Path: nwrddc01.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!newsfeed3.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: WCB
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Vibeke Damman testimony
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:44:39 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11dot91gsdbe7f3@corp.supernews.com>
Reply-To: wbarwell@munnged.mylinuxisp.com
User-Agent: KNode/0.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 1382
Xref: news.verizon.net alt.religion.scientology:484337
X-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:35:38 EDT (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
2nd attempt
In 1981 Viebeke Damman, an ex-Scientologist and
ex GO testified in a trial Jakob Andersen vs Church of
Scientology Denmark. She detailed GO's B1 dirty tricks
and fair gaming of a number of people, including Andersen.
Originally obtained from FACTnet, it was a messy scan,
poorly formatted. I have cleaned it up for readability.
This seeming is hard to find via google, so I am
posting it here in hopes those with websites might
want to grab it and make sure it does not disappear.
This is pretty nasty with Fair Game, dirty tricks,
Kember of GO and GO lead campaigns to harass SPs
and psychs.
Anybody who says CoS does not fair game people
shoud read this one very carefully.
(Space Traveler? Are you listening?)
Shorthand Report of hearing of witnesses
in The Eastern Division of the Danish High Court,
Division 14, Wednesday, March 11, Thursday,
March 12, Friday, March 13, and Monday,
March 16, 1981.
Mr. Jakob Andersen vs Church of Scientology Denmark
503/1978 (7043)
Testimony of Ms. Vibeke Damman, Oslo
PRESIDING JUDGE: You have been summoned to appear in this court to
give evidence on the request of the plaintiff. You must know that you
are liable to tell the truth in court, and that you give evidence on
oath.
JACOBSEN: In which period have you been in Scientology?
DAMMAN: I started in October, 1973 and ended in November, 1979.
JACOBSEN: In which period have you been with Guardian's Office?
DAMMAN: From the middle of 1978 until November 1979.
JACOBSEN: In which capacity? What was your position?
DAMMAN: I started as something called project organizer. It is an
event which is arranged by Scientologists in various parts of the
world, and at that time it was arranged in Copenhagen. It was my job
to see to it that it went well.
LEIFER: Couldn't we have it made clear ....
JACOBSEN: I would like not to be interrupted by Mr. Leifer.
LEIFER: Yes, but ...
PRESIDING JUDGE: Your opponent has asked that you do not interrupt
this testimony.
LEIFER: Well, but there have been incorrect statements...already.
PRESIDING JUDGE: That may be, but during the cross-examination you
will get the opportunity to ask questions about it.
JACOBSEN: What did you end as? In which position did you end?
DAMMAN: I became head of the bureau which is called Social
Coordination. I was there until May, 1978 when I became Director
of Rehabilitation within the same bureau.
ERIK JENSEN: Now I have to interrupt. I could not hear the witness.
Were you "Assistant Guardian"?
DAMMAN: No. Yes, that is Assistant Guardian for Social Coordination.
I understood that you had been there from 1973 till1979. When was it
that you got that position?-DAMMAN: When I became head of the bureau
called Social Coordination,from December, 1976 until May, 1978 when
I became Director of Rehabilitation within the same bureau. I had that
position until November, 1979. LEIFER: I would like to say that what
I was interested in having clarified was where Mrs. Damman worked,
because as far as Iknow she did not work at time of the conversation
in question with Mr.Jørgensen at Jernbanegade 6, and she had no connection
with Mr.Jørgensen.
PRESIDING JUDGE: Well, but .... LEIFER: Then it is not very
important if she has no connection with him.
JACOBSEN: Time is running. It takes five minutes and then I am not
allowed to examine my witnesses.
LEIFER: We must stick to what is important and relevant.
JACOBSEN: You should have thought about that when you examined your
witness.
PRESIDING JUDGE: That's enough now.
JACOBSEN: And about time. I would like to ask you: What is the
function of Guardian's Office.
DAMMAN: To take care of all outside public, i.e. people who are not
already in the Scientology organization. That public is people who are
against scientology - it is the press, well, lawsuits - like this one-
it is all, how do you put it, "charitable" work in quotes.
LEIFER: Why quotes?
PRESIDING JUDGE: Mr. Leifer, you really must stop now.
DAMMAN: I will get back to that.
JACOBSEN: I would like to ask you: Was it Guardian's Office special
job to fight enemies of Scientology?
DAMMAN: Yes, it is especially that they deal with.
JACOBSEN: What's the channel of command? Who is at the head of
Guardian's Office? At the end of your time there?
DAMMAN: The Guardian's Office where I worked?
JACOBSEN: In Copenhagen.
DAMMAN: In Copenhagen it is Bob Metzler.
JACOBSEN: Who was his immediate superior?
DAMMAN: Jane Kember.
7
JACOBSEN: Is it so that the Guardian's Office Denmark cannot do
anything important, e.g. bring an action, without the approval
of the Guardian's Office World Wide in England?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Does that mean that all actions which are brought in this
country are brought in accordance with instructions from or conference
with Guardian's Office World Wide?
LEIFER: Sorry, but that is a leading question.
JACOBSEN: I am getting very tired of listening to Mr. Leifer'sinterruptions.
LEIFER: And Iam tired of listening to the way you ask questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE: Please leave that to me. There is no reason at all to
believe that any problems will arise. It is the party's own witness.
DAMMAN: I don't mind answering. It is correct that any lawsuit which
takes place in Copenhagen is first programmed from the Guardian
Office, and then it is sent to the Guardian's Office World Wide for
approval and revision, and then it is sent back here to be carried
out.
