Note: This is one of those stories that you ask yourself if it could really happen in a “21st Century” Church of Scientology! You shake your head in disbelief, however my family lived this. What you’re about to read is the actual knowledge report that I filed regarding the situation.
Jeremy, your brother was married at 15 years old. (I have blocked out her face and I have also changed her name as they are no longer married and she doesn’t want to be connected in any way with the CoS). I know you never had a clue what was going on with this “child” wedding, as you were a bit too young to understand everything that was happening. Now that you’re a man of 20 years and have chosen to desert me (and your real family) because Matt Hanses, Kevin Forney and Ellen Forney (from the CoS) say you must, you now need to know this story. I wish to share it with everyone!
Remember, as you learn the truth of what was going on with Travis and Jane Doe that those are the very exact same set of Executives who deemed me, your little sister and step-dad to be a suppressive persons. Course, you will have to read the whole Knowledge Report below to appreciate this statement.
The situation that went on from December 2002 until June/July 2003 was so unbelievable that I couldn’t tell it any better than to just let you read the Knowledge Report I filed regarding the whole thing. This knowledge report was written up to the highest levels and was never acknowledged nor was Travis or Jane Doe ever apologized to for all the things that were done to them.
For folks who are not familiar with Scientology terms, I will put brief definitions in parenthesis.
All this, led up to Travis just deciding to get married and stop the bullshit…only it did NOT stop the bullshit, as you will see here.
Jeremy, I need you to realize that this all happened in the 21st century in a “modern” Church of Scientology, with highly trained OEC/FEBC Executives running the place! (This means they had the most training for running a standard, on-policy church that anyone could have).
June 18, 2003
To: Ethics Section STL
From: Meshell Powers, Public STL
Knowledge Report – FLAG REP STL, Amique Kelly
(Routing has been removed, as it was unnecessary for this blog)
I am writing this report because I believe the FLAG REPRESENTATIVE at the STL church is using her position in Scientology to target and harass my son and is driving him away from Scientology. I have put time, place form and event on most incidents that have occurred since December 2002. Even though I wanted to keep this report short, I felt it was best to actually lay it out in a time line, as it best illustrates what I am accusing here.
In October 2002 my 15 year old son, Travis, (a non Scientologist at the time) started the purification rundown as a pre-req to going to Mojave Academy (in Albuquerque, NM) as a staff member. While doing the purif he and Jane Doe, who was 18 and on staff at the STL church, “fell in love”. He finished his purif and went to be on staff at that school. During this time he learned a lot about Scientology and declared that he was going to be a Scientologist too and would like to be on staff at a church too. He came back in December for Christmas break.
Right around Christmas time, or just slightly earlier a new FLAG REP (Amique Kelly) and FLAG BANKING OFFICER (Liam Kelly) were sent to the church.
During Christmas break Travis spent a lot of time at the church. He did a couple of courses and also just hung out. He came home one day telling me that the FLAG REP had confronted him about he and Jane Doe having a “a relationship” (in scientology they call it a 2D). She informed them that it was illegal for them to have a “a relationship” as Jane Doe was 18 and Travis was only 15. I pulled strings and started asking questions. She had made it very clear to Jane Doe that it was unacceptable behavior as she is a staff member. The FLAG REP then confronted Travis about smoking. (Background here is that Travis was raised by his non-Scientologist father and has been smoking since he was 10 years old). She informed him that smoking, for a minor, was illegal. He ended up being disrespectful with her (I forgot the full details of that comm.) and it ended up with her telling him that if he wasn’t a Scientologist then he should leave the church right now. She has later denied saying this, but I know my son is not lying about this, as he also admits to me the wrongs he does, not just what others do.
After pulling the string and finding out exactly what was said I realized that the FLAG REP had used little or no good communication (caring and understanding) with Travis and he was very upset about the way he was being communicated to. I got in comm with Travis and explained about PR and about the image people would have of the church if they saw him smoking etc. He fully saw the whole picture and went into complete agreement that he shouldn’t be smoking around there and decided that he wouldn’t do it again. This was also communicated to the FLAG REP.
The next day the FLAG REP was communicating to Jane Doe & Travis that they were breaking the law, putting the church at risk and a source of bad PR by being in “a relationship” and they needed to knock off the relationship or at least make sure their activities couldn’t be interpreted as intimate. She informed Jane Doe that she could actually be arrested for even kissing him. Not knowing any other data, they agreed/decided to keep the relationship “quiet” and not cause an bad PR scene for the church. While he had no reason to doubt this most senior officer in the church, Travis was upset by this comm. I showed him the LRH policy about “Verbal Tech Checklist” and told him he should be asking to see this in writing. (Verbal Tech Checklist is referencing a way of finding out if something is true by asking to see it in writing, reading it making sure it’s understood and question if the person writing it had the authority to write it).
