The records of what was once the largest world anti-cult organization demonstrate that criminal behavior was systemic rather than occasional in anti-cult milieus.
by Anson D. Shupe (†) and Susan E. Darnell
Article 10 of 10. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4, article 5, article 6, article 7, article 8, and article 9.


We continue to find new evidence of CAN’s (Cult Awareness Network) criminal involvement the further we delve into the files of the former CAN, despite evidence that toward the end Cynthia Kisser and/or CAN operatives deliberately shredded/destroyed important files dealing with CAN’s telephone calls and likely selected cancelled checks. And in this series we have dealt only with CAN, not its sister anti-cult organization, the American Family Foundation, AFF (although in the 1990s there were close ties and interlocking directorates between CAN and AFF).
In summation, we offer five reasonable propositions about the operations and philosophy of America’s formerly most activist anti-cult organization, CAN.
Proposition 1: Despite public claims otherwise, CAN had as its operating corporate policy the routine referrals of inquirers to coercive deprogrammers. As has been shown, this proposition is supported by a variety of sources: testimonies of deprogrammers, testimonies of CFF (Citizens Freedom Foundation)-CAN officials, CAN records, and Federal Bureau of Investigation wiretap surveillance.
Regarding the last source, fairly recently [when the article was written in 2000] we became aware of the fact that the FBI, learning of certain deprogrammers conspiring toward, among other things, the kidnapping of a young heir to the DuPont estate who had become involved in Lyndon LaRouche’s organization, and learning of those deprogrammers’ involvement with CAN, in 1992 conducted wire-taps of CAN telephone conversations and certain deprogrammers’ telephone conversations. FBI
Special Agent Daniel Murphy presented an affidavit dated July 19, 1992, to the U. S. Federal Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in which he stated: “As a result of my personal participation in this investigation, my knowledge of reports made to me by other FBI agents…. there is probable cause to believe that Donald Moore, Galen Kelly, Edgar N. [Newbold] Smith, and others unknown, have been, or continuing to, and will be committing offenses against the United States including conspiracy, in violation of 1816.U.S.C., Section 371, and kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C., Section 1201. There is probable cause to believe that communications concerning said offenses will be obtained through the interception of wire communications, authorization for which is herein applied.”
The transcripts of over half a dozen reels of tape reveal coercive deprogrammers in frequent (and casual) contact with CAN and CAN’s executive director, Cynthia Kisser, on how to harass the LaRouche organization and simultaneously protect themselves legally from prosecution after the deprogramming. Such transcripts may be one logical reason that Cynthia Kisser had thousands of CAN phone sheets destroyed around the 1992–93 period.
For brief examples, Edgar Newbold Smith calls former deputy sheriff-turned-deprogrammer Donald Moore about suing his own son, Lewis duPont Smith, duPont fortune heir and a follower of Lyndon LaRouche: “But the only problem with suing Lewis, having CAN sue Lewis, is that they know that we contributed to CAN. So you’re going to get the biggest bunch of goddamn bunch of squawk going on down there involving us …. Now maybe one of the things you ought to talk to Cynthia about is why not include Lewis in your depositions?” (Transcript of FBI Tape #2, T3: DMReel 6. 7/15/92).


Or: Moore’s answering machine for 7/15/92: “This is Cynthia Kisser for Don Moore. I’m in Chicago. My number is 312/267/7777.” Or this conversation in early August 1992:
“Donald Moore: Hello.
Cynthia Kisser: Hi. Is Don Moore there?
Moore: Yes.
Kisser: Hi, Don. It’s Cynthia.
Moore: How are you doing,?
Kisser: Good. Good. Um, listen, um, I still have not talked to um—
Moore: Galen? [Galen Kelly, once head of security for CAN conferences and convicted of kidnapping in the D.D. case mentioned in a previous article of this series.]
Kisser: Yes.
Moore: That is, uh, you are not alone in that effort.
Kisser: Okay. Now do you think that Newbold is at his office today or at his home?
Moore: He should be at his home today. And I talked to him less than an hour ago.
Kisser: Yes. I want to give him a try. Thanks” (Transcript of FBI Tape #2, T3: DMReel 16. 8/02-3,92).