JACOBSEN: Are decisions made elsewhere sometimes - not only decisions
I mean, but the very decision that anything is to be done at all
without anything being said about it from Denmark?
DAMMAN: Sorry, I did not understand the question.
Well, it may not be very easy. There has been a libel action
against Professor Schulsinger. Do you know anything about it?
DAMMAN: Yes, I have written about it too.
ERIK JENSEN: Now I cannot hear again. Would Mrs. Damman please speak
directly to the judge.
JACOBSEN: Tell briefly about who made the decision to bring an action
for libel against Professor Schulsinger.
DAMMAN: That decision was made at the Guardian's Office World Wide in
England.
ERIK JENSEN: Good, thank you.
PRESIDING JUDGE: We can avoid this confusion if you speak as loud a
spossible - and if the other side keeps quiet.
DAMMAN: Yes that would be nice.
JACOBSEN: How do you know that?
Damman: I saw the program when it came from the Guardian Office World
Wide. It was written at World Wide before it came to Denmark. It came
to the place where I worked the Guardian's Office Europe, and then the
order was that it was to be carried out at the Guardian's Office
Denmark. The suggestion for the program has probably been made from
Denmark, but approved in England 'and cannot be carried out in Denmark
without approval i.e. in England.
JACOBSEN: What do you mean by "the program"?
DAMMAN: A program is written where you proceed step by step. There are
many thing to be done when an action is to be brought. First you have
got to find proof and then the whole action is planned in phases in
advance before it is carried out, before summons and complaint is
issued, or whatever it may be. For instance, in the Schulsinger case
the group involved is to - it was the Citizens Commission on
- that group must receive instructions and training in what
they are going to say when they appear in court, etc. All these things
are written down in various phases. E.g. Item 1 - Get hold of Ingelise
Hooernaert. Item 2: Tell her what to say in court. Item 3 ....
JACOBSEN: Does that in fact mean that a program is prepared for how
the Scientologists are to explain in court?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: A program is made?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Is it so that the Scientologists are encouraged to say
something other than the truth? I can hardly believe that.
DAMMAN: Yes.
LEIFER: Now I must point out one thing. Earlier today a witness was
told that the witness should observe the duty as a witness. This
witness should be aware that in all probability the Church will make
her responsible for what she says here as perjury.
PRESIDING JUDGE: You know your duty as a witness. I assume that you
have fully realized the situation in advance.
LEIFER: I Conducted the case against Schulsinger and won it.
12
JACOBSEN: So Mr. Leifer has the floor more than I do.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I am doing my best. But on the other hand, I think
that it should be granted that Mr. Leifer was right at this time to
interrupt and point out that he on his part would warn the witness
-in the same manner you warned his witness earlier today. There must be
an adequate balance.
JACOBSEN. Yes, it could have been said from the beginning.You say that
you know that instructions have been given that if
necessary the Scientologists are to lie in court, and you hold to that
under oath?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Where have you seen it?
DAMMAN: I have seen it because at one time I was involved in writing'
out the program the legal department here sent for approval. Phase by
phase is written what witnesses, if any, in a lawsuit which was in
Holland were to explain in court, and it included outright lies. I
knew that at the time I was writing it out.
LEIFER: Excuse me, Holland ....
PRESIDING JUDGE: Now you stop.
LEIFER: But it was against Schulsinger.
PRESIDING JUDGE: Mr. Leifer, we have always been on good terms with
each other. You are the oldest attorney in this city and enjoy great
respect.
LEIFER: That is correct, but I was the one who conducted the case
against Schulsinger, and it had nothing to do with Holland.
PRESIDING JUDGE: That may be so, but we must have peace now. Otherwise
I will not be able to preside in a manner which all can be satisfied
with.
JACOBSEN: Have you personally received or carried out orders from the
world headquarters?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Have you ever received orders to the effect that attempts
should be made to annoy a person or institution?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Could you give some examples?
DAMMAN: Yes. The National Society for the Welfare of the Mentally Ill
(Landsforeningen for Sindslidendes Vel, LSV). As head of the Social
Coordination bureau I ran or directed i.e. the group which was called
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights. Its object is to annoy
psychiatrists. So its declared aim is to have human rights introduced
for psychiatric patients, but with regard to the National Society for
5
the Welfare of the Mentally Ill we also got instructions to see to it
that LSV was annoyed as much as possible by the things we could come
up with.
ERIK JENSEN: Excuse me, what is LSV?
JACOBSEN: The National Society for the Welfare of the Mentally Ill. It
has been said several times.
DAMMAN: There were instructions from England that we should take care
to go after that society as much as we could. We appeared at meetings
and tried to confuse the meetings and were to take care that anything
we got to know about the society which could be interpreted. It
negatively was spread to the press etc. in an attempt to sort of
putting them in a bad light.
JACOBSEN: Can you mention any examples of a person?
DAMMAN: Within the LSV or generally?
JACOBSEN: Yes, I asked you if you had received orders to try to annoy
any person or institution.
DAMMAN: Yes, Mr. Finn Jørgensen, psychiatrist at the Sankt Hans
hospital for mentally ill.
Any other examples?
DAMMAN: Not that I can recall right now.
JACOBSEN: I would like to ask you some general questions.
If a Scientology organization in a country, e.g. Denmark is criticized
by persons or organizations, what happens then in your experience?
DAMMAN: Well, let us say that a newspaper has a negative article.