When asked, the FLAG REP told him she didn’t have to show him anything in writing about that or something on that order and then said something about it being dev-T (a scientology term meaning “not my job, you’re interrupting me”). I don’t have the exact wording here as I had to pull this data out of Travis and at the time he didn’t understand most terms being said to him as he is so new in Scientology. All the abbreviations being used just went over his head. The bottom line though is that she did not show him anything in writing. I advised Travis to write a Knowledge Report about it (a Scientology organizational way of reporting outnesses), and I helped him do that. (I later discovered, talking to the FLAG REP, that she requested that the KNOWLEDGE REPORT be removed, as she was upstat. I would be interested to know if the KNOWLEDGE REPORT was removed or not, because as per the policy called Ethics Chits, the only person who can okay the report be removed is the person who wrote it). I would add here that if in fact the KNOWLEDGE REPORT written on her was removed, as “she was upstat”, then there is a double standard in play here where KNOWLEDGE REPORTs were filed on Travis when he was upstat. (Upstat is a term used here to mean producing more than before and therefore valuable).
The next day, one of Jane Doe’s’s roommates, Craig, who was the Treasury Secretary at the time, wrote a KNOWLEDGE REPORT on her and Travis because Travis had been over at her house until after midnight. In this KNOWLEDGE REPORT he stated that it was illegal and happening in his house and he was not okay with it. First of all, for him to have this information in the first place is interesting. It has led me to believe that the FLAG REP was black PRing or 3rd Partying Jane Doe and Travis to others. (This means she was talking badly about them behind their backs to make others think a certain way about them). She was the only one upset and talking about it being “illegal”, then suddenly Jane Doe’s’s roommate gets this viewpoint as well.
Because of this report the FLAG REP ordered that a Separation Order against Travis and Jane Doe be issued. When I say ordered, I don’t mean a legal written order; I mean a verbal request to the Ethics Officer. In the separation order they were ordered to be out of liability, do an admin scale and have it all approved by the Ethics Officer before it would be lifted. This separation order announced to the whole staff that they being a “relationship” was illegal and was a potential PR flap and put the church in legal danger.
Travis and Jane Doe had made plans months earlier to go to Arkansas to see their families for Christmas (both of them are from Arkansas). Since they had this separation order put on them, Christmas was becoming a flap that would be hard to explain to non Scientology family members. They both got to work immediately on lower conditions and their admin scales. (Basically this is a Scientology action that is supposed to take a person from being a bit “treasonous” to being in good standing again with the group). Travis did the most incredible job I have ever seen on a “regular Joe’s” admin scale, and I would like to attach it, but it isn’t relevant. It was quite impressive (although the one he threw together for the Ethics Officer was just thrown together). The Ethics Officer came over to our house late the night before they had to leave for Arkansas to approve the admin scales. They both had gotten more than half of the signatures they needed to come out of liability. The Ethics Officer congratulated them and said the order was lifted and they could go have Christmas.
When they returned from Christmas and went back in the church things got bad again. The FLAG REP talked to either Travis, Jane Doe or both of them, & the Ethics Officer and said that the Separation Order was not lifted until there was an issue published publicly in the church saying so and that she would not allow the seal to be put on the rescinding order until Travis stopped smoking completely (which had nothing to do with the Separation Order in the first place). Then she told the Ethics Officer that their liability couldn’t be considered finished until all staff members had signed either approved or disapproved. This posed a problem as many staff were on leave for the holiday. The FLAG REP told Mark that this wasn’t her problem and they had to get the signatures. I am not sure how Mark handled this but it did turn out that this wasn’t’ enforced for more than a day or so (as it is an arbitrary and not a correct interpretation of the formula).
I decided I wasn’t going to be quiet anymore. I told Travis that this was NOT a standard ethics handling and it was getting out of control. I “apologized” for it and explained that Mark was very new to post and staff. I was totally embarrassed by this cycle. I let him know that the odd things the FLAG REP was saying were incorrect and I was getting involved at this point.
I took Travis to the police station and talked to them about the legality of this “relationship”. It turned out that it was NOT illegal, as in the state of Missouri the older party would have to be at least 21 and the younger one 14 or younger. We found the laws on the Internet and Travis took this to the church. The FLAG REP said that something printed off of the Internet was not good enough for her; she said it could have been written by anyone. She said Travis would need an actual copy of the actual law. So, I got a copy of the law – from the police department – and Travis took it to the Ethics Officer. He agreed that the order should be lifted, but the FLAG REP was now saying that it couldn’t be lifted until Travis had completely quit smoking. And not smoking at the church or around the church was not good enough.
