Peter Ramsay's Letter to Ron Sharp's Employer (commented)

Peter Ramsay
(Ramsay's address)

July 9, 1999

(to 3 executives at Ron's employer)

Re: Ron Sharp

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you on a matter which is of some concern to me.

I do have a specific reason for sending you this letter and that reason is somewhat in the nature of a complaint. However, I'm going to have to ask that you wade through a couple of pages before I get to my point.

Note that this letter is supposed to have gone to several busy corporate executives. Do busy corporate executives have the time to read several pages of introduction before getting to the point of an unsolicited letter?

I have been, since 1972, a parishioner of the Toronto Church of Scientology.

My faith is characterized, more often than no, as one of the "new" religions. It has been my experience that few of the people I meet know much about it. For that reason, I am sending a book on the subject.

Do busy corporate executives have the time to read books sent by the senders of unsolicited letters?

Approximately two years ago, a man named William Hagglund began to conduct a series of "demonstrations" against my church and my religion. Mr. Hagglund is usually accompanied by two other individuals during these exercises. However, it has been obvious from the beginning that Mr. Hagglund is their de facto "leader".

On this, Ramsay is wrong. The reason that Gregg appears as the "leader" is that he is the one who originally signed his name to the notices of demonstration that were sent to the police in 1997. It's also a Church of Scientology PR line that critics are part of an organized effort to bring down the CoS - admitting that the "two other individuals" are picketing because they object to certain sleazy practices of the CoS would contradict Scientology policy.

Although neither Mr. Hagglund nor any of his regular supporters has had any previous contact with my religion, they have adopted a manner of behaviour towards the subject and its practitioners which is, in my opinion, very bizarre and very antagonistic.

Actually, all of us had previous contact with Scientology - just not as members and adherents. My first experience with anything Scientology was watching Dianetics commercials shown during children's cartoons on Saturday morning television. My next experience was reading about all of the cult's abuses on the internet and in magazines and books. Since this includes the litany of people who've died suspicious deaths while in the clutches of the Church of Scientology, is it any wonder that I feel antagonistic towards the cult? However, only a Scientologist would see being annoyed at the cult's abuses as bizarre behaviour - in the Cos, the organization is never considered to be at fault.

For example, Mr. Hagglund, before venturing out on his first "demonstration", posted to the internet a statement which read, in part, that practitioners of my faith "should be dealt with as wolves used to be".

Unfortunately for his credibility, Ramsay is twisting the truth here. You can read the post he's referring to here (Note 2001-03-05: Until Google has a complete usenet search utility, this quoting of a previous post is as good as I can find). Of course, you can always email Gregg and ask him yourself just what this is about.

Mr. Hagglund has styled himself as a "critic" of my church and my religion. I would be the first to state that Mr. Hagglund has the right to utter his opinions of my religion - even if those opinions are condemnatory. However, right from the beginning of his campaign he strayed from criticism to harassment.

He and his followers have baited and verbally harassed both staff members and parishioners of my church. Children of parishioners and staff have also been harassed.

Again, Ramsay is confusing picketing with harassment. By continually harping on the harassment line, he appears to be using the Big Lie technique of propaganda - by repeating something often enough, people begin to believe it.

On one occasion, Mr. Hagglund attempted to run infiltrators into one of our annual events.

For once, Ramsay is right about something. Only in part, unfortunately for his credibility: The event in question was supposed to be open to the public, but it wasn't quite as open as was advertised. How can you infiltrate an event that's open to the public, anyway? You can read more about this event here and here.

He and his crew have also surrepticiously taken photographs of staff members and parishioners of the local church, placed these on Mr. Hagglund's website and requested information about them. He has also pulled this same stunt with photographs of children of parishioners of my church.

Actually, this wasn't surreptitious in any way. The pictures were taken on a public street, often in front of a police officer. Gregg's website has had the pictures on it since 1997, with intermittent down-time periods. As for why he "requested information about them" - why not email Gregg and ask him? (I'd link to his website where he explains this, but it's down again for a while.)

Additionally, officials of my church have had to deal with a bomb threat and an assault committed on one of our staff members. In my opinion, both of these incidents were the result of some of the inciteful literature which Mr. Hagglund had been handing out.

Mr. Hagglund's actions and those of his supporters were so obviously harassive in intent that officials of my church were forced to hire a duty officer of the Metro Toronto Police to oversee his group during their "visits". The Toronto Hate Crimes Unit was also contacted and Mr. Hagglund was investigated and interviewed - the name of the investigating officer is Detective Kijewski.

