UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MADRID 003029
2ND C O R R E C T E D C O P Y //CLASSIFICATION ADDED TO PARAS//
STATE FOR CA/OCS/EUR AND L/LEI - KEN PROPP
Department of State "departments"--look them up on the DOS web site
DRL FOR HAROLD KOH AND ROBERT SIEPEL JUSTICE FOR OIA MARGARET COTTER
OIA = Office of International Affairs, they handle MLATs
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
Department will be upset about the leak, and
possession or display of this document is legal.
E.O. 12958: N/A
Cable routing--not sure what these are
SUBJECT: MEETING WITH SCIENTOLOGY LAWYERS: USG SHOULD COMPLY
WITH MLAT, BUT FIRST TRY TO AVOID TRIAL
REFS: A) 99 MADRID 4748; (B) 99 MADRID 5061
References to previous cables discussing this topic
1. (SBU) SUMMARY: IN A JULY 18 MEETING WITH CG, POLCOUNS AND FSN LEGAL
CG = consul general; it is job to look after US citizens there
POLCOUNS: political counselor; probably the head of the political section of the embassy
FSN: foreign service national (legal)--a Spaniard, working in the legal department
ADVISOR, US LAWYERS DEFENDING THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY AGAINST SPANISH PROSECUTION AGAIN ASKED THE EMBASSY TO RECOMMEND DENYING SPAIN'S REQUEST TO SERVE SUMMONS
AMCIT = American Citizen
HEBER JENTZSCH UNDER THE MUTUAL LEGAL
MLAT = MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY.
THIS BEING OUR THIRD MEETING,
What? They have had 3 meetings about this!? This isn't that important to US, except it is to Scientology...
WE AGAIN REITERATED OUR
VIEW THAT SERVICE OF SUMMONS AGAINST MR.
JENTZSCH WOULD NOT PREJUDICE "THE SECURITY OR SIMILAR ESSENTIAL
INTERESTS" OF THE US, THE STANDARD REQUIRED TO DENY AN
MLAT REQUEST (ARTICLE 3).
This is actually a good position to take--Co$ argument is weak, it would be interesting to get the US-Spain MLAT and see what is in article 3
ON THE CONTRARY, DENYING THE REQUEST WOULD
JEOPARDIZE ESSENTIAL US LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERESTS.
Every year, the US "grades" other countries for their cooperation on MLATs this is a good point, the Embassy would be the place where the Spaniards would go to complain if they thought the MLAT was not being honored (other way to go would be the Spanish Ambassador here going directly to the State Department)
WE BELIEVE THE SPANISH CASE IS EXTREMELY WEAK AND FRAUGHT WITH
In my opinion they should not say this without explaining it and there is nothing gained. If they disagree with the Spanish case, just keep quiet about it.
BUT THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY LEGAL, NOT RELIGIOUS, IN NATURE. WE ARE ALSO CONVINCED IT IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY THE CASE WILL GO TO TRIAL, EVEN LESS LIKELY JENTZSCH WOULD BE CONVICTED IF IT DID, AND BEYOND CONCEPTION THAT HE WOULD SERVE ANY TIME IF CONVICTED.
RECOMMEND DOJ DELAY SERVING SUMMONS TO PROVIDE MORE TIME FOR A
DOJ = US Department of Justice
Why? No harm in serving the summons. What is a BIG DEAL?, why does Scientology get special treatment?
WHILE WE FOLLOW UP ON WHAT TO DO IN SPAIN TO
AVOID A TRIAL. END SUMMARY.
Why should "we" (US Embassy) work to avoid a trial? Let the Spanish do the trial unless there are compelling reasons not to, ie trumped up charges, fear that Heber would be tortured in a Spanish prison, etc. etc. etc.
2. (SBU) ON JULY 18 SCIENTOLOGY COUNSELS BILL WALSH AND MONIQUE YINGLING
PRESENTED EMBASSY REPS WITH THE SPANISH
PROSECUTION'S PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, IN THE FORM OF A REVISED PROSECUTION
WRIT, DROPPING ALL CHARGES AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY
PRESIDENT HEBER JENTZSCH.
BILL WALSH and MONIQUE YINGLING are Scientology's top tax attorneys, I wonder why this is sensitive? Hm, is the Embassy EMBARRASSED about what they are doing?
