Mr. Bernie McCabe

-2-

January 22, 1999

responsibility for this matter. Obviously I cannot bring back, but I can address the situation for the good of the Church and the community so that wounds can heal and we can both move forward.

The seriousness with which the religion takes on that responsibility is best exemplified by my personal participation. I am not a member, officer or director of the Flag Organization, but I am very concerned about anything that affects Scientology as a whole. These charges surely do.

restraint in dealing with the press, something you personally acknowledged. Whatever my personal feelings about the investigation or, indeed, the history of the treatment Scientology has received in Clearwater, I maintained the view that our concern should be the future, taking steps not only to address the case at hand, but on a far broader scale, the Church’s relationship with the entire community.

This case is a very sensitive one for your office. That is why in our initial meeting I did not attempt to argue the facts or the fairness of your charge. I recognized that, with charges having been brought against the Church, the most productive course was to address them head-on in a meaningful and just way. Putting it bluntly, I realize that once charges have been brought, there are political consequences connected with any resolution. I do not think anyone failed to note that the only charges brought were corporate in nature, typically less severe than individual charges. However, as I explained to you, the implications of a charge are far different for a church. This would not be seen as a mere “corporate charge” against the entity that happened to own the

entire worldwide religion of Scientology and its thousands of churches, missions and missionary activities.

To illustrate my concerns, I showed you the headlines in the St. Petersburg and New York Times where the corporation charged is not mentioned. Instead, the headlines speak of “Scientology”. As I explained, this is no different from headlining “Catholicism”, “Buddhism”, “Judaism” or any other religion. The fact is the charge has the effect of branding the religion as a whole.

I think you recognized that the Church’s refusal to accept any form of guilty plea was not arbitrary or merely an attempt to “take a stand” but, rather, was based on very serious concerns as to what a plea would mean m terms of damage to all of our churches and members. There are good reasons for not charging churches with crimes. One must ask, “Who is being charged?” That is the question I am being asked by parishioners around the world.