------------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated) a non-profit computer bulletin board and electronic library 601 16th St. #C-217 Golden, Colorado 80401 USA BBS 303 530-1942 FAX 303 530-2950 Office 303 473-0111 This document is part of an electronic lending library and preservational electronic archive. F.A.C.T.Net does not sell documents, it only lends them according to the terms of your library cardholder agreement with F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ===================================================================== Translation 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. Jakob Andersen - Scientology 503/1978 (7043) Mr. JCrgen Jacobsen, Attorney Mr. Jakob Andersen, Reporter V. Mr. Erik Jensen and Mr. Mr. Per Olof JCrgensen, Mr. Robert V. Leifer, Attorneys ("Bob") Metzler, Mr. Peter Jensen and the Church of Scientology Denmark cf. 386/1976 (6538) Mr. Jakob Andersen w The Church of Scien~ology Denmark represented by Mr. Carl Heldt, Priest, Mr. Allan Juvonen, Priest, Mr. Carl Heldt, Priest and Mr. Peter Jensen,Pries- cf. 393/1979 (6638) The Church of Scientology Denmark V. Mr. Jakob Andersen cf. 398/1979 (6739) Mr. Jakob Andersen Walter H. Bowart cf. 416/1979 (6977) Mr. Jako~ Andersen V. The Ch~.rch of Scientology r)enmark, Mr. Peter Jensen, Priest and Mr. Erik Haaest, EdStor prepared by authorized court stenographer Mr. BjCrn Einersen Testimony of Ms. Vibeke Damman, 0slo 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? DAMANN: 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? .DE: I became head of the bureau which is called Social Coordination. X was there until May, 1978 when I became Director of Rehabilitation within the same b~'~.reau. ERIK JENSEN: Now I have to interrupt. I could not hear the witness. JACOBSEN: Were you"Assistant Guardian" DAMMAN: No. Yes, that is Assistant Guardian for Social Coordination. PRESIDING JUDGE: I understood that you had been there from 1973 till 1979. When was it that you got that position?- DAMMAN: When I became head of the bureau called Social Coordination, frcm December, 1976 untill 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 I know she did not work at time of the conversation in question with Mr. J~rgensen at Jernbanegade 6, and she had no connection with Mar. JCrgensen. PRESIDING JUDGE: Well, but .... LEIFER: Then it is not very important if she has no connection with him. JACOBSEN: Time is runningú It takes five minutes and then I am not allowed to examine my witnesses. LEIFTER: We must stick to what is important and relevant. JACOBSEN: You should have thought about ~hat when you examined your witnessú 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 i't is all, how do you put it, "charitable" work in quotes. I~EIFER: Why quote~.~? PRESIDING JUDGE: ~m. 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 co~,.~and? Who is at the head of Guardian's Office? At the end of your time there? DAMMAN: The Guardian's Office where I worked? JACOBESEN: In Copenhagen. DAMMAN: In Copenhagen it is Bob Metzler. JACOBSEN: Who was his immediate superior? DAMMAN: Jane Kember. 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 frcm or conference with Guardian's Office World Wide? LEIFER: Sorry, but that is a leading question. JACOBSEN: I am getting very tired of iistening to Mr. Leifer's interruptions. LEIFER: And I am 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 ariseo 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. JACOBSEN: 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 Eng 1 and. ERIK JENSEN: Good, thank you. PRESIDING JUDGE: We can avoid this confusion if you speak as loud as possible - 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 Danmark 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.a. in England. JACOBSEN: What do you mean by "the program"? DAMMJuN: 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 Cc~hmission on Human Rights - 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? DAM_MAN: Yes. ú JACOBSEN: Is it so that the scientologists are encouraged to sa~ 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 witnessú I assume that you have fully realized the situation in advance. LEIFER: I Conducted the case against Schulsinger and won it. 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. JACOBESEN. 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 wit~ 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 frcm 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. JACOBESEN: 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.a. 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 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. I~ has been said severa~ 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. J'. 