DEBRIEF: DAVID MAYO
8 Dec 83
Dear Mark,
The following are brief accounts of what I consider to be the more germane points of:
a) the events leading to my removal from the post of Snr C/S Int and the subsequent CommEv, declare etc., and
b) the visit from Geoff Shervell in August '83.
Summary of events leading to my removal
This story probably starts at the end of '81 when several apparently unrelated events occurred.
It starts with the re-opening of a comm line from LRH to and from CMO INT and others in late 1981 after a period of almost two years of little to no comm from (or to) LRH (from Feb '80 to Sept '81). Unfortunately, although the comm line was re-opened in late '81, it was a very limited comm line in that all communications travelled through Annie Broeker, Pat Broeker to David Miscavige and back up in reverse order. Pat and Annie were living with LRH and David Miscavige was living primarily at CMO INT. Other than Pat and Annie, no one, including Miscavige, knew of LRH's location. Miscavige would receive a phone call from Pat Broeker and then would go to a restaurant or parking lot and meet Pat Broeker to pass the mail. Thus, there was no way for any comm to get to LRH without it going through those persons.
I was one of four people who originally received and sent comm via that line in Sept/Oct '81, these comms from LRH and to LRH were technical.
In late '81 (about November), LRH sent down orders to CMO INT to collect up and send him data on the state of the orgs and Scn internationally. The data he asked for was very comprehensive and took about two weeks for the FB (Flag Bureaux) to collect and send to CMO INT for relay to LRH! Then an evolution began at CMO INT of rewriting/retyping all these reports to omit and add data so as to make things appear to be much better than was the actual truth. I was horrified that this was being done and the extent to which it was being done and particularly at the intention to deceive LRH into thinking that things in Scn were much better than they were. I first discovered this when one of the reports that I had written to LRH came back to me to sign after having been re-written. I then found out that all three of the reports I had written had been or were being re-written so as to grossly falsify them. I had carbons of the originals of these reports and began to argue with those concerned about the re-writing of these reports on the grounds that I insisted that LRH should be truly informed of the actual conditions existing in Scn internationally.
At the same time as this, I received the order from LRH to sec check Pat Broeker on certain subjects and did so (meeting Pat Broeker secretly at motels). I brought the matter of the falsification of the Scn reports to LRH to Pat Broeker's and David Miscavige's attention, asking them to intercede as they had seniority in the CMO. At first, both seemed reticent to do anything about it, then assured me they would handle it after Pat had consulted with Annie Broeker. Pat later spoke to me about the "undesirability of putting upsetting news on LRH's lines, but when I didn't agree with the falsification of these reports, he again assured me they would be handled. Pat's sec check and some other auditing was completed and I wrote a summary report to LRH. This report was later retyped in Pat's favour. The attempted falsification of the international reports on Scn to LRH were used as the reason (or one of the major reasons) for the removal of Gale Irwin by David Miscavige and Pat and Annie Broeker - from the post of CO CMO INT. Although I was assured at the time by Miscavige and Broeker that the correct reports would be forwarded to LRH, I later learned that that wasn't done. And, even later realized that Miscavige and Broeker had only used the.... of the falsification of the reports as an explanation and convenience to get rid of Gale Irwin as CO CMO INT. (Some months earlier, Miscavige and Broeker had busted Dede Voegeding as CO CMO INT for "security reasons" which later turned out to be because she was considered a threat to their authority.) Although these reports to LRH were falsified, it was usualy quite some time before I discovered the fact - partly due to the time before a reply came back and partly due to the practice at that time of simply passing on the LRH reply and keeping what went up in files (so unless one got access to and went into these files one wouldn't see what went up, just what came down).
In the same time period, the Dec '81 Mission Holder meetings were held at Flag. In January '82, some very heavy despatches came down from LRH regarding these Msn Hldr meetings, about "mutiny", "attempted takeovers", "infiltration by enemy agents" and references to Purcell and attempted mutinies in the early '50s. Thus, although I never saw what reports went to LRH regarding the Dec '81 Msn Hldr meetings, I did ascertain that the reports came from ''Special Unit" (which contained David Miscavige, Steve Marlowe, Norman Starkey, etc., and which later became "ASI" - Author Services Incorporated, and "RTC" - Religious Technology Center). From the LRH despatches, it was obvious that someone had briefed LRH with some very alarming and false data concerning the Msn Hldr meetings at Flag. Yet, what was somewhat deceptive about this was that in conversation with me, David Miscavige appeared to regard the Msn Hldr meetings as having some basis in fact, in actual injustices and in a breakdown or failure in communication between Top Management (meaning CMO INT) and the execs on staff and the field. All of which seemed valid to me. Again, some months later, I learned that wasn't Miscavige's attitude at all - he apparently was humouring me!
