saying that he was a victim of SAT-1's deception. When the sect spokesman refused this unreasonable demand and would not let himself be manipulated to support the false premise, S. scolded him as a 'slanderer' who was stuck deep in the 'morass.' S. also threatened him with legal steps.
The press information S. distributed gave the impression that by saying 'If I have - unintentionally - insulted you, then I ask your forgiveness,' Behnk had apologized for what he said in the SAT-1 broadcast. This is not correct. That sentence was meant to calm the generally emotional and aggressive state Mr. S. was in, not to apologize for any alleged 'libelous show' from SAT-1 that Behnk took part in. ..."
Those are straightforward words, and now things look entirely different. S.'s law offices sent a prepared letter to Behnk, which all he had to do, so far as S.'s law offices were concerned, was sign on the dotted line. Naturally that letter would have then been used in the legal proceedings against SAT-1 for their show. I'm not a lawyer and so don't know whether that is one of their usual customs. According to cases I've come to experience in the court system since then, though, certain circles would consider that to be, shall we say, marginal behavior that is perhaps not normal everywhere. The meeting between S. and Behnk in the law offices never occurred.
For the first time these legal confrontations had affected someone who had been involved in this work for many years and with whom dialogue and exchange is possible. At least he could count on the solidarity of his Evangelical sect spokesman colleagues (all except one), who reinforced him in ways that included press releases of their own. Perhaps things would have gone differently if he also would have had the courage to talk with me. Much misunderstanding would not have arisen. I have experienced this in discussions with the sect spokesmen who have met with me - despite contradictory circumstances and despite the internal warnings not to have contact with me.
Behnk did a critique of the publication by Christ/Goldner and posed it publicly for discussion. Among other things, it referred to testimony from journalistic circles which saw Goldner's public exactly like he [Behnk] did. "Standard work or Concoction? ("Standard oder Machwerk?") was the name of Dr. Behnk's critique. In five double-column size A4 pages, Behnk took apart the views Christ/Goldner expressed in their work and unmasked not only platitudes, but also the dangerous whitewashing that business circles had offered as a standard work. Among other things, Behnk wrote:
"... The enlightenment of Scientology methods for which the author struggled had to fail because they did not competently deal with Scientology's totalitarian operating system. It is only with methodical superfluous regard that one can downplay the Scientology test, as they did, as 'blather in a box.' (...) there is nothing to mollify here, nothing conceivable about the authors enthusiastically describing Scientology as 'impressive' in its 'systematic training,' visionary 'goal orientation' and the 'broad palette of sensory impressions' with much 'variety,' and praising it as a 'true musical composition.' 'In the keeping of quality standards,' as Christ and Goldner told the management level of German business, 'some distribution, production and training sections could use a piece of this.'
In the section called 'The good in Scientology,' bosses learn it must be admitted that Scientology has 'actual use.' In this sort of system, people learn 'something that they can apply in other connections as well.' Any ex-Scientologist can also verify, 'I learned a lot ...'"
I wasn't the only one who was flattened by Behnk's meticulous critique. Suddenly it became crystal clear to me why in a court hearing, as already reported, the Scientology attorney accentuated this book as the type of discussion that he accepted. Neither have I ever heard in a public or other discussion about Scientology taking on Steven Goldner or Angelika Christ from "SINUS." Why could that be!
In his critique Behnk, of course, also dealt with the critical passage in which I was called a "slanderer" and compared with "murdering terrorists" and S. and Z. were referred to as my victims. Behnk wrote in his critique:
"... In their book Christ and Goldner, rather than go to the trouble of using information to shed light upon the unfathomable connection of these proceedings with Dr. S.'s offices, write a blank check, so to speak, for the reputation of "the attorney from Munich." In view of the facts of the case with Dr. S.'s own testimony, those who are not satisfied with the authors' show of solidarity that he "knew" nothing at that time are compared in "The psycho-terrorist variant" section with "terrorists," who use "armed force to murder innocent victims" who cannot defend themselves from such "ambushes." Thus the writer of this book review received a nine-page letter - which was forwarded to others - from the book's co-author Goldner saying that he, based on his critical inquiry into the role of Dr. S., would henceforth have to categorize the critique as a "psycho-terrorist variant of libel" the same way, according to Goldner, "that until now only Mrs. Hartwig would have had to have been described in our book." As proof of his credibility as a "recognized anti-Scientologist," the lawyer Dr. S. never tired of saying that it was his office that had done the legal preparations for Christ and Goldner's "anti-Scientology book" so as to legally protect it from possible Scientology attacks. One must ask, ... "what kind of book is that?" The same one mentioned by name in the book as a big "exception" and who is supposed to be whitewashed of suppressing essential facts, namely the recognized anti-Scientologist S. and his law partners who made the legal preparations - in a counter-move, so to speak - of Christ and Goldner's "anti-Scientology book" upon which they heap abundant praise. A reciprocal transaction? What does the phrase "made legal preparations for" mean? (...) Those critics who, prior to this, relied primarily upon the authors' professionalism to recommend and praise the book would do well to finally read it and direct the questions that arise from reading this material to Dr. S. and his allies Christ and Goldner.
Wolfgang Behnk"
Now the cat's out of the bag. This book being regarded as a unique standard work is itself unique, but unique in the sense of two formerly renowned authors being manipulated. Only now there are more questions than ever before about the activities of S.'s law offices having been taken over by its Scientology clients.
Several letters from my attorney to the Econ-Verlag about the unbelievable analogy that Goldner made in his whitewash at first went unanswered, then they were pithily written off as differences of opinion between two people. The criminal complaint that my attorney filed was immediately forwarded to Goldner's place of residence, and a letter from the state attorney there came back in which she suspended the investigation on the following grounds:
"(...) You have evoked these (...) statements with your attacks on Scientology." That is probably the price for intense publicity. I am not the only one who doubts that all your aggressive public work has increased public awareness."
After the SAT-1 broadcast, Goldner sent an eight-page letter to sect spokesman Behnk. Interestingly enough, the letter had nothing to do with either the show or the discussion that took place on the show. No, it was nothing but a diversionary tale. Goldner accused Behnk of not having pointed out a danger, but of having invented one, in the TV magazine. He also accused Behnk of doing this not as his own personal opinion, but of expressing himself "with the full technical authority of the office of sect spokesman." He further wrote:
"We talked on the telephone at that time on March 28. Immediately afterward, you decided against a meeting with Dr. S. that I had invited you both to. I had been concerned about mediating between you and Dr. S. and about putting a dialogue in process so as to lessen the damage done and to hinder escalation. Rather than that you wrote Dr. S. a letter, which I have in hand. At the end of our telephone conversation you said that you would apologize to Dr. S. and the others affected by the broadcast if the accusations proved not to be relevant. I saw that as a willingness for self-criticism, worthy of respect."
