Scientology Office of Special Affairs

Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs 2004: Budget Cuts Ordered

In 2004 Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs was instructed to cut its budget. Scroll down to read the memo.

The largest single budget item to be cut was for the two PI’s that had followed Pat Broeker for 25 years. These PI’s, Paul Marrick and Greg Arnold, were ordered terminated as Pat Broeker was no longer deemed a threat. This would result in a savings of $312,000 per year. OSA’s firing the two PI’s resulted in their suing the Church of Scientology and exposing the entire operation against Pat Broeker.

Spending on lawyers was also ordered cut. However, Monique “Blank Check” Yingling was spared from any cost-cutting. The results produced by Scientology’s DC lobbyist Greg Mitchell were questioned as was the work of its Human Rights Director.

In 2005 Tom Cruise jumped the couch and the spiraled out of control when he attacked psychiatric medications and a woman’s right to use them to treat postpartum depression. Cruise was fired from Paramount as part of his Scientology-induced meltdown. Tom Cruise’s actions caused an enormous media response and South Park made its famous “Tom Cruise Won’t Come Out of the Closet” episode.

In 2008 Anonymous launched its global protests against Scientology. As a result of Anonymous and the exposure of Scientology prison facility at Gold Base known as “The Hole” the media scrutiny of Scientology went exponential. OSA’s budget also went exponential as it perceived all of the media reporting as attacks and needed to respond with Fair Game.

014 November 2004
IRD <————



Dear Lyman,

I have gone through the FP #1 and here is where I think money can be saved.


1. FREEDOM: This is $3,200 a week usually. You said that this would better be covered by having OSA submit a CSW as a one-time expense when the Freedom is due to go out. Please note that per  COB’s direction, the mag is to come out every two months.

2. EU SCIENTOLOGY CAMPAIGN: This costs $2000 per week but will be over at the end of the year because the campaign consists of 12 booklets, one per month, and that last one will bo out early Jan.

That’s $5,200 per week in savings.

1. SPECIAL CYCLE: This is a $6,000 per week cycle that has been going on for many years. I am not going into details here but IRD knows the cycle. It would be a $312,000 annual saving. What should be done is that Linda Hamel should CSW Mr. McShane (Linda used to be in comm with Marty Rathbun before) to end this on the basis that this person no longer seems to be in any position to cause a real problem for us.

2. INGRAM and FALCON and the other PIs: While it is necessary to have these guys on the payroll and available for work at a moments notice (esp. Triwest, Ingram and Falcon), all the PIs’ production must be reviewed from time to time (“the Accounting Board, tight-wads all, is requesting this”) — they must be forced to account for their production to justify their cost — to re-instill in them “production for the money” frame of mind. If this is not done, they tend to get lazy. While we won’t save money (other than from those who can’t show they have really produced value for the money), this should be done to make them more viable.

In Invest $6,000 can be saved.

1. DAVID MILLER – this guy is hardly worth the $2,500. Human Rigths Dir needs to be forced to show that the products are really worth the money, which I doubt. If not, he should be phased out. Given that he has worked for us since 1988 (was with Hill & Knowlton) and was one of the loyal people who stayed with us after the 1991 blow-up, he should be given notice and phased out over a couple of months.

The guy used to get $7,500 per week but since about 2001 did not produce much. I cut him back by 2/3 about 2 years ago when I couldn’t get him to produce value for the $7,500. I have not seen anything in terms of products in the last few months (I have only read the OSA DRs and they don’t tell everything that happens, but any of his major products would have shown up in there).

2. JOE GRIEBOSKY & GREG MITCHELL — their production should be reviewed, i.e., what products have each gotten to justify that they get paid $200,000 and $150,000 p.a., respectively. What products did they get to justify this payment?

3. WALSH — the same. Although he probably has good value for the money ratio, I would request OSA to show solid justification in terms of products why he gets paid $400,000 per year (and how the last 12 months of production compare to the previous 12 months).

4. CSI Events, PR Travel, Property Supplies — Knowing that the PR travel was used for clothing recently, these accounts should be audited (Purser OSAI keeps good records so any juggling of accounts should be easily discernible from expense records).

Savings in PR are probably about $3000 per week.

1. LIEBERMAN FLAT: OSA intends to phase him off the flat rate and onto an hourly rate at the end of the year. This should save some money but it is hard to predict how much, possibly 1/2 the amount. Per contract I think he needs to be given a 2-month notice.

2. AMIDON: He’s an attack dog who will do things other lawyers just won’t do (because they are so outrageously aggressive, such as peppering the opposition with pages-long letters and nudges, etc., which drive any oppo attorney nuts). The $2000 flat is probably a good rate because he is used on Letterese actions, which means he is doing a lot of skirmishing and mortar lobbing that would cost a lot if paid for on an hourly basis. However, the moment the Letterese cycle is handled he needs to be stopped.

3. DRESCHER: $3,500 flat. Legal OSA Int should be made to work out how to phase the guy onto an hourly rate (which would save us about $2,500 per week) and CSW Mike Rinder and Mr. McShane for okay to implement it. Mike because he knows the history with the guy, and Mr. McShane because he is the one who arranged the $3,500 flat rate in May when Drescher was starting to write to COB about being laid off. Fact of the matter is, however, that he is being given work only to keep him busy. I checked this with the CO OSA when she was here this weekend. While he would still be used on matters that he has the track or expertise on, this would be only about 1/3 of what it costs us now.

4. MOXON & KOBRIN: This is probably okay and it would cost us more to have to pay other lawyers for the same work. But OSA should be forced to make a showing that this expenditure is justified by production, and how they will better utilize these 3 attorneys (Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette) to increase viability. Moxon should be forced to take charge of coordinating psych litigation and, so, forward the psych planning. That would be very viable.

5. ABELSON: Same as above.

Possible savings in Legal: ca. $ 6,500.

I know of another expense that we are incurring — the apartment in DC. It is not on the expense list you gave me, but it is on the order of $600 dollars per week if not more. It was set up ca. 10 years ago, because Dept 21 liked to have the place as it would be more cost efficient than staying at hotels. However, in the last few years the place has not been used much at all and we have been spending monthly rent when no one was going to DC and staying there worth the rent. Port Captain OSAI did a CSW to PR Affairs RTC last year to phase out of the lease because the economics on the apartment had gone into reverse and Dept 21 was going to DC very rarely (plus last time he prefered to stay at a hotel). It was disapproved and I can’t remember why, but this should be looked into again as I don’t think that the few night people stayed there was worth the over $30,000 in rent that we paid.

In summary, with just the above saving possibilities we get the FP #1 down to the area of $60,000.

Ml, KW

2 replies »

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.