THE SPANISH PROSECUTION WITHDREW THE OFFER
FOLLOWING A LAST MINUTE RENEGING BY ONE OF THE
THE COURT SET A NEW TRIAL DATE, SEPTEMBER 25, TRIGGERING
ANOTHER SPANISH REQUEST TO THE USG TO SUMMON
3. (SBU) THE PROSECUTION'S REVISED WRIT CITES OTHER EUROPEAN
GOVERNMENTS'S RECOGNITION OF SCIENTOLOGY'S RELIGIOUS
NATURE AS THE MOTIVE FOR DROPPING ALL CHARGES AGAINST JENTZSCH.
Oh yeah, what about Germany? Someone needs to get a clue!
THIS, CONTEND WALSH AND YINGLING, PROVES THAT JENTZSCH IS BEING PROSECUTED FOR HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. THE LAWYERS ALSO CITED THE PROSECUTION'S REQUEST JENTZSCH WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT AS FURTHER EVIDENCE IT KNOWS IT'S IN THE WRONG.
4. (SBU) WE REPLIED THAT WE AGREE THE CASE AGAINST JENTZSCH IS EXTREMELY
WEAK (GRANTED, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE EVIDENCE,
BUT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT APPEARS TO BORDER ON THE ABSURD), AND THAT
SOME SPANISH AUTHORITIES DURING THE PAST
TWELVE YEARS HAVE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER MADE CLEAR THEIR PERSONAL
PREJUDICE AGAINST THE CHURCH.
See above also, what "some Spanish authorities" have done is not relevant. I don't think this is appropriate.
BUT, WE STRESSED, THE
PARTICULAR CASE AGAINST HEBER JENTZSCH IS UNTENABLE ON LEGAL GROUNDS,
This is for courts to decide, not a state department hack.
PRIMARILY THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO LINK HIM
TO THE ALLEGED CRIMES.
But the trial hasn't happened yet? Has the Embassy examined ALL of the prosecution's evidence?! What is their background in Spanish law? Spain (like most of Europe) uses the "Napoleonic" legal system which is based strictly on statutes, it is very unlike the Anglo-American system, which is based on precedent. This is worth asking about.
WE SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT IS
PROSECUTING JENTZSCH FOR HIS BELIEF IN
SCIENTOLOGY, OR THAT IT SEEKS TO DENY THE RIGHTS OF SPANISH
And then they sort of cover their butts ...
AS DOCUMENTED IN THE LAST TWO REPORTS ON
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN SPAIN, AND IN REFTELS, THE CHURCH OF
REFTEL: referenced telephone call;
CONTINUES TO OPERATE FREELY ALL OVER SPAIN. WHILE
IT IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS A RELIGION,
Another reason why their argument is bogus it may be a religion in Latvia (silly example), but that's not Spain. Playing games with European Union politics is not something the US should get involved in
IT IS REGISTERED AS A CULTURAL
ASSOCIATION WITH SPAIN'S INTERIOR MINISTRY. IN
ADDITION, SPANISH COURTS HAVE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE CHURCH IN THREE
SEPARATE CASES SINCE 1987.
Not relevant, we should find out why the US Embassy is spending so much time on this....
5. (SBU) AFTER WE AGREED TO DISAGREE, WE FOCUSED ON THE MORE IMMEDIATE
ISSUE, AVOIDING TRIAL.
Why (I ask again) does the Embassy believe this? They should, at best be somewhat impartial. It is not good to have a "clientized" Embassy (does everything the host country wants), but this is a blatant disagreement with Spanish policy, namely that Heber needs to stand trial. This is for the court to decide!
THE DEFENSE LAWYERS AGREE
THAT THE SPANISH PROSECUTION IS ALSO ANXIOUS TO AVOID TRIAL, AND THAT
"defense lawyers agree"--I don't get this, if the prosecution wants to avoid a trial, they should work hard(er) to reach a settlement.
THE DECISION BY ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO RENEGE
ON THE SETTLEMENT AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR ANGERED THE PROSECUTOR, WHO
RESPONDED BY WITHDRAWING THE ENTIRE SETTLEMENT AND
CALLING FOR A TRIAL DATE.
