From: bob@minton.org (Robert S. Minton)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Why would Elliot Ableson call me?-Part 1
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:22:09 GMT

Elliott Ableson, acting as the cults mouthpiece, called me in NH on Tuesday Sept. 16th about 5:OOpm and off the bat wanted to know 2 things:

1) Are you surprised to hear from me?, and

2) How have you been feeling in the last six months since Clearwater?

The answers were:

1) I’m not surprised to hear from someone representing the church of $cientology as I have been a key financial supporter of several $cientology critics involved in litigation against the cult. I noted that I recognized his voice from a Real Audio of a Hard Copy interview he had given as well as the video of same concerning Lisa McPherson, (thanks Jeff Jacobsen). And,

2) Pretty good but its been kinda hectic. I reiterated our meeting each other in Clearwater in March as I sat in the front passenger seat of Lawrence Wollersheim’s rentedcar with Abelson speaking to LW from my open window. He, of course, did not remember the meeting or the incident with LW (also Scarff, Fishman and somebody else were in the same car) after the 5 of us had done an advance picket early on the Saturday AM prior to the main picket in March to protest the manner of death that Lisa McPherson suffered at the hands of $cientology. He was however able to recall and identify me via my picket sign which read “Lisa’s’ Blood on Scieno Hands” with two life size bloody hand prints (good job Joe Neal getting that on video). I also tried to tell him that I thought I had met him in a plane but the man I asked if he was Elliott Ableson said no. Ableson then asked if it was in first class leaving Cleatwater, which it was, but I said yes it was in first class but I think it was between NY and LA. lt could have been me he said.


Ableson then explained that he wanted to explore my concerns about $cientology and maybe clear-up some misconceptions I may have. Further, he explained that he had read all my previous postings on ARS and said he appreciated that I had strong convictions about the first amendment to the constitution and especially to the adverse impact $cientology had on young people. He specifically referred to an ars post following the March 1996 picketing in Cleatwater where I had offered a reward of $360,000 for information leading to the revocation of co$‘s 501 (c)(3) tax status. He said he wanted to begin a dialogue. He wanted to check to be sure that I had not personally been involved in co$; or even any family or friends-- so he could be clear no personal vandetta caused my beef with cos.

He asked me to clarify my concerns. I mentioned the shutdown attempt of ars, Erlich’s confinement at Flag, the raids on Erlich, Penny, Wollersheim, Lerma, Factnet and other incidents and especially what happened to Lisa McPherson almost 2 years ago. I also told him I was concerned about the extremely negative impact $cientology had on people I have come to know though ars; and that the whole thing was one big financial scam.

He replied in 2 ways-Firstly, given his own first amendment concerns he did not approve of what co$ did trying to close ars and secondly, that recent depositions in the McPherson case show she was not ready to up and leave Flag. She was, he said the record states, happy to be there (he’s talking pre-accident). The other stuff was ignored. Ableson made it clear that he was aware I had been helping Wollersheim and Dandar financially. Further, he stated he was learning something he did not previously think possible--that a critic of the co$ who was different intellectually from other critics (did he mean I might be able to better understand the implications of his phone call) with a stable family situation and stable business (in fact I have no business) could be a critic. Further, he thought that only people with real serious problems could oppose co$. (EA stated earlier that he was not a $cientologists but a devout practitioner of another faith and he personally was a first amendment lawyer who was concerned about co$ rights to freedom of religion.)

Therefore, he thought that an open dialogue couId help me to see the good in co$. He mentioned that in the past critics who have seen first hand some of the good works done by co$ have been converted or brought around to seeing another side of co$, not the Side painted by the loser critics. (Does that mean critics fail into classes? sort of like sp grades?) He went back to his perception of the differences between me and the usual critics emphasing the stable family and stable business situations. You are definitely not a 1.1 he stated to which I asked what he meant. Tone scale you know. I thought you were not a $cientologist so you threw me off using their language I replied. EA said if you work for a client long enough you pick up some of the language. He did not say it, but if you work for an evil client long enough you start to pick up some of their bad habits--like he confirmed to me that an extensive investigation via publically available documents has been done on me and that “they” knew all there was to know about me.I wondered in retrospect if the Fidelity statement stolen from my mailbox in early June had anything to do with an investigation by some cult hired lawbreaker?

I told Ableson I was a reasonable person and was willing to listen to what he had to say. But, where do we go from here Mr. Ableson. He said his entire purpose in calling was to see if I was open to a dialogue and he had not thought beyond this conversation. He’d like to call me back in a day or so. I said please do with your thoughts on where we go from here, although wait to call until the weekend and through Monday noon, as I will be away for a couple of days. Pause---Let me check with my clients. Could this possibly have been a first amendment advocate making subtle threats to suggest that I not exercise my first amendment rights if it bothers his client? Is my family and business stability at risk? Gosh, I’m really not sure what this guy who teaches sharks how to kill and get away with it meant? Maybe his client had 600,000 reasons to be pissed off. Maybe 1,OOO,OOO. Who knows. My gut tells me that co$ does not want me to spend any more money helping their enemies--or I become fair game as well.The cult lawyers are fond of saying “We would like you off our radar screen” could that be the message in his call. Am I missing something obvious? Was this just a social call? Anybody with any insights do let me know.

The most telling of the 2 questions initially asked was number 2. I think Ableson may have been saying several things with this question:

A) We got your medical records too.

B) We will use your medical records, if you make it necessary, to embarrass and discredit you!

C) Otherwise, how are you going to explain your trip to the emergency room at Mass General in Boston 3 days after returning from Clearwater in March 97?

I'll write the next part of this story later this week and if Abelson calls back, I'll let you know wyhat he has in mind! FYI, I waited until his agreed return phone call period had passed before posting this message. I did however report the call to 4 interested parties within minutes of the call.

Bob Minton