Assignment of the technical responsibility for the next 20-25 years
In April '82, I received the despatch from LRH asigning to me the hat of technical responsibility for the next 20-25 years and in which LRH stated that he didn't expect to live long - he said a few month at least, a couple of years at the most. This despatch was quite long (some 20 pages typed) and included in it as one of the points that I should re-organize my unit, possibly even becoming corporately separate, so that I could fulfill the duties, functions and responsibilities regarding these technical hats. (I mention the separate corporation possibility here because that is, in fact, what I later suggested/proposed after consultation with others such as Lyman Spurlock, David Miscavige, and Pat Broeker and others, and as this separate corporation suggestion was part of the reason for my removal.)
One of the main difficulties that I had encountered on the post of Senior C/S International was when technical purity or technical integrity encountered disagreement from certain management execs whose main interest and concern was statistics - not that such disagreements were continuous but when there was trouble, one of the fundamental points was the question of technical integrity versus immediate stats. Although hard to believe, an example of this is that Pat Broeker came to me with a suggestion that I should put out a false "OT VIII". It was to consist of simply having the solo auditor fly his own ruds once a week! I refused to have anything to do with it. Pat had lots of well-sounding reasons as to why he had suggested it, but at the bottom of all these was that his idea was to solve a financial problem. This, in part, led to my conclusion that in order to carry out the technical responsibilities in full during the next 20 - 25, years that my office would need to be separate and independent corporately and financially from current management.
Another difficulty that I had encountered on the post of Senior C/S International was that of financing to cover the expences of running my office and of financing the piloting and export of various new technical developments. I would receive orders from LRH regarding piloting of new rundowns and their release (such as Solo NOTs, Happiness Rundown, etc). Depending on current FP (Financial Planning), the expenses would either be approved or cut. From my point of view, I couldn't allow this to interfere with matters of the importance of the release of Solo NOTS, etc. So, on many occasions during the period from 1980 - 1981, I had paid these expenses out of my own pocket, a total of approximately $5,000 during that 2 year period. My solution to this for the future was to set up my office independent of the changing circumstances of FP; the idea was that my office and the piloting and export of new tech would be supported by income generated by my office. This financing was discussed with various executives at CMO INT and in the "special Unit" (including people like Marc Yager, Mark Ingber, Wendell Reynolds, Lyman Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, David Miscavige, Pat Broeker and others) . The solution suggested to me and which I agreed to was that my office should charge for services such as handling pc folders for other orgs, doing events for other orgs, and courses sold that I was directly overseeing (such as the pilot of the new dissemination course at that time). And again, the idea was put forward that my office belonged, not under CSI (Church of Scientology International) but, under a separate corporation. In the interim, I was to start collecting money per above, and a bank account was to be set up (the account was to be called Church of Scientology International Snr C/S Int account).
The above and other matters necessary to the re-organization of the Senior C/S Int office were put into a proposal and sent to LRH.
During early 1982, David Miscavige and Shelley Miscavige ran an "Offload Project" during which a large number of SO members, including several members of the CMO were "found unfit" and thrown out of the SO. This project was directly under Pat Broeker. The majority of those persons that Pat Broeker and David Miscavige didn't like were gotten rid of, including Anne Taskett, Donna Robinson, Melanie Murray, Dede Voegeding, Gale Irwin, Lois Reisdorf (all CMO), plus other crew.
Also during this time period of early to mid 1982, I became more and more outspoken on other than purely technical matters - I made my objections to high and rising prices of Scn services, to the rashes of incorrect and unjust ethics and justice actions and numerous other matters very well kown to WDC and other senior execs in an effort to get these points corrected.
I also started to become progressively more and more outspoken on the subject of what I considered to be enormous financial waste. (For example, at Gilman Hot Springs some locals were hired to weed the gardens and as I saw these mainly sitting around in the gardens doing very little, I inquired and was told that this was not to be questioned as they had heen hired by Shelly (Michelle) Miscavige, but I was also told that they were paid $38,000. Another example is the monstrosity that was built around the swimming pool at Gilman Hot Springs - a ship mock-up complete with masts and rigging at a cost of approx. half a million dollars.) While these extravagances were occurring, the crew were being told that finances were tight and that everybody needed to tighten their belts to keep expenses down, crew pay was cut and food and medical allocations were cut!