Ramsay is defaming Gregg here - picketing an organization does not consist of harassment, especially in a democracy with constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly. And as to whether the Church of Scientology really believes in freedom of speech, I'd say it doesn't. Why? Because of what cult founder L. Ron Hubbard wrote about freedom of speech in the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics. As far as inciteful literature - just plain no. You can see by the material on my leaflets page that none of it is in fact inciteful. In fact, with their duty to keep the peace, police officers (in my opinion) wouldn't allow inciteful material to be passed out at a demonstration.

As to the incidents that Ramsay cites, the bomb threat is unconfirmed (as in, I don't know if there really was one and I don't consider Peter Ramsay or the CoS a trustworthy source) and the assault was provoked by a Church of Scientology of Toronto staff member. You can read Toronto Scientologist (and CoS shill) Andy Hill's report of the assault here, and what the local police told Gregg Hagglund about the incident here.

Anyhow. On to the police officer allegation. Yes, the CoS pays for an off-duty police officer to be at every picket. Unfortunately (again) for Peter Ramsay's and the CoS' credibility, this isn't because of the anti-CoS picketers. You see, once upon a Toronto picket the local Scientologists misbehaved, and were caught doing so by the police. As a result, the CoS gets to pay for the off-duty officer, and keeps trying to claim that the police officer is there because of picketers' behaviour. Really now - would the Scientology cult have to pay for something that's not their fault?

While he was not charged, his file remains "open" at the Hate Crimes Unit and this visit did prompt a marked change in his behaviour and the behaviour of his supporters - they have become much less aggressive and much less vociferous. Indeed, shortly thereafter, Mr. Hagglund took his website off-line, claiming that his house had been "hit by lightning". Unfortunately, he has put it back up earlier this year - in an altered form.

In this paragraph, Peter Ramsay is mixing lies with half-truths. Yes, the Church of Scientology of Toronto *did* lay a hate crimes complaint with the Toronto police hate crimes unit (part of intelligence). Yes, Gregg *was* visited at his home by some police officers. However, the actual form of the meeting went differently than Ramsay alleges. As well, nobody in Toronto has become any the less vociferous in our denunciation of the Church of Scientology's various nefarious practices - and the aggression that Ramsay alleges has always been conspicuously absent from Toronto protesting activity.

In fact, I had the opportunity to ask Detective Kijewski of the Toronto Police Hate Crimes Unit if the Church of Scientology had made any complaints about picketers. From what he told me, it turns out that after the initial 1997 CoS complaint, and the HCU investigation that found that no hate crime was being committed, all CoS complaints were to be investigated through 52 Division, the local precinct around the Toronto Org. Detective Kijewski didn't say whether anybody's file is open or not at the HCU, but if everything CoS related is to go through 52 Division - what does that say about this allegation of Ramsay's?

Now, as to Gregg's website. It's been up and down like a yo-yo since, according to Gregg, his *ISP* was struck my lightning. Now, it's down again (more's the pity). Gregg is apparently working on a new version of his website (he stopped updating his in 1997), but it'll have to wait until he gets some spare time (which is in short supply in his jobs).

I wish to add here that Mr. Hagglund impresses me as the type of individual who learns enough of the law so as to push things as far as he can without crossing the line into obvious criminality.

This is another Church of Scientology tactic - don't lie, but spread innuendo. Look carefully - there are no actual verifiable factual statements in the above paragraph. Here Ramsay is implying that Gregg is doing bad things, but not of a criminal intensity. Unfortunately (yet again) for Peter Ramsay's credibility, Gregg isn't actually doing anything bad...

Although nowadays we see Mr. Hagglund and his band, at most, once a month and then only in the warmer weather, he remains a matter of concern to me.

I see a much darker side to Mr. Hagglund.

Innuendo again. Implying that Gregg, whatever he may seem, has a "darker side" and shouldn't be trusted.

There seems to be to be a proliferation, these days, of a type of group which has as its goal the wanton harassment, degradation and/or destruction of some chosen segment of society. I am sure that you can think of many examples - the media seems to be rife with reports of such.

Unfortunately, we all too often hear of these groups only after one of more of its members has committed some senseless act of violence against its chosen "target".

It is this very possibility that concerns me about Mr. Hagglund and his group.

These last few paragraphs are Ramsay's attempt to imply that the Toronto picketers have violent potential. He starts out by linking Toronto picketers with a certain "type of group", and mentioning media reports. Then, he implies that Toronto picketers, like these groups, are apparently harmless until some "senseless act of violence" is committed. I'll leave it to your imagination as to just what groups Ramsay refers to. In actual fact, as opposed to Church of Scientology fantasy, Toronto picketers are neither violent nor engaged in hate crimes - if we were, the police would have long since arrested and jailed us.

