Scientology in Canada

Al Buttnor/Ken Montgomery Case: 5

Go back to main Scientology in Canada page

Plaintiff by Counterclaim
Defendants by Counterclaim
I, Allan Anthony Buttnor, of the City of Toronto, in the
Province of Ontario, Reverend Minister of Religion, MAKE OATH AND
1.   I am the person named as the Plaintiff and am one of the two
Defendants by Counterclaim in this action and as such have personal
knowledge of all matters hereinafter deposed to except where
expressly stated to be on information and belief.
2.   In the period of time during the Fall of 1990 and the Spring
of 1991 I held the post of a senior church official in the Edmonton
Church of Scientology.
3.   As part of my duties I would routinely make contact with
community officials and other leaders and consequently, in the Fall
of 1990 I happened to attend a lecture also attended by Detective
Montgomery. We spoke by telephone subsequently and arranged a
lunch meeting on January 23, 1991 at which time I attended with
Detective Leary and Montgomery with the purpose of establishing
better community relations between the local church and the local
4.   During this lunch meeting on 23 January 1991, the two
detectives questioned me on the use of our religious artifact, the
E-meter, and generally posed questions of me relating to the
activities of the church. The two detectives also advised me they
were aware of the situation of church member, Michel Gariepy, who
had been made the subject of a court order remanding him to Alberta
Hospital in January 1991 for an assessment on the highly dubious
evidence of his disaffected and estranged spouse, Janice "Kelly"
Gariepy, herself a former member of the Edmonton church. Also
during this lunch meeting, the two detectives alluded several times
to a ten year old girl. I took this to mean that they were
referring to Marie Gariepy, daughter of the Gariepy's, who had
helping out around the church in November and December of 1990.
5.   On 28 January 1991 in an attempt to provide further truthful
information in the ongoing marital difficulties between Michel and
Janice "Kelly" Gariepy, I called Ken Montgomery and gave him the
name of Detective Kittle of the Edmonton City Police Strike Force
who had dealt with "Kelly" Gariepy previously and knew of her
unreliability and her predilection for misrepresenting the facts
and in many cases lying outright. Attached to this my affidavit as
Exhibit "A" are true copies of media reports detailing the false
testimony and false reports given by Kelly Gariepy which I enclosed
with this letter.
6.   During our telephone conversation of the 28th, I asked Det.
Montgomery whether he had ever spoken with or been in touch with
Kelly Gariepy and he suddenly and, apparently meaningfully, went
silent for a period of time to which I attached some significance,
that being, knowledge.
7.   I then asked the Detective if he also had been in contact
with another disaffected former Church member, one Nelson
Henderson. Nelson Henderson personally telephoned me one day later
and told me he had been in contact with Detective Leary,
Montgomery's partner, in regard to the activities of the Church.
8.   I am advised by fellow Church member Michel Gariepy and do
verily believe that a Detective Beneto with the Edmonton City
Police spoke to him and told him that the police were beginning to
investigate allegations of abuse in respect of Marie Gariepy
against myself all at the instance of Kelly Gariepy. When I heard
that Kelly was behind these allegations I arranged for documents
detailing past instances of false witness by kelly to be dropped
off with the Police Department for Beneto.
9.   On or about February 25, 1991 I wrote to Detectives Leary and
Montgomery at the Integrated Intelligence Unit to advise them of
the circumstances surrounding Kelly Gariepy and her proclivity to
misrepresent the truth. A copy of this letter is attached to this
my Affidavit as Exhibit "B".
10.  On or about 6 March 1991 Susan Kerr and I met with Detectives
Leary and Montgomery. The detectives confirmed to me that they had
been in communication with Nelson Henderson and Kelly Gariepy.
11.  I was arrested on March 8, 1991 by Detectives Beneto and
Findlay and charged with sexual assault upon the child. This
charge was falsely raised against me and eventually, on April 15,
1991 I was acquitted.
12.  I am advised by Susan Kerr and do verily believe that in the
early evening of March 8, 1991, after my arrest, she spoke by
telephone with Detective Montgomery who engaged in what appeared to
a tasteless form of 'cat and mouse' game and taunted her by asking
her "Where Al was" and that he knew "where Al was" and that he
would tell her if she would cooperate and provide confidential
financial information on the Church in exchange. Detective
Montgomery also suggested obliquely that she should not attempt to
tamper with a witness.
13.  On March 8, 1991 the Edmonton City Police sent out a media
release with details of my arrest, a copy of which is Exhibit "C"
to this my Affidavit. Subsequently, after judicial interim release
I was hounded by media and as a result of the negative publicity
immediately following my arrest, my then wife from whom I was
separated at the time forced me to give up access rights to my
children which effectively denied me any meaningful contact with my
own children.
14.  On March 19, 1991 at 11:51 a.m. I was present during a
telephone conversation between Michel Gariepy and Detective Kittle
in which the police detective refers to the fact that he spoke to
Detective Montgomery who said that he was involved in the
investigation in relation to the Gariepy allegation. A true copy
of the transcript of the conversation is appended to this my
Affidavit as Exhibit "D".
15.  I am advised by Susan Kerr and do verily believe that on or
about March 13, 1991 she and two other members of the Church were
requested to attend in a briefing room at RCMP K Division
Headquarters in Edmonton to meet with detectives Montgomery and
Leary. During that interview, the officers implied that they had
knowledge of the whereabouts of certain church members, the
knowledge of which could only be ascertained if some kind of
surveillance operation was being carried out. Further, the
officers used joking and ridiculing terms and language in relation
to our religious practices. In addition, the officer admitted to
distributing information about our church to other information networks and
the general public.
16.  While in custody on March 8 1991, I was taunted by a guard in the Remand
Centre who deliberately spoke of the sexual allegations in front of other
inmates to coerce my signature on a document to assign myself to protective
custody and I feared for my safety.
17.  After and my arrest, and during the media circus which attached to the
"side show" aspects of this case, I continued to question the police as to
why this was happening to me and why the church seemed to be the target of an
unnatural interest by the police. Susan Kerr and I attempted to contact
inspector Campbell who was the supervisor of Detectives Leary and Montgomery,
before proceeding with our complaint. But, Inspector Campbell refused to
meet with us directly and informed us through his office that we to put our
concerns in writing, which we did, and which has now become the subject
matter of the counter claim launched by Detective Ken Montgomery.
18.  I launched the Claim and consulted with Susan Kerr in the development
of the complaint letter because I know that the police had no reasonable
grounds for charging me with any crime and that the police were involved in
a concerted, co-ordinated and calculated plan and policy of surveillance
watching and besetting in regard to our religious practices for which I
believe there are remedies in law.
19.  I have reviewed the Affidavit filed may 18, 1994 by Detective Montgomery
and in response to some of the many inaccuracies and misrepresentations
contained in the exhibited materials I consulted with my church superiors who
referred me to a solicitor familiar with many of the particulars. The
response letter from that solicitor, Mr. Moxon, of the State of California,
is attached as Exhibit "E" to this my Affidavit. Mr. Moxon advised me and I
do verily believe there is an appropriate rebuttal to the Montgomery
20.  I know of no facts which will substantiate the Counterclaim of ken
21.  I make this Affidavit in support of the herein Application for Summary
SWORN BEFORE me at the City      )
of Edmonton, in the Province     )    (signed)
of Alberta, this l9th day of     ) ----------------------------------
May, A.D. 1994                   )  ALLAN ANTHONY BUTTNOR
(signed)                         )
-------------------------------  )

Go back to main Scientology in Canada page

Martin Hunt / / August 15 1997