Various former Scientologists have accused the Church of heavy-handed tactics of harassment and threats after they went public with accusations of cult-like activities or fraudulent practices. The most recent, however, is the great grandson of the church’s founder L. Ron Hubbard. Jamie DeWolf held nothing back recently in accusing the Church of harassing him — describing his great grandfather as a “portly red-headed charismatic lying con-man pseudoscience self-help author.”

Jamie DeWolf’s mother is the daughter of Ron DeWolf, L. Ron Hubbard’s son. The son changed his name after he too left Scientology. Jamie DeWolf created a one-man show based on L. Ron Hubbard and his son. Below is a video showing what appears to be part of that show.

He accused the Church — “within 2 to 3 days” — of showing up at his door under false claims that they were performers doing a show with him. His show details how Hubbard destroyed his own family, burned documents, and hide thousands of dollars.

Ron DeWolf was equally condemning of Hubbard. This affidavit is cited by various critics and reportedly was signed by DeWolf in litigation. The affidavit states in part:

I personally know, relied specifically on my father’s represented
qualifications and credentials. The stated representations are all
false. He never obtained degrees from those universities, or ever
served in combat. He was relieved of duty three times as being
unfit, and ended up in a psychiatric hospital at the end of the war.
He is a fraud and has always been a fraud.

His grandson is equally blunt in his show:

One can honestly say that this family has a few “issues.” Notably, the Church cannot sue the great grandson for defamation because you cannot defame the dead. I have been a critic of this common law rule. Indeed, while I have been critical of the Church, I do believe that figures like Hubbard should some continuing protection of their reputations. While perhaps more limited than the living, the current law allows you to say anything about a deceased person — something that is well-known to movie makers in Hollywood. Of course, such a right would still be limited by New York Times v. Sullivan for a public figure like Hubbard. The ability of an organization like Scientology to sue is very limited. First, there is free speech protections for critics of the Church that, in my view, should be determinative on the question. Second, the Church would effectively be making a type of disparagement claim — usually used for commercial products (for example, Oprah was once sued for product disparagement in Texas by beef companies). Since the Church is already criticized as being more of a business than a religion, it might not be the best litigation option even if they could meet the criteria. Finally, a lawsuit by the Church opens it up to discovery. For a notoriously secretive organization, discovery is hardly a welcomed process.

In the end, even if it could sue, the Church would face the classic defense to both defamation and product disparagement: truth.

Source: CBS

Here is the entire affidavit that is claimed to be from the son of Hubbard:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LA VENDA VAN )
SCHAICK, et al )
)
) CIVIL ACTION
v. ) NO.
) 79-2491-
)
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF )
CALIFORNIA, et al, )
)
Defendants )

AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD DeWOLF a/k/a L.RON HUBBARD, JR.

I, Ronald DeWolf, formerly L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., hereby
do and state as follows under the penalties of perjury:

1) I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this affidavit.

2) I am the oldest son of L. Ron Hubbard, having been born
on May 7, 1934 in Encinatas, California.

3) Between 1949 and 1959 my father and I worked
together on a regular basis in organizing, developing and
promoting many organizations and corporations. which
collectively became known as the Church of Scientology.

4) My father promoted the Church of Scientology with the sale of his
books and publications based on his Various theories relating to the
“science of mind” as the most “exact science” ever developed. He
represented in writing in most of the Church publications that he
possessed degrees from George Washington University, Princeton
University, that he was a nuclear physicist, that he served four years
in combat, was seriously wounded and healed his war wounds with
his theories on the “science of the mind”, which is the foundation of
Scientology. Throughout the development years of Scientology and
to the present date, the Church of Scientology has made the
foregoing representations and most individuals who have joined
the organization that

I personally know, relied specifically on my father’s represented
qualifications and credentials. The stated representations are all
false. He never obtained degrees from those universities, or ever
served in combat. He was relieved of duty three times as being
unfit, and ended up in a psychiatric hospital at the end of the war.
He is a fraud and has always been a fraud.

5) My father’s fraudulent conduct is exemplified
in the structure of his corporations including the Church of
Scientology of California. In connection with each and every
corporation which we created under general heading of ‘the
Church of Scientology’, my father always required all of the
Directors and Officers of all corporations to give him undated
signed resignations in advance which he held. In that manner,
he always has retained complete control over every corporation
including its bank accounts. In the early years, my father
regularly emptied out these corporation bank accounts
whenever the A.M.A., or a local district attorney, etc.
posed a threat to one of his organizations.

A copy of express instructions on this point in my father’s
handwriting is enclosed.

6) My father represented orally and in writing that his theories
relating to the “science of the mind” were based on 30 years of
case studies conducted on a scientific basis by him as a nuclear
physicist and scientist. Most people that I knew who paid money
to my father’s corporation to learn about this science also relied
on the above stated representations in addition to my father’s
credentials. Similarly, the above stated representations are false.
My father wrote his books off the top of his head based on his
imagination. There were no case studies. He is not a nuclear physicist
and flunked nearly all of his science related courses in high school and
college.

7) My father obtained the rights to the E-meter in 1952 from
Volney Mathison in the same manner that he does everything –
through fraud and coercion. My father learned about the E-meter
from Mathison who developed it and my father fraudulently
extracted those rights from Mathison so that my father could
use it in Scientology auditing.

8) My father has always used the confidential information
extracted from people during auditing sessions to intimidate,
threaten and coerce them to do what he wanted, which often
meant getting them to give him money. My father routinely
used false threats and auditing information particularly
about crimes people had committed to extort money from them.

9) My father has always held out Scientology and
auditing to be based purely on science and not-on religious
“belief or faith. We regularly promised and distributed
publications with “scientific guarantees”. This was and has
always been common practice. My father and I created a “re-
ligious front” only for tax purposes and legal protection ‘from
fraud Claims’. We almost always told nearly everyone that
Scientology was really science, not a religion, but that the
religious front was created to deal–with the government.

10) My father’s basic policies relating to “suppressive persons”,
“Fair Game”, “attack the attacker”, etc. have .always been and
will always be an’integral part of Scientology. The organizational
structure of Scientology and the theories of Scientology cannot
operate and Scientology would not be scientology without such
policies. The entire basis of my father’s “science” is the suppressive
person this theory, just as nazism would not be nazism without the theories
of Aryan supremacy and anti-semitism. My father and I discussed
the basic theories of dealing with suppressive persons, such as
what eventually became designated as the “Fair Game Doctrine”,
on many occasions. These policies have never changed.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury

// –

RONALD DeWOLF