All of them, those in power, and those who want the power, would pamper us, if we agreed to overlook their crookedness by wilfully restricting our activities.
Disclaimer: Dianetics and Scientology are trademarks of the Religious Technology Center (RTC.) These pages and their author are not connected with the Church of Scientology or RTC, or any other organization residing under their corporate umbrella.
This site is best viewed using a highly standards-compliant browser
«The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins.» — L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL, 15 August 1960, "DEPT OF GOVT AFFAIRS"
Scientology History in Toronto, Part One
SCIENTOLOGY HISTORY IN TORONTO, PART NINE
In December 1987, Scientology affiliate New Era Publications International, ApS of Copenhagen was in federal court, attempting to get an interim injunction to stop the publication of The Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard, by Russell Miller. Cathia Riley, the church's director of special affairs, claimed that the book contained material stolen by former members of the church in California. Lawyer Julian Porter, whose wife owns Key Porter Books, the Canadian publisher, told the court that his main defence was "fair dealing" on the part of the author. "You cannot criticize accurately without citing in some instances the work you are criticizing", Porter said. 
On December 2nd, four hours after lawyers had ended their arguments, Mr. Justice Bud Cullen delivered a 10 page judgement denying the injunction. Judge Cullen described Scientology's founder as an author of "outlandish, foolish, vicious, racist writings." He observed approvingly of statements by a British High Court judge that Scientology is "both immoral and socially obnoxious" as well as "corrupt, sinister and dangerous". 
Scientology had some good luck in May of 1988. The long-awaited Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of Stewart v. The Queen was announced on May 26. Stewart was a consultant who was acting on behalf of a union in a recruiting drive. He had offered a security guard at the worksite an amount of money in exchange for a confidential list of employee names, addresses and telephone numbers. The information was to be obtained without removing or otherwise affecting the records themselves. Stewart was reported to the police, and was charged with counselling to commit a fraud, counselling to commit a theft, and counselling to commit mischief.
The Supreme Court determined that Stewart should be acquitted of all charges. They wrote that for a theft to occur, that which is stolen must be the subject of a proprietary right, and that it "must be capable of being taken or converted in a manner that results in the deprivation of the victim". 
Therefore, information cannot be stolen. Merely copying or memorizing a confidential document is not theft.
The lawyer who argued this case was Clayton Ruby. The arguments of Stewart v. The Queen were later put to good use by Scientology.
In July, 1988, Scientology came up with a new tactic. Church lawyer Clayton Ruby sent a letter to Ontario Attorney General Ian Scott proposing a deal whereby "possibly millions" of dollars would be given to agencies which help the elderly, poor, and drug addicts, if the government would drop charges against the Church and give them immunity from prosecution. At a press conference on July 26th, church spokesman Cathia Riley said that the church did not insist that charges against individual members be dropped, and urging Scott to suggest an appropriate cash amount.
It turned out that the social agencies were not very happy about the proposal, and Scott was roundly criticized for even considering the deal, which he admitted was an attempt to buy off the prosecution. The idea that people or corporations with deep pockets could be above the law did not sit well with the citizens, and the proposal was quickly refused.     
The accused Scientologists, and the Church of Scientology of Toronto, were indicted on September 21st, 1990, and again by preferred indictment on February 8th, 1991, on charges of theft and/or possession of stolen property, and of Breach of Trust by Public Officer.  
In an unreported preliminary hearing before Judge Babe, Scientology argued successfully that it could not be proven that the documents which they were accused of having stolen, or having possessed knowing that they were stolen, were of a value greater than $200. This makes the difference between petty theft and felonious theft (the limit today  is $1000). Scientology lawyers relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. The Queen, as the valuation of the documents had been based largely on their confidentiality, that is, the value of the information. The Crown was reduced to allegations either that the paper on which the documents were printed had been stolen, or else that it was removed from use (converted) for the period of time it took to photocopy them.
The Scientology defence lawyers then sought a declaration from the trial court that their right under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure was infringed, due to the manner in which the search warrant was executed and because the warrant was allegedly obtained in a fatally flawed manner.
The accused argued that the evidence relied on to show reasonable and probable grounds for a search was obtained by unlawful acts by the police. An undercover police officer employed by the church had taken documents from the workplace, had them copied, and returned them to the files. The accused argued that the removal constituted a "seizure" and that the seizure was unreasonable and violated their s. 8 rights. They also claimed that the taking of the documents constituted theft. They submitted that the police officer committed forgery when, in connection with her employment for the church, she signed a document containing a false statement.
Constable Barbara Taylor of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) later testified on May 19th, 1992 about her role. She had been assigned to work undercover at the church in 1980, after documents from the Ontario government had been found in an FBI search of the Los Angeles Church of Scientology headquarters.  By 1983 she had gained a position in the Guardian's Office of the Toronto church. In this position, she had access to intelligence files, including files on the OPP and the detective supervising Taylor's assignment. She said that some of the information appeared to be from job-performance evaluations.