Now we also know why this letter came about. Goldner sees himself as a mediator between Dr. S. and Dr. Behnk. Then Dr. Behnk didn't go to the meeting arranged for him, nor did he want to sign the letter prepared for him by Dr. Scheele, since it was not clear what goal Dr. S. wanted to accomplish with the letter. Goldner wanted for Behnk to sign the letter to SAT-1 prepared by S. This letter would surely have been used as "evidence" in S.'s court case against the editors of "ran" (the suit was in Berlin!).
For me this plan, as attempted, is proof of manufacturing evidence to influence a case.
Because Behnk did not react as S. and Goldner had expected, psychologist Goldner pointed his finger. He accused Behnk of having brought about the moral equivalent of verbal knife wounds. And Goldner smugly posed the question, "Aren't you both in the same boat?"
You see, dear reader, that is the difference: when two people do the same thing, it is no longer the same thing.
When S. in his speeches and writings as a lawyer and "Fair Press" manager does not keep his distance from statements in Scientology propaganda measures that are used by Scientologists to present themselves as a persecuted religion and worldview, then he is not sitting in the same boat as they are. When people criticize that, then they are called a "slanderer" or even described as a "murdering terrorist." But when a sect spokesman remains technical and aloof in a show while answering journalists' questions about Scientology structures and at the same time mentions a special case involving the person of Dr. S., then right away sect spokesman Behnk should be tossed in the same boat as those who put on the show. When two people do the same thing, then it is not the same.
Dr. Steven Goldner also uses two different measuring sticks for looking at these two comparisons. I see the draft prepared by S., who perhaps has weak eyes when dealing with the totalitarian structure of a power-oriented organization, as meant for someone who is blind to volatile, legally delicate situations.
Those who include Dr. Goldner in their confidence up to and including consultant for the Enquete Commission should not let this escape their notice.
Unseen by the public was the frantic activity that took place to get a handle on the criticism of Behnk. Why was there such a turmoil among critics when a project that the press called a trivialization was criticized? Why did some information providers generate more activity for a trivialization in the discussion with Scientology than for they did for aggressive information to protect citizens in advance? What kind of information providers are those? What is actually happening behind the scenes?
Naturally it was clear to me after Behnk's critique why the Scientology attorney, Wilhelm Bluemel, had made a positive comment about the book, because of course this type of discussion does not hurt Scientology. If we continue to operate on this plane, then we can discuss things for as long as it takes to "Clear Germany," in the Scientology sense.
But now it's incomprehensible to many people exactly why no facts and background are flowing to the public on a wide scale, and why they should go along with an exclusive few lobbyists who, in the meantime, have melded into a monopolized information clique. Behnk's attempt to publicly lead a discussion was also followed by political and government agency reactions, which made it clear that the smooth track is both tolerated and desired for information.
The matter came to a head with the show of solidarity from Evangelical sect spokesmen who opposed their colleague, Dr. Behnk. The Evangelical positions of Kurt-Helmuth Eimuth, the Limburg diocese worldview office, Lutz Lemofer and then the Frankfurt church group all joined together and expressed their view of their dear "colleagues" Christ/Goldner and took their defense in opposition to the other sect spokesmen of the Evangelical church. One passage from that should be noted:
"... we have decided to provide this information to the above-named group of individuals, and only to them. This appears to be necessary because a news magazine is preparing an article called "The War of the Sect Critics."
The letter went to the worldview spokesmen of the Evangelical state churches and to the Catholic dioceses, i.e., to all the sect spokesmen in the Catholic and Evangelical churches. The point was to avoid having the public learn of the internal strife among critics. Something else: this letter was included as an attachment in Christ/Goldner's letter to the publisher of the Metropolitan publishing house, Dr. Kind, in which Christ/Goldner attempted to stir up the publisher against me. There was not one word in sect experts Eimuth and Lemhofer's letter to their colleagues about this being anything unusual. Apparently it's quite normal for these people to wholly intentionally discredit those who think and act in a critical manner. At least it didn't seem to occur to Eimuth and Lemhofer that they overlooked one little point in the moral issue -- fair competition. They poured out their feelings to their colleagues in justification and explained why Angelika Christ and Ursula Caberta had met with Scientology press spokesman Franz Riedl and real estate dealer Goetz Brase on October 1, 1995 at the Octoberfest in Munich for a television broadcast the editorial staff had invited them to.
With this letter, the battle was not yet won, because Behnk persisted in his view and contacted an attorney. At that point things really went over the top. Besides the church representatives having objections to this, suddenly state officials stepped in to put things right. So Ursula Caberta came down with the "ICE" group to Munich to speak with sect spokesman Behnk in a hotel and make it clear to him that he should stop his attack on Goldner. At the same time, I received a letter inviting me. Apparently there was someone in a government agency who thought well enough of me to warn me that the hunt, which had been planned in advance, was on. Among other things, the letter said:
"... in the meantime I have heard about the battle cry being raised against you from several sides and I'm outraged. It was quite odd about the curious role played by sect spokesman Eimuth, and now a few steadfast souls, of which there are still a few among the sect spokesmen, are trying to inconspicuously reconcile things with you. I should play the role of a "messenger from the gods" and put out feelers about whether people could eventually meet each other halfway, like over lunch, and discuss and clear up a few things. Otherwise I hope things are going well with you and yours. Sincerely, ... "
I was willing to go to this meeting, but took my attorney with me - once burnt, twice shy, as they say. Dinner was good, and the information confirmed my suspicions that there actually was a small group of people among critics who are even described internally as the "sect mafia." I was told by several independent sources that in personally meeting with sect spokesman Behnk in the hotel, Caberta stridently defended Goldner's position. If one looks at what's happening among critics [in Germany] today, in 1997, apparently this clique manages to stifle important discussions as they arise.
German parliamentary representative Rennebach, along with her adjutant, Frank Sassenscheidt-Grote, also got involved in this discussion, and a proper mediation team was underway all across the republic, in letters, faxes and in person, to get a handle on the situation. The lengths to which these people went to hinder necessary discussion contradicts any logic. If they would have gone to the same expense to properly inform the public, instead of hindering necessary discussion, the taxpayers' money would be better spent.
In recent years I've had increasingly positive contact with several sect spokesmen - perhaps because they spoke with me personally, but also perhaps because I confronted them openly and was willing to discuss varying viewpoints. Nevertheless, I've not yet gotten an answer to my questions: why did a small group of individuals basically spend more time blocking information than they did in forwarding information to the public? Why did none of the journalists who cover this scene pick up on that? The central issue remains open: what does all this have to do with information work? In particular: who is profiting from this politic of trivialization?