That article is then translated and sent to the Guardian's Office Europe
and then to England and then there are standard instructions how to deal
with such a case. First of all it is sought to get a correction in the
paper. It means that you try to have a correction of the things which
you think are false. Then it is seen to that the person who is responsible
for the article - maybe also the paper's editor responsible under the press
law - is checked, and then if the case goes on - let us say that the
newspaper
continues to write negative things about Scientology - then you bring the
things that have been found out about that person.
JACOBSEN: What sort of things?
DAMMAN: Well, first of all you look for sexual, criminal things,
sexual behaviour because that is' Ron Hubbard's instruction. He thinks
most can be found in that field.
JACOBSEN: Am I to understand that if these is an editor of a newspaper
who will not toe the line, it is tried to dig up things about his
sexual relations to use it against him, to harm him? Is that correct?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: You have yourself taken part in that?
8
DAMMAN: Yes. I have seen it.
JACOBSEN: You have not been directly involved, but you have seen it?
DAMMAN: Yes.
Is it correct that there are a number of written orders
so-called Policy Letters - orders from the world headquarters with
standard procedures for how to attack critics?
DAMMAN: Yes, that is correct.
JACOBSEN: Can you tell us what is the authority of such a Policy
Letter in relation to local Guardian's Offices? Is it something you
are in duty to follow?
DAMMON Yes, that is right. It is a Policy Letter, i.e. it is Signed
by Ron Hubbard or signed by ....
JACOBSEN: Jane Kember?
DAMMAN: Yes, then it is not a Policy Letter, but then it is policy
within Guardian's Offices, and must be observed by those who are in
charge of that field of activity.
JACOBSEN: It may e.g. be to the effect that a person is to be annoyed?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Have you seen examples of that?
DAMMAN: Yes, I have.
JACOBSEN: What happens if a person, who gets it, and who is
responsible in the Guardian's Office, refuses to carry out such an
order or carries it out contrary to the instructions? What happens
then?
DAMMAN: If you refuse to carry out an order made by World Wide several
things may happen. Most often the person in question is made to read
the order once more, several times, until he understands it, and that
is generally that, because then he does what he is supposed to.
If he still does not do it and the order is still considered to be
right, he will be punished, get a disciplinary punishment.
JACOBSEN: What could that be?
DAMMAN: There are several stages. If it is a serious disciplinary
punishment you will be isolated. I don't mean locked behind a door,
but isolated from communication with your colleagues. You are not
allowed to talk to them. You are not allowed to talk to anybody; youm
ust write all the bad things you have done this year and past years.
When you have done that for a couple of days you will be taken to the
E-meter and asked if you have finished writing. If the E-meter says
that you have not finished writing you will be set to write more bad
things you have done. At the same time you are set to do rather hard
physical work, e.g. wash walls or floors or lifting heavy things. You
do all the work that is unpleasant and difficult and heavy. You do
that until you are corrected so much or rehabilitated so much that you
agree to do what you were first asked to do.
JACOBSEN: Do they have their own courts?
DAMMAN: Yes, there are internal courts.
JACOBSEN: What are they called?
DAMMAN: Committees of Evidence.
JACOBSEN: Have you been before one?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Where?
DAMMAN: Here in Denmark and one in England.
JACOBSEN: What was the decision against you?
DAMMAN: Degradation.
JACOBSEN: Do you know about other people present in this court room
now, I don't know if you have looked around - I am thinking of Juvonen
and Peter Jensen.
DAMMAN: Yes, I know about Allan Juvonen and Per Olof Jørgensen.
JACOBSEN: Why? What happened to Per Olof Jørgensen?
DAMMAN: Per Olof Jørgensen made a mess of an operation once which was
published in the newspaper Ekstra Bladet. It was his job to get Jakob
Andersen a bad reputation - the way Scientology has tried ever since,
well at least from when I joined. It was not very successful. It was
discovered at one' time and proclaimed in Ekstra Bladet. He got a
disciplinary punishment for that. Not because he did it, but because
he did it so badly that it was discovered.
JACOBSEN: From what you said I understood that it was something he was
set to do. He himself has explained that it was completely his own
idea and nobody had asked him to.
DAMMAN: But that is not correct.
JACOBSEN: Who asked him?
DAMMAN: Well at least he got instructions from Bob Metzler and also he
got direction from B1 for Europe and also from World Wide.
PRESIDING JUDGE: Please, let us have this slowly.
DAMMAN: Above Bob Metzler and the Guardian's Office is the information
office in Europe.
PRESIDING JUDGE: Where is that?
DAMMAN: At Nordre Fasanvej.
PRESIDING JUDGE: Also in Copenhagen?
DAMMAN: At least until recently. I think they have just moved.
JACOBSEN: May I ask you: Who is head of B1?
DAMMAN: In Europe?
JACOBSEN: Yes.
DAMMAN: Lennart Larsson.
JACOBSEN: Who is B 1?
DAMMAN: They are the ones who deal with people who attack scientology.
They deal with difficult employees, their background, and they keep
the reports made about it. And then they deal with all non-Scientologists
who attack scientology, and make reports and recordsand make files and
microfilms so that it will be kept.
And they deal with extreme cases - the way it was with Jakob now that
is Per Olof Jørgensen worked in the office called B1 or information
office.
ERIK JENSEN: Excuse me: "Jakob", is that Jakob Andersen?
DAMMAN: Yes.
LEIFER: Do you call him by his Christian name?