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 JCrgensen, psychiatrist at the Sankt Hans hospital 'for mentally ill. JACOBSEN: Any other examples? DAMMAN: Not that I can recall right now. JACOBSEN:'I would like to ask you some generel questions. If a Scientology organization in a country, e.g. Denmark is critisized by persons or organizations, what happens then in your experience? DAMMAN: Well, let us say that a newspaper has a negative article on .Scientology. That article is then translated and sent to the 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 the~e 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? DAMMAN: Yes. I have seen it. JACOBSEN:You have not been directly involved, but you have seen it? DAMMAN: Yes. JACOBSEN: 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 is something you are in duty to follow? DAMMAN: 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 2eet 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 diciplinary punishment. JACOBSEN: What could that be? DAMMAN: There are several stages. If it is a serious diciplinary punishsent you will be isolated. I don't mean locked behind a door, but isolated from communication with your colleagues. You are not allowed to tal~ to them. You are not allowed to talk to anybody; you must 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: Committee of Evidence. JACOBSEN: Have you been before one? DAMMAN: Yes. JACOBSEN: Where? DAMMAN: Here i~ 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. DAMANN: Yes, I know about Allan Juvonen and Per Olof J~rgensen. JACOBSEN: Why? What happened to Per Olof JCrgensen? ll. DAMMAN: Per Olof JCrgensen made a mess of an operation once which was published in the newspaper Ekstra Bladet. It was his job to get JakobAndersen 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 diciplinary 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 frc~ B 1 for Europe and also from World Wide. P~SIDING'JUDGE: Please, let us have t~is slowly. DAMMAN: Above Bob Metzler and the Guardian's Office~ 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 B 17 DAMMAN: In Europe? JACOBSEN: Yes. DAMMAN: Lennart Larsson. JACOBSEN: Who is B 17 DAMMAN: They are the ones who deal with people who attack scientology. 12. They d.eal 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 records and 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 J~rgensen worked in the office called B 1 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: Bu you call him by his Christian name? DAMMAN: Ye~. 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 would probably stop to attack scientology. What was Per Olof JCrgensen set to do. PRESIDING JUDGE: It was called B 1. DAMMEN: B 1, 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 JCrgensen contacted Hetler after direct orders from Bob Metzler. How do you know? 13. DAMMAN: I know because I talked with Per Olof J~rgensen 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 ~'~. 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 Europe at/qordre Fasanvej. JACOBENSEN: .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 romm 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? 14. DAMMAN~ Yes. JACOBSEN: Have you talked with Bob Metzler about it? DAMMAN: No, not that particular case. JACOBSEN: Have you discussed it with other people in Scientology? DAMMAN: Yes. JACOBSEN: With whom? DAMMAN: Karna Jensen. JACOBESEN:.Where is she now? DAMMAN: She is at the Guardian's Office Europe. JACOBSEN: Where is that? DAMMAN: Nordre Fasanvej. JACOBSEN: Karla Jensen? DAMMAN: Karna Jensen. JACOBSEN: The resson 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 B 1. 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 Anders~ 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 15. 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: Suppresslye 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 B 1. 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? 16. DAMMAN: No, I can't mention any names. That is why I hesistated. 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 B 1 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 J~rgensen. Was he also a SP? DAMMAN: Yes, it was checked. I was in on ittasking to see to it that he was checked by B It 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 B l's job to find something. JACOBSEN: Was anything found against Finn JCrgensen. 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. 17. JACOBSEN: Have you ever participated in carrying out orders which were a~ainstyour 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: Yes. 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 the truth on earth are scientologists. That is why you have to use 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. PRESIDING JUDGE: You know a little about what the future may bring. JACOBSEN:I would say that it would be possible to get through with the witness. Would you mind if you were to stay here till tomorrow? DAMMAN: 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 18. 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 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. 