Subject: Aus "Im Visier" Kapitel "Propaganda statt Auseinandersetzung" Teil 3 LANG!
pages 368 - 376
In the meantime, being personally alienated by all sides is nothing new for me, although I cannot and will not accept it any more than I did before. What's especially burdensome is the fact that a diocesan vicar general, specifically, Mr. Hans Neusius in Trier, has a very peculiar attitude toward real information on the theme of Scientology. The taunts normally brought to bear on me don't even register with me any more, so the first time I became aware that something like a clan feud had broken loose was when I read a letter of cancellation to Walter Kohler, a supporting member of our group.
Walter Kohler is deeply involved in church groups on the theme of Scientology. During a European youth event organized by the church, there was a discussion on the side with young people about Scientology. Mr. Kohler told about his involvement with the "Robin Direkt" group, and a young man said he would like something done in his home town along the lines of this informational work. He was involved with an ecumenical work group, which was led by a woman principal of a private Catholic school. Now comes the dispute, which has since become completely incomprehensible for me, and which on the one hand is almost ridiculous, but on the other is so explosive it must be made public.
On February 3, 1997, Walter Kohler received a letter in which the young man told him that the parish council and the newly formed ecumenical group for Bible work and youth development had a strong interest in an informational evening on the theme of Scientology and its dangers. Walter Kohler agreed to make a presentation for this ecumenical work group. On March 1, 1997, the young man verified for Kohler that it would take place at 7:30 p.m. on April 17 in the parish center, and said he was glad that his parish would be getting some information. He asked Kohler for a short list of what lectures he had given, accompanied by dates. On March 22, 1997, our supporting member Walter Kohler received a written cancellation in which he was told that the informational evening could not take place, because the sect spokesman, Mr. Neusius from Trier, expressed objections about Mr. Kohler. He thought the way Kohler dealt with the theme was too radical, and he was afraid of causing a panic among those who attended to the lecture. Besides that, he thought that Mrs. Hartwig did not have an especially good reputation, since she also dealt too rabidly with this theme, for which reason she was not being listed as a source in the information booklet put out by the federal government this year.
The same sort of thing I had been experiencing in my daily routine sent Kohler into shock. He is an active, practicing Christian in his parish, has been employed as an independent businessman for decades, and now he gets a warning shot like this across his bow - this from a Catholic sect spokesman who apparently wanted to stop people from getting information about Scientology. This was an utter impossibility, and not just as far as Walter Kohler was concerned. In speaking with the young man and from his letter, it can be seen that a massive front has actually been formed against "Robin Direkt." When I then told Walter Kohler that Neusius was even subscribing to our monthly report, he was totally confused. I wanted to explain things as simply as possible, but somehow the whole was not quite fitting together. Neusius subscribed to and used the information he got from our monthly Robin Direkt Report. At the same time, he had stopped the information.
I tried once, then twice, to speak with sect spokesmen from the Catholic Church, one of whom I got to know in the private meeting, which was also a sort of ecumenical tea party. These two verified for me that Neusius had copied the information from the Robin Direkt Report and had forwarded it, but that what we had written, of course, was also meticulously controlled. "Indirect control!" I said, and the laughter from the other side of the line was so sincere that I nearly forgot about the seriousness of the situation. I hung up and decided that I would simply call up Neusius. He answered the phone himself, and I tried to explain to him that this sort of dispute would finally have to come to an end. I reminded him of my inviting everyone to a discussion in Stuttgart in January 1996. The fact that none of them came showed me unmistakably what kind of interest they had in the matter. Discussing the matter around a table was too much for the gentlemen. The people who came were politicians and private activists, as well as citizens initiatives who had organized themselves. I tried to make it clear to Neusius that he had never met Mr. Kohler, nor had he ever even heard one of my speeches. I told him he had no idea of what we in "Robin Direkt" had really accomplished and that, in contrast to him, we did not use taxpayers' money to distribute information. To fan the flames more, I suggested that Neusius have a conversation with Kohler by phone, and that later happened. To Kohler himself, Neusius denied everything he had said about him to other people. The young man who had wanted his ecumenical work group to have the information was completely outraged at Neusius's lies. According to what I know today, it was not the young man who was lying, but sect spokesman Neusius.
Kohler wrote the people who had organized his information evening a letter to clarify the matter:
"... the two types of informational work about Scientology. The one is the trivial type with spongy, non-binding definitions, which doesn't name names and exhausts its limit of presumptions and connotations. According to that type of information, the guest visits the shell of awareness where indeed there are people who have had bad experiences with Scientology, but for normal people it's not half as bad. This is the type of informational work preferred by state sect spokesmen and others. Because I myself am Catholic, I suffer double, since I regard them to be irresponsible. At an information assembly, Father Billy of the Benedictines told parents months ago, literally, "The risk to your children from Scientology is no greater than if you let them read 'Bravo' magazine." I asked the father his opinion on that, but he has cloaked himself in silence and not answered any of my letters!
Acknowledging stated opinions and answering letters is one way of setting a good operating tone in society. The Catholic church ignores anything that doesn't agree with it. The inquiries I placed to four different Catholic sect spokesmen in southern German dioceses have all gone unanswered! What do you think about that? People like me who protest against that are branded as "radical," alienated and silenced! Your case on only one link in a chain! {...}
For the Catholic Church, this type of informational work has the advantage that it never has to find itself in conflict with the Scientology organization, because its criticism doesn't hurt. Because that is the Church's strategy, its sect spokesmen have to provide information accordingly. When was a Catholic sect spokesman ever dragged to court by Scientology? That happens regularly with Mrs. Hartwig, and even I have had to learn how to live with these Scientology attacks. Mr. Neusius' admonishment that people could have panicked if they would have found out about Scientology's goals and activities, besides demonstrating trivialization in full swing, also shows irresponsibility in the face of risk from Scientology. (...)
I can name numerous desperate parents who anxiously called up sect spokesmen to ask them what they could do to free their children from Scientology's grasp. The sect spokesmen's universal answer, "You can't do a thing there!" First stop any comprehensible information, and then offer no help. Is that the goal the ecumenical group is pursuing? If yes, then you are actually better off with the Catholic sect spokesmen than with me. ..."
I would like to move the participants of the work group to thought, to the spirit for personal initiative, to develop civil courage and not always hide behind the authorities so as to push off all the responsibility on to them. You are the one who fills the office that bears responsibility for the people in the parish. I wish you God's blessing and the power of the Holy Spirit in your continued work. In any case I have set aside my original church faith and replaced it with a living connection to Jesus Christ. So I am free.
With cordial respect for you and all members of the ecumenical work group, and also respect for you as the public relations spokesman for the local Catholic church community.