DAMMAN: Yes. Don't you?
LEIFER: No. I definitely don't call people by their Christian names
except a few whom I have known for more than 50 years.
JACOBSEN: But you call him by his Christian name?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: What was done in his case?
DAMMAN: It was tried to discredit him. It was tried to get rumours or
things about him which would discredit him so much that he woul
dprobably stop to attack scientology. What was Per Olof Jørgensen set
to do.
PRESIDING JUDGE: It was called B1.
DAMMAN: B1, yes. I know of other cases where they have operated in
Denmark ....
JACOBSEN: Before you tell us that I want to be dead sure I have not
misunderstood you. You said that you knew that Per Olof Jørgensen
contacted Hetler after direct orders from Bob Metzler. How do you
know?
DAMMAN: I know because I talked with Per Olof Jørgensen after he had
finished.
JACOBSEN: He said in this court today that it was his own idea. But he
told you the opposite?
DAMMAN: But that is how it is. He was not properly employed yet
then,actually.
He was just training at that time. True, he had a title for
his work, but he was not fully trained at that time so the things he
did were to be approved by his superiors. It was a failure - a last
desperate attempt, I think - to bring Jakob Andersen into discredit.
It had sort of been the main task for that bureau for so many years,
and they had not succeeded.
JACOBSEN: Why did he tell you about it?
DAMMAN: That was when he started to work at Guardian's Office Europeat
Nordre Fasanvej.
JACOBSEN: About when was than?
DAMMAN: It must have been in the summer 1979.
JACOBSEN:Where did the conversation take place?
DAMMAN: It took place, well, various places. It took place in a room
which is next to the course room.
JACOBSEN: At Sendre Fasanvej ?
DAMMAN: Nordre Fasanvej.
JACOBSEN: Number?
DAMMAN: 186.
JACOBSEN: Whose office is it?
DAMMAN: It is not an office. It was a correction division.
JACOBSEN: Who was present.
DAMMAN: I do not remember if there was somebody else.
JACOBSEN: But you are sure he said it?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Have you talked with Bob Metzler about it?
DAMMAN: not that particular case.
JACOBSEN: Have you discussed it with other people in Scientology?
DAMMAN: Yes
JACOBSEN: With whom?
DAMMAN: Karna Jensen.
JACOBSEN: Were is she now?
DAMMAN: She is at the Guardian's Office Europe.
JACOBSEN: Where is that?
DAMMAN: 30 Nordre Fasanvej.
JACOSBEN" Karla Jensen?
DAMMAN: Karna Jensen.
JACOBSEN: The reason I am so interested is that I think that it is of
utmost importance that we get the details about it. Do you know a man
called Per Tennberg?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Where did he work?
DAMMAN: When I started at the Guardian's Office Europe in 1975 he
worked there, he worked in an office called B1.
JACOBSEN: What do you know about Per Tennberg's work for the
Guardian's Office in relation to Jakob Andersen?
DAMMAN: Nothing much but that he was on a special mission, special
mission in Denmark, and I understood that it had to do with Jakob
Andersen.
JACOBSEN: I see, but you do not know him very well?
DAMMAN: No, because it was a very secret bureau so to speak, and not
very many are told what actually takes place there.
JACOBSEN: Is it correct that Jakob Andersen has been described as what
is called SP, a Suppressive Person?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: What sort of person is that?
DAMMAN: Well, it is the lowest mentally you can get, where all you
want is to destroy, where you are not all there, and where the right
place for you is a mental hospital.
ERIK SENSEN: What does it mean?
DAMMAN: Suppressive Person. In Danish "undertrykkende person".
JACOBSEN: What are the consequences for such a person?
DAMMAN: Well, it means that you are free, sort of, for attacks
from the Scientologists.
JACOBSEN: That can be misunderstood.
DAMMAN: You are free for all Scientologists to attack.
JACOBSEN: You are "fair game" so to speak, you may be attacked by
anybody.
DAMMAN: The way it is effected by B1. If things from the past can be
found which can be used against him, it is seen to that those things
are spread to his friends and acquaintances and the press. They are
spread so much that the man collapses mentally. That is an aim at any
rate.
JACOBSEN: It does not matter whether it is true or false?
DAMMAN: It is relatively unimportant because when a man is a
suppressive person it is his declared aim to suppress people, i.e. the
Scientologists and the moment all you want is to suppress; all is
permitted.
JACOBSEN: Have you got any examples that it has been tried to suppress
someone?
DAMMAN: Yes, I have.
JACOBSEN: Any names?
DAMMAN: No, I can't mention any names. That is why I hesitated. As
head of Social Coordination Bureau I participated in planning meetings
together with the heads of the Guardian's Office Europe. At one time
it was mentioned at one of these meetings that B1 had been successful
in having a Dutch professor, who had attacked the Scientologists, send
to a mental institution?
JACOBSEN: Did they succeed?
DAMMAN: Yes, they succeeded. I mean, he was sent to a mental
institution, to hospital, and in the end he was so scared and so confused
that he signed a statement which the Scientologists wanted
him to sign, that he would not attack Scientology. I can remember that
a good time was being had about it. Now they had finally got him down on
his knees.He was so scared that he wet his pants. It was mentioned during
the
meeting.
JACOBSEN: Do you know anything about how actions were started against
Finn Jørgensen. Was he also a SP?
DAMMAN: Yes, it was checked. I was in on it tasking to see to it that
he was checked by BI, because he was against The Citizens Commission on
Human
Rights and against the Scientologists and according to Ron
Hubbard something is wrong with you if you are against Scientologists.