19. 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 frcm 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? 20. DAMMAN: At Vanl~se, 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 Treasury in accordance with certain rules in the Education Subsidy Act or the Free 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 85 per cent of all costs are covered by the state. JACOBSEN: I seem to know that Inge Schirmer who was leader of this school was declared to be what we heard yesterday was a Suppressive Person. Is that correct? - ú DAMMAN:' Yes, that's correct. She was a~ 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 sc~e 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. ú 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. 21. 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 let ú government funds pass on for purposes which were not within the scope of the government funds, viz. to the Guardian's Office. DAMMAN: That wa-~ the most important reason, yes. JACOBSEN: You told us yesterday that you knew about actions carr.ied out againstpersons who were enemies of Scientology, and you mentioned i.a. as examples the psychiatrist Mr. Finn JCrgensen 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? D~MAN: He has been persecuted for the same reasons as Jakob Andersen. JAGOBSEN: In Ghich 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 special charge of that action - planned it with approval from England. Anonymous 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 ..... 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. , 22. JACOBSEN: You mean i~ was accusations against Johannes Aagaard for doing things resembling criminal actions? DAMMAN: Yes. JACOBSEN: And anonymous letter were sent to the Mayor i.a. to get at him? DAMMAN: Yes. JACOBSEN: What was the reason? DAMMAN: To stop that center and to get at ~.' Johannes Aagaard personally. JACOBSEN: JoMannes Aagaard had critisized 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 J~rgensen - 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, 23. 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 JCrgensen has collected material about Jakob Andersen, he has done so in accordance with orders frcm 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 frcm Scientology? DAMMAN: Only what I talked with Per Olof J~rgensen about afterwards. JACOBSEN: Yes, you explained that yesterday. DAMMAN: Yes. JACOBSEN: You don't know anything except what you.explai.ned yesterday? Per Olof JCrgensen 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 the whole case and he fe'~t rotten - also because it was discovered. JACOBSEN: One can feel rotten for several reasons.Because you don't 24. 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 becaus~ he felt very unexperienced.He felt that he had not 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 not 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, Bnd of which, as it is, no decision has. been made For production. I w6uld 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) frcm 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 scme of the things you are telling in this court today. Is that correct? DAMMAN: Yes, that -is right. 25. JACOBSEN: I don't think that I will confrontyou 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.a. one from the office called B 1 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 ~o 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 say that it was a vocation more than a work. DAMMAN: Yes. 26. 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? DAMMAN: 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 B 17 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~B 1 in his capacity of PR Manager. JACOBSEN: Has there been any coordination betweenthe 6pen and the' secret work in B 17 DAMMAN: Yes, very much so. JACOBSEN: How did that take place? DAMMAN: You 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 informatio~ about the persons who now attack Scientology, so that if they get into an awkward situation and if the person in question will not stop his attacks;PR can use it against that person. 27. 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, ~{f you have had any illegal sexual relationships, homosexual relations? DAMMAN: Yes. PRESIDING JUDGE: Mr. Jacobsen, I think we sho. ul~ take care n,ot to get too far away frcm 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 frcm 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? 28. DAMMAN: Yes, I have tried it.But I have notparticipated 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 homosexsual 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. JACOBSEN': It also says whether you have ever been paid money to make false 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. DAMMAN: Yes. JACOBSEN: In your opinion that expression can be used? DAMMAN: Yes,it can. 29. 