Too bad, a deal's a deal..and this doesn't make the prosecutor look good, but it is case. I wonder how the US would react if a Spanish official criticized a US prosecutor?
WALSH AND YINGLING STILL EXPECT A SETTLEMENT,
A FEELING SHARED BY ONE OF SCIENTOLOGY'S
SPANISH LAWYERS, WITH WHOM WE MET LAST WEEK. THE SPANISH DEFENSE LAWYER
And they're meeting with OTHER lawyers? This is very interesting.
TOLD CG AND FSN LEGAL ADVISOR HE WOULD LOVE TO
GO TO TRIAL, BECAUSE THE CHARGE AGAINST JENTZSCH IS SO PREPOSTEROUS HE
IS CONSIDERING BRINGING THE PROSECUTION UP ON
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT CHARGES.
Aha, and the defense team is divided. Send this to Miscavige, the head of Scientology, someone is out tech - !!! [ "Out tech" is a scientology term for being 'bad' and not following directions.
6. (SBU) WE ALL AGREED THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS TO DELAY THE SERVING
OF SUMMONS TO JENTZSCH LONG ENOUGH TO GIVE THE
DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION TIME TO REACH A SETTLEMENT.
I dont see that delaying compliance with what appears to be a valid request from the Gov't of Spain is in best US interests.
WHILE WALSH AND
Demurred on what? They're unhappy that the Embassy can't make the whole thing go away?!
WE FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE
THE SEPTEMBER 25 TRIAL DATE, COMING A MERE THREE WEEKS AFTER THE AUGUST
VACATIONS, WILL BE MET. YINGLING LET IT SLIP
THAT THE LEAD DEFENSE LAWYER, ONE OF MADRID'S HIGH POWERED LITIGATORS,
RECENTLY SUFFERED A STROKE,
Now this is very sensitive I wonder if this Spanish lawyer would like the fact that his health is getting so much publicity. I think that if Yingling did this in the US, the bar assn'n would reprimand her, that's got to be priviliged information. That might or might not delay the trial
WHICH ALONE COULD
PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A DELAY IN THE TRIAL. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER
TACTICS THE DEFENSE CAN USE TO DELAY THE TRIAL.
Fine, that's presumably what Heber is paying them to do, but the Embassy is not there to do the Co$ work!
UNCLAS SECTION 02 OF 02 MADRID 003029 C 0 R R E C T E D C 0 P
Y//CALSSIFICATION ADDED TO PARAS// STATE FOR CA/OCS/EUR
AND L/LEI - KEN PROPP DRL FOR HAROLD KOH AND ROBERT SIEPEL JUSTICE FOR
OIA MARGARET COTTER SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: CJAN,PHUM,CASC,PREL,SP SUBJECT: MEETING WITH
SCIENTOLOGY LAWYERS: USG SHOULD COMPLY WITH MLAT,
BUT FIRST TRY TO AVOID TRIAL
7. (SBU) THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, AS WE DISCUSSED
WITH WALSH AND YINGLING, IS TO CONVINCE THE
PROSECUTION TO BREAK OFF THE ONE RECALCITRANT DEFENDANT AND TRY HIM
I have to think that someone from the Embassy has told the Spanish prosecutor what they think. I have to think that the Spanish gov't is going to start to wonder why the US is so interested in this.
APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTOR WANTS THIS
CASE SETTLED WHOLE, AND IS UNWILLING TO REACH SEPARATE AGREEMENTS.
NEVERTHELESS, THIS REMAINS A POSSIBILITY. IN THE
MEANTIME, WE OFFERED TO USE OUR CONTACTS WITHIN THE SPANISH JUDICIARY
TO DISCRETELY SEEK WAYS TO DELAY THE TRIAL
EXCUSE ME!! Why is this happening?! This is astonishing! Yes, there could be negative consequences if the Spaniards get angry, but why is the Embassy doing this? What makes Heber special (good question for congress, media, State Department, DOJ-OIA etc.etc.)
BUT WE ALSO WARNED THEM AN AGGRESSIVE APPROACH ON OUR PART COULD
CREATE A NEGATIVE BACKLASH, WHICH THEY
UNDERSTOOD MUST BE AVOIDED.
Yeah, I'd guess that they understand that.
8. (SBU) EMBASSY WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE FOLLOWING POINTS TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR WASHINGTON
How accurate is this? Is this the Co$ version?