Therefore it was Bl's job to find something.
JACOBSEN: Was anything found against Finn Jørgensen.
DAMMAN: No, not very much.
JACOBSEN: Jakob has been checked many times in the past years?
DAMMAN: Yes, it has been said with some despair several times that
still nothing could be found and that it has still not been possible
to really get Jakob Andersen.
JACOBSEN: Have you ever participated in carrying out orders which were
against your own conscience or which you have later regretted?
DAMMAN: Yes, which I have regretted. But at that time it was not
against my conscience.
JACOBSEN: Why not?
DAMMAN: No, because you get to a point where everything which is said
by Ron Hubbard is true. There don't seem to be any questions to ask
about it.
JACOBSEN: Even if in the ordinary respectable sense it meant
committing a crime, theft or perjury in court you would do it if you
thought it was Ron Hubbard's wish.
DAMMAN: You are so far out that you think that it is in the best
interests of humanity what you do, because the only people who know
he truth on earth are Scientologists. That is why you have to use any
means available.
JACOBSEN: Well, I see.
LEIFER: Since it may be several hours from now, maybe we could adjourn
And continue tomorrow
PRESIDING JUDGE: I don't know.
LEIFER: I understood earlier that Your Honour might not be unwilling to do
so.
JUDGE: You know a little about what the future may bring.
JACOBSEN: I would say that it would be possible to get through with
eyewitness.
Would you mind if you were to stay here till tomorrow?
LEIFER: No, that is all right.
JACOBSEN: We on our side would like to be kind - although we are not
treated kindly. This was not directed towards the court.
PRESIDING JUDGE: If this can be conducted in a friendly manner that is
what we would prefer. We will write that at 3.45 hours p.m. your
examination was suspended and that you will return tomorrow at 11
o'clock a.m. for resumed examination. You may stay in court and listen
.......... (missing)
no, you are still a witness, so you had better leave and return tomorrow at
11 o'clock in the forenoon.
Now it is Mr. Haaest.
[Then there was a discussion between the presiding judge and the
attorneys as to whether Mr. Haaest, Editor, was to be examined as a
party in his own action or as a witness in the tape case.
The result was that considering the late hour the-court did not want
any further witness examinations that day and the case was adjourned
until Friday at 11 o'clock in the forenoon.]
Friday, March 14, 1981 at 11 o'clock a.m.
Examination of Mrs. Vibeke Damman continued
JACOBSEN: I have some questions which I would like to pick up from
yesterday. You said something about that orders were received from
Jane Kember and her substitute in the world headquarters.
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: How were these orders received? Written or oral?
DAMMAN: Written.
JACOBSEN: Have they got any name?
DAMMAN: You mean to whom they were addressed?
JACOBSEN: Did they have a designation, Guardian Order or Guardian
Program Order? Is that correct?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: What's the difference between the two?
DAMMAN: A Guardian Order will normally contain general policy, general
guidelines for what to do in certain situations. A Guardian Program'
Order is about the phased handling of a specific case.
JACOBSEN: If e.g. an order says that a libel action is to be brought
against Professor Schulsinger, will it then be in the form of a
Guardian Program Order?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: You told a little about Jane Kember yesterday. Was there
something about some childrens' schools which you were engaged in.
DAMMAN: Yes, I was. Among other things I have been in on starting the
school in Denmark which is now called Kerneskolen.
JACOBSEN: Where is that school?DAMMAN: At Vanløse, Copenhagen.
JACOBSEN: Is that the school which Inge Schirmer has got something to do
with?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Was it a school which was subsidized by the Danish Treasuryin
accordance with certain rules in the Education Subsidy Act or theFree
School Act?
DAMMAN: Yes, it is supported in accordance with the rules which apply
to private schools which are approved by the Ministry of Education.That
means that the Treasury grants a 85 per cent subsidy, that is
cent of all costs are covered by the state.
JACOBSEN: I seem to know that Inge Schirmer who was leader of thisschool was
declared to be what we heard yesterday was a SuppressivePerson. Is that
correct?
DAMMAN: Yes, that's correct. She was at one time. That was at the end
of 1979.
LEIFER: Excuse me, but I would like to ask my honoured colleague: What
is it that you want to prove by that in this libel action?
JACOBSEN: Don't interrupt me, please.
DAMMAN: There were some problems with Inge Schirmer because she
refused to pay money to the Guardian's Office out of the money she got
from the pupils or from the state.
JACOBSEN: Does that mean that she passed on money for purposes which
had nothing to do with the school?
DAMMAN: Well, she didn't want to do it because she had budget
problems. The school only had the income it needed, and it was also a
problem about entries in the accounts. She was responsible to the
Ministry of Education. It was a problem to get it into the accounts
where she paid the money.
JACOBSEN: I understand you this way. What posed the difficulties and
what was the reason she was declared a SP was that she would not
funds pass on for purposes which were not within the scope
of the government funds, viz. to the Guardian's Office.
DAMMAN: That was the most important reason, yes.
JACOBSEN: You told us yesterday that you knew about actions carried out
against persons who were enemies of Scientology, and you mentioned
i.e. as examples the psychiatrist Mr. Finn Jørgensen and Jakob Andersen
who is sitting here next to me.
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Do you know of other cases?
DAMMAN: Yes, Johannes Aagaard.
JACOBSEN: Who withdrew as a witness. What is it about him?