Very cordially,
signed Walter Kohler"
Neither did the letter Walter Kohler sent to sect spokesman Neusius on April 22, 1997, solve the problem:
"Dear Mr. Neusius,
On 9 April I talked with you over the telephone about your statements (...). It had been communicated to me in writing that you had said about me, "Mr. Kohler's remarks on the theme of Scientology are radical, in his presentations he panics his audience." You agreed over the telephone on April 9 that you would confirm in writing that you never have made the above-cited statements about me. Today, the 22nd of April, I still do not have any letter concerning this from you. Now I'll give you a final deadline ...."
The answer came several days later by fax. Neusius communicated to Kohler that he had presumed the presentation was taking place. Besides that, he indicated he was not the one to cancel Kohler's presentation. That's one way to solve conflict, Mr. Neusius! First you panic the organizers, then deal in libelous talk, then retreat to the position that you yourself are not the one who canceled it.
Anyone reading that would think this was a trifling dispute, but there's more to it than that. This is a case of alienation, and it concerns Mr. Neusius' statements made by phone to Mr. Kohler that he very likely had something to say as part of the church institution when a group was assembled to discuss Scientology in church spaces. Neusius went so far as to assert that the church institution had the right to decide which publications would be distributed at lectures in church spaces. In no event would these include Mrs. Hartwig's books "Scientology - Ich klage an!" or "Scientology - Das Komplott und die Kumpane." I broke out into peals of laughter when I heard that. That's because I hadn't been completely censored!
Mr. Neusius liked my book, "Scientology - Die Zeitbombe in der Wirtschaft." With the other two I had actually dared to set a church discussion in motion. I went into much detail in "Scientology - Das Komplott und die Kumpane" to show the inconsistency of the churches' behavior with regard to the Scientology organization. Besides that, Bishop Lehmann never did answer my letter in which I asked him for a position on double membership in the Catholic Church and in Scientology. Looking at joint membership in Scientology is something that theologians should have done and made a topic of discussion long ago.
How hypocritical the Trier diocese sect spokesman has been over the course of years is shown by a letter he wrote me on January 24, 1996 in response to my invitation to attend a gathering at which mutual misunderstanding would be cleared up:
"... Many thanks for your invitation to Stuttgart. I would like to strongly support your concern that all who are involved in informing people about and protecting them from Scientology should cooperate in mutual trust ..."
I couldn't imagine what Mr. Neusius might mean by trusting cooperation. On one hand I received this January 24, 1996 letter, but on the other hand a mere year later he was alienating me and my books, as well as my close friends from "Robin Direkt," causing confusion and hindering information. Why remains a secret. I continue to hear every possible version of people not having the same "style" as I do. When I take a look at Mr. Neusius' style, I have to say, "Thank God!"
The church sect spokesmen couldn't even rebut Scientology's false information in their "Fakten Aktuell" propaganda publication about the Vatican. I was active in church groups too, and through an engaged monsignor of the Catholic Church who, in contrast to the sect spokesman, is an engaged fighter, a position was obtained from the Apostolic Nuncio in Germany, i.e., the diplomatic representative of the Vatican in Germany, with the following text:
"Reverend Monsignor,
(...) Regarding the assertions in the article, "Der Vatikan beschreibt Scientology," the following is ascertained:
1. The lexicon cited, "Grande Dizionario delle Religione," has neither been published by the Vatican nor in the Vatican's commission.
2. The assertion, "The Vatican informs" is therefore untrue and misleading.
3. It is obvious just from the simple statement of the lexicon article that Scientology is not compatible with Christian belief.
(...)
devoutly yours in the Lord
(signature)
Apostolic Nuntius"
If they were a little more engaged, the sect spokesman could have uncovered Scientology's lies and distortions long ago.
When the President of Scientology International, Heber Jentzsch, was in Rome to air complaints about my publications, I did not hear a thing from the church or state sect spokesmen. I also settled this matter in Hartwig style. I sent my book, "Scientology - Ich klage an!" to the Vatican and dedicated it as follows: "For John Paul from Renate," and thought that was probably the simplest solution to the problem of delivering information on the topic to the Pope, since his sect spokesmen apparently were, and to this day still are, not in a position to do so. Besides that I've learned that unusual actions - or would it be style? - from the sidelines can sometimes have surprising results. Perhaps someday the gentlemen will consider a style of their own.
Instead of alienating and silencing people, dealing underhandedly and shaking up event organizers, surely it would have been more sensible to exchange communication in several stages and determine viewpoints to find a solution to this conflict. Just the opposite happened. Discussion was held in little groups while the danger from Scientology increased. The attacks against me demonstrate more parallels to Scientology: I was condemned wholesale, a systematic attempt was made to ruin my reputation, and a real dialogue with substantiated facts did not occur. I was accused of having made these facts about Scientology's machinations public, of having given people specific examples of what is actually happening in this country to notify them, based on these provable facts, where the latent danger of Hubbardism lurked. Within a certain number of lobbyist groups of state sect spokesmen, an enemy image of me and of "Robin Direkt" was constructed. The creation of an enemy image is also an essential element of the Scientology system [see religiousfreedomwatch.org - editor]. After going to the private meeting with various state sect spokesmen, it is clear to me that there are methods to build and maintain an enemy image within Scientology's opposition.
These experiences lead me to be very thoughtful. In private conversations or in casual meetings I have managed, now and then, to prop up the run-down picture of me. But most of the time I've had to realize that the concepts I've acquired of credibility, reliability and trust have been shattered and that the people who did this have hung their banner of professionalism outside. In the example described, though, it became clear to me that through the sort of statements which Mr. Neusius made to the event organizer, mistrust, uncertainty and sometimes even fear are spread. After all, those are the criteria that Scientology needs to continue to be able to operate unimpeded. Those who prevent information or tolerate censored information should not be surprised when they end up in the line of fire of public discussion.
After Mr. Kohler's experience with Mr. Neusius, he found it more sensible to worry about unemployment than about Scientology. Perhaps Neusius should trade his post of state sect spokesman for one in the employment office.
It cannot be that a self-proclaimed lobbyist group decides what sort of information people may receive. When citizens are stopped from freely receiving information, that is the equivalent of incapacitation. When the specification of facts, strategies and case samples are declared to be panic-mongering and the dispute with the fascistoid, totalitarian Scientology organization runs on panic-mongering, then one should not wonder why the Scientologists joyfully document their dirty alliance with state sect spokesmen in their propaganda pages.
Subject: Aus "Im Visier" Kapitel "Propaganda statt Auseinandersetzung" Teil 4 LANG!
Before one of the presentations I gave in April 1997 I heard something against me was up in Hesse. I was getting ready to go to the rostrum and give my speech. It was a full house. One man, who had given lectures at many government agencies at the highest level, and so was in a position to know, whispered that I should be careful. That was one of the things that struck me as odd.
I spoke before an audience of several hundred who were expecting facts about Scientology to be aggressively presented. Fortunately I had good nerves, and in recent years, have learned to simply ignore the small stuff.