I was not the only person raising a voice on these and other matters of mismanagement; John Nelson (then CO CMO), Kerry Gleeson (then ED INT), Alan Buchanan (then Deputy ED INT) and various other staff at CMO INT, at Flag and in the FOLOs and orgs were also stating the same or similar during this period (end '81 thru mid-'82).
In June, July and August of '82, I was assigned two major missions to do by LRH:
- to get the FSO's WDAH and VSD up and
- to get the international VSD and WDAH up.
This put my attention more on administrative matters (stats and raising production) than it had been previously - I'd mainly been involved in more purely technical matters of doing pilots, compilations, writing and exporting technical rundowns for LRH up until then. During the course of these two missions, the VSD and WDAH of both the FSO and of Scn Int were markedly raised. I attribute the succes of these two missions to revitalizing purposes and using ARC in handling the staff and execs. I made a point of the fact that this was far more successful than the out-of-ARC methods currently in use by management and which were becoming more and more harsh.
Although numerous other incidents occurred during this period, the above I feel are the most significant.
In July of 1982, John Nelson was removed from post as CO CMO by David Miscavage and Pat and Annie Broeker - mainly for disagreements with orders from Pat Broeker on financial matters, appointing more FBOs, taking reserves from orgs and missions, etc., and the fact that John Nelson had removed Wendell Reynolds from the post of "Financial Dictator" for issuing destructive orders. (Wendall had been appointed to that post by Pat Broeker and the orders he was issuing, I believe, mainly originated from David Miscavige and Pat Broeker or were relayed by them to Wendell.)
During a conversation with Pat Broeker and David Miscavige in about mid 1982, some relevant attitudes were revealed. Pat and Miscavige were discussing the fact that they would have the responsibility for the management of Scn from LRH's death on until he returned in next life. (Pat & Annie Broeker and David Miscavige were to be the three trustees.) Their attitude was that they would have to exert more control and use more force to "keep Scientologists in hand", "under control"; e.g., Pat said of Kerry Gleeson, "If he will dare to query my orders now, what will it be like when the old man isn't around? He won't take any notice of me!"
I tried to point out that confidence in management depended on competence and ARC, not control or force and brought up the "Essay on Management" - which was taken by Pat and Miscavige as "riding the enemy line".
On the morning of 29 August 82, I was removed from post by David Miscavige and Steve Marlowe in the presence of Marc Yager for being "anti-management". It was also stated by Miscavige that I had been responsible for getting rid of messengers and he named John Nelson, Dede Voegeding, Gale Irvin, Anne Taskett, Donna Robinson, Lois Reisdorf, etc., - all persons whom David Miscavige and Pat Broeker had had removed from post and later had offloaded. The four staff who had worked with me and another person (who had C/Sed my folder) were also removed from post and put onto heavy MEST work and/or assigned to the RPF at the same time. I was placed under 24-hour guard and subsequently various other atrocities occured to myself and others. Within a week, Kerry Gleeson, Alan Buchanan and other key execs (a total of about 18) were also removed from post by Miscavige, Vicki Aznaran and Steve Marlowe. About a month later, a Comm Ev was convened which contained as a main charge being "anti-management" and numerous other accusations of "crimes" and "high crimes". About a month after my removal, David Miscavige told me that he was going to destroy my technical reputation in case I didn't "come around" to their way of thinking as too many people considered me to be an opinion leader. Various technical "investigations" were done by Gelda Mithoff, Ray Mithoff, Jesse Prince and Mike Eldridge to that end. Similarly, the idea of orgs or FOLOs or missions having any degree of initiative were viewed as efforts to be "autonomous" and "riding the enemy line", as were matters relating to prices, comm between management and Scns, etc etc.
During this period, the idea of prosecuting Scientologists (by RTC) - both staff members and public Scientologists- and the "policy" of "Excommunication" and debarrment from OT levels and from any auditing and training forever were also introduced. Much more could be said on such subjects and the events which occurred during the period from 29 Aug 82 when I was removed, to 14 February 1983 when I left, but these matters confirmed my conclusion that a) what was occurring in top management of Scientology was not Scientology, and b) that it was not possible for me to bring about a constructive change or reformation "from within" the organization and c) that I should no longer support or condone what was occurring by my continued presence at CMO INT or in the Sea Org, as to stay on under those circumstances would have been a betrayal of Scn and everything we stood for.