DAMMAN: He has been persecuted for the same reasons as Jakob Andersen.
JACOBSEN: In which way?
DAMMAN: There have been actions. A special action which I can recall
was when he was about to start a center at Ebeltoft, Jutland. The
Guardian's Office wanted to prevent that. Allan Juvonen was in
of that action - planned it with approval from England.
letters were sent around in the town, and what I especially
remember was that the Mayor via letters ....
JACOBSEN: Which town was it?
DAMMAN: Ebeltoft . it was to be convinced that the center which
Johannes Aagaard wanted to start was doubtful, that his purposes with
it were suspicious. That is that he would use it to keep people
imprisoned. It was something called "deprogramming" which was
described as something very strong.
JACOBSEN: You mean it was accusations against Johannes Aagaard for
doing things resembling criminal actions?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: And anonymous letter were sent to the Mayor i.e. to get at
him?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: What was the reason?
DAMMAN: To stop that center and to get at Johannes Aagaard personally.
JACOBSEN: Johannes Aagaard had criticized Scientology?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Where do know all this from?
DAMMAN: Because it was brought up in a planning meeting and was
discussed much at a meeting.
JACOBSEN: Whom have you talked with about it?
DAMMAN: Allan Juvonen.
JACOBSEN: Are there other Scientologists present here today whom you
have talked with about it?
DAMMAN: No, because most of those present here today are from the
Guardian's Office Denmark, while I was at the Guardian's Office
Europe.
JACOBSEN: We have heard that the head of the Guardian's Office
apparently disclaims much of the responsibility for what an agent in
the field in this instance Per Olof Jørgensen - does in various
connections.
Would you consider it possible that an agent under Bob Metzler in a
case like that of Jakob Andersen goes out and tries to get material by
himself without having discussed it with anybody? Would you consider
it possible - with the knowledge you have of the functions of the
Guardian's Office,
DAMMAN: No. All actions made by him will be known. He has either been
ordered to do it or it would have been accepted by his superiors.
JACOBSEN: So you think that if Per Olof Jørgensen has collected
material about Jakob Andersen, he has done so in accordance with
orders from his superiors?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Have you any concrete knowledge of the case in question?
DAMMAN: No, not except what has been written in the Ekstra Bladet.
JACOBSEN: All right, but have you any concrete knowledge about it from
Scientology?
DAMMAN: Only what I talked with Per Olof Jørgensen about afterwards.
JACOBSEN: Yes, you explained that yesterday.
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: You don't know anything except what you.explained yesterday?
Olof Jørgensen himself stated that it was Bob Metzler who had
ordered him to do it?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Did he say more than you explained yesterday? Now it was a
bit of a hurry at the end of yesterday, and it is a very central point
in the case.
DAMMAN: No, I can't remember anything specific.
JACOBSEN: But you do remember at any rate that .... Did he say
anything about him being happy about it and thought it was all right,
or did he actually worry a bit about what he had got mixed up in?
DAMMAN: Yes, his feelings about it was that he was sorry about
case and he felt rotten - also because it was discovered.
JACOBSEN: One can feel rotten for several reasons. Because you don't
like to be in on it or because it was discovered. Which was it?
Or was it both?
DAMMAN: A mixture of both probably, but rotten mostly because it was
discovered, because he felt very inexperienced. He felt that he had
been trained enough to make such actions on his own, but he was sent
out in the field to do it. When the whole action started he had
the faintest idea of what he was getting in on and what he was to
do, and which consequences and implications it would have for him.
JACOBSEN: But one thing is certain and you can confirm that today as
well he said that it was Bob Metzler who had given him the orders tO
do it?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: I would like to ask the witness whether she has made any
statements on her own case to the press. we have an article, which is
in Exhibit bundle VII, and of which, as it is, no decision has. been
made for production. I would find it odd if I could not show the
witness the article to which she herself has made a statement. It is
on page 23 in Exhibit bundle VII. It is an article in a paper called
"Vort Land" (Our Country) from July 10, 1980 in Norway.
There is no need to take it out, I will only ask the witness if it is
correct that she has made a statement to that paper.
DAMMAN: Yes, that is correct.
JACOBSEN: There is a headline in it: "Ex-Scientologist: We used dirty
methods o"
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: You have made a statement to this paper and told about
the things you are telling in this court today. Is that correct?
DAMMAN: Yes, that is right.
JACOBSEN: I don't think that I will confront you with this article. It
is better to question you directly. But it is correct that you have made
a statement to the press about it?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Have you met any reactions in this connection?
DAMMAN: You mean from Scientology?
JACOBSEN: Yes.
DAMMAN: After the article was published we have had several visits,i.e.
one from the office called B1 for Europe, where they tried to
make me and my husband stop saying more and kind of asked us what it
was we wanted not to do it again. I mean, what it was we tried to
obtain.
JACOBSEN: "Wanted". Was the idea that you would get money or other benefits?
DAMMAN: We did not really go much into that, but that is what it
sounded like.
JACOBSEN: You refused?
DAMMAN: Yes, we did.
JACOBSEN: Incidentally, what was your salary in Scientology when you
were head there?
DAMMAN: The maximum amount I got was 253 Danish Kroner per week.(approx. US$
38),
JACOBSEN: But did you then get .board and lodging?
DAMMAN: No, the salary would have to cover that.
JACOBSEN: But you cannot live on that?
DAMMAN: No.
JACOBSEN: But it means that that was the payment you got
Would you saythat it was a vocation more than a job.