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? DAMF3~N: 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 things 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? 30. 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 scientology 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 tha~ 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 diciplinary punishments. Then We decided to stay together, but stop physical relationship. It did not go very well, then we got together again and both landed up with diciplinarypunishments 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. 31. JACOBSEN: What about you then? DAMMAN: I became more and more isolated. Not physically, but when you are under diciplinary punishment you are not allowed to speak to people who are not under diciplinary 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 lava.tory 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 re'lationship 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 things 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? 32 DAMMAN: One called Palle Johansen. He was Ethics officer - that means that he was responsible for people under diciplinary punishment. JACOBSEN: It is not a metaphor, is it? It is something you were really made to do? DAMM~N: 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 I did 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 charac~terize that part of your life you were with Scientolqqy.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, 33. 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? DAM}~N: 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, TRL." 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-i." 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 s~nethi~g 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? 34. 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 Dean. 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, og 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. LEIFER: Mrs. Da~man. I must start by asking a few questions about. your person. Is it '~orrect that your maiden name is Boget? DAMMAN: Yes. LEIFER: And then you married a certain Mr. Hamilton. In 1975, is that right. DAMMAN: Yes, that ' s right. LAIFER: And you had a child by him? DAMMAN: Two. LEIFER: Yes, but now we start with the first child. When was it born? DAMMAN: On the 11th June, 1976. 35. LEIFER: Good. And where is that child now? DAMMAN: She is with her father. LEIFER: How did it actually happen that the child came to be with its father? DAMMAN: It is a rather long story. LEIFER: All I want to know is: Was it, as I have understood it~tha.t he was to have.access, and then the child brought a note that it could stay? DAMMAN: Sorry, I did not understand that. LEIFER: Is it correct what I have been told that he had access and then the child came over bringing a letter from' you saying ~t it could stay right away? DAMMAN: Yes, I wrote that if everyt.hing worked out all right I would. prefer that he assumed responsibility for the child because I had no money to do it. LEIFER: And that was after that you had married Mr. Damman? DAMMAN: No. LEIFER: Good. And then we have heard that you began a relationship with Mr. Damman. Am I right in saying that at that time you were pregnant by your husband? DAMMAN: What? No. LEIFER: At least the child came rather early. DAMMAN: What: LEIFER: The child was born quickly after. It was not born when you' broke with your husband. DAMMAN: No, that's right. But that has nothing to do with Mr. Damman. 36. LEIFER: Well, sorry. But at any rate you broke with your husband while you were ~regnant? DAMMAN: Yes, that is right. LEIFER: And then there was this about - you have explained it yourself the hard feelings about - or you were reproached for your sexual relationship with Damman, and it was wished that your sexual relationship was brought in order. I mean what the Church understands by order - and 'what quite a few of us understand by it as well. DAMMAN: Yes, that is right. In the sense that we were told not to be together. LIEFER: Good. Now you have told us quite a lot about the Church. You have more or less characterized the Church as being completely depraved and ~.~u:Loral and you have described all the bad things they do..Has it never on you way occurred to you that you could break with the Church? DAMMAN: Yes, I thought about it now and then, I. really did. T.RIFER: But you did not break with the Church, you put up with all the dirty tricks you have described here? DAMMAN: Really, I have bEoken with'it now. LEIFER: Yes, but it was a long time. When did you join Scientology? DAMMAN: In October 1973. T.RIFER: And as far as I understand it, it is 6 years then. You have been in the mud for 6 years. DAMMAN: Yes, that is right. T.w. IFER: And been in your right element? DAMMAN: I am not sure that I understand what you mean by that. LEIFER: Well, you have been comfortable in the mud for 6 years. So much at any rate that you did not quit. DAMMAN: It is correct that I did not break with them until 1979. 