SPinternational.org · Historical archive

Confinement and Restrictions on Freedom

This section documents accounts and source material concerning allegations of confinement, restrictions on freedom of movement, coercive control and barriers to leaving Scientology or its affiliated organisations.

Records may describe restrictions imposed in organisational settings, reported efforts to prevent people from leaving, or other limitations on personal freedom. Sources may include firsthand accounts, sworn statements, court records, official investigations and investigative reporting. Each entry will distinguish reported allegations from established findings and provide links to original sources where available.

Documented cases

Case records will appear here as source material is collected and reviewed.

← Return to the Abuses archive

Background

In February 1995, personnel connected with INCOMM, the Church of Scientology’s computer organisation, were suddenly isolated inside the Church’s Big Blue complex in Los Angeles.

According to Dan Garvin, who was working in the Office of Special Affairs International (OSA Int) at the time, the group was placed under guard, separated from ordinary Sea Org life and subjected to an extended internal disciplinary operation.

Garvin says the operation began on 14 February 1995 and continued for approximately four months. He describes being searched, having his belongings confiscated, being confined to designated rooms, working under guard and being required to complete Scientology ethics conditions and security checks.

He says he was finally released on 14 June 1995.

His account, published in 2003 under the title What Really Happened in INCOMM, provides a detailed description of what he says happened during this period.

The Incident That Triggered the Operation

Garvin explains that the events began with an internal security investigation following the unauthorised publication of a confidential report from the computer files of Linda Hamel, an Investigations Aide within OSA.

The report concerned an incident involving Tom Klemesrud and an alleged attempt to frame him through a staged attack. It was subsequently posted to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup by someone using the online identity -AB-.

Garvin says he was brought into the investigation because of his experience identifying weaknesses in INCOMM’s computer security. He describes helping search for security vulnerabilities, examining telephone records and assisting with efforts to identify the person responsible for the disclosure.

According to his account, the investigation eventually identified Tom Rummelhart, an INCOMM computer operator, as the person behind the -AB- identity. Garvin says Rummelhart was subjected to an extended security check and then disappeared from the organisation.

Garvin believed the subsequent confinement of INCOMM personnel was an internal response to the security breach.

Four Months Under Guard

On 14 February 1995, Garvin says he was summoned into INCOMM by Sea Org personnel. He expected to be briefed about the security incident. Instead, he found himself among dozens of people standing in two lines inside a large room.

He describes being instructed to:

• Empty his pockets and place his personal belongings and pager into an envelope.
• Submit to a physical search and metal-detector examination.
• Join a designated line with other detained personnel.
• Remain inside the facility under security supervision.

Garvin says senior Sea Org officer Liz Ingber announced that everyone present had been assigned the Scientology ethics condition of Confusion. They were accused of allowing a Suppressive Person to infiltrate INCOMM.

He says they were told they were under house arrest and were not permitted to leave the base or INCOMM.

The restrictions allegedly continued for around four months. Garvin describes people being watched or escorted around the complex, sleeping in dormitories filled with bunk beds and being prevented from returning to their normal posts.

He also says that people could not freely see their spouses or children. Contact was limited to occasional encounters while being moved around the complex.

Disciplinary Procedures and Psychological Pressure

According to Garvin, the group was required to work through a series of Scientology ethics conditions, beginning with Confusion and progressing through Treason, Enemy, Doubt and Liability.

These procedures involved writing statements about supposed wrongdoing, identifying personal crimes and making amends. Garvin says the process was repeatedly delayed or restarted when supervisors rejected written submissions.

He describes the requirements as unusually restrictive. In particular, he says people were required to obtain signatures from every relevant missionaire and RTC member, rather than the majority approval normally required under the standard Liability formula.

He says the additional approval requirements made it extremely difficult to complete the process and return to normal duties.

Garvin also describes being subjected to a security check during which an auditor allegedly pressured him until he made a statement that appeared to confirm what she wanted to hear. He says the following day he was required to undergo a repair procedure after the auditor accepted that the previous confession had been false.

He alleges that the original confession remained in his ethics folder, while the correction was not added.

Another incident involved a colleague who reportedly said he no longer felt worthy of remaining in the Sea Org. Garvin says Liz Ingber threatened that leaving would result in the colleague being declared a Suppressive Person.

Work Performed While Confined

Garvin says the people held inside INCOMM were not simply kept in a room. They were also assigned substantial work, often under the supervision of security personnel.

He describes being involved in:

• Removing computer backup tapes and archive material from off-site storage units.
• Destroying obsolete computer storage media.
• Dismantling hard drives and sanding down the magnetic recording surfaces.
• Destroying custom computer chips and other electronic components.
• Cleaning, repairing and restoring computer equipment.

Some of the work involved destroying large quantities of old computer records and equipment. Garvin describes spending several weeks destroying storage media and hard drives.

He also recounts injuring his hand when two powerful hard-drive magnets came together while he was handling them.

