Tom Padgett's Child Custody Case

Affidavit of Paul Grosswald in PADGETT custody case

AFFIDAVIT

I, Paul Grosswald, of Long Island, New York, testify to the following as
truthful and factual.

On May 6, 1994 1 testified in the Hopkins Circuit Court (Madisonville, KY) for
the Padgett vs. Padgett case. I was impelled to do so for the following reasons:

1. Julie and Beau Padgett's freedom, constitutional rights, and future are
endangered by Scientology.

2. As a former Scientologist, I have direct knowledge about Scientology and its
policies.

3. 1 know Scientology to be a very dangerous organization. it enforces policies
which require its members to sever ties with their families.

4. Scientology uses destructive psychological techniques to intimidate followers
into compliance. Scientologists are taught how to lie and deceive.
s
5. Many people are afraid to speak out against Scientology for fear of its
widely demonstrated retaliatory methods.

6. 1 was not there to testlfy for Tom Padgett. I did not know him.

7. 1 was not there to testify against Laura Padgett. I did not know her.

While on the stand I observed the following (which I believe is on videotape
also):

1. The attorneys of Julie and Beau's father (Thomas) attempting to reveal the
truth about Scientology's destructive policies, by asking me about my
experiences and-knowledge.

2. The commissioner favored Julie and Beau's mother (Laura) by not allowing
Thomas' attorney to ask me if I felt Scientology was harmful to children, even
though the answer to that question was paramount to the case.

3. Laura I s attorney, Mr. Halleyburton, attempting to insult and intimidate me
with comments that had no bearing on the case or my testimony. He degraded my
profession, and implied that I was incapable of making a decent living, even
though I have an excellent school and work history. His comments provoked
laughter from the commissioner, who made no attempt to scold or discipline Mr.
Halleyburton for stepping out of line.


At the conclusion of the hearing Mr. Halleyburton slandered me in f ront of the
Commissioner, suggesting carelessly and irresponsibly that I had come to
Madisonville to "kidnap" the children. This outlandish accusation was made off
the record, after I had left the stand, thus, not giving me an ample opportunity
to respond to it. The truth is I have never been involved in kidnappings or any
other criminal activities, I have no criminal record, nor do any of my family or
friends. This underhanded attempt to smear my good reputation in front of the
commissioner is a direct reflection of the Scientology organization which Laura
belongs to. Scientology uses a "Fair Game Policy," which tells Scientologists to
destroy their critics by making up false accusations against them.

I have since read the commissioner's recommendation on the Padgett vs. Padgett
case. I find the following sad and irresponsible:

1. The commissioner makes a reference to the fact that I did not know any of the
Padgetts. This reference is irrelevant, because I do know that the* same trance-
inducing, thought-stopping techniques of Scientology that were once used on me
are also being used by all Scientologists, including Laura. In fact, I witnessed
Laura using one of these techniques (a "communication" exercise called TR-O)
while I was on the witness stand. I also know that these techniques are
extremely harmful to children and adults alike. Therefore, the commissioner
should have heeded my warnings that the children are in danger, even though I
may not know them personally.

2. The commissioner claims that Thomas has failed "to develop proof to show that
his children are being adversely effected by Scientology," but neglects the fact
that the psychologist, appointed by his court, failed to study the Scientology
issue, thus, denying Thomas the opportunity to obtain his proof., This point was
brought out by Dr. Davis. The commissioner acknowledges Dr. Davis' testimony in
his report, but then fails to incorporate it into his decision. He also ignores
my testimony, in which I described how Scientology recruited me. At first, I
found Scientology beneficial; the negative affects did not emerge until some
time later. Even if the commissioner found. that the children are not currently
being harmed by Scientology, it is utterly irresponsible to place them in an
environment where the risk of future harm is so great.

3. The commissioner addresses the Scientology issue by defining it as a
religious freedom issue, and saying that he has no right to allow religion to
affect his ruling. But I testified that when I first joined Scientology, the
organization did not consider itself a religion. Rather, it was marketed as a
"self-help" group. There is no constitutional protection for self-help groups
that engage in dangerous and unapproved mental health therapy. Thomas has every
right to be concerned about his children's mental health, and the

therapy they are receiving, and the commissioner had every right to incorporate
that concern into his ruling.