37. LEIFER: ,May I then ask you: Am I correct when I say that you had a small cash box for whichifyou were responsible? DAMMAN: Yes, that is right. LEIFER: Is it correct that now and then money was missing from the box? DAMMAN: Yes, that is correct. LEIFER: And that was because you had spent it on private things? DAMMAN: Yes. The situation was that I had two children for whom'I had the sole responsibility and I only got 253 kroner a week so it was very hard for me to .... LEIFER: All people who embezzle always have an explanation for it. DAMMAN: Yes, but may t~allowed to say one thing. You can't call it embezzlement because I paid all the money back. LEIFER: Now you must excuse me. A cashier who is caught in not having the money, that is embezzlement even though he pays back afterwards. An~ he certainly should. DAMMAN: Possibly. LEIFER: We may say then that it might have been one of the reason~ that you were not wanted anymore. DAMMAN: That is not the impression I got at time, on the contrary. On the contrary, I rather got the opposite impression, that is was not .... LEIFER: Were you praised for it? DAMMAN: No, but I got the impression that it was not important.. And I was not the only one who had done it, so .... LEIFER, Well, yes, but .... DAMMAN: It was not very serious. 38. LEIFER:. Well, so it was not. But I understand that as long as you were in Scientology you put up with all you have told. Now it is not certain that you tell the truth. After all we have not got a lie-detector here so it is not certain that you are telling the truth. In addition you say that you have been trained in lying. DAMMAN: Yes but .... LEIFER: So therefore we can say that you tell that you have been taught lying and your e~nbezzlement has been winked at ~ad you say a lot which you yourself to the newspaper"Vort Land" has described as "dirty methods". DAMMAN: Yes, that is right. That is something I have recognized afterwards. LEIFER: But in those 6 years you were still satisfied being there - or at least not so dissatisfied that ~ou quit? DAMMAN: That is right, yes. LEIFER: Good. DAMMAN: Also because I am in .... LEIFER: Yes, hut I will ask you. PRESIDING JUDGE: Yes. But what the court is most interested in hearing is the answers so I think that when you ask a question you should let the witness answer. DAMMAN: It is with regard to staying there such a' long time. You are afraid to get out because what you learn when you are in Scientology is that if you break with it there is actually no life for you and you are very easily described as a SP, and if you are a SP you are destroyed in your own opinion, and there is nothing left of your own dignity. There is not so much left that you think you dare break away. W~en you have been in it for so long it is just like it has become your family 39. Very often one has broken with friends and family because you are advised against having any contact with people who are not in Scientology because they may influence you negatively. LEIFER: May I ask you one thing. Have you been harassed since you left Scientology? DAMMAN: A litte, indirectly, yes, I have. LEIFER: But directly. Has anyone annoyed you? DAMMAN: No. Nobody. LEIFER: Good. Then I just want to ask you this: recently you made a speech or gave an interview to the radio. DAMMAN: Yes, that is right. LEIFER: Who arranged it? DAMMAN: It was arranged by Denmark's Radio - by one called MaUrits Hansen, I think. LEIFER: Yes, I know. But now I hear that you talk of MP. Jakob Andersen as Jakob. I hear Mr. JCrgen Jacobsen addresses you informally, by your first name and then I want to ask you .... JACOBSEN: May I say Mr. Leifer that I address many people by their Christian names, my butcher, etc. Perhaps it is because you are a little older than me. I only met Mrs. Damman yesterday. I have never seen her before. But I feel like addressing her by her first name. LEIFER: Well, I don't. Where do you know Mr. Jakob Andersen from? DAMMAN: I know Mr. Jakob Andersen from the Ekstra Bladet. I met him the first time last year. LEIFER: But you know him from the Ekstra Bladet. That means that he knows you a little. That is why you have been asked to come here. DAMMAN: Yes, I have known him for about a year. LEIFER: But I understand that the campaign against Jakob Andersen you 40. know only from the Ekstra Bladet? DAMMAN: No. LEIFER: Yes, you said so. DAMMAN: No. LEIFER: You said so a little while ago. I have taken it down. You were asked if you had heard about it, and that .... DAMMAN: Yes, the specific thing about Per Olof J~rgensen I knew-only from the Ekstra Bladet. JACOBSEN: That is what the witness said. DAMMAN: But all that went on, I mean that there was something about Jakob Andersen before that time, I knew, and I knew it from Scientology. LEIFER: But now you have been warned