After the presentation I wondered what could have been meant by "something against me was up in Hesse". If I was being warned, why no details or facts? I could not sort the whole matter out. Since I was not aware of any fault and had not done anything to be afraid of, I simply let the matter drop and quickly forgot about it.
Months later I got this same warning again. Paul and I met with a government official who has his eye on our work for a long time. Because of the position he was in, he knew what attacks we were undergoing due to our involvement. During this particular conversation, the matter also came up of how attempts were being made from within government agency groups to cut us off, and that individual officials maintained "singular contacts." One sentence in particular has since stood out, "Mrs. Hartwig, I've known for a long time that a nationwide mobbing campaign against you is in process, including in agency circles." Like a flash of light I remembered the warning before my presentation in April 1997.
Libel from Scientology has been part of my daily routine for years. People know how that organization deals with its critics. Unfortunately, they take it for granted. All Scientology's attempts to utterly ruin my reputation have availed the organization nothing. We preferred only to intensify our aggressive information campaign. Nevertheless, Scientology can rejoice, because in the meantime the so-called "opponents" have become absorbed with doing what Scientology had planned to, namely, systematically discredit and slander. Those statements from various sect spokesmen have again turned up on Scientology's leaflets. Mobbing, the government official called it, was what we were up against. That is the overall buzz word.
I received the corpus delicti without warning a couple of days later in a ministry paper. How does one deal with that? A letter, signed by a Dr. Walter Kindermann from the Hessian Ministry for Environment, Energy, Youth, Family and Health, dated 10 April 1997, was sent out to 22 other ministries, and even to the city assembly and the Interior and Justice Ministry in Bonn. Kindermann posed peculiar questions about "Robin Direkt," Inc., my husband and me. I shook my head as I read the text. With skillfully formulated questions, Kindermann put my professionalism and credibility into doubt. This letter would stick in the minds of any of its addressees who had heard our names in one ministry or another, but had no background on us, and they would warn people away from us and advise them to break off contact. As justification for their actions, each one of them could cite the letter from Kindermann. Smoothly done; I'd call it a perfect mobbing.
What drove a government official, at taxpayer expense, to lampoon us with a questionnaire on ministry paper? How is the German city assembly, one of the recipients, supposed to know whether there is a defense statement from "Robin Direkt"? What is he trying to do by attacking the invitations to informational seminars that have my husband's name on them as speaker? Why doesn't he ask us?
Why didn't any of the addressees ask what the whole thing meant? Do we have so much extra tax money that every government officer can play his own questions game clear across Germany? Furthermore, if anyone would have asked us, we could have been explained in five minutes that no "psycho-seminar" of that sort had ever taken place, and the lawyers who worked with us on the defense statement could surely have filled Kindermann in on the legal background. The whole nationwide letter campaign of government officer Kindermann would have been rendered null and void. The question remains: did Kindermann ever want any answer from us to his questions?
Who gave Dr. Kindermann the task of writing this letter? It wasn't his boss; according to my telephone call to him on August 29, 1997, he knew nothing about the operation. He said Kindermann was on vacation, and that he would have to talk to him first. How did many journalists know about this letter in July 1997 then? They asked me whether I had enemies in the Hessian ministry. In any case, the cartel of critics faxed around documents that were included in Kindermann's letter as attachments.
Jeanette Schweitzer, the "Sektenberatung Bremen", represented by Bernhard Brünjes, and Steven Goldner, who works with the Hessian "SINUS" sect counseling center, were among those who participated in the attempt to say that my husband and I were conducting "psycho-seminars," thereby fueling a new era of rumors. Back in spring Steven Goldner had told a woman journalist that things were going to go against me. He wouldn't give her details as to what it was about or why. To do that he wrote a newsletter to the industry - in the same tenor as Dr. Kindermann. The whole thing is an exemplary case of mobbing.
A lawyer from our "Lawyers against Scientology" work group looked at it in these terms, "Renate, that was simply and cleverly staged. A letter on ministry letterhead can be shown around and used against you. Who would question the facts behind such a 'serious' sender? Besides, anyone can call up a ministry."
What did the government official who met with us call it? "Mobbing at the government agency level." He was right. Even today, despite all I've lived through, it is still difficult for me to deal with these experiences. Nor do I understand how pursuing a person this way is possible without any consequences for the actors. What chance does a citizen of this land really have to show civil courage? When mobbing is not only tolerated, but turned into a cultivated society game, then the courage politicians often call for from citizens is nothing but a farce.
At the end of June 1997, a woman journalist telephoned me to say, "Don't laugh, but Econ-Verlag is publishing a new book about Scientology. N.N./N.N. are named as the authors. It's a big secret, but everybody already knows they are Caberta and Trager."
I had to smile about the Trager/Caberta team continuing to cooperate so closely together in public. On July 2, 1997, the book was introduced at the Presseclub Bonn, with Hamburg Interior Senator Wrocklage attending. Afterwards I was tipped off by journalists that several people there had spread vicious gossip about me. On July 5, 1997, I received in the mail a copy of the book, which was decorated with little yellow and red flags and a card that read, "The book is called 'Scientology attacks' (Scientology greift an), but it will be attacked more by those who are on Scientology's enemy list. Why?"
It occurred to me that PR man Trager and Caberta, the lady from the Interior Council, were on a revenge tour. I paged through the book and read the places marked. I was surprised that the renowned author and television editor Egmont Koch, who had engaged in aggressive informational work like "Gehirnwäsche" (WDR 1990, "Brainwashing") and "Die dunkle Seite von Scientology" (WDR 1997, "The Dark Side of Scientology"), was also attacked by Trager. The whole thing didn't fit the character of a "genuine" ex-Scientologist. Why was he attacking Koch, who had unmasked Scientology in his shows, instead of mentioning the names of important Scientologists in his book? Egmont Koch sued Gunther Trager and Econ Verlag, and the Bremen State Court granted him a temporary restraining order. Trager may no longer spread his assertions about Koch. Four pages in which Ursula Caberta made false and libelous assertions about me and my husband were marked with red tabs.
But were Trager and Caberta on the revenge tour together? Koch taught Trager his lesson, perhaps because he talked to him in his 1990 show about his many contacts to Scientology. But Caberta got me with three pages of disparaging comments - perhaps because I dared to ask critical questions about her actions at her job?
My attempt in 1996 to clear up friction and clean the slate failed, and was boycotted by Caberta. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is too chicken to meet and resolve differences has something to hide. Those who deliberately persist in spreading rumors to stop information instead of taking part in open, democratic discussion have to answer some questions about their position. While I was reading the chapter about me in her book, I asked myself how much more patience was I supposed to have?