Note: The allegation that I had "embezzled" money was a fabrication concerning the money collected from the dissemination course pilot (mentioned above). I did not, in fact, personally receive any of that money and the cheques were made out to a C of S account. A private investigator was even called in and spent some hours questioning me regarding this matter in the presence of Geoff Shervell, as well as investigating the accounting etc., and finally told me that he had found nothing to substantiate the allegations and had been "misbriefed" on the matter.
Summary of the visit from Geoff Shervell in August '83
Geoff Shervell came to Harvey and Donna Haber's house in August '82 about 2 or 3 weeks after we had started the AAC. Present were Geoff Shervell, Harvey and Donna Haber, John Nelson and myself (David Mayo). He said he wanted to talk to all of us, but mainly to me.
He started by saying that what we were doing (the AAC) was of great concern to management because too many Scientologists were in agreement with what we were doing and that too many Scientologists were disaffected with management. He quoted some figures (estimates) of numbers of people in various countries (like USA, Australia and New Zealand, etc.) that the G.O. thought were on our lines or soon would be. He said that management now considered that we were a threat and wanted to do a deal.
He suggested that maybe my SP declare could be cancelled and that there had been instances of other SP declares having been cancelled. He said that could be arranged if I would agree to closing down the AAC. I asked him if he thought the SP declare on me was correct or not, AND HE REPLIED TO THE EFFECT THAT THAT WAS IRRELEVANT, HE WAS THERE TO FIND OUT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET ME TO CLOSE DOWN THE AAC. He did then go on to say that there were known falsities in the SP declare on me, such as the allegations about "embezzlement" and that he had recommended that that should not have been included.
He asked if there was any way or any circumstances under which I would close down the AAC. I told him that should the following conditions be met that I would gladly close down the AAC, whether I was permitted back or not. These were: that the prices be lowered to a point where the average person could afford to go up the bridge and be able to get his family up the bridge; that all incorrect and unjust ethics actions be cancelled and false statements made corrected and that a Board of Review be set up which any Scientologist could go to for redress AND THAT THESE BE ACTUALLY HANDLED AND CORRECTED; that management would have to get into communication with the execs, staffs and public Scientologists and apply the "Essay on Management", "The Credo of a Good and Skilled Manager" etc.; that actual out-tech such as political use of sec checks, messing up cases in the middle of other actions and OT levels with sec checks and "gang-bang" sec checking would all have to cease; that these and any other outnesses would have to be genuinely corrected and that I would have to see this occurring - not just lip service being paid to these points. There were some other points also but Geoff said that even before I got to the third point, I would have to be kidding because there was no way that I could make such demands, nor was there any way that such demands could be met.
We agreed that we were talking from two entirely different realities ("oceans apart").
He then said that since a deal with me to close down the AAC wasn't possible, that they would go to any lengths to close us down and that legal suits would be numerous and it wouldn't stop there.
He finally expressed that having the official business stated, he wanted to express some things personally and did so briefly - the gist of this being that he wished things were different.
In brief, as it was approximately a 2-hour conversation, that was the extent of it.
Note: Although at that time, I meant that if the C of S, RTC etc., did actually honestly carry out these reforms that I would close down the AAC, that is no longer the case. I have changed my mind about that and under no circumstances will I close it down nor cease to do what I am doing. The reason for this is that I have realized that it is basically and philosophically incorrect for any one group or organization or person to hold a monopoly on freedom, to hold a monopoly over other beings and their futures. I consider that any possibility of the threat of denial of the bridge, OT levels, auliting or training for all eternity is suppressive and that freedom or Total Freedom cannot exist in the face of oppressive conditions imposed on that freedom. That one does not owe allegiance to a group that has departed from the goals and ideals of that group. That standard tech, high-quality tech is only possible in a free enterprise system and that a monopoly permits out-tech to occur, sometimes fosters out-tech and political use of the tech. Should the C of S reform eventually, it will be only because of the pressure brought to bear by high technical quality, high integrity competition, and even then it would be advantageous and probably necessary to ensure the competition continued to ensure that the C of S did not, after reforming, revert to its earlier ways. Thus, it is a matter of priniciple and duty that I continue the AAC and other competitive technical delivery groups.