The whole point here is that they were being hit with ethics for something that was FALSELY reported as an illegal “relationship” activity and legal issue for the church. The FLAG REP wrote false reports on them as well as gave verbally false reports to other staff about this. Then, harsh ethics actions were then taken on them as a result. The Ethics Officer, being a fairly new staff member himself, had confidence that the FLAG REP, being a Sea Org member, a senior exec etc, knew what she was doing.
Travis just wanted the order lifted and told them he was quitting smoking. He really did try to quit but it was an enforced reality for him and wasn’t being done on his own determinism and he failed at quitting. He only had a couple days left of his Christmas break and he just stayed away from the church completely.
By the New Years Eve party the order was lifted. I am not sure, but fairly sure that it wasn’t announced in the rescinding order that it had been false that they were putting the church at risk and false that they were breaking the law. I find this to be odd, as staff still have the false data.
Travis left for NM on the 3rd of January 2003.
Travis came back from NM and he and Jane Doe were married on March 23, 2003. He turned 16 on April 2, 2003. He got his driver’s license nearly right away.
Just after Travis turned 16, Steven Levine and Mariam started recruiting him for staff. He decided he would join staff as he was volunteering time any way and he had truly learned a lot about Scientology and agreed with it.
In April Travis began borrowing Mike James’ (the Estate Mgr STL) car occasionally so he could be sure to be on time for work at his daytime job. Within a week the FLAG BANKING OFFICER (the FLAG REP’s husband) starting reporting that it was illegal for Travis to be driving Mike’s car. He took this to the DSA (Director of Special Affairs), saying that Travis doesn’t have insurance.
This is Missouri and the FLAG BANKING OFFICER is from California and the laws may be different there, but in Missouri that data is false. Missouri insures cars, not people. I worked with an insurance agent for a few months and I learned a lot about such things. So, if a licensed driver is driving someone else’s car, the person driving the car is covered by that car’s insurance, and they are covered in the exact same way the owner of the vehicle is covered and no more or no less. This is insurance law of the state and not individual insurance company’s law. Now if the owner of the vehicle has a specific clause on his policy not allowing a certain person(s) to drive the vehicle, then this is different. This is usually done in the case of a family where the parents don’t want to pay higher policy rates just because they have driving age teenagers in the family home and the policy then states that these drivers aren’t covered.
Once again Travis was falsely accused of breaking the law and no law or anything in writing was produced to make it true. This did not turn into anything as Travis just went immediately into apathy on it and we handled getting him a car of his own.
Things were quiet for a little while, and then Travis told me that he was confronted by the FLAG REP in the course room. She said she could smell cigarettes on his clothes and asked him if he was smoking again. He told her he was. She said she would be making sure he was dismissed from staff if he didn’t stop smoking immediately. He told her he was not breaking the law and she said he had 24 hrs to produce evidence that he was not breaking any law by smoking cigarettes or he would be dismissed. I helped him with this. First he searched the Internet for a couple hours trying to find laws. I called the University City Police Department. I talked to Captain Ransom who assured me that it was NOT illegal for Travis to smoke but only illegal to purchase cigarettes or to sell cigarettes to minors. Travis delivered copies of these laws (as furnished to him by the local police department) to the FLAG REP and DSA. A couple days later the FLAG REP came to Travis and demanded that he come with her. He got disrespectful and “smart mouthed” with her and refused to go with her. She indicated that she now had copies of laws indicating that it was illegal for him to possess cigarettes. She showed him something that she had printed off of the Internet! Remember that previously when Travis took her copies of laws he printed off the Internet she said it wasn’t acceptable, as anyone could have written it. But this time she accepted what she printed off the Internet as it fit her needs. This is a double standard.
At this point I would like to add data that is pertinent. I want to line out why I believe this is really a situation where the FLAG REP is targeting Travis, nit picking and trying to “be right” at the expense of a totally willing staff member. This data can be verified by any police officer of any state. Laws that are on the books stay on the books, even if they are no longer enforced and even if they no longer apply. They are referred to as archaic laws, and they are still laws, but nobody would actually be arrested for breaking one. For instance, there are laws prohibiting motorcars on certain roads as they scare the horses pulling the buggies. These laws are still laws. The FLAG REP told Travis that “Scientologists follow the laws of the land”, and I agree with that. But do we follow the laws just because they are the laws, and even the ones that aren’t enforced or are archaic? I don’t and I don’t think others do. Our local police said they do not enforce that minors get in trouble for possessing cigarettes. They have no interest in it. The Cope Officer said that they said it was a weird scene in which an officer could give one a ticket for possession of cigarettes, as the law does exist on the books, but it wasn’t likely. Ok, an officer could give you a ticket for driving your motorcar on “blah blah” street too, as that law does still exist. It doesn’t make sense that it puts the church at risk though. Nor does Travis’ smoking put the church at risk.