Or a call from deprogrammer Moore to CAN headquarters in Chicago:
“Moore: Yes? This is Don Moore calling from Virginia. Is Cynthia Kisser there?
Female voice: No, she’s on a week’s vacation.
Moore: Ouch.
Female voice: And, uh, her assistant though comes in at nine o’clock and it’s ten to nine. Maybe she can help you?
Moore: All right, well, uh, I, basically I don’t need help as far as that goes. I’m one of the folks that work for her as far as the LaRouche case goes” (Transcript of FBI Tape #2, T3: DMReel 11, 7/21/92).
On one of the FBI tapes is captured a conversation between Kisser and later convicted Donald Moore on July 15, 1992. Moore was retained by Newbold Smith to work with former private investigator-turned deprogrammer Galen Kelly on the abduction of Smith’s son. On the tape, Kisser informs Moore that she has filed her suit against [various Scientologists] and states:
“Kisser: I think the timing is right for me to go back and try—even if I’m not going to hear from Galen, to go back and approach Newbold … To talk to him a little bit now that I’ve got the suit filed. I want to get him a copy of it. I want to talk to him about it. I want to, uh, talk about it” (ibid.).
The point of these sample bits of conversation is that (1) the FBI was very aware of CAN’s involvement in coercive abductions and (2) CAN’s highest echelon was engaged in corporate criminality, coordinating legal strategies with deprogrammers. Destruction of CAN’s phone sheets permanently removed written notes and comments that we know contained details of CAN-deprogramming conversations: “The phone sheets contain the caller’s name, address, number, subject of call, information provided to the caller, and notes regarding the call . …The sheets are used for the sending out of materials and tabulation of statistical information about calls… [Ms. Kisser] affirmed that use of phone sheets was a standard office procedure… Kisser estimated that CAN received from 60,000 to 80,000 phone inquiries and 20,000 to 40,000 mail inquiries from 1987 to 1993. Between 53,000 and 56,000 total phone and mail sheets were created during 1991, 1992, and 1993, most of which are phone sheets. Thus, subtracting the 15,000 that remained in existence in March of 1994, at least 38,000 phone and mail sheets have been destroyed” (note, ibid.).
Rolodex files from the desks of CAN officials and staff members (Box 249 labeled “Rolodexes”), however, were not destroyed and also reveal CAN’s familiar connection to deprogrammers. Along the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and business cards of attorneys, American Family Foundation officials, Xerox repair men, sympathizers like comedian Steve Allen and actor Mike Farrell, and others, are entries (apparently for referrals) for deprogrammers and those who were in regular contact with them like Ted Patrick, Joe Szimhart, Newbold Smith, Gary Scharff, Rick Ross, Galen Kelly, Shirley Landa, Ann Greek, Carol Giambalvo, Wendy Ford, Randall Burkey, and David Clark, among others. We will return to the record destruction issue below.


Proposition 2: CAN was a money-laundering scheme in that coercive deprogrammers were expected to “kick-back” or donate, directly or indirectly, portions of their fees charged families to CAN in exchange for continued referrals. The testimonies of various CFF-CAN officials, deprogrammers, and circumstantial CAN records (i.e., the NARDEC contributions from deprogrammers and the irregular movements of cash within CAN) strongly point to this conclusion. In this sense CAN conforms to a judgment rendered by Franklin H. Littell, president of the Philadelphia Center on the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights: “CAN and its staffers encourage distraught parents to take actions that further alienate young people. CAN conspires to destroy the liberties of individuals and groups that have religious [beliefs] and worldviews different from the rest of us. It deserves to be put in the dock with the individuals the FBI has exposed, and the courts are now trying for criminal activity” (Franklin H. Littell, “Cult Awareness Network Preys on Parents’ Anxieties,” “Jewish Times,” 17, 33, October 22, 1992, 37).
Proposition 3: Despite public claims only to be concerned with the behaviors of so-called “destructive cults,” CAN as a purported hate group indiscriminately labeled and publicized various NRMs and non-NRM organizations, with mainstream as well as non-mainstream beliefs, as dangerous and cultic. This conclusion is almost embarrassing for us to indicate. Only an intellectually indefensible worldview would throw the Rockford Institute, the National Democratic Party, the Unification Church, Roman Catholics, and Amway into the same “hopper” with the “religious cults” CAN was supposed to monitor and oppose. On the other hand, from the standpoint of financial entrepreneurship, it is understandable that the umbrella definition of “destructive cults” would be extremely inclusive.
Proposition 4: Uses of sexual/physical harassment and even forced sexual intercourse, as well as of legal/illegal drugs, were not rare occurrences during coercive deprogrammings. Too many sources corroborate and triangulate this conclusion, from victims’ testimonies to those of CFF-CAN officials and non-CAN individuals. All this was occurring during the time between the late 1980s and early 1990s when deprogrammers met at CAN conferences and attempted to professionalize and change their identities into “exit counselors.”
Proposition 5: There were sufficient irregularities in the handling of CAN finances and cash flows to suggest the possibility that some CAN officials may have enriched themselves in unknown quantities at the expense of the CAN organization and its mission without members’ general knowledge. The CAN financial documents are grossly problematic in numerous ways. Direct examination of the records as released by CAN pose the following non-inclusive concerns: tax-exempt status violations, incomplete and inappropriately duplicated records, pertinent required items missing, unaccounted fund appropriations, an improper petty cash allotment, contribution discrepancies, a questionable reserve and CDs, unacceptable accounting and management of funds, and auditor findings resulting in termination of association.
Each question poses more. Our preliminary findings of these staggering discrepancies, combined with the clear affiliation to deprogrammers, points to a cash flow from deprogrammings. Are the gaping omissions in the financial records a cover-up? The systematic destruction of selective pertinent financial records seems to indicate a pointed attempt at eliminating potentially incriminating evidence. In the final days of CAN’s existence, why were Kisser and other anti-cultists so frantic to purchase the CAN records, as evidenced in the bidding for such which occurred during the bankruptcy sale of goods hearing in 1996?


A final burning question rests in the reason behind the bomb threats made towards the final shipment of the CAN documents once procured, en route to a secure storage site. Such drastic measures only serve to arouse curiosity and to stimulate investigative study.
Our final conclusion is that a reasonable description of CAN, as it existed 1986–1995, views it as a criminal organization playing on hate and fear themes, organized against new religious movements (and other groups) in large part for profit to certain actors, and hypocritical and deceptive in its public persona.