that you are at risk of being called to account for your statements. There was a beautiful summing-up. I understand it that you 'wish to maintain that Per Olof JCrgensen had been to see Hetler in accordance with express order from Bob Metzler? DAMMAN: Yes, that is how I understood Per Olof J~rgensen when we talked about it afterwards. - TjRIFER: I see. You explained about CCHR that CCHR's case against Fini Schulsinger was something that had to do with the Church of Scientology. DAMMAN: Yes. LEIFER: Who told you to say that? DAMMAN: Nobody told me to say that. It is some_thi_ngI know because I ran it or I was responsible for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and its operations while I was in it. LEIFER: While you were there, but ~hat ha,~pened _in th~ ease - 41. I myself conducted the case against Fini Schulsihger and he was found guilty .... JACOBSEM: You know it is not a correct report, Mr. Leifer. Let us look at the judgment. LEIFER: And you appealed to High Court. JACOBSEN: I am surprised at you. We can show the court the judgment. LEIFER: You are most welcome. So that means that today you accuse Scientology of all sorts of things, but when you were there you put up with it. DAMMAN: Yes, you can put it that way. LEIFER: May I return to one thing. The dissatisfaction about your marriage. You informed your husband that he could keep the child. DAMMAN: Yes if it went well. LEIFER: Did you then stop receiveing child maintenance and child allowance frc~ the state? DAMMAN: No, I only .got it once more after she was sent over there, and then it ended. But I st~11 received child maintenance .... LEIFER: And you kept the child allowance? DAMMAN: For one child, yes. LEIFER: No, but you kept the amount which you received for the child you had sen~ to England? DAMMAN: Yes, once afterwards, but no more. LEIFER: Is it something you look on in the manner as embezzlement? PRESIDING JUDGE: Listen, the witness keeps saying: Once. LEIFER: Yes. But that once is 6 months after you sent off the child? DAMMAN: No it was not. LEIFER: How long after? DAMMAN: She came to England .... 42. LEIFER; You sent her on the 30th June. Is that right? DAMMAN: I know it was in the summer. LEIFER: Yes, on the 30th June, 1979 you sent the child. DAMMAN: Yes. And then I received child allowance in September if that is when it is due. LEIFER: In September. But then you had already sent the child? DAMMAN: Yes. LEIFER: Did you send it back? DAMMAN: No. I did not send it back. I was in great aebt and tried .... LEIFER: So you spent it on something else. DAMMAN: Yes. LEIFER: Good. In the radio broadcast recently you said - I noted that that the members of the Church were not allowed ,to read newspapers. Is that correct? DAMFrAN: That depends om where you are employed. I' can put it like' this. There is no longer any written prohibition against reading newspapers, but you can say that it is much looked down on, and it is only a limited number of employees who are allowed to see the newspapers every day. LEIFER: But you did not make these reservations on the radio. There you say that they were not allowed .to read newspapers. DAMMAN: Yes but .... T.~.IFER: Do you remember what you said on the radio? DAMMAN: Yes;but now you must understand that there two things here. There is not as it is any written prohibition. That is what I say. LEIFER: No, but why did-you not say that on the radio? DAMMAN: But I do not say that .... JACOBSEN: What does the witness say on the radio? 43. LEIFER: That members of the Church are not allowed to read newspapers. JACOBSEN: Could we have the transcript read aloud. I did not hear the radio broadcast. LEIFER: Do you know what J~rgen Jacobsen, you were so touchy during your examination. I could not interrupt in any way. JACOBSEN: You confront the witness with something I do not know. LEIFER: Yes, but there are so many things you do not know. I confront the witness with a radio broadcast where she made a statement and where without reservations of any kind she says that members of the Church are not allowed to read newspapers. I ask her if it is true and I am told it is wrong. PRESIDING JUDGE: I will tell you straight out that I will not prevent . you frc~ asking those questions, but I do not think that ~he~ have any import.ance for the case .at all. LEIFER: Nor do I ~ink that any of th.e things J~rge~ Jacobsen asked concern the case. PRESIDING JUDGE: That is no reason for you to go on. LEIFER: No, I agree. You said sc~ething about a Dutch pro~essor who broke down completely. DAMMAN: Yes that is right. LEIFER: What is his name? DAMMAN: I cannot recall his name. I said that yesterday. LEIFER: That means that if you do not remember the name we are not able to check it. DAMMAN: You may try and ask for it. Probably someone within B 1 .... LEIFER: No, it is you who are saying it. Why do you mention it if you cannot say th~en and there who it was? DAMMAN: I mentioned it in connection with .... 