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Do you know if in Scientology there were ever plans of
action other than the kind you have mentioned in connection with Jakob
Andersen - I mean downright violent actions?
No, not violent actions.
JACOBSEN: That you have never ....
DAMMAN: That I don't know about.
JACOBSEN: Well. Then I will ask you: Do you know Peter Jensen?
DAMMAN: Yes, I do.
JACOBSEN: Have you worked together with him?
DAMMAN: No, not directly. He worked in the Guardian's Office Denmark.
And I was in the Guardian's Office Europe, you know.
JACOBSEN: Has Peter Jensen worked with B1?
DAMMAN: Yes, he had to. I think he has a different job now, but before
he was PR Manager for Denmark and there he had to cooperate with B1 in
his capacity of PR Manager.
JACOBSEN: Has there been any coordination between the open and the
secret work in B1?
DAMMAN: Yes, very much so.
JACOBSEN: How did that take place?
DAMMAN: ou know, the PR division looked after the public side,
including the press and that sort of things which they must try to
handle so they get a positive attitude towards scientology. In such
cases where the PR division meet people who are against scientology,
people who try to attack or oppose scientology, the names are passed
on to B 1 for a check in order that PR may have up its sleeve
information about the persons who now attack Scientology, so that
get into an awkward situation and if the person in question will
not stop his attacks, PR can use it against that person.
JACOBSEN: May I ask you: What is a Security Check?
DAMMAN: It is a procedure, a sort of conversation therapy where there
is a trained auditor - i.e. a person who is trained in performing various
techniques within scientology. He sits with his E-meter and
another person is sitting on the other side of the table with those
tin-cans in his hands. According to scientology it is possible to
register a person's mental condition on the E-meter. Questions are
asked. It is called "pre clear".
JACOBSEN: I know what it is. It is for the benefit of the court. I
know that Your Honour has heard it many times. It is a person who is
not yet clear. Are you asked questions as to whether e.g. you have
committed any criminal offences, if you have had any illegal sexual
relationships, homosexual relations?
DAMMAN: Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE: Mr. Jacobsen, I think we should take care not to get
too far away from the case proper.
JACOBSEN: Well, it is in connection with what is written in the memo
about E-meters.
PRESIDING JUDGE: Good.
JACOBSEN: It is for that purpose only.
LEIFER: It is my opinion that we are far away from the libel case.
PRESIDING JUDGE: You heard that that thought had crossed my mind, but
I think that Mr. Jacobsen gave an answer which did that I have put it
out of my mind again.
JACOBSEN: Thank you. I would like to show you this Technical Bulletin
from 1972. Have you seen anything like this before, Vibeke?
DAMMAN: Yes, I have seen that kind of thing before.
JACOBSEN: Have you personally used E-meters?
DAMMAN: Yes, I have tried it. But I have not participated in asking that
kind
of specific questions.
JACOBSEN: Do you know if such questions have been asked?
DAMMAN: Yes. I have been asked such questions.
JACOBSEN: You mean that you have been asked questions like that?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: What was the purpose of that?
DAMMAN: It is scientology's opinion that you remove all things which
may be on the person's conscience. An other thing is, and that is also
the purpose, that the things you have done and which you should not
have done - be it homosexual relations or private things - is
something that is recorded.
JACOBSEN: Are homosexual relations forbidden according to scientology?
DAMMAN: Yes, if you do it you are abnormal.
It also says whether you have ever been paid money to mak
efalse statements. It is also things like that you are asked?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Is it correct to say that the E-meter is used to find out if
people lie?
DAMMAN: Not quite.
JACOBSEN: I can phrase the question differently. Would it in your
opinion be incorrect to describe the E-meter as a primitive
lie-detector?
DAMMAN: No.
JACOBSEN: Would it be correct
in your opinion that expression can be used?
DAMMAN: Yes, it can.
JACOBSEN: Have you any examples that staff members have been tested by
means of the E-meter with regard to the question of loyalty towards
Scientology?
DAMMAN: With regard to what?
JACOBSEN: Their loyalty or lack of same towards Scientology.
DAMMAN: Yes, that is a question which often comes up. If you don't
really function in your position within Scientology you will in
certain cases be asked whether you have done anything against
scientology which you should not have done, whether you have talked
with the press or others who have used that knowledge against
scientology.
JACOBSEN: Is that to help that person's mental development - or to
have a hold on that person?
DAMMAN: It is not to help the person's mental development. It is to
get to know the worst so that you can be prepared for it if he should
have done such things. If he repents you make him sign that he did not
do it or what he did was false or not really what he said or thing
like that. So Scientology has got that document.
JACOBSEN: Now I would like to turn to something quite different.
On the 1st September, 1979 a settlement was made between the Church of
Scientology and Jakob Andersen where Scientology agrees to pay damages
to the amount of DKr 140,000 and apologize some statements. Do you
know anything about it?
DAMMAN: No.
JACOBSEN: You don't?
DAMMAN: No, I can't say I do.
JACOBSEN: The thing is that shortly afterwards Peter Jensen repeats
these things - or makes similar statements at any rate. But you don't
know anything about it?
DAMMAN: No.
JACOBSEN: I see. Would you say that Peter Jensen could go to the press
about Jakob Andersen without in advance having talked with Bob Metzler
about it?
DAMMAN: Yes, in theory he could do that because he has certain general
guidelines to observe - for people who are antagonistic towards
and it could come under that.
JACOBSEN: What was the reason you broke with scientology?