I copied the pages and faxed them to my attorneys, Becker & Buser, in Dusseldorf, and we all agreed that we would have to do something. At some point you have to put your foot down. I am fed up with hearing the speech, "We critics have to all stick together, it's the business at hand that counts." What does sticking together mean? What kind of business are we critics in here? On the one hand, whole hordes of people are profiting from the information being distributed and the associated risks being taken by activists like us. On the other hand we are disparaged and denounced. There are Angelika Christ and her husband, Steven Goldner, for instance, who have gone so far as to publicly compare me to murdering terrorists. Then there's Caberta, who tries to paint me as a country bumpkin and renounces our "Robin Direkt" citizens initiative by responding to a question about it with, "It existed once." She uses clever words to associate our association with "sect." FThe facts were shamelessly distorted, and she made false assertions about me and my husband by the score in her book.
On July 18, 1997, my attorneys applied to the Dusseldorf State Court for a temporary restraining order against Caberta and the Econ-Verlag publishing company. Grounds: five false assertions in Caberta's book. The hearing was to take place in court on August 6, 1997. Our lawyer received a call asking for postponement of the court date, saying Mrs. Caberta was on vacation in Cypress. Later I learned the book that said the monstrous things about us had been marketed since early July. No, nothing would be postponed. That was the unanimous decision of us and the lawyers. On August 5, 1997, we met with our lawyers and reviewed the attorney's letter submitted by the opposing side. Contradictions between the text of the book, sworn statements and the attorney's letter were apparent. The opposing side's letter was enclosed as attachment 5 to a signed, notarized transcript with the text to "The 'Akut' broadcast from SAT-1 of July 12, 1993, "Es wird eingeblendet Frau Renate Hartwig."
I read the text of what somebody said I said, and choked. I never said it. The two last sentences weren't even from me. My attorney brought my attention to the fact that this was a signed, notarized transcript from Caberta's Hamburg attorney. Right, I said, but I still didn't say it. This looked like a case of one person's word against another. Dear Paul pulled a videotape from the files and put it oh so casually on the table. The eyes of everyone at the table turned to the videotape on which twelve Scientology shows had been recorded, one of with was the 1993 "Akut" show, the one we were talking about. It was late evening by the time we left the law offices, with attorney Buser still reminding us to be sure and bring the videotape with us to the hearing the next day.
August 6, 1997, Dusseldorf State Court: bringing a television and video player to court was a new thing for me, but afterwards there was no doubt in my mind that without the tape as evidence, the opposition would have had a chance and I would have had a hard time proving the truth. Caberta probably cut her vacation in Cypress short, because she was there. The parties stood before the judges in the Dusseldorf State Court. After the usual procedures, the presiding judge decided to discuss the letters submitted by the attorneys. My husband and I objected to five statements. The three judges went through the passages point by point. The contradictions between the book, the attorney's letter and the sworn testimony that had now been submitted were presented by our attorney. He also pointed out what danger we saw if this campaign against us was simply accepted without objection. It's still incomprehensible to me why Caberta said that Paul and I were offering "private psycho-seminars." She had to have known us better than that! She had often been with us in private, and she knew of our engagement. Why was she doing this? What drove her to it? The issue got serious for me when we got to the statements in the 1993 "Akut" broadcast" that she attributed to me. Part of my years of work against the Scientology system has involved some experience with the courts. I have experienced unbelievable situations, but the one that occurred on August 6, 1997 will leave an indelible impression on my mind.
One of the judges laid the evidence labeled attachment 5 before Caberta and asked her whether it reflected the things I said in the show, which was about Thomas Gottschalk. Caberta answered with "Yes." Then the judge gave the pages to me, and I said that I could remember saying something like that, but some of the words were turned around in the text, and the last two sentences were definitely not from me. "Sect brother" is not in my vocabulary. But that is exactly what I was supposed to have said in connection with Gottschalk's name, according to the opposing side's transcript. Again the paper went back to Caberta, and again she verified that the transcript, as signed and notarized by her attorney Burmester, contained my words in the cited passages. On it went, back and forth, until the presiding judge decided to look at the videotape we had submitted as evidence. I gazed into Caberta's eyes, looking for an answer. I did not find an answer, but I believe I recognized hate in her eyes. My own voice interrupted my thoughts; the July 1993 "Akut" show was playing. I feverishly reflected upon how she would likely pull herself out of this one. Soon I would know, now it would emerge that I did not say the sentences attributed to me. I thought about the positions on which she laid so much worth. How would she reconcile herself to what was coming to light here in court? Even today she was promoting herself with her former job as legal spokeswoman for the SPD faction in the Hamburg Parliament. Really, one should have learned the basics of law there. For example, she wrote:
" However she (meaning me) did not have my starting capital at her disposal: that, with the representatives mandate, was automatically tied to the public interest. Naturally that included, with regard to some government agencies, the sovereignty of the elected representatives of the people."
It was quite quiet in the court room. Playing the video delivered the proof: the tape clearly showed that the letter submitted by Caberta and the transcript signed and notarized by her Hamburg attorney, Burmester, had false wording in the important parts. Attachment 5 was supposed to incriminate me with two sentences, but they were spoken by the moderator of the "Akut" show, not by me. There could have been no mistake, first, because I was not on the picture, and second, the voice was unmistakably that of another. Still, it was very painful.
I closed my eyes and took a deep breath. I thought now Caberta would have to sink into the ground, but nothing like that happened. She laughed, as if the whole thing was a game. We were in the court room though, and there was nothing to laugh at. That was also the opinion of the onlookers at the public hearing. Everybody I spoke with afterwards was outraged. I got goose bumps thinking about what would have happened if we had not had the 1993 video as proof. Then it would have been one person's word against another's. Who would the court have believed? Would Caberta have been able to pull another fast one? I was shocked when I realized from what a frail thread justice and injustice often hang. For me the seconds that stretched between the time the video player was turned off and the time the hearing began again were endless. First Caberta ran her hands through a mountain of paper, then through her hair. I couldn't resolve her laugh any more than I could her method of procedure. She pulled out a piece of paper and laid it before the judges.
Now what was going to happen? It was a July 13, 1993 letter the manager of the Pattloch publishing house had faxed me. I didn't believe my eyes. How did she get that? This letter had an interesting background. Scientology had tried to use this same letter against me and the publishing house in 1994 during a legal dispute in Munich. We had asked ourselves at that time how a personal letter, which had only ever been faxed to me from the publisher in Augsburg, had gotten into Scientology's hands. At that time, the publishing manager filed a comprehensive charge against persons unknown for theft. Scientology and Caberta were using the same so-called evidence, a letter that had been reported as stolen, against me. Outside of the fact that the letter would be disqualified as evidence, it had a bad flavor. How did Caberta get the letter? That's what I wanted to know, that was the first thing that came to my mind. I picked up the letter and started when I saw the fax line on it: "6. Aug. 97 11:24 C&C Contakt und Creation GmbH". The fax came from Gunther Trager's company. I would not be the only one interested in finding out how he, of all people, had gotten the letter.