She says he could get a ticket for smoking. It is just as possible that someone else on staff could get a speeding ticket. They would simply pay the speeding ticket. It is more likely that someone will get a speeding ticket (breaking a law that is enforced) then Travis would get a ticket for possessing/smoking cigarettes (a law they admit to not enforcing).
In all fairness, Travis had already agreed that him being seen smoking outside the church by new public would be bad PR. He agreed to keep that PR in. The FLAG REP said that that was not good enough and that he must quit. She went on to state that someone could see him smoking somewhere in public and it would be bad PR. This totally appears to be being used to make her “right”.
Completely on the side and pure comment in the area of “bad PR” and seeming to be a double standard, I would like to point out that I have seen at least three very degraded vehicles (staff cars) in the parking lot of the church. These autos were banged up and in horrible shape. That in itself wasn’t the bad PR as much as the huge bumper sticker on these three cars that says “Scientology 314-727-3747”.
The FLAG REP told Travis that since he wasn’t going to quit smoking he would be being dismissed from staff. This was a flap and it pulled the Executive Director and Hubbard Executive Secretary (ED & HES) into the whole thing, as they were interested in keeping a willing staff member. Good comm was used and they cleaned up the communication for Travis and he agreed to stop having to be right and agree to just let the FLAG REP be right. Travis actually has quit smoking for the last few days – completely on his own determinism and having nothing to do with whether or not he would be dismissed.
It can’t go unmentioned that Travis is being heavily chastised for talking to me about what is happening with him at the church also.
The final straw came and I finally stopped just helping Travis and I went to the church at the point the FLAG REP demanded that Travis get a Court of Ethics (a disciplinary/justice action). She convinced the Ethics Officer why it was right that Travis get a Court and it was issued.
The Ethics Officer, Mark D, informed Travis that he was ordering a Court of Ethics on him. Travis told him that he had been upstat for the last two weeks and was already upstat again this week. The Court was held anyway, on 16 June 2003. During the Court, Travis brought up that he was upstat and that he had Ethics Protection and that Ethics couldn’t touch him and that it is wrong to penalize an upstat. Marshall B (Deputy/Executive Director), who was the convening authority, told him that he was not “very” upstat. HCO PL 5 May 1971RA READING STATISTICS says “A rise is a rise. They at least got more. Now, better organizing, they will get even more than that. Week by week it goes up”.
This was the final straw for me and I have gotten all over the lines, as can be seen by this report. Travis has been being attacked with false reports by the FLAG REP since she got to this church. Travis is just a brand new Scientologist and staff member wherein she is one of the so-called “prestigious Sea Org members” who are HIGHLY respected. He sees her writing false reports and getting him hit with all sorts of ethics actions based on false reports, and now is completely determined to have him dismissed from staff. I will say that Travis has been very disrespectful speaking to her in the last few days, which isn’t okay, but the reference that comes to mind is HCO PL, ETHICS PRESENCE. Travis hasn’t been so attacked ever, and to have it be allowed to happen in the Church of Scientology is not okay. Even having his stats up didn’t protect him like LRH said it would.
I went to talk to the Cope Off last night because of the craziness of this scene and how out of hand it is and sometime later the FLAG REP, FLAG BANKING OFFICER and LRH COMM took Travis into an office and heavily chastised him again for talking to me.
I’m his mom and he is only 16, even though he is married he doesn’t know many policies and I feel he needs help and in fact needs the correct policy to protect him from the FLAG REP as it is obvious she has a games condition and she is using her position to win the game between him and her. If these handlings and actions being taken against Travis were on-policy and correct she wouldn’t have “shore flaps” (as I am called for getting involved) as I wouldn’t flap if on-policy actions were all she were taking. It seems she is very upset that he talks to me, because I have gotten on the lines two times.
Last night the FLAG REP told Travis that she had more ethics power in this church than anyone else there – that statement must have pushed him into complete apathy about any justice prevailing. That is my opinion. And, I don’t know if there is other policy dated later or not, but HCO PL 29 Dec 1971RB, FLAG REP, PURPOSE OF, states “The communication and command lines of a Flag Rep are parallel to the communication and command line of the org or CLO”. There is a specific line of command as laid out by LRH. The Executive Director of an church doesn’t bypass all the seniors in a chain of command and go down to give verbal orders and threats to junior posts, and if the FLAG REP is equal to the Executive Director then I assume her command channels would be the same, excepting when she is getting compliance to a specific program targets.
All senior executives at the church here in STL have stood by and allowed all this to happen.
This is my report and I wish I had been writing up a report every time an outness occurred, as perhaps it wouldn’t have gotten this bad. I just didn’t think things would be allowed to go this far.
This is True,