DAMMAN: It was when I met my present husband ....
JACOBSEN: Where did you meet him?
DAMMAN: At the Guardian's Office. We were both working there.
JACOBSEN: You were both Scientologists and both employed there?
DAMMAN: He is from Norway and was down to be trained in Denmark. At
that time a rule had been made - that a person employed at the
Guardian's Office Europe must not be together with, have a
relationship with, people from other countries. A rule was also made
that you were not allowed sexual relationships unless you were
married. What we did. was to break both rules because we were
together. Then we both got disciplinary punishments. Then We decided
to stay together, but stop physical relationship. It did not go ver
ywell, then we got together again and both landed up with disciplinary
punishments once more.
And after that Odd - my husband - was very quietly taken out by the
back door. The Guardian's Office World Wide decided that he was not
qualified to be employed with the Guardian's Office - considering the
things that had happened. He was relatively new so he was not a great
loss either.
JACOBSEN: What about you then?
DAMMAN: I became more and more isolated. Not physically, but when you
are under disciplinary punishment you are not allowed to speak to
people who are not under disciplinary punishment. And it was permitted
only to walk in certain areas of the Guardian Office Europe at Nordre
Fasanvej. There were two rooms I could go to. One was the lavatory and
the other the correction room - and then the hallway to get to and fro.
JACOBSEN: Does that mean that if you had both wanted to continue in
Scientology you would have had to break up your relationship?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: And you could have had neither a sexual relationship nor have
married?
DAMMAN: No. We were not allowed to marry because he was a student in
Norway and had to go back to Norway. Therefore it was against the
rules within scientology to marry.
JACOBSEN: Does that mean that you had to choose between going on as
Scientologists and get your relationship in order?
DAMMAN: Yes, at that time.
JACOBSEN: Then you both broke with scientology?
DAMMAN: Yes, Odd continued on a course. He got out in October 1979. I
stayed on for a while, but it became so hopeless, I mean all the
I was exposed to. At the end I had to start scrubbing walls
with a toothbrush and I don't know what.
JACOBSEN: Scrub walls with a ....
DAMMAN: Toothbrush.
JACOBSEN: Who gave you that order?
DAMMAN: One called Palle Johansen. He was Ethics officer - that means
that he was responsible for people under disciplinary punishment.
JACOBSEN: It is not a metaphor, is it?
It is something you were reallymade to do?
DAMMAN: It is not a metaphor. It is true. It was a technique that had
been invented in order that people who would not toe the line would
sort of see things the way the were.
JACOBSEN: You probably understand that it sounds very strange to us.
DAMMAN: It did to me even though I had been there that long. I told
them that I would not do it and then I was given the choice: Either
what I was told ....
JACOBSEN: And then you went to Norway together with Odd?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Are you married?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Legally married?
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Any children?
DAMMAN: I have a child by my former husband.
JACOBSEN: Will you very briefly characterize that part of your life
you were with Scientology. How do you look on it today? I understand
that you have yourself participated in all that you have told us about
today. You told that you would use lies and persecution of other
people. How do you look on that today?
DAMMAN: How do I look on it? It seems like years I have wasted.
Sometimes it's ....
JACOBSEN: Do you regret? Are you sorry?
DAMMAN: That I joined? Yes, I do. Because there are so many things,
fundamental qualities in oneself, which have been appreciated, which
are destroyed.
JACOBSEN: What is it when you are in a thing like that that makes you
agree to such things and blindly obey - without following more
personal ethics? It is certainly against ordinary ethics to do the
things you have been in on. I suppose it is. right what I am saying?
DAMMAN: Yes. I have read a little about it after I quit Scientology.
What is going. on in Scientology is simply brainwash.
JACOBSEN: It is brainwash. You told yesterday how Scientologists who
were in the danger zone specially were trained to commit perjury in
court. I think you told the court that.
DAMMAN: Yes.
JACOBSEN: Are there actually courses for that sort of thing?
DAMMAN: Yes, it is part of e.g. the PR-course that you learn to
stretch the truth and it is something which I have also been trained
in.
JACOBSEN: I have here something called "Intelligence Specialist
Training Routine, TR-L."
DAMMAN: Well, now you say it. I know what it is.
JACOBSEN: It says here: "Purpose: To train the student to give a false
statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data
effectively. Position: Same as TR-1." And then there is an order
"Commands: Part 1 "Tell me a lie." Command given by the coach. Part 2
interview type 2 WC by coach." It is a whole instruction in what to
do. Here is something e.g.: "The student should be coached on a
gradient until he/she can lie facily." A regular instruction in how to
lie if you have to.Have you tried this?
DAMMAN: Not that particular exercise, but there is one in the
PR-course where you learn to tell what is described as "white lies"
-which are definitely not in accordance with the truth.
JACOBSEN: There one last thing I would like to ask you Vibeke Damman.
You probably understand that - to me at any rate, and I take it to the
court - it must sound fantastic that things like those you have told
us about take place. We know that it happens now and then even though
your liability as a witness is very strict, and I draw your attention
to the fact that it is, and now you will probably be examined by the
other party. I would like to say that if there is anything you think
must be withdrawn from what you have said, you must do it now, because
if it is found that what you have said in this court is not the full
truth you risk a very severe penalty.
Is there anything you wish to withdraw?
DAMMAN: No.
Frederiksberg, March 15, 1981.
Bjørn Einersen Authorized Court Stenographer
******************************************************************
Posted to ARS newsgroup by WCB
THANK YOU!