His account describes these tasks being carried out while the group remained confined and under guard. He does not describe having the freedom to refuse assignments or leave the work area.

Sleep, Communication and Personal Freedom

Garvin says he had been working through the night before being brought into INCOMM. When he asked a security guard whether he could sleep before completing the required ethics exercises, he was allegedly told to continue without rest.

He also describes the confiscation of pagers and personal belongings. When his pager began beeping because he had missed a work muster, he asked to respond and explain his absence. He says permission was refused.

He reports that the pagers were left sealed in their envelopes for hours before being taken away. He says he did not receive his belongings back until shortly before his release.

The restrictions extended to family contact. Garvin says he received news that his father had died while he was being held. He was permitted to take a telephone call from his sister, but a security guard listened to the conversation.

He also describes being unable to freely contact people outside the confined group or discuss what was happening with other Sea Org personnel.

Release and the Documents He Was Required to Sign

Garvin says that on 14 June 1995, exactly four months after the operation began, he was finally released from INCOMM.

He was told by Liz Ingber that he would not be returning to OSA. He says he was instructed not to discuss what had happened, what he had learned or the procedures used during the operation with anyone, including other OSA personnel or auditors.

He was then taken to a room where Church attorney Bill Drescher presented him with documents to read and sign. Garvin says he was told that his relationship with the Church was effectively starting again from the beginning.

According to his account, the documents were reviewed with him on video camera. He made some minor corrections, initialled the pages and signed them. Jeannie Gavigan witnessed and notarised his signature.

Garvin says he understood that refusing to sign would have resulted in him being declared a Suppressive Person.

The agreement itself is not included with the published account. In a later online discussion in November 2003, Garvin stated that he had obtained a copy. The document has not been located among the publicly accessible sources used for this entry.

What Happened to the Other INCOMM Personnel?

Garvin says that when the operation ended, the people who had been confined were dispersed to different locations and posts.

Some reportedly returned to work, while others were transferred to different organisations, dismissed from the Sea Org or assigned to the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF).

He describes approximately half a dozen people being sent to the RPF after spending months under confinement and completing the imposed ethics programme.

These details are Garvin’s account of what happened to other personnel. The published material does not independently establish the circumstances of each person’s transfer or departure.

Overview

Annie Rosenblum’s declaration describes her experience in Scientology’s Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) at the Fort Harrison complex in Clearwater, Florida. Her account sets out the daily routine, restrictions on movement and communication, work requirements, living arrangements, disciplinary practices and the process she says she went through before leaving the programme.

Rosenblum describes a tightly controlled daily schedule beginning early in the morning and continuing late into the evening. Her account says participants were required to undertake study, auditing and physical work, while following strict rules governing movement, contact with other people, personal possessions and communication outside the RPF.

She describes sleeping arrangements in areas including a hallway, locker room and garage storage area. She also alleges that people who were considered not to be progressing satisfactorily could be sent to the more restrictive RPF’s RPF, where they were separated from other participants and subjected to further restrictions.

Her declaration describes limited contact with spouses and children, restrictions on leaving designated areas, monitored correspondence and disciplinary measures for alleged breaches of RPF rules. She also recounts becoming ill, being directed back to work, escaping from the facility and subsequently returning after pressure to do so.

Rosenblum says she eventually left the RPF on 2 September 1978. She also describes events after her departure, including alleged threats and attempts to obtain information about her whereabouts. Those later incidents are reported as her account and are not independently established by the material presented here.

Original declaration

The document is titled Declaration of Anne Rosenblum. The version reproduced online was excerpted word-for-word by Dennis Erlich in a Usenet post dated 10 April 1995. Erlich’s introduction says that he knew Rosenblum and considered her account accurate, while noting that he believed she had understated some aspects of her experience.

The reproduced document identifies the inFormer as its earlier publication source. The copy available through the link below is an online reproduction, rather than a separately verified original signed or notarised document.

Supporting documents and research

The following documents provide additional material for understanding the RPF rules and the wider context in which Rosenblum’s account is situated. They are different types of sources and should be read as such.

Related archive categories

This record is primarily classified under Confinement and Restrictions on Freedom. The account also contains material relevant to:

• Forced Labour and Exploitation
• Psychological and Emotional Abuse
• Harassment and Retaliation
• Family Separation and Disconnection

Source and evidence notes

This archive entry is based on a firsthand declaration attributed to Annie Rosenblum, reproduced in an online post by Dennis Erlich in April 1995. The supplied reproduction does not establish that the declaration was sworn or notarised. It should therefore be described as a declaration, not automatically as a sworn affidavit.

The Flag Order is an organisational policy document. It can be used to examine written rules, but it does not by itself establish how those rules were applied in every RPF facility or in every individual’s case.

The Hamburg report and Stephen Kent’s research are secondary sources. They provide wider analysis and context, but should not be confused with Rosenblum’s personal account or with Scientology’s own policy documents.

Allegations about events after Rosenblum’s departure are attributed to her account. This entry does not present those allegations as independently proven findings or as findings of a court.