inFormer Ministry public inspection disclosure dox now "widely available"
Dennis L Erlich
the 11 years of its existence. One was from the cult, who sent a PI
to examine them during the copyright case in 1996, and the other was
from Tom Klemesrud the other day.
Rather than respond to individual requests, (and especially requests
such as the above from those who have engaged or continue to engage in
harassment campaigns against me or my ministry) we have placed online
copies of documents requiring public disclosure.
You can find them here:
http:/www.informer.org/public.htm
You can also request them from the IRS by filling out:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506a.pdf
instructions here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i4506a.pdf
You may contact us with comments about the ministry:
http://www.informer.org/contact.html
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
---------------------------------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
Anonymous
That doesn't quite do it Reverend. the 990s from tax year ending
12/31/1998 and 12/31/2001, that the IRS indicated have been filed,
are not your public disclosure.
Why did you withold these 990s?
-Anonymous
Anonymous
At this point in time, 12/08/2009 there is not such 990-N filing under
Informer Ministry, Palm Springs, CA. That seems to have been filed
after a legitimate request was made for copies by a taxpayer.
Search database here:
Sweedish Cook
info...@informer.org says...
> The ministry has had two requests to view public scrutiny documents in
> the 11 years of its existence. One was from the cult, who sent a PI
> to examine them during the copyright case in 1996, and the other was
> from Tom Klemesrud the other day.
That says quite a bit about Tom, unfortunately.
Tom Klemesrud
Attention: Dennis Erlich, Informer Ministry PUBLIC NOTICE
I do not accept this as satisfying your requirement to provide me
disclosure under IRS rules. You have refused my request in email and
stated you have filed a complaint against me with the IRS District
Manager (of the Palms Springs, CA region) in order to try to delay
compliance for three months, to avoid, or push out the fines.
You are not in compliance as far as I am concerned. I cannot email you
because in your last email you said my messages were filtered and
deleted. Let me remind you of the rules:
The IRS states that under IRC 6104 nonprofit organizations must make
their three most recent annual returns publicly available. Congress's
reasoning behind this law was to allow the general public access to the
returns of organizations and trusts that accept donations from the public.
It is my understanding from a telephone call to Ms. Sene at IRS Exempt
Organizations that you have file two 990s fir years 1998 and 2001. You
are required to disclose there to me.
Tom Klemesrud
Anonymous
>
> You can find them here:
> http:/www.informer.org/public.htm
Judging by the 1023 filing, more correctly the attachments to it, it's
apparent this ministry has failed in everything it pledged to do in
1998. (That is, unless the worship is to Satan in an Internet chat room
Undernet #altreligionscientology, and on this Usenet newsgroup.)
It is time for this tax exemption to be revoked. That is acceptable to
Anonymous.
-Anonymous
realpch
I keep wondering if Dennis had offered him some money from his
settlement, if we would be hearing all this.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Dennis L Erlich
>I keep wondering if Dennis had offered him some money from his
>settlement, if we would be hearing all this.
Klemmy had been out of the case for 3 or 4 years when it settled. He
was not involved. He had folded his case after a few months. His
insurance company paid off the cult, IIANM. Why would I offer the
scumbag anything?
BTW, it was Klem who steered me into the trouble in the first place.
After one of the first posts I made to ars back in summer of 1994, I
emailed him, as the BBS administrator, asking him one simple question:
What are the rules?
I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
caps:
THERE ARE NO RULES!
Dennis
----------------
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
Anonymous
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I keep wondering if Dennis had offered him some money from his
>> settlement, if we would be hearing all this.
>
> Klemmy had been out of the case for 3 or 4 years when it settled. He
> was not involved. He had folded his case after a few months. His
> insurance company paid off the cult, IIANM. Why would I offer the
> scumbag anything?
>
> BTW, it was Klem who steered me into the trouble in the first place.
Then Klem should get some of the loot, since you have gained vast sums
of money in installments for illegal copyright infringement, and the
raid that followed. (Does the IRS know about that loot income?)
If it was his fault you're a charlatan, he deserves some of the
ill-gotten gain.
Or, perhaps you should sue Klemmie for leading a holy man like you astray?
realpch
>
> realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I keep wondering if Dennis had offered him some money from his
> >settlement, if we would be hearing all this.
>
> Klemmy had been out of the case for 3 or 4 years when it settled. He
> was not involved. He had folded his case after a few months. His
> insurance company paid off the cult, IIANM. Why would I offer the
> scumbag anything?
<snip>
My experience is that people can and do hope to be offered money for all
sorts of things that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting.
realpch
>
> Dennis L Erlich wrote:
> > realpch <rea...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I keep wondering if Dennis had offered him some money from his
> >> settlement, if we would be hearing all this.
> >
> > Klemmy had been out of the case for 3 or 4 years when it settled. He
> > was not involved. He had folded his case after a few months. His
> > insurance company paid off the cult, IIANM. Why would I offer the
> > scumbag anything?
> >
> > BTW, it was Klem who steered me into the trouble in the first place.
>
> Then Klem should get some of the loot, since you have gained vast sums
> of money in installments for illegal copyright infringement, and the
> raid that followed. (Does the IRS know about that loot income?)
>
> If it was his fault you're a charlatan, he deserves some of the
> ill-gotten gain.
<snip>
See?
:-D
Dennis L Erlich
>My experience is that people can and do hope to be offered money for all
>sorts of things that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting.
You might be right about his motivations.
D
Tom Klemesrud
> After one of the first posts I made to ars back in summer of 1994, I
> emailed him, as the BBS administrator, asking him one simple question:
> What are the rules?
>
> I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
> caps:
>
> THERE ARE NO RULES!