Anyone with a sense of irony will be amused at this. Here are the police investigating infiltrations by doing some infiltrating of their own. Here is an undercover officer discovering purloined information on her own force, job-performance reviews on her own boss. And because she copied that information, the Scientologists cry foul and accuse her of theft. Truly a game of spy and counterspy.
Judge Southey ruled:
The taking of the documents did not constitute theft, because it was not done fraudulently or without colour of right. The taking was incidental to the ultimate disclosure of the suspected criminal conduct of the accused. The undercover officer was under a public duty to make full disclosure, a duty which did not depend on her status as a police officer. 
The judge also ruled that the seizure of the documents was not unreasonable and did not violate s. 8 rights.
As to forgery, Constable Taylor was required to sign a
document entitled, "Declaration of Religious Commitment and
Application for Active Participation on Church Staff". This
document includes the following declarations:
(9) I am not related to or connected to intelligence agencies either by past history or immediate familial connections.
(11) I am not here to obtain news stories or data for any other organization or to generally disrupt the Church organization.
(14) I have had no prior service in a high security section of the government or armed forces.
Judge Southey said that the officer did commit the offences of forgery and uttering (she had been assured that the Attorney General would stay prosecution), but that the fact that this was not revealed to the issuing judge did not render the search warrant invalid. This would only be the case if the information not disclosed would tip the scales against the issuance, in the mind of the issuing judge. In fact, had Judge Hayes been informed that "source #3" was an undercover police officer, it would probably have strengthened the case. "The signing of the forms was essential to her undercover operation... most reasonable persons would regard the criminality as technical, not involving and immorality". 
A much more serious issue was the manner in which the search warrant was executed. The search warrant limited the search with these words: "All the above described things to be searched for to relate directly to the below described offences." These were the three proposed charges of tax fraud, consumer fraud, and conspiracy to commit indictable offences, including break, enter and theft. The Ontario High Court and Court of Appeal had referred to the limitation above in deciding that the warrant was valid.
The investigation into Scientology had been given the name, "Project 20". It was kept to a minimum number of persons, so as to avoid exposure to possible Scientology "plants".
The search warrant was executed by a force of 129 OPP officers, most of whom were used to secure the building. The search team consisted of 37 officers, some of whom were administrative personnel. The original plan called for only 19 officers to actually look at the documents. These were a 3 officers per floor, plus one extra on the third floor. The seven accountants present were to give advice on the documents to be seized. Only one of the searching officers on each floor was a Project 20 member. There was one copy of the search warrant per floor. None of the officers had been permitted to contact relatives between their muster for the search and the initiation of the search, in order not to tip off the suspected "plants". No provision was made for the searching officers to be relieved. While the warrant permitted a three day search, the plan was to take 20 - 24 hours to complete it. In fact, it was complete in 20 hours, but allowing for time to prepare rooms for searching by photographing and labelling, only about 17 to 18 hours was spent searching.
39,000 files were taken, averaging 50 to 60 pages per file, for a total seizure of about 2 million pages. The trial judge calculated that if the seizure of all documents had been approved by the team leaders, as was the original plan, then "the six team leaders each approved documents at the rate of five pages per second, non-stop, for the 17 or 18 hours in which they were searching." 
A significant number of documents were seized which did not fall within the classes of documents covered by the search warrant. An example was the pre-clear folders. They were clearly marked as pre-clear folders, and each bore the name of the person who was the subject of the file. The OPP had authority under the warrant to seize the pre-clear folders relating to members and former members of the Guardian Office. No list of names of the Guardian Office staff was provided to the searching officers. Instead, the total number of pre-clear folders seized was 978, relating to 641 parishioners. In June 1983, 48 boxes of pre-clear folders were returned by the OPP, because they were folders of persons not on the Guardian Office staff.
Likewise, in other areas, the judge found that there were wholesale seizures, rather than a search for relevant documents followed by a seizure. Whole locked filing cabinets were taken, rather than being opened and searched. Judge Southey concluded, "There is no question that the search and seizure of documents not covered by the search warrant which resulted from the improper manner in which the search was conducted was unreasonable because it was warrantless." 
However, the Crown sought only to introduce documents which did fall within the terms of the search warrant. Judge Southey referenced decisions in United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238 (1981) and R. v. Simmons (1988), 38 C.R.R. 252, which relate to a good faith attempt by officers to stay within the limits of a warrant, and to the requirement for a "flagrant" violation of Charter rights for evidence to be set aside. He concluded that because so many officers paid no attention to the search warrant limitation, that the facts do not support a finding of good faith.
Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires:
Where ... a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Accordingly, Judge Southey ruled on December 2nd, 1991, "the Crown may not give evidence as to the documents seized in the premises of the corporate defendant on March 3 and 4, 1983." 
NONE of the seized documents could be used as evidence in the trial.
1. "Court weighs bid to ban biography of
Hubbard", Globe & Mail, December 1, 1987, p. A18.