44. LEIFER: Yes, you mentioned it as a fact which was to underline the information you produced. DAMMAN: Yes, but it was a fact, and it is a fact. LEIFER: Yes, but it is not a fact if you cannot tell his name. PRESIDING JUDGE: No, Leifer. Now it is not questions any longer. It is clearly a question of procedure. It is obvious that it has be put into the procedure to judge the trustworthiness of the witness. Go on. LEIFER: I do not see any reason for any further questions. ERIK JENSEN: I have very few questions. You stated earlier, if I got you right - otherwise you must correct me - it was by the way to J~rgen Jacobsen's question, that once after you had withdrawn from the organization you were threathened in Norway, you were to stop making statements. It was after a newspaper article which .had been published. Somebody from Scientology came up - I think it was from an office in England - and something was said about that you were offered money if you stopped making statemen.ts about the church. Is that correct? DAMMAN: No it is not correct. What I said was that after we had been in the the paper "Vort Land", someone employed in the Guardian's Office Europe within the B 1 office came. He came up to Norway and he i.a. came home to see us. We were asked to come in where Scientology has its place in Oslo and also he came with an other person to our place. We were asked what it was that we wanted to obtain, if there was anything specifically we wanted to stop attacking. And thmI said: I understood it as if they tried to say: If you want money .... But it was not said directly. ERIK JENSEN: All right. It was not said directly. But there was~,: ~ something you were offered? DAMMAN: Yes. ERIK JENSEN: Later on you said to Mr. Leifer's question that you were not persecuted by the Church after you have withdrawn? DAMMAN: Yes. ERIK JENSEN: It cannot be right both that you were persecuted in Norway .... DAMMAN: There was no persecution in Norway, it was a conversation, which we agreed to, my husband and I. ERIK JENSEN: Yes, but there was .... DAMMAN: Well, but we did not consider it as persecution or harassment. ERIK JENSEN: You don't To l be offered something to stop? PRESIDING JUDGE: But the witness did not in fact say that either. ERIK JENSEN: I oniy confron$ the witness with first saying that s~e was approached by Scientology after she withdrew and later saying .... PRESIDING JUDGE: I understand the witness's explanation in her answer to Leifer's question like this: as it is she has nothing to complain about in relation to Sciento10gy after she withdrew. That is the way I understood it. LEIFER: Well, I understood it .... DAMMAN: Yes. PRESIDING JUDGE: Then I have understood it right. ERIK JENSEN: That satisfies me. LEIFER: I suppose you have been asked which advantages you would .... PRESIDING JEDGE: Really, you have not got the floor at the moment. Does Mr. J~rgen Jacobsen have any further questions or does Mr. Erik Jensen ' have any 'further questions? 46. LEIFER: I only wanted to ask if there is anything else to this than these people have asked you what you would gain' by smearing your former empolyer or your former affiliation. DAMMAN: I do not gain anything. Actually it is rather hard. Andit is not smearing the way I see it, because what I say now has taken place in the organization. we will have to ask others about that. LEIFER: Well ,. PRESIDING JUDGE: Now you ask that question - which is a very natural question - you must let the witness explain what the situation is. That is som~ting she has agreed to. The witness adds that it is not correct to say that is is smearing. What she has expressed has become her conviction. Adfournment 12 - 1 p.m. Frederiksberg, March 15, 1981. Bj~rn Einersen Authorized Court Stenographer ================================================================= If this is a copyrighted work, you are acknowledging by receipt of this document from FACTNet that on the basis of reasonable investigation, you have not been to obtain a copy elsewhere at a fair price, and that you are and will abide by the following copyright warning. WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS: The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photo copies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. FACTNet reserves the right to refuse to accept an order for copying or other duplication, or delivery of copied or duplicated material if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARD CATALOG ENTRY DOS FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: E:\PCB\SCN\FILES\LEGAL\DMRK1.TXT DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: SECURITY CODE: DISTRIBUTION CODE: NAME FOR BBS: SORT TO: CONTRIBUTOR: LOC. OF ORIG: NOTES: For additional verification see image files contained in the file with same name and .ZIP extension. UPDATED ON: UPDATED BY: =================================================================