>
> Dennis
>
> ----------------
>
> "At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
> altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
That's interesting because for you to have logged in to the BBS you had
to have read what TBBS software set up as "user1.txt." You had to read,
acknowledge and agree before you could post anything.
You remember Reverend the COS making a big deal with declarations and
such about the Terms of Service presented in the case?
Or, are you trying to re-write history, and what is actually in the
filings all over the internet?
Maybe you are trying to say I was a co-conspirator in your criminal
copyright infringement enterprise?
Give details.
Voltaire's Child
"realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4B1F1BD8...@aol.com...
> Sweedish Cook wrote:
>>
>> In article <cjnth5hjevsog5tl5...@4ax.com>,
>> info...@informer.org says...
>> > The ministry has had two requests to view public scrutiny documents in
>> > the 11 years of its existence. One was from the cult, who sent a PI
>> > to examine them during the copyright case in 1996, and the other was
>> > from Tom Klemesrud the other day.
>>
>> That says quite a bit about Tom, unfortunately.
>
> I keep wondering if Dennis had offered him some money from his
> settlement, if we would be hearing all this.
>
Yes, think of all the nice lovely vodka that would buy...
C
Voltaire's Child
"Anonymous" <an...@anon.anon> wrote in message
news:7o8k5uF...@mid.individual.net...
So retarded...
CTCC Greenberg
> The ministry has had two requests to view public scrutiny documents in
> the 11 years of its existence. One was from the cult, who sent a PI
> to examine them during the copyright case in 1996, and the other was
> from Tom Klemesrud the other day.
>
> Rather than respond to individual requests, (and especially requests
> such as the above from those who have engaged or continue to engage in
> harassment campaigns against me or my ministry) we have placed online
> copies of documents requiring public disclosure.
>
> You can find them here:
> http:/www.informer.org/public.htm
After looking over your Form 1023 (rev. 4-96) filing, I wonder if you
could address and issue I have?
In Part III Technical Requirements, Line 1, you checked "Yes" to the
question "Are you Filing Form 1023 within 15 months from the end of the
month in which your organization was created or formed?"
The Form 1023 application was dated 05/10/98. Yet the California Office
of the Attorney General has your organization issue date as 12/31/1990.
Reverend Erlich, can you politely explain the discrepancy?
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1275346&
Full Name: INFORMER MINISTRY FEIN:
Type: Religious Corporate or Organization Number: 2011733
RCT Registraton No: EX594575
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Expiration Date: 5/15/1991
Registration Status: Exempt - Active Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:
Address Information
Address Line 1: 555 A SO ROXBURY DR Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
CTCC
Tom Klemesrud
> The ministry has had two requests to view public scrutiny documents in
> the 11 years of its existence. One was from the cult, who sent a PI
> to examine them during the copyright case in 1996,
If that is the case, that a PI examined them in 1996, shouldn't the year
1996 been included on your 1023 application in Part IV? And shouldn't
Part III Line 1 been checked off as "No" instead of "Yes"?
> You can find them here:
> http:/www.informer.org/public.htm
Just sayin'
Anonymous
Perhaps Reverend Erlich should go down to a honky tonk and find a guy as
drunk as the guy he is always accusing of being drunk, and hire him to
check the Informer Ministry government filings before they are sent in,
to keep the ministry out of trouble.
-Anonymous
Anonymous
>
> IIRC, IRS rules say you can ask for them in person or with a witten request.
> E-mail doesn't make it. Move on to a real issue please.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=135012,00.html
In response to a written or in-person request by an individual at the
principal office of the organization, and if the organization regularly
maintains one or more regional or district offices having three or more
employees, at each such regional or district office, a copy of the
covered tax documents must be provided to the requester. If the request
for copies is made in person, the request will generally be honored on
the day of the request; if the request is written, then the organization
usually has thirty days to respond. (A request that is faxed, e-mailed
or sent by private courier is considered a written request.)
> Please get a life.
Try being less pretentious and more informed Tim.
It is every citizens' responsibility to see the structures of our
society don't crumble from shams and scams. Money going to a scam,
cannot go to a legitimate charity.
Dennis L Erlich
>IIRC, IRS rules say you can ask for them in person or with a witten request.
>E-mail doesn't make it.
No Tim. Email request is fine. The harassment campaign is the issue.
>Move on to a real issue please.
Klemmy should shoot his wad trying to find some way to sliem me. It's
quite a spectacle.
D
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!
when truth slimes thee
your supports sink too!
A) You attack this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Theo_Klemesrud
Scientology activism
Klemesrud never joined Scientology, although he met a member in
October, 1982 when he was invited to go out with some friends. He took
a personality test, known as the Oxford Capacity Analysis. The woman
told Klemesrud she would no longer carry on a relationship with him
unless he accepted that she was a Scientology member. The woman asked
Klemesrud five months later about his sister, Judy Klemesrud [3]
who worked for the New York Times. Klemesrud later found that she was
a member of Scientology's Guardian's Office. During the 1980s
Klemesrud made friends amongst Scientology ex-members and apostates.
He also met with parents whose children had been enticed into cults,
and had organized to raise awareness about cults and their illegal
activities. One of the first members he contacted who helped him with
research was Henrietta Crampton, the secretary of the Citizen's
Freedom Foundation. [4]
Klemesrud later began to share information with the New York Times,
and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. In 1984, the New York
Times published a front page story replete with a picture of Hubbard,
telling that former members said Hubbard absconded with millions of
dollars from the organization and channeled the funds into private
bank accounts in Lichtenstein and Zurich. [5]
This was the basis for the IRS investigation of Hubbard.[6]
In 1985 Tom Klemesrud started a computer Bulletin Board System in Los
Angeles called "The Cult Monitor" which ran until 1989. Klemesrud
began to receive so many phone calls for help that he turned over the
sysop responsibilities to Priscilla Coates, [7]
(former executive director of the Citizen's Freedom Foundation and
former director of the Los Angeles Cult Awareness Network.