The actions of Mr. Hagglund and his friends, during his early "demonstrations", were very aggressive, as were their commentaries on the Internet. They seemed, to me, to be attempting to provoke some kind of untoward response from the members of my church.

I fail to see what was aggressive about the early Toronto demonstrations (you can see reports on the early demonstrations if you scroll down from here).

No such response has been forthcoming over a two year period.

This is just completely out to lunch - there have been many attempts to interfere with our pickets on the part of the Church of Scientology of Toronto and its adherents. These attempts have ranged from snatching flyers and blocking picketers from giving out flyers to passers-by to various intimidation attempts. As always, you can get more detail about Toronto pickets from the Picket Page.

I fear that Mr. Hagglund or one of his followers may, out of mounting frustration, commit some act of violence.

I can only state that this is a very real concern of mine.

This is Ramsay pouring on the innuendo. He has no actual evidence that Gregg (or any of us, come to that) have violent potential, so he resorts to insinuation to defame Gregg and the rest of us.

Accordingly, I am preparing, at my own expense, a multi-paged high-quality brochure for distribution to the home and business areas of Mr. Hagglund and his allies. The text will feature a summary of the harassment perpetrated by Mr. Hagglund's group. My commentary will be highlighted with quotations taken from their Internet postings - in this regard I have a wealth of material from which to choose.

I also intend to publish their photographs, their home addresses, their occupations, the names of the companies for which they work and their business addresses.

It is my assured belief that any person who takes the time to read my brochure will see Mr. Hagglund for exactly what I see him to be - a religious bigot, a purveyor of hatred and a lunatic.

I would apply the same description to his supporters.

This is more defamation - in fact, calling someone a "bigot" in Canada is defamatory in and of itself, as far as I know (I Am Not A Lawyer). Also, Ramsay (and hence the Church of Scientology of Toronto) is threatening to Fair Game Toronto critics, by defaming us to our co-workers and neighbors. It's revealing to note that Ramsay can't in fact refute our criticism of the infamous practices of the Scientology organization - he can only threaten Fair Game.

It is also my hope that the sight of their own words and deeds in print and the knowledge that their neighbors and co-workers are also cognizant of those same words and deeds will prompt a "change of mind" and that they will go off in search of a less destructive and less unseemly "hobby".

Translated from the Scientology cult innuendo, Ramsay seems to mean that picketers will be ashamed/intimidated by having their words and actions distributed in booklet form to co-workers and neighbors, and will thus stop picketing the Church of Scientology and telling Torontonians about the cult's abusive behaviour. As we haven't stopped after all the other CoS intimidation efforts, why does Ramsay think that we'll stop if he carries out the booklet threat?

At least this is my hope.

Thank you for bearing with me - I am finally getting to my point.

A quick note here... Remember, this letter went to Ron Sharp's employer, presumably a busy executive. How many busy executives would even read this far on a matter which isn't relevant to the core business of the company?

Sometime in 1998, Mr. Hagglund attracted yet another follower to his ranks. This new recruit brought the number of his active supporters to three.

Another factual error by Peter Ramsay - alleging that Ron Sharp is one of Gregg's "active supporters". Fellow picketers, yes. However, the leader-follower relationship that is alleged by calling Ron a "supporter" doesn't actually exist. I think Ramsay is just restating another CoS PR line - that critics are all of one mind, hierarchically controlled by some hidden entity. Unfortunately for his credibility (does he have any left?), that's just not true.

This individual's name is Ron Sharp.

Ron Sharp works for you.

I think that at this point, someone reading this letter is supposed to think "Oh my god, this Ron Sharp sounds pretty awful, and he's working for me??" This seems to be a Third Party-ing attempt - L. Ron Hubbard (CoS founder) taught that in a case of trouble between two parties, where the source of the trouble isn't apparent, there is in fact a hidden third party basically egging them on. Peter Ramsay is trying to be that third party, it seems. Incidentally, this is another CoS tactic - cause trouble between people to divert attention from the cult's abuses.

Like Mr. Hagglund, Mr. Sharp has had no prior contact with either my religion or my church. Yet he demonstrates what I would call an obsession with the subject. I find a record of no less than 875 postings to the Internet on the subject of my religion made by him - either under his own name or under the name of one of his two alter-egos, "Android Cat" and "Nicolai Malkiavelli".

What Peter Ramsay calls an obsession comes out to one to three posts per day, over a period of two years. Mostly, these posts are one-liners. Does that make for an obsession? Maybe in the eyes of the CoS, but not in the real world... Anyhow, if you want to see just what an "obsession" Ron Sharp has with the Scientology cult, you can read alt.religion.scientology and see for yourself. Is that *all* that Ramsay is complaining about?