A)THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN SPAIN BEGAN IN 1984,
WHEN AN OFF-DUTY SPANISH POLICEMAN ALLEGEDLY
HIRED BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN SPAIN WAS CHARGED WITH
ILLEGAL DETENTION. OTHER ACCUSATIONS FOLLOWED FROM INDIVIDUAL SPANIARDS
WHO FELT THEY HAD BEEN MISTREATED OR CHEATED BY
NARCONON AND DIANETICA, SCIENTOLOGY-AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS IN SPAIN.
ALL OF THIS CULMINATED IN THE ARREST OF JENTZSCH
AND OTHERS IN 1988. IT WAS INDIVIDUALS WHO FELT VICTIMIZED, NOT THE
SPANISH STATE, WHO INITIATED THE CASE AGAINST THE
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY.
B) THE FACT THAT OTHERS CHARGED IN THE CASE APPARENTLY CONFESSED TO
THEIR CRIMES IN THE LATEST DRAFT PROSECUTION WRIT
(NOW WITHDRAWN) IS EVIDENCE SPANISH AUTHORITIES HAD
LEGITMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT MOTIVATION BEHIND THE DECISION TO BRING THE
CASE TO COURT.
Well, if they confessed is someone questioning the confession?
C) THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT NEVER CLOSED THE CHURCH IN SPAIN, EVEN
FOLLOWING THE 1988 ARRESTS, ALTHOUGH FOLLOWING THE
ARRESTS THE EXAMINING JUDGE ORDERED THE CONFISCATION OF
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER ARTICLES FROM SOME SCIENTOLOGY OFFICES, AND SOME
BANK ACCOUNTS IMPOUNDED, TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN
This is not clear the case was never closed, documents were confiscated, etc.; seems like there must be some evidence!
D) A SCIENTOLOGY PUBLICATION LISTS EIGHT SCIENTOLOGY CENTERS CURRENTLY
OPERATING IN SPAIN. THIS EMBASSY HAS IN THE
RECENT PAST ISSUED RELIGIOUS (R) VISAS TO LOCAL CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY MEMBERS TRAVELING ON CHURCH BUSINESS TO THE US.
What is the relevance of this?
9. (SBU) COMMENT: AT THIS POINT WE CAN BEST SERVE US INTERESTS BY DOING
WHAT WE CAN TO HELP THE PARTIES REACH A
Why? What harm is done if he is served?
WHILE WE DISAGREE WITH SCIENTOLOGY'S LAWYERS THAT THIS IS A
CASE OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION, WE CERTAINLY
AGREE THAT THE CHARGES AGAINST JENTZSCH ARE SUPERFICIAL, TO SAY THE
Once again, they should not be pre-empting the trial!
THE PROSECUTION OF THE CASE CONTINUES, IN
OUR JUDGEMENT, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SIMPLY DROP ALL CHARGES AND HAVE
NOTHING TO SHOW FOR TWELVE YEARS OF FINANCIAL
EXPENDITURE AND JUDICIAL EFFORT.
This suggests that the Spanish screwed up, they would not like this at all. Yes, there's some pressure to produce, but if the case has no merit, it is dropped!
BUT INVOKING ARTICLE 3 OF THE MLAT AND
CITING RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AS THE EXPLANATION
(THE TREATY REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION),
Yeah, if you deny an MLAT request you have to say why and if that went public it would not be good at all!
WOULD BLATANTLY CONTRADICT YEARS
OF USG ASSERTIONS THAT SPAIN IS A DEMOCRACY THAT
RESPECTS FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. A USG WILLINGNESS TO INVOKE THE ESSENTIAL
INTERESTS CLAUSE MERELY TO AVOID SERVING A
SUMMONS WOULD ALSO CALL INTO QUESTION OUR COMMITMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
COOPERATION IN SPAIN AND OTHER COUNTRIES.
Yeah, especially since most world governments dread the March publication of the "grades" the US gives them along these lines.
RECOMMEND A DELAY IN SERVICE TO ALLOW THE PARTIES TO REACH AGREEMENT.
BUT IF THIS TACTIC FAILS, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE
SUMMONS BE SERVED.
What else can they say?
Also see Spanish Criminal Indictment