4. The commissioner attempts to degrade Thomas by calling him "overzealous." At
no time does the commissioner acknowledge that Thomas' concerns are justified,
even though my testimony demonstrates they are. The commissioner even admits
that Scientology "may have been bad" for me, but he does not say why he feels it
may have been bad for me. This is a significant oversight, because if he had
outlined the specific policies and procedures of Scientology that were "bad" for
me, he would have had to admit that those same policies and procedures could
also be potentially harmful to the children. The father has every reason to be
concerned about his children's safety. If a father showing concern for his
children is considered "overzealous" then perhaps every parent should be as
"overzealous" as Thomas.

5. The commissioner pointed, to the fact that both children expressed a
preference towards living with their mother. He did not acknowledge my testimony
which stated that Scientology employs techniques of mind control, which takes
away a person's free will to make choices for themselves. He seems to have
overlooked the possibility that the children, who are living with their
Scientologist mother, could be choosing their mother over their father because
of the influence of mind control, and not because they have freely chosen it.

6. The commissioner awarded sole custody to Laura, arguing that the "animosity"
between the parties made joint custody impossible. He fails to acknowledge that
all the animosity came from Laura and her attorney. The questions that were
raised regarding Scientology, were not raised out of animosity. While Laura may
have been offended by Thomas' criticism of Scientology, the criticism was
directed at the unethical practices promoted by the organization, as well as the
exorbitant amount of money that it cost, and it was born of a genuine concern
for how those practices and loss of income would affect the children. The
attacks on Scientology were not intended to be personal attacks on Laura, nor
did anybody suggest that Laura does not have the right to believe what she
wants. The animosity I witnessed came when Laura's attorney tried to intimidate
me both on the stand and off, insulting my profession and accusing me of
plotting to commit a felony, namely kidnapping.

The animosity directed at me by Scientology with regards to this case has
continued since the hearing. On June 12, 1995, 1 was involved in a peaceful
protest outside the Scientology center in New York. The New York President of
Scientology, John Carmichael, approached me and said, "You're in over your head,
Paul. You bombed out in Kentucky and you'll bomb out here, too." He was
obviously making a reference to the Padgett vs. Padgett case. When


I asked him how he knew about the case, he responded, smugly, "We've got friends
everywhere." On November 5, 1995 I was in Cleveland attending a conference for
the Cult Awareness Network. A stranger engaged me in conversation, and when I
told him my name he began to smile and said, "Oh, I've heard of you. Perhaps if
you had kept your cool in that courtroom things might have turned out
differently." Once again, he was obviously referring to Padgett vs. Padgett. He
introduced himself as Ian Mann, from Minneapolis, and I quickly learned that he
just happens to be one of the highest ranking Scientologists in the. world (they
call him an OT 8.) Between these two incidents I detected the following:

1. I, Paul Grosswald, am considered an "enemy" of Scientology.

2. Thomas Padgett is considered an "enemy" of Scientology.

3. This is a big case for Scientology. It is fair to assume that Scientologists
allover the world are following it (at least highranking Scientologists. ) It
could potentially be the first custody case on record in which sole custody is
awarded to a Scientologist parent, making it the first time that Scientology's
"disconnection" policy has ever been sanctioned by the courts!!! (The
disconnection policy states that Scientologists should sever all ties with their
loved ones when the loved one expresses disagreement with Scientology and its
policies.)

I feel deeply for Mr. Padgett's plight. I know where the true source of
"animosity" comes from, and I know the true harm that can be done by raising
children in Scientology. I regret that the commissioner has refused to
acknowledge these truths. I regret that Laura Padgett has been deceived and
exploited by Scientology. I regret even more what will happen to Julie and Beau
Padgett.

I, as a former Scientologist, know what it is like to realize you have been
deceived and manipulated. I had two strong parents that helped me to see this. I
hope the day will come soon when Julie and Beau will share this appreciation
with their father. I do believe Mr. Padgett is- mature and responsible enough to
realize that Mrs. Padgett is not a bad person, rather she is just another one of
Scientology's innocent victims, and therefore he will not allow these children
to turn against their mother.

I report this for Julie and Beau Padgett.

X Paul Grosswald -

Paul Grosswald No ry Public BARBARA MASSEY

Notary Public, State of Now York No.4518467 Qualified In Suffolk County


Date Date COMMISSION EXPIRES

4

I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"

Note: document was signed by Paul Grosswald on 17 Feb 1995
31 Dec 1996 was the notary public commission expiration date.