B) And you attack the admin for the ex Scientology forum, Emma
C) and you attack me
Compare:
"He folded like a lawnchair and paid them off when the cult came after
me. He is a coward.
D "
With the FACTS:
Tom's insurance company chose to settle.. For insurance companies,
settling a nusiance lawsuit, or a lawsuit by a sociopath with money is
just the cost of doing business. Tom K had no say in it. The insurance
company was paying, so the insurance company for Netcom made the
call... based on the weighing the expenses of continuing to litigate
(over 500 dollars per hour) with the possible and probable
futures...maybe they knew erlich was a flake.. as he turned out to be.
Taking 2.5 mill from THE CULT to end the best case against
Scientology, being run by a lawfirm that was in it for the glory and
perhaps the payoff... Erlich says he had a crappy judge - this is a
straw man - we knew that this was going to the Court of appeals
(which would have made it citeable, as it is it is a ZERO, like dennis
and his potty mouthed pal.
In RTC vs Lerma, Digital Gateway (my Netcom), Rich leiby, The Wash
Post, and Marc Fisher... On the morning that RTC LOST thier trade
secret claims... (which could have been a 2.5 million statutory
fine!!) OSA was in the Hallway of the courthouse... Two of them were
working on Digital Gateway's INSURANCE COMPANY LAWYERS... who agreed
to settle DGS out of the lawsuit for 50,000 paid to the cult...
During the same 11 minutes that this was occuring, MIKE RINDER was
button holing me, asking me what it would take for me to agree to
settle... he was hinting that he wanted me to say a figure, a
number... an amount of cash...What I told Mike Rinder was that I might
agree to settle IF SCIENTOLOGY WOULD AGREE TO STOP HURTING
PEOPLE...and THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR WAYS..
Mike Rinder said: "WE WILL NEVER CHANGE or we would never do that"
I (Arnie Lerma) said: "Then lets get back into the courtroom..
5 minutes later, in open court, Judge Brinkema ruled against
Scientology, and threw out their TRADE SECRET claims...WE WON THE
TRADE SECRETS!
DGS's CEO later told me how angry they were that they HAD to
settle...cause of the insurance company.. and how they wish they had
stayed in (and saved the 50 grand)....
at the end of RTC vs Lerma - In Scientology's "Motion for Summary
Judgement -
scientology did a very strange thing, they dropped ALL CLAIMS for the
stuff I had been raided and sued for (The Fishman Aff! OT1 thru 7 and
8 (they said 8 was a forgery and dropped that claim earlier) and added
5 claims for 5 pieces of NEDS for OTs that were in my damn .LOG file,
from reading Rev potty mouth's posts, they guy with the probono IP
lawfirm that was willing to go all the way to the supreme court and
make some good law, that was and still is desperately needed.
My lead attorney at the time filed an answer to THAT motion for
summary judgement, which Lawrence Wollershiem characterized as an
effort by the INSURANCE COMPANIES TO SABOTAGE AND GET RID OF RTC VS
LERMA...they were trying to save money as the insurance fund was
running out FAST..) I webbed a dedication to that guy back then, and
webbed it here http://www.lermanet.com/cos/tomkelly.htm
aint THAT a bitch?
While I was trying to save lives
Dennis was making money.
Now there is some CONTEXT for you, now ask yourselves, who REALLY was
it that folded like a cheap suit?
Compare:
"He folded like a lawnchair and paid them off when the cult came after
me. He is a coward.
D "
The scientology ordained Minister - dennis erlich.
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/me.html
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/tomkelly.htm
===============
Posted by Arnie Lerma from Maureen's computer
Reply Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Reporting spam
Message reported
Rate this post: Text for clearing space
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before
posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "Truth about the Netcom and DGS
settlements with Scientology" by Maureen
Maureen
View profile
(1 user) More options Dec 9, 9:21 pm
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Maureen <lermanet...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:21:47 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Dec 9 2009 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: Truth about the Netcom and DGS settlements with
Scientology
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Dec 9, 8:17 pm, Maureen <lermanet...@gmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Dec 9, 6:40 pm, Ted Mayett <ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:14:57 -0800, Dennis L Erlich
> > <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
> > >----------------
> > >"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
> > >altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
> > Monica has pointed out that you are using this out of context Dennis.
> > But you cannot help yourself, can you? You are forced to make her
> > look bad. What demons do you keep in check by displaying dishonesty?
> > What is it you fear so much I wonder.
> Here are a few of his demons., dennis will say this is all lies... and
> call me names, but thats all he can do from his moral low ground. You
> will remember some of this ted...you were here for this:
> Compare:
> "He folded like a lawnchair and paid them off when the cult came after
> me. He is a coward.
> D "
> With the FACTS:
> Tom's insurance company chose to settle.. For insurance companies,
> settling a nusiance lawsuit, or a lawsuit by a sociopath with money is
> just the cost of doing business. Tom K had no say in it. The insurance
> company was paying, so the insurance company for Netcom made the
> call... based on the weighing the expenses of continuing to litigate
> (over 500 dollars per hour) with the possible and probable
> futures...maybe they knew erlich was a flake.. as he turned out to be.
> Taking 2.5 mill from THE CULT to end the best case against
> Scientology, being run by a lawfirm that was in it for the glory and
> perhaps the payoff... Erlich says he had a crappy judge - this is a
> straw man - we knew that this was going to the Court of appeals
> (which would have made it citeable, as it is it is a ZERO, like dennis
> and his potty mouthed pal.