It looked like all stops were being pulled out in the hearing and that no holds were barred, as they say, in being able to submit something as evidence.
Unabashed, Caberta submitted attachment 4, the letter from the Tubingen state police to journalist Michael Schmidt (see p. 144). As soon as I read the text Caberta had her attorney submit, I had a feeling that this had happened before. After the hearing ended, this impression solidified. Right, Scientology had used practically the same "proof" against me in the field. What a coincidence, I thought as we left the court house. On August 18, 1997, two days before the grounds of the judgment were due in court, the opposing side submitted a corrected version of attachment 5. This time the transcript from the "Akut" broadcast was correct, they said. For his part, according to Burmester's Hamburg law office, the attorney had commissioned a reliable legal assistant to transcribe the tape. The attorney consequently concluded, as it said, that by the correction the old attachment 5 was not decisive.
The question remains of whether this correction would have occurred if we would not have submitted the video as proof at the hearing.
By the way, during the legal proceedings in Dusseldorf, Caberta's attorney, Burmester, also still had power of attorney for me, my husband, as well as for "Robin Direkt," Inc. That is because Mr. Burmester used to be our attorney, too. Since then that was officially revoked by attorney Buser. Mr. Burmester also received mail from one of our Munich attorneys, who said, among other things:
"In the case described above, you attempted, in proceedings conducted by Mrs. Hartwig for a temporary restraining order against Mrs. Caberta on July 31, 1997, to obtain a judgment or a case number for a judgment that had allegedly been established against Mrs. Hartwig.
With regard to this unreasonable demand, which I, to put it mildly, deem objectionable, or anything similar to it in the future, I ask you to desist.
The end does not justify all means...
Cordially"
At this point a word of appreciation is due to those lawyers who continued to encourage me after the kind of experiences I had in the Dusseldorf court, and who put my understanding of law, which wavers at times, back on the right track.
On August 20, 1997, the Dusseldorf State Court decided in favor of my husband and me in the disputed five points and granted the temporary order under case number 120301/97 against the accused, the Econ-Verlag and Ursula Caberta. On August 21 Econ-Verlag was served with the court's notice. A messenger delivered it to Ursula Caberta August 22. The representatives of the court received it August 26. To me, Econ-Verlag had a peculiar understanding of law. They had the view that it was only in all future releases that the statements stopped by the court could not be released. So to put things right, the temporary order went into effect immediately.
Up until the time the book was to be re-released nobody knew whether the accused would appeal. On August 29th, the book with the prohibited passages was still being sold in stores. Econ-Verlag had made neither wholesalers nor retailers aware of the judgment. Because of the position Econ-Verlag was taking, I went the court route of monetary fines to stop distribution of the book and make them observe the court's decision
The Dusseldorf State Court provided us with the detailed grounds of the decision on September 4. On a total of 20 pages, the judges documented the decision in the name of the people.
The grounds of the judgment and the complaint we have filed against Caberta should give people besides the politicians responsible pause for thought. On nine pages the judges detailed the following: Caberta, according to the court, not only had deliberately defamed me, but dispute was not the issue for her. The court could not find any indication in my actions that would justify criticism. Caberta committed deliberate libel against Hartwig with malice aforethought. Her derogatory statements about Hartwig in the book "Scientology greift an" were revealed by the court to be "purely defamatory criticism," which Caberta had wanted to use to discredit the plaintiff.
I don't know how our legal opponents, Econ-Verlag and Ursula Caberta, reacted to these explicit grounds from the judge's chambers. Perhaps they reflected upon them. But the current Interior Senator Wrocklage of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg should also reflect. He used his name and the weight of his office to introduce and promote Caberta and Trager's book "Scientology greift an", thereby also endorsing the statements of defamation made against us. The court has determined that dispute is no longer the issue for Caberta. As her employer, the Interior Senator should think about that. For me, the court's decision verified that, despite much trouble, a defensible democracy pays off. Although such a successful experience has cured much of the upset that resulted from the defamation, I knew very well that it will not bring the adventure in civil courage to an end.
Lermanet note: Hartwig's story should make the differences between her and Ursula Caberta obvious. What Hartwig and Caberta share is the world's most powerful weapon against the harmful technology of L. Ron Hubbard -- the "technology statement," which Hartwig refers to above as the "defense statement" and which has also been described in US State Department reports as a "sect filter" or "Scientology filter." They are all the same thing, and despite the US State Department's misnomers, the statement is directed at the technology of L. Ron Hubbard, no matter who uses it.
Theoretically, that could also apply to Caberta herself. After all, according to the above account Caberta used Hubbard-like technology to lift Hartwig's hard-won "defense statement" and not only deprive Hartwig of credit for it but libel her victim, too. The intent and purpose of this action could hardly be closer to Hubbard's own, who also took credit for the hard work-won of others while conducting similar "Black PR" campaigns against them. Like Hubbard, Caberta went completely overboard in decrying accusations of ill-gotten gain even though she unquestionably deprived Hartwig of status and/or property.
Despite the hubbub over the defense or technology statement, Caberta didn't gain international notoriety until she met American millionaire Robert Minton, an anti-Scientology activist. In the US, Minton was initially hailed as a rich anti-Scientology "crusader," although he joined the fight as a free speech advocate. It was in Minton's capacity of media "crusader" that he was the star of German national television for his efforts in the USA before he met Caberta. After contact was made, Robert Minton was also the star of a "Human Rights Award" in Leipzig, Germany, which, without Americans to support it, would have been a group of foreigners congratulating each other for helping Americans with human rights.
From: Bodo Staron
Newsgroups: de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology
Subject: Subject: Translation: Greenway und Caberta, OSA pawns?
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:04:37 +0200
[The following was translated into German.]
From: Bob Minton Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Message-ID: 4l0tit4bh2nnilgkdh02l5ukf7cnl28045@4ax.com
I had looked forward to my recent trip to Leipzig for the presentation of the second annual Human Rights Award, expecting that it would be an opportunity to meet with many old friends. Instead, members of the Lisa McPherson Trust and I were viciously attacked by both Patricia Greenway and Ursula Caberta. The behavior displayed by these two was appalling to all of us.
In Patricia Greenway's case, this is not new. From the time I established the LMT, she has made it a point to go after David Cecere, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince, and Heather Bennett that I know of. It seemed to me that Patricia had a bias against ex-Scientologists and particularly against people who had been in the Sea Org. In Heather's case, first Patricia tried to use Heather as a conduit for information about the LMT and when Heather refused to do it, Patricia turned on her viciously. As recently as a few weeks ago, Patricia was still attacking Heather in a private chat channel, and she brought her up to me in a derogatory manner in Leipzig.
Teresa Summers, also ex-Sea Org, is another LMT staff member that Patricia has tried to use as a source of information. Teresa has also refused to allow herself to be used in this way.
