Go back to main Scientology in Canada page
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON BETWEEN: ALLAN ANTHONY BUTTNOR Plaintiff and JANICE "KELLY" GARIEPY, REED LEARY and KEN MONTOGOMERY Defendants AND BETWEEN: KEN MONTOGOMERY Plaintiff by Counterclaim and ALLAN ANTHONY BUTTNOR and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ALBERTA Defendants by Counterclaim AFFIDAVIT I, Allan Anthony Buttnor, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, Reverend Minister of Religion, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 1. I am the person named as the Plaintiff and am one of the two Defendants by Counterclaim in this action and as such have personal knowledge of all matters hereinafter deposed to except where expressly stated to be on information and belief. 2. In the period of time during the Fall of 1990 and the Spring of 1991 I held the post of a senior church official in the Edmonton Church of Scientology. 3. As part of my duties I would routinely make contact with community officials and other leaders and consequently, in the Fall of 1990 I happened to attend a lecture also attended by Detective Montgomery. We spoke by telephone subsequently and arranged a lunch meeting on January 23, 1991 at which time I attended with Detective Leary and Montgomery with the purpose of establishing better community relations between the local church and the local authorities. 4. During this lunch meeting on 23 January 1991, the two detectives questioned me on the use of our religious artifact, the E-meter, and generally posed questions of me relating to the activities of the church. The two detectives also advised me they were aware of the situation of church member, Michel Gariepy, who had been made the subject of a court order remanding him to Alberta Hospital in January 1991 for an assessment on the highly dubious evidence of his disaffected and estranged spouse, Janice "Kelly" Gariepy, herself a former member of the Edmonton church. Also during this lunch meeting, the two detectives alluded several times to a ten year old girl. I took this to mean that they were referring to Marie Gariepy, daughter of the Gariepy's, who had helping out around the church in November and December of 1990. 5. On 28 January 1991 in an attempt to provide further truthful information in the ongoing marital difficulties between Michel and Janice "Kelly" Gariepy, I called Ken Montgomery and gave him the name of Detective Kittle of the Edmonton City Police Strike Force who had dealt with "Kelly" Gariepy previously and knew of her unreliability and her predilection for misrepresenting the facts and in many cases lying outright. Attached to this my affidavit as Exhibit "A" are true copies of media reports detailing the false testimony and false reports given by Kelly Gariepy which I enclosed with this letter. 6. During our telephone conversation of the 28th, I asked Det. Montgomery whether he had ever spoken with or been in touch with Kelly Gariepy and he suddenly and, apparently meaningfully, went silent for a period of time to which I attached some significance, that being, knowledge. 7. I then asked the Detective if he also had been in contact with another disaffected former Church member, one Nelson Henderson. Nelson Henderson personally telephoned me one day later and told me he had been in contact with Detective Leary, Montgomery's partner, in regard to the activities of the Church. 8. I am advised by fellow Church member Michel Gariepy and do verily believe that a Detective Beneto with the Edmonton City Police spoke to him and told him that the police were beginning to investigate allegations of abuse in respect of Marie Gariepy against myself all at the instance of Kelly Gariepy. When I heard that Kelly was behind these allegations I arranged for documents detailing past instances of false witness by kelly to be dropped off with the Police Department for Beneto. 9. On or about February 25, 1991 I wrote to Detectives Leary and Montgomery at the Integrated Intelligence Unit to advise them of the circumstances surrounding Kelly Gariepy and her proclivity to misrepresent the truth. A copy of this letter is attached to this my Affidavit as Exhibit "B". 10. On or about 6 March 1991 Susan Kerr and I met with Detectives Leary and Montgomery. The detectives confirmed to me that they had been in communication with Nelson Henderson and Kelly Gariepy. 11. I was arrested on March 8, 1991 by Detectives Beneto and Findlay and charged with sexual assault upon the child. This charge was falsely raised against me and eventually, on April 15, 1991 I was acquitted. 12. I am advised by Susan Kerr and do verily believe that in the early evening of March 8, 1991, after my arrest, she spoke by telephone with Detective Montgomery who engaged in what appeared to a tasteless form of 'cat and mouse' game and taunted her by asking her "Where Al was" and that he knew "where Al was" and that he would tell her if she would cooperate and provide confidential financial information on the Church in exchange. Detective Montgomery also suggested obliquely that she should not attempt to tamper with a witness. 13. On March 8, 1991 the Edmonton City Police sent out a media release with details of my arrest, a copy of which is Exhibit "C" to this my Affidavit. Subsequently, after judicial interim release I was hounded by media and as a result of the negative publicity immediately following my arrest, my then wife from whom I was separated at the time forced me to give up access rights to my children which effectively denied me any meaningful contact with my own children. 14. On March 19, 1991 at 11:51 a.m. I was present during a telephone conversation between Michel Gariepy and Detective Kittle in which the police detective refers to the fact that he spoke to Detective Montgomery who said that he was involved in the investigation in relation to the Gariepy allegation. A true copy of the transcript of the conversation is appended to this my Affidavit as Exhibit "D". 15. I am advised by Susan Kerr and do verily believe that on or about March 13, 1991 she and two other members of the Church were requested to attend in a briefing room at RCMP K Division Headquarters in Edmonton to meet with detectives Montgomery and Leary. During that interview, the officers implied that they had knowledge of the whereabouts of certain church members, the knowledge of which could only be ascertained if some kind of surveillance operation was being carried out. Further, the officers used joking and ridiculing terms and language in relation to our religious practices. In addition, the officer admitted to distributing information about our church to other information networks and the general public. 16. While in custody on March 8 1991, I was taunted by a guard in the Remand Centre who deliberately spoke of the sexual allegations in front of other inmates to coerce my signature on a document to assign myself to protective custody and I feared for my safety. 17. After and my arrest, and during the media circus which attached to the "side show" aspects of this case, I continued to question the police as to why this was happening to me and why the church seemed to be the target of an unnatural interest by the police. Susan Kerr and I attempted to contact inspector Campbell who was the supervisor of Detectives Leary and Montgomery, before proceeding with our complaint. But, Inspector Campbell refused to meet with us directly and informed us through his office that we to put our concerns in writing, which we did, and which has now become the subject matter of the counter claim launched by Detective Ken Montgomery. 18. I launched the Claim and consulted with Susan Kerr in the development of the complaint letter because I know that the police had no reasonable grounds for charging me with any crime and that the police were involved in a concerted, co-ordinated and calculated plan and policy of surveillance watching and besetting in regard to our religious practices for which I believe there are remedies in law. 19. I have reviewed the Affidavit filed may 18, 1994 by Detective Montgomery and in response to some of the many inaccuracies and misrepresentations contained in the exhibited materials I consulted with my church superiors who referred me to a solicitor familiar with many of the particulars. The response letter from that solicitor, Mr. Moxon, of the State of California, is attached as Exhibit "E" to this my Affidavit. Mr. Moxon advised me and I do verily believe there is an appropriate rebuttal to the Montgomery Affidavit. 20. I know of no facts which will substantiate the Counterclaim of ken Montgomery. 21. I make this Affidavit in support of the herein Application for Summary Dismissal. SWORN BEFORE me at the City ) of Edmonton, in the Province ) (signed) of Alberta, this l9th day of ) ---------------------------------- May, A.D. 1994 ) ALLAN ANTHONY BUTTNOR ) (signed) ) ------------------------------- ) A COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS IN AND ) FOR THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA. ) DAVID S. SCORGIE A NOTARY PUBLIC A COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS IN AND FOR THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
Go back to main Scientology in Canada page
Martin Hunt / martinh@islandnet.com / August 15 1997