While I have not had the time to go through all of these, it is my guess that the majority, if not all of them would be highly critical of my religion, my church, its founder, its management, its scriptures and its parishioners.

Note: Peter Ramsay (and hence the Church of Scientology of Toronto) is just whining here. A person being critical doesn't constitute an emergency for anyone except a cult like the Church of Scientology.

I have two complaints to bring against Mr. Sharp which I feel my be related to your business.

On at least one occasion Mr. Sharp has posted this kind of material using the (Ron's employer) domain name. I have attached a complete copy of the printout of the posting. I would say that Mr. Sharp's commentary on these news items exemplifies his tone when discussing my religion.

The post in question (Note 2001-03-05: Delinked until Google gets a better usenet search engine). As you can see, it's only hateful to a CoS-indoctrinated Scientologist. Just what is it about the Church of Scientology that causes its adherents to equate criticism with hatred?

I do not know if Mr. Sharp is aware of the fact that Mr. Hagglund remains under investigation by the Toronto Hate Crimes Unit. He is most certainly unaware that his Internet postings are reguarly reviewed and, if found to contain hateful comments such as those featured in the attached posting, are printed off and forwarded to Detective Kijewski - this is, at least, my understanding.

Peter Ramsay understands wrongly. As I mentioned above (from what Detective Kijewski told me) there are no HCU investigations concerning anything picket-related. As well, the CoS of Toronto hasn't given any internet posts to Detective Kijewski - or anything, for that matter. Detective Kijewski was quite specific on that point when I asked him if I could have a look at anything the cult had submitted to the HCU.

My complaint is plain and simple - I think it improper of Mr. Sharp to use the (Ron's employer) name and the company E-mail system while engaged in an activity of this nature.

My second complaint is of a somewhat more serious nature. I have attached another Internet posting made by Mr. Sharp. here he is hiding behind his "nom de keyboard" of "Android Cat". You will see that I have had this posting edited and I would like to explain that.

By "edited" Ramsay means that all references to "Xenu" were ****'ed out. For some reason, the Church of Scientology can't abide discussion of Xenu, the Ruler of the Galactic Confederation. You can imagine what impression this leaves with the executive who is the target audience for this letter - him or her having his reading material censored, implying that his judgement isn't good enough to read and decide themselves. Oh, and here's the posting in question (Note 2001-03-05: Delinked until Google gets a better usenet search engine).

Certain scriptures of my church are confidential and may only be studied by a parishioner after that individual has demonstrated high ethical standards in all areas of his life and has undergone a thorough eligibility program. Mr. Hagglund and Mr. Sharp have obtained altered versions of some of our material and it is to this material that Mr. Sharp is referring. It is for this reason that I have edited the posting.

Note that these "high ethical standards" refer to Scientology's concept of ethics - that you're in a "Normal" ethics condition if your statistics (usually measuring some form of production) are gradually increasing, and in a lower ethics condition ("Danger", "Treason") if your production slips. As well, a Scientologist only receives access to the OT3 course after spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on previous Scientology courses. The teachings in OT3 directly contradict these earlier levels, in that the earlier levels teach you methods of "clearing" your "engrams" (bad memories which keep you from achieving your full potential, according to Scientology teaching) while the OT3+ levels teach that your problems are due to Body Thetans, souls that became stuck to you after Xenu's act of genocide 75,000,000 years ago.

Now, Ramsay refers to the fact that Gregg and Ron have acquired "altered versions" of OT3. Most versions of the OT3 story floating around on the internet don't directly quote the original (some of OT3 in Hubbard's own handwriting here), as the Scientology cult's various lawyers threaten legal action, and have in the past sued various Scientology critics who have posted the original OT3 level. Nevertheless, despite the Scientology cult's efforts to suppress the circulation of this supposedly confidential material, you can still find it on websites across the internet.

The LED sign to which Mr. Sharp is referring is located over the front door entrance to my church. It scrolls quotations on various subjects from our founder's books which might be of interest to passersby.

Mr. Sharp is proposing to hack into this sign and re-program it so that it will play his version of our confidential scriptures.

Um, no. Ron was *joking* about hacking into the sign. If he was serious, he: 1) Sure wouldn't broadcast his intention over the internet and 2) would have actually done it.

I find this to be an excellent example of Mr. Sharp engaging in harassment all the while claiming to be a critic of my church. I can see no criticism in what he wants to do.

Can you?