Stacy and I have both tried over the past year to keep our rift with Patricia quiet, hoping that it would slowly mend itself. I was particularly torn on this matter due to my very positive personal feelings for Peter Alexander, Patricia's partner. Unfortunately, time has only exacerbated the negativity of Patricia's behavior towards the entire LMT team. Now, after the events that occurred in Leipzig, I think it is time to make it known that Patricia has been the most destructive force the LMT has had to contend with since soon after we opened the doors. She has spoken disparagingly about Stacy and others at the LMT and I have had to intervene to ask her to stop several times. Each time she has denied that she had said anything critical at all. During one of these times Patricia told Stacy that the reason people were coming to Stacy to tell her that Patricia was saying bad things was that they were afraid to tell her they felt that way themselves, so they were attributing it to Patricia.
I asked Peter and Patricia to stay in Europe and go to Leipzig to show our film, "The Profit." In fact, I did not even go to Cannes for the film's debut in order to avoid any scenes between Patricia and Stacy, and I told Patricia that her behavior had taken the fun out of the movie for me. I expected Patricia to concentrate on the film and leave her animosity for Stacy and the LMT aside while in Leipzig. Patricia has been actively and continuously trying to drive a wedge between Stacy and me. While in Leipzig, I received a report from Mark Bunker that Patricia spent an hour with him on Saturday afternoon repeating her vitriolic criticism of Stacy.
On Monday afternoon Stacy and I had an encounter with Patricia, Peter and Ursula Caberta. Up until that moment neither of us had any idea that Ursula was anything but our good friend. Stacy and I have stood by her through many difficulties, both personal and professional and have always trusted her as a friend. But in this encounter Peter said Ursula had told him that Stacy had told Ursula not to help them with the movie. I knew this wasn't true because I had been there when Stacy was telling Ursula what needed to be done on the film. Ursula backpedaled on this, saying she just got this idea but Stacy had never actually said it. In fact, Ursula called Stacy several times to complain to her about Patricia and Peter's lack of professionalism in scheduling showings of the film. But this encounter degenerated into an appalling performance by Patricia, in which she ranted that Stacy was the most evil human being in the world and that Stacy was totally controlling me. I tried to tell her this was not the case, at which point Patricia accused me of not being willing to listen to anyone about Stacy, saying that "everyone" knows what Stacy is doing except me, and this kind of thing. I tried to return our relationship to a professional level but Patricia made it impossible.
Later that night Teresa confided in Stacy that the night before, on Sunday night, Ursula and Patricia both sat down with her and spent several hours deliberately trying to turn her against me, Stacy and the LMT. Teresa wrote a report about what these two said to her. It is appalling.
Being betrayed by faux-friends has been disappointing for me, for Stacy, for Mark and for Teresa. The LMT is a very tight-knit group, and for Patricia and Ursula to engage in this kind of undermining of the work we are doing is really incredible to me. There is only one group that benefits from sowing this type of discord within the ranks of the LMT, and that is Scientology. I don't know if Patricia and Ursula are unwitting victims or are actually cooperating with OSA, but they are forwarding OSA's agenda without any question.
After these recent experiences I don't trust either one of them as far as I can spit.
Bob Minton
bye,
Bodo
PS: And now I would just like to know, Tilmann and Thomas, what's going down? I thought everything was peachy-keen and super-dooper? Is Ursula Caberta maintaining respect? For over 7!!!! years Renate Hartwig has had to fight libel and imputation. Many of those campaigns had their origin in Hamburg, and I am really glad that Bob Minton understood so soon what sort of intrigue Caberta was out to spin!
Lermanet note: Caberta treated Minton similarly to Hartwig. Once Caberta got what she wanted from her rich American friend, she became involved in a mass negative publicity campaign to discredit him.
Bob Minton, as a report from 2004 indicates, is still a legal opponent of Scientology. For years he lent a helping hand to critics of Scientology, including Ursula Caberta, who found themselves in dire straits. After a number of years, Minton began to suspect that some of the anti-Scientology endeavors he was funding were not as straightforward as he had initially thought. (An account of his side of the story can be found in an anonymously posted 2002 Stacy Brooks affidavit.) When Minton encountered legal difficulty in two of these situations and collaborated with Scientology in one of them, the above-mentioned Caberta-Greenway coalition found it to their advantage to pool their anti-Scientology influence to represent Minton as being fully loyal to Scientology. This campaign by critics, according to observations from those who had been fighting similar Scientology campaigns for years, employed cult-like tactics. In this case, Caberta financed an American lawyer with German taxpayer money for testimony about Minton that she would later use in court to defend herself from Scientology. See " A quarter million reasons Bob Minton is not on the 'other' side" for more details.
One connection between the anti-Minton campaign and the anti-Hartwig campaign, according to an EU source, is Martin Ottmann, a German ex-Scientologist. Ottmann, while acting as a good source of data for critics, both helped Caberta's American lawyer denounce Minton to the German press and was also involved in the Stuttgart mailroom "routing error," as the source called it, that resulted in Renate Hartwig's personal information being distributed to an Internet e-mail list. Hartwig bitterly complained about the latter as being no different from the tactics of Scientology. According to Hartwig, this material came from the same dossier that Scientology, Caberta and Fuellmich had distributed on her. This brought Hartwig one step closer to the conviction that she would be better off in fighting for Scientology's right to use cult tactics rather than in trying to fight the use of Hubbardist inspired tactics by critics. See "How Renate Hartwig helped Ursula Caberta again and again" for more details.
Despite having distributed much information about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, Germany's Interior Ministries have not fared especially well in dealing with Scientology. (See a brief history of Scientology in Germany.) Due at least in part to lack of popular demand, some of Germany's interior ministries are in the process of letting Scientology slip through their fingers, even as they try to suppress rightwing extremism. With the kind of job the Germans have been doing with Scientology, how are they dealing with marching, flag-waving Nazis? A compare-and-contrast would be enlightening, especially with regard to the harmful practices of L. Ron Hubbard. This may be of value if it can show that Ursula Caberta really is entitled to use Hubbard's technology. After all, her job is that of domestic intelligence officer, the kind that would use Hubbard's surveillance and PR techniques in their daily routine. If that turned out to be the case, she certainly would be expected to use Hubbard-like de-popularization technology to fight Scientology and the harmful technology it spreads.
Suppose Caberta is justified in using German taxpayer money - and her volunteer civilian network and, by extension, their networks - to level the government's propaganda firepower this way. Several questions present themselves regarding differences between competing and opposing forces:
Most Americans wouldn't care about finding the "smoking gun" that shows a relatively low-level German official probably should have been fired a long time ago. We are definitely interested, however, in avoiding becoming "collateral damage" in a worldwide battle for the mind.