Church of Scientology fires a second salvo against the New Yorker

The Church of Scientology reacted to today’s New Yorker article claiming that the FBI is investigating it for suspected people trafficking with quiet restraint.

Only joking! It’s senior staff, who say they are unaware of any investigation and deny all allegations of wrongdoing, have instead hit the gilded roofs of their many properties. This morning, they issued a statement branding the Oscar-winning screenwriter and director Paul Haggis (left), the source of much of the 25,000-word piece, a “disaffected former member” making “sensationalist” claims.

This evening, meanwhile, their spokesman Tommy Davis issued a second statement. This one drew attention to a piece on the affair by AOL security correspondent Allan Lengel. In an easily-overlooked line, buried half way down, Mr Lengell claims that his own FBI sources have informed him that no human-traficking charges are likely to be filed against the Church, or its leader David Miscavige (right).

A copy of the Davis statement is below. Either the Church of Scientology has discovered a piece of killer evidence here, which will discredit the entire New Yorker article, or… it hasn’t. I guess that, some day, the issue will eventually mulled over by a court.

I’ve no idea how Mr Lengel will react to being thrown to the centre of this increasingly ugly dispute, but you can read his actual piece here. The Independent’s original news story (published before Davis issued his second statement) is here. And if you have 45 minutes to spare, I can heartily reccomend the original New Yorker article, published (gloriously free from the constraints of English libel law) here.

**

C H U R C H  O F  S C I E N T O L O G Y  I N T E R N A T I O N A L

_______________________________________________________

6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90028 USA

Telephone: (323) 960-3500 ● Fax: (323) 960-3508/9

STATEMENT

The New Yorker press release and Lawrence Wright’s profile on Paul Haggis, “Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology,” released Monday, reported on an alleged federal investigation. The New Yorker was well aware the Church knew nothing of the investigation but had refuted the same claims based on a case already thrown out by a Federal Court Judge.

Nonetheless, The New Yorker irresponsibly used the same sources who were discredited in the dismissed case to claim an “investigation” so as to garner headlines for an otherwise stale article containing nothing but rehashed unfounded allegations.

Allan Lengel, a former Washington Post reporter who writes for AOL News on federal law enforcement matters, filed this late today in a breaking story on Wright’s allegations: “The author cites two sources in the FBI who ‘assured me that the case remains open.’ However, a federal law enforcement source told AOL News the investigation has fallen short and no criminal charges are expected to be filed.” Click here for the article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-facescontroversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/.

Obviously, this contradicts what Wright wrote in The New Yorker. If you published Wright’s account, this contradiction should be made known to your viewers and/or readers.

Tommy Davis

Church of Scientology International

Recent Posts on The Foreign Desk

• China turns friendly with India - but why?
• Syria's cannibal rebel defends himself
• India’s latest $2m corruption scandal is a very old scam
• You don’t have to have visited Syria to be horrified by 'Syria: Across the Lines'
• The two sides in Syria’s civil war are talking

• red_zone

  Haggis is hardly the first to make such claims.

  And he WON’T be the last!

• olympic

  Creepy tax evading church – even creepier followers. This secretive cult is desperate to attain ‘church’ status in the UK to help them get special tax status as a ‘charity/church’ – this is their ploy around the world.

• Ste_H

  I don’t think we should be disrespecting the Church of Scientology. Without it we might think that John Travolta and Tom Cruise were normal, rational people. We would have to listen and consider their words carefully before disagreeing with them. At the very least this would waste time. As Scientologists, however, we know before they even start to speak that what is to follow will be total rubbish, since anyone whose thought patterns lead them to the conclusion that Scientology is a reasonable philosophy is, by definition, insane.

• jdub11

  Regardless of your thoughts re: Scientology, the New Yorker article is fascinating. Too many people saying the same things about the leadership make their claims very difficult to ignore.

• SmokeyWest

  I am frequently perplexed by the beliefs proposed and accepted by any religion. Virgin births, magical healing powers, secret knowledge of the universe; but few can match the outright insanity of what is positied by the church of Scientology. How can anyone belive this utter tripe invented by science fiction writer? The abuse of its members should not be tolerated. For too long people have been victimized by cults and religions that hide behind the curtain of religion. The Catholic church is no better than Scientology, it’s just been around a lot longer, but its tenets are just as absurd and it followers equally exploited. I especially object to the practice of giving these charlatans exemptions from taxes and allowing the government to tax the people on their behalf. I am pleased to hear that most of those demanding freedom in Egypt are not doing it in the name of religion, but in the name of democracy.

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LWXLHOKGL2GITBG7F5IH6K4DJQ ian

  You may be living proof as to the downsides of free speech on the internet.

• http://twitter.com/FancyKatt Barbara

  Agreed as I am out with the Freezone myself.

• http://www.youtube.com/user/RepublicConstitution?feature=mhum TruthRegimes

  Obviously scientology is made up out of thin air, but turning to the UN is not the answer to anything.