I think, however, that there is an even more serious issue here. Mr. Sharp lays great claim to his expertise in computer and electronics technology. He has also avered, in one posting, that he is a skilled "hacker" and that he was honoured as such by being named in a list published by a Montreal newspaper.

He is employed by a successful and expanding company. This company is recognized for its skills in computer technology both in its products and its service.

Yet here one finds Mr. Sharp getting up in a public forum - one in which he can easily be identified - making a statement to the effect that he is considering (I would say threatening) committing a criminal act using those very same skills.

I consider his statement to be singularly foolish, singularly unprofessional and singularly irresponsible.

The last few paragraphs are standard Scientology Black PR and innuendo. Ramsay (and hence the Scientology organization) is putting forth the standard Scientology PR line that critics (Ron Sharp, here) are bad people who have the potential for criminal activity. This stems from the Scientology teaching that only evil people who want to destroy anything good criticize Scientology. The PR line is Scientology's attempt to insulate itself from criticism by refocusing attention on its critics. It never works, however - most people can see this for the feeble attempt that it is.

Perhaps Mr. Sharp thinks this is funny.

I don't see the humour.

Do you see the humour?

It is up to you to decide if either of my complaints has any validity.

Statements of Mr. Sharp's, such as I have given above, lead me to the belief that he is somewhat of an "unreal" person - one who lives in a world of his own making. My concerns about unprovoked violence extend to Mr. Sharp as well. This quote is from a July 1998 posting by Mr. Sharp. I believe that the subject under discussion is Mr. Sharp's concern about having his apartment broken into.

The post in question. Interesting how Peter Ramsay misquotes Ron Sharp for the purpose of making him seem unstable and dangerous, eh?

"Guns should never be fired or even presented unless you are about to shoot somebody. That's why I keep a sword rather than a gun for self-defence. You have to really, really want to hurt someone before you hit them with a sword. You'll be unlikely to kill them in the first swing, they rarely come through into the next apartment."

One might dismiss this type of comment as Internet bragadocio - I see it as indicative of a certain state of mind.

The "certain state of mind" remark furthers the impression that Ramsay has been trying to create with these letters - that Scientology critics are an unstable, dangerous lot. The idea (again) is to get people to think about Scientology critics instead of the cult itself.

I wrote to Mr. Sharp a little over a month ago. In my letter I gave him an ultimatum. I told him that if he did not cease harassing my fellow parishioners with Mr. Hagglund during his sporadic "demonstrations" and if he did not cease making derogatory comments about my religion on the Internet, then I intended to include him in my "educational campaign" on Mr. Hagglund and his activities.

More cult PR. Demonstrations do not qualify as harrassment, and mocking/criticizing the sleazy, crooked actions of a criminally convicted cult do not qualify as "derogatory comments about (a) religion". (You can read the other letter here. Or, you can read the commented version here.)

Mr. Sharp declined my offer. So be it.

Specifically, I told Mr. Sharp that I intended to include a section on him in my brochure. His section will detail some of the statements he has made both on and off the Internet such as the ones I have referred to herein. I also intend to feature, along with Mr. Sharp's name and photograph, his address, his profession, the name of the company for which he works and his business address.

I also told Mr. Sharp that I intended to distribute my brochure heavily to the areas of his residence and business.

I mean to do this.

Furthermore, I told Mr. Sharp that I would be procuring a public address phone number which would allow members of the public to hear the contents of my brochure on a recorded message. It is also my intention to have manufactured lawn signs which will feature the phone number, the faces of Mr. Hagglund and Mr. Sharp and their friends and the slogan "The Face of Religious Intolerance".

I told Mr. Sharp that I also intended to distribute my lawn signs heavily in the areas of his residence and business.

I mean to do this as well.

Basically, Ramsay is saying that he promised Fair Game (the Scientology cult policy of harrassing people who inconvenience the cult), and since Ron Sharp didn't back off, Fair Game will be practiced.

Finally, I told Mr. Sharp that, if necessary, I would conduct my own demonstration on (Ron's employer's street) outside the offices of (Ron's employer) and hand out my brochure there.

And, if necessary, I mean to do this too.

Now Ramsay (and hence the Scientology organization) is attempting to drive a wedge between Ron Sharp and Ron Sharp's employer, by threatening the employer with the same Fair Game treatment that Ramsay threatened Ron Sharp with. The Scientology organization won't address Ron Sharp's reasons for protesting, and respect his right to freedom of expression and assembly, but instead tries to interfere with his employment relationships. Nice cult, eh?

(Ron's employer) - thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

I would not be offended if you decided that much of what I have written did not concern you.

I thought that I should at least bring this matter to your attention.

Sincerely,

Peter Ramsay