> In RTC vs Lerma, Digital Gateway (my Netcom), Rich leiby, The Wash
> Post, and Marc Fisher... On the morning that RTC LOST thier trade
> secret claims... (which could have been a 2.5 million statutory
> fine!!) OSA was in the Hallway of the courthouse... Two of them were
> working on Digital Gateway's INSURANCE COMPANY LAWYERS... who agreed
> to settle DGS out of the lawsuit for 50,000 paid to the cult...
> During the same 11 minutes that this was occuring, MIKE RINDER was
> button holing me, asking me what it would take for me to agree to
> settle... he was hinting that he wanted me to say a figure, a
> number... an amount of cash...What I told Mike Rinder was that I might
> agree to settle IF SCIENTOLOGY WOULD AGREE TO STOP HURTING
> PEOPLE...and THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR WAYS..
> Mike Rinder said: "WE WILL NEVER CHANGE or we would never do that"
> I (Arnie Lerma) said: "Then lets get back into the courtroom..
> 5 minutes later, in open court, Judge Brinkema ruled against
> Scientology, and threw out their TRADE SECRET claims...WE WON THE
> TRADE SECRETS!
> DGS's CEO later told me how angry they were that they HAD to
> settle...cause of the insurance company.. and how they wish they had
> stayed in (and saved the 50 grand)....
> at the end of RTC vs Lerma - In Scientology's "Motion for Summary
> Judgement -
> scientology did a very strange thing, they dropped ALL CLAIMS for the
> stuff I had been raided and sued for (The Fishman Aff! OT1 thru 7 and
> 8 (they said 8 was a forgery and dropped that claim earlier) and added
> 5 claims for 5 pieces of NEDS for OTs that were in my damn .LOG file,
> from reading Rev potty mouth's posts, they guy with the probono IP
> lawfirm that was willing to go all the way to the supreme court and
> make some good law, that was and still is desperately needed.
> My lead attorney at the time filed an answer to THAT motion for
> summary judgement, which Lawrence Wollershiem characterized as an
> effort by the INSURANCE COMPANIES TO SABOTAGE AND GET RID OF RTC VS
> LERMA...they were trying to save money as the insurance fund was
> running out FAST..) I webbed a dedication to that guy back then, and
> webbed it herehttp://www.lermanet.com/cos/tomkelly.htm
> aint THAT a bitch?
> While I was trying to save lives
> Dennis was making money.
> Now there is some CONTEXT for you, now ask yourselves, who REALLY was
> it that folded like a cheap suit?
> Compare:
> "He folded like a lawnchair and paid them off when the cult came after
> me. He is a coward.
> D "
> The scientology ordained Minister - dennis erlich.
> http://www.lermanet.com/cos/me.htmlhttp://www.lermanet.com/cos/tomkel...
> ===============
> Posted by Arnie Lerma from Maureen's computer
Edited subject title to reflect the facts
Reply Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Reporting spam
Message reported
Rate this post: Text for clearing space
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before
posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "Sockpuppet list of pathetic drunk Tom
Klemesrud" by Dennis L Erlich
Dennis L Erlich
View profile
(2 users) More options Dec 9, 9:25 pm
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:25:45 -0800
Local: Wed, Dec 9 2009 9:25 pm
Subject: Re: Sockpuppet list of pathetic drunk Tom Klemesrud
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Worma pulling more sliemy turds outta his ass:
Maureen <lermanet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Taking 2.5 mill from THE CULT to end the best case against
>Scientology, being run by a lawfirm that was in it for the glory and
>perhaps the payoff
PLONK!
----------------
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the
internet
altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov
2009)
Reply Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Reporting spam
Message reported
Rate this post: Text for clearing space
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before
posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Anonymous
View profile
(2 users) More options Dec 9, 9:44 pm
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Anonymous <a...@anon.anon>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:44:54 -0600
Local: Wed, Dec 9 2009 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: Sockpuppet list of pathetic drunk Tom Klemesrud
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Maureen wrote:
> On Dec 9, 6:40 pm, Ted Mayett <ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:14:57 -0800, Dennis L Erlich
>> <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
>>> ----------------
>>> "At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
>>> altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
>> Monica has pointed out that you are using this out of context Dennis.
>> But you cannot help yourself, can you? You are forced to make her
>> look bad. What demons do you keep in check by displaying dishonesty?
>> What is it you fear so much I wonder.
> Here are a few of his demons., dennis will say this is all lies... and
> call me names, but thats all he can do from his moral low ground. You
> will remember some of this ted...you were here for this:
> Compare:
> "He folded like a lawnchair and paid them off when the cult came after
> me. He is a coward.
> D "
> With the FACTS:
Tom's insurance company chose to settle.. For insurance companies,
settling a nusiance lawsuit, or a lawsuit by a sociopath with money is
just the cost of doing business. Tom K had no say in it. The insurance
company was paying, so the insurance company for Netcom made the
call... based on the weighing the expenses of continuing to litigate
(over 500 dollars per hour) with the possible and probable
futures...maybe they knew erlich was a flake.. as he turned out to
be.
Taking 2.5 mill from THE CULT to end the best case against
Scientology, being run by a lawfirm that was in it for the glory and
perhaps the payoff... Erlich says he had a crappy judge - this is
straw man - we knew that this was going to the Court of appeals
(which would have made it citeable, as it is it is a ZERO, like
dennis and his potty mouthed pal.
In RTC vs Lerma, Digital Gateway (my Netcom), Rich leiby, The Wash
Post, and Marc Fisher... On the morning that RTC LOST thier trade
secret claims... (which could have been a 2.5 million statutory
fine!!) OSA was in the Hallway of the courthouse... Two of them were
working on Digital Gateway's INSURANCE COMPANY LAWYERS... who agreed
to settle DGS out of the lawsuit for 50,000 paid to the cult...
During the same 11 minutes that this was occuring, MIKE RINDER was
button holing me, asking me what it would take for me to agree to
settle... he was hinting that he wanted me to say a figure, a
number... an amount of cash...What I told Mike Rinder was that I might
agree to settle IF SCIENTOLOGY WOULD AGREE TO STOP HURTING
PEOPLE...and THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR WAYS..
Mike Rinder said: "WE WILL NEVER CHANGE or we would never do that"
> I (Arnie Lerma) said: "Then lets get back into the courtroom..
5 minutes later, in open court, Judge Brinkema ruled against
Scientology, and threw out their TRADE SECRET claims...WE WON THE
TRADE SECRETS!
DGS's CEO later told me how angry they were that they HAD to
settle...cause of the insurance company.. and how they wish they had
stayed in (and saved the 50 grand)....
at the end of RTC vs Lerma - In Scientology's "Motion for Summary
Judgement - scientology did a very strange thing, they dropped ALL
CLAIMS for the stuff I had been raided and sued for (The Fishman Aff!
OT1 thru 7 and 8 (they said 8 was a forgery and dropped that claim
earlier) and added 5 claims for 5 pieces of NEDS for OTs that were in
my damn .LOG file,
from reading Rev potty mouth's posts, they guy with the probono IP
lawfirm that was willing to go all the way to the supreme court and
make some good law, that was and still is desperately needed.
My lead attorney at the time filed an answer to THAT motion for
summary judgment, which Lawrence Wollershiem characterized as an
effort by the INSURANCE COMPANIES TO SABOTAGE AND GET RID OF RTC VS
LERMA...they were trying to save money as the insurance fund was
running out FAST..) I webbed a dedication to that guy back then, and
webbed it here
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/tomkelly.htm
aint THAT a bitch?
While I was trying to save lives
Dennis was making money.
Now there is some CONTEXT for you, now ask yourselves, who REALLY was
it that folded like a cheap suit?
Compare Dennis characterozation of Mr Klemesrud::
> "He folded like a lawnchair and paid them off when the cult came after me. He is a coward.
> D "
sayeth The scientology ordained Minister - dennis erlich.
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/me.html
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/tomkelly.htm
===============
> Posted by Arnie Lerma from Maureen's computer
Well said Arnie, and it is all true. One has to wonder about Erlich's
motives then, and even more now as he constantly insults and injures
others--pushing them down to try to pull himself out of the prison
hole in which is own conscience has placed him in.
With every foul, vulgar breath he takes, he displays the aura of a
pig.
Discussion subject changed to "about that potty mouthed scientology
reverend"
The psycho scientology "reverend" wrote:
> Worma pulling more sliemy turds outta his ass:
> PLONK!
> ----------------
thanks for letting me know the AMOUNT of 2.5 million is wrong... if
you settled for even less...what a bleeding selfish fool you must feel
like inside.. after throwing it all away for chump change...
so I got the AMOUNT wrong, so what was it?
Cult got yer tongue?
Monica Pignotti
and you can add:
D) He attacked me (Monica) over a grudge he had been holding against
me for nearly a year over an issue that happened back in January 2009
on the now defunct Freedom of Mind List serv. I had long since
reconciled with Steve Hassan who apologized profusely to me for
Dennis' horrible behavior and was more than happy to put the whole
fiasco behind me and not make a big issue over Dennis' atrocious
behavior on that list serv, but not Dennis. He waited to bring this
onto ARS until a thread where I was most vulnerable, being attacked by
a cultist, barging onto the thread, saying I "pulled it in". The
cultist, in the meantime cheered Dennis on and started a thread about
how "everyone" hates me (although several people responded that they
did not hate me).
This is classic Erlich behavior, still in the cult mindset, it would
seem, believing that because he thought I did horrible things to him,
that I "pulled in" attacks from that cultist, when really the reason I
was being attacked by the cultist was because I have been speaking out
against the cult. Or perhaps he is just a natural fit for the SO
personality. Then he proceeded to lie about and distort what actually
happened, saying I threatened the moderator, when really, the
moderator considered Dennis to be the one who was intimidating, in her
words, "the perfect bulldog". I would say it a little differently --
he was and continues to be the perfect SO goon.
I realize you and I have had our differences recently, Arnie, but I'm
with you on this one 100%. While I no longer believe in Scientology
concepts such as "pulling it in" nor do I believe in the law of karma,
I do have to observe that his chickens are coming home to roost here
on this thread, other people who have had bad experiences with him are
coming forward and although he tries to play wounded victim, he really
has no one but himself to blame. The more Erlich posts, the more he
footbullets himself, so I'm getting out the popcorn.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
No doubt his quote of Tom is yet another quote pulled out of context,
just as he pulled my quote out of context, using it in his sig leaving
out the important qualifications I made to that statement, including
noting that the internet has also done good in people's lives. My main
concern waas and continues to be the way the internet is being used to
recruit people into cults and pseudoscientific scams, but I also noted
that it is hear to stay and I do my best to help people develop
critical thinking skills so they can be immunized against internet
cults, scams, etc. Pretty sad that of all things people could choose
to use in their sig, you display your fixation with getting revenge on
me.
And by the way, the title of Professor Dennis uses with my name is
incorrect, further displaying his ignorance. "Professor" is a title
that is reserved for people who have held a full time tenured faculty
position for a number of years, not a new PhD graduate. New PhD
graduates can use the title "Dr" [which, by the way is perfectly
legitimate for any PhD to use and contrary to popular misconception,
did not originate with the medical field] or put the initials PhD
after their names, but do not start out with the title, Professor.
And while I'm at it, although Dennis has not done this yet, to
anticipate the possibility that he might in response to this post and
respond to the people who are flaming me for using the title "Dr" and
believe only medical doctors have that right, here is the correct info
on the term's origins which were not in medicine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28title%29
So yes, holding a Doctor of Philosophy, abbreviated as a PhD does give
me the right to use the title Dr. I say this not to be arrogant and I
am not the sort of person that goes around demanding to be addressed
that way (I am perfectly happy with Monica or Ms. Pignotti) I am
including this info to set the record straight.
Monica
Dennis L Erlich
yhn
>> After one of the first posts I made to ars back in summer of 1994, I
>> emailed him, as the BBS administrator, asking him one simple question:
>> What are the rules?
>>
>> I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
>> caps:
>>
>> THERE ARE NO RULES!
pigno
>No doubt his quote of Tom is yet another quote pulled out of context,
Heh. That was his entire answer in the email. No other text.
>just as he pulled my quote out of context, using it in his sig leaving
>out the important qualifications I made to that statement, including
>noting that the internet has also done good in people's lives.
Getting rid of the internet. Pigno would be all for it. Context
modifies that?
> Pretty sad that of all things people could choose
>to use in their sig, you display your fixation with getting revenge on
>me.
I'm still waiting to see all the hateful posts she claims I made to
FOM.
Monica Pignotti: liar and hypocrite.
D
William McDonald
This is the stupidest fucking conversation I've ever read on a News
Group in ten years. The fact that you people even this form to
communicate is arcane and bi-polar to begin with, let alone the fact
that all you use it for is piddly shit like this. Grow up, if Dennis
wants to play cult leader, let him do it - who gives a shit? You
people are what? Forty? Fifty years old? You're arguing over
semantic idiocy like "Dr" versus "Doctor"? Who really gives a flying
mother fuck? Less stupid, more smart -- fight a cult, not some old
fart.
STAY ON FUCKING TARGET.
realpch
It's the old people hashing over old quarrels and grudges. Somebody
ought to invent a pill that prevents it. I'd take it!
henri
CON for 15 years!" <arnald...@lermanet.com> wrote:
>While I was trying to save lives
>Dennis was making money.
You mean while you were sucking Minton's cock for money and sponging
on your girlfriends while popping pills?
Anonymous
Who is this foul-mouthed poster calling himself henri, and why is he
trying to control the subject by ad hominem character assassination to
deny netizens their rights to public discourse? What he is doing is try
point attention away from the original topic to create a flame war, so
people won't deal with the original ideas expressed--which Robert Clark
is trying to keep you from considering.
Has anyone ever wondered how and why he does this? It is his full time
job, and has been since the late 1990's. Where does his money come
from? The same place Erlich's came from?
Tom Klemesrud
> On Dec 8, 10:47 pm, Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
>> realpch <real...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I keep wondering if Dennis had offered him some money from his
>>> settlement, if we would be hearing all this.
>> Klemmy had been out of the case for 3 or 4 years when it settled. He
>> was not involved. He had folded his case after a few months. His
>> insurance company paid off the cult, IIANM. Why would I offer the
>> scumbag anything?
>>
>> BTW, it was Klem who steered me into the trouble in the first place.
>>
>> After one of the first posts I made to ars back in summer of 1994, I
>> emailed him, as the BBS administrator, asking him one simple question:
>> What are the rules?
>>
>> I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
>> caps:
>>
>> THERE ARE NO RULES!
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>> "At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
>> altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
>
> No doubt his quote of Tom is yet another quote pulled out of context,
> just as he pulled my quote out of context,
All he did was post to usenet ARS. There was, and is too obvious today,
no rules to usenet.
However, there were Terms of Service to the BBS that Erlich had to read,
acknowledge he read, and agree to before he ever got access to the BBS.
And the Terms of Service said not to infringe copyrignts.
If you go back and read some of his posts you will see that he came out
heavily with profanity. I contacted him and said I didn't want the
profanity on the BBS. So after that you would see words from Erlich
like "sh*t". Google it.
Dennis Erlich is doing very cynical, wicked, and false re-write of
history, with his fellow sewer astronaut Robert W. Clark, the attorney.
Anonymous
> William McDonald wrote:
>> This is the stupidest fucking conversation I've ever read on a News
>> Group in ten years. The fact that you people even this form to
>> communicate is arcane and bi-polar to begin with, let alone the fact
>> that all you use it for is piddly shit like this. Grow up, if Dennis
>> wants to play cult leader, let him do it - who gives a shit? You
>> people are what? Forty? Fifty years old? You're arguing over
>> semantic idiocy like "Dr" versus "Doctor"? Who really gives a flying
>> mother fuck? Less stupid, more smart -- fight a cult, not some old
>> fart.
>>
>> STAY ON FUCKING TARGET.
>
> It's the old people hashing over old quarrels and grudges.
That will in real life culminate with some sort of action by the IRS.
-Anonymous
Anonymous
> Dennis L Erlich wrote:
>> The ministry has had two requests to view public scrutiny documents in
>> the 11 years of its existence. One was from the cult, who sent a PI
>> to examine them during the copyright case in 1996, and the other was
>> from Tom Klemesrud the other day.
>>
>> Rather than respond to individual requests, (and especially requests
>> such as the above from those who have engaged or continue to engage in
>> harassment campaigns against me or my ministry) we have placed online
>> copies of documents requiring public disclosure.
>>
>> You can find them here:
>> http:/www.informer.org/public.htm
>
> After looking over your Form 1023 (rev. 4-96) filing, I wonder if you
>
> In Part III Technical Requirements, Line 1, you checked "Yes" to the
> question "Are you Filing Form 1023 within 15 months from the end of the
> month in which your organization was created or formed?"
>
> The Form 1023 application was dated 05/10/98. Yet the California Office
> of the Attorney General has your organization issue date as 12/31/1990.
> Reverend Erlich, can you politely explain the discrepancy?
>
> http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1275346&
>
>
> Full Name: INFORMER MINISTRY FEIN:
> Type: Religious Corporate or Organization
> Number: 2011733
>
> RCT Registraton No: EX594575
> Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity
> Registration
> Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Expiration Date: 5/15/1991
> Registration Status: Exempt - Active Date This Status:
> Date of Last Renewal:
> Address Information
> Address Line 1: 555 A SO ROXBURY DR Phone:
> Address Line 2:
> Address Line 3:
> Address Line 4: PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
>
>
> CTCC
Although they have been ignoring this inquiry, Reverend Dennis Erlich
and Informer Ministry are going to have to face it, and answer it sooner
or later.
-Anonymous
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> yhn
>
> >> After one of the first posts I made to ars back in summer of 1994, I
> >> emailed him, as the BBS administrator, asking him one simple question:
> >> What are the rules?
>
> >> I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
> >> caps:
>
> >> THERE ARE NO RULES!
>
> pigno
>
> >No doubt his quote of Tom is yet another quote pulled out of context,
>
> Heh. That was his entire answer in the email. No other text.
>
> >just as he pulled my quote out of context, using it in his sig leaving
> >out the important qualifications I made to that statement, including
> >noting that the internet has also done good in people's lives.
>
> Getting rid of the internet. Pigno would be all for it. Context
> modifies that?
>
> > Pretty sad that of all things people could choose
> >to use in their sig, you display your fixation with getting revenge on
> >me.
>
> I'm still waiting to see all the hateful posts she claims I made to
> FOM.
>
> Monica Pignotti: liar and hypocrite.
>
> D
>
more you respond in this hateful manner, the more you prove my point.
You have already proven my claims, many times over. The posts from FOM
you already posted of yours were hateful, and the current posting is
as well so there is no need for me to post what you yourself have
already proven. You're so lacking in minimal social skills, you can't
even see it. How sad for you that all you can do is respond with lame
alterations of my name. Pathetic. You might see your postings as
perfectly fine and not hateful, but both Steve Hassan and the
moderator of the FOM list had a very different perception from yours
and shared my views, as do other people on my anti-cult controversies
list serv on yahoogroups. Why don't you come onto that list and have a
discussion with the people there? I bet you lack the guts to do that
because you'd rather be here where your true believing fans will
stroke you, although many exceptions seem to be popping up here as
well, who share my perceptions.
Monica
henri
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>just as he pulled my quote out of context, using it in his sig leaving
>>out the important qualifications I made to that statement, including
>>noting that the internet has also done good in people's lives.
>Getting rid of the internet. Pigno would be all for it. Context
>modifies that?
Monica sounds like the cult claiming that the Xenu story and the find
some plants and talk to them until they talk back stuff was taken out
of context and would somehow make loads of sense put into context.
>"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
>altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
This is a moronic statement by a moron in any context.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> yhn
>
> >> After one of the first posts I made to ars back in summer of 1994, I
> >> emailed him, as the BBS administrator, asking him one simple question:
> >> What are the rules?
>
> >> I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
> >> caps:
>
> >> THERE ARE NO RULES!
>
> pigno
>
> >No doubt his quote of Tom is yet another quote pulled out of context,
>
> Heh. That was his entire answer in the email. No other text.
>
> >just as he pulled my quote out of context, using it in his sig leaving
> >out the important qualifications I made to that statement, including
> >noting that the internet has also done good in people's lives.
>
> Getting rid of the internet. Pigno would be all for it. Context
> modifies that?
You bet context modifies that. If you bothered to actually read what I
actually wrote in my last response, I explained how it modifies things
considerably, since I qualified it with the statement that the
internet had done good, but you don't care to really consider what
people have to say -- not a good sign coming from a so-called reverend
who is supposed to have good skills in actually listening to or
reading what people have to say. You have no sincere desire to
understand, that much is obvious. Your sole intent is to take whatever
I write, twist, distort, and pull out of context. You are dishonest to
the core, so rational discourse is impossible with you. All I can do
is correct things, for the record, but I have no illusions that any
kind of rational discourse or coming to an understanding with you is
possible. You have proven many times over it is not. You really are no
better than an active Scientologist -- actually worse because at least
Scientologists have an excuse of being under undue influence where
with you, that's just the way you naturally are, it would seem. When
most people leave Scientology, they become decent, kind human beings.
Not so with Scn-Rev-since1969-Erlich.
realpch
"I like you, Cokey," said. "But the reason I tell you is that a friend's
troubles are one's own troubles, and I don't like trouble. I could fall
for you, Cokey, if I had time. And I don't like to see that Blondie
getting on your mind, poisoning your springs. The worse she is, the
worse for you. Well I tell you, there's some fellows I daren't even
remember their names, or I'd get ulcers on the brain. You take a
straight tip from the stable, Cokey, if you must hate, hate the
government or the people or the sea or men, but don't hate an individual
person. Who's done you a real injury. Next thing you know he'll be
getting into your beer like prussic acid; and blotting out your eyes
like a cataract and screaming in your ears like a brain tumor and
boiling round your heart like melted lead and ramping through your guts
like a cancer. And a nice fool you'd look if he knew. It would make him
laugh till his teeth dropped out; from old age.
The Horse's Mouth by Joyce Cary
henri
It was and is an absolutely idiotic statement and anyone who wasn't a
complete moron would admit that instead of trying to defend it.
Anonymous
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:08:26 -0600, Anonymous <an...@anon.anon> wrote:
>
>> henri wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:14:36 -0800 (PST), "Lermanet.com Exposing the
>>> CON for 15 years!" <arnald...@lermanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While I was trying to save lives
>>>> Dennis was making money.
>>> You mean while you were sucking Minton's cock for money and sponging
>>> on your girlfriends while popping pills?
>> Who is this foul-mouthed poster calling himself henri, and why is he
>> trying to control the subject by ad hominem character assassination to
>> deny netizens their rights to public discourse? What he is doing is try
>> point attention away from the original topic to create a flame war, so
>> people won't deal with the original ideas expressed--which Robert Clark
>> is trying to keep you from considering.
>
> I welcome his short to the point answers instead of your, not to the
> point, slimed pieces of filth.
>
>> Has anyone ever wondered how and why he does this? It is his full time
>> job, and has been since the late 1990's. Where does his money come
>> from? The same place Erlich's came from?
>
> women you have been living off for at least 20 years and all the
> donations you have been begging together and which you mostly spent on
> your drug-addiction. Not to speak of the 100.000.00 dollars you got
> from Bob Minton to lick his ass, no matter what a traitor he turned
> out to be.
>
The Bully "Jeff" chooses door three and betrays himself as being a
profane ne'er-do-well with a penchant for cruelty or sadism!
Anonymity on the Internet is here to stay, because of its ability to
rein-in the Internet Bully. The Bully can only respond to a anonymous
message in three ways.
1) Respond to the content of the message in a respectable manner.
2) Respond to the message with profanity, for shock value, denigrating
the message, and belittling the messenger in a slash-and-burn attempt to
deny the messenger's right to public participation. This response
however betrays the Bully as being a profane ne'er-do-well with a
penchant for cruelty or sadism.
3) Respond by assigning a phantom identity to the messenger, (usually a
perceived enemy, or group of enemies), and attack the phantom identity
using ad hominem character attacks. This response betrays the Bully as
being deluded and paranoid, with a penchant for persecuting others.
Of course, the Internet Bully may choose not to respond at all.
All of these are acceptable to Anonymous
-Anonymous
For criticism of Scientology go to http://www.whyweprotest.net
AnonDelMundial
You mean while you were sucking Dandar's cock for money and sponging
on your Patricia while oggling the leetle girrlz?
efish
wrote:
> The Horse's Mouth by Joyce Cary
heh... that was a damn fine book... i remember really liking it, back
when i read it.
ah the factional debates... posturings. dicklength measurements.
doghumpings. catfights. hairpullings. me-louder-than-you-isnesses.
farts. powerhungers. memememes. oh, it's all so very... human and thus
amusing. okay, to an extent. when it's amusing.
-e
efish
<3aa15861-9958-47b9...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> although he tries to play wounded victim, he really
> has no one but himself to blame. The more Erlich posts, the more he
> footbullets himself, so I'm getting out the popcorn.
unfortunately, the same can be said about you.
neither one of you is a winner here.
(and the popcorn is reserved only for the impartial).
-e
l.l.lipshitz
wrote in <4B213DA9...@aol.com>:
[...]
| "I like you, Cokey," said. "But the reason I tell you is that a friend's
| troubles are one's own troubles, and I don't like trouble. I could fall
| for you, Cokey, if I had time. And I don't like to see that Blondie
| getting on your mind, poisoning your springs. The worse she is, the
| worse for you. Well I tell you, there's some fellows I daren't even
| remember their names, or I'd get ulcers on the brain. You take a
| straight tip from the stable, Cokey, if you must hate, hate the
| government or the people or the sea or men, but don't hate an individual
| person. Who's done you a real injury. Next thing you know he'll be
| getting into your beer like prussic acid; and blotting out your eyes
| like a cataract and screaming in your ears like a brain tumor and
| boiling round your heart like melted lead and ramping through your guts
| like a cancer. And a nice fool you'd look if he knew. It would make him
| laugh till his teeth dropped out; from old age.
|
| The Horse's Mouth by Joyce Cary
last night i had a revelation
somehow i have to make you pay
it's all about manipulation
and what it takes to get my way
i don't believe in soft solutions
no one makes a fool of me
without receiving retribution
no one hurts me and goes free
i'll play on your fears, i'll leave you in tears
you'll never be the same, my friend
you're walking a line, it's a matter of time
you'll never rest easy again
i've got the power to bring you down
i've heard it said, to err is human
it's forgiveness that's divine
i thought about forgiving you, but
i want revenge, i want what's mine
i think it's time to settle scores now
it's time to set the record straight
you'll know it's coming, you won't know how
or when, you'll have to watch and wait
i'll play on your fears, i'll leave you in tears
you'll never be the same, my friend
you're walking a line, it's a matter of time
you'll never rest easy again
i've got the power to bring you down
you know, it feels intoxicating
to be intimidating
it's invigorating
to see you shaking
i've got the power to bring you down
you know something, you see it coming,
you know i will stop at nothing.
-red delicious
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
usenet disproves the infinite-monkey theorem
Ted Mayett
<tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote:
>>> I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
>>> caps:
>>>
>>> THERE ARE NO RULES!
>>>
>>> Dennis
>All he did was post to usenet ARS. There was, and is too obvious today,
>no rules to usenet.
>
Word play.
>However, there were Terms of Service to the BBS that Erlich had to read,
>acknowledge he read, and agree to before he ever got access to the BBS.
> And the Terms of Service said not to infringe copyrignts.
>
So you were sloppy Tom, unprofessional. And this doesn't make you a
bad guy, it just says you were not professional. As a pro, when you
get an email from somebody asking what the rules are, you respond to
them with a link to the TOS. Because the TOS are the rules.
Meantime, and irrefutably, Erlich had to agree to the TOS to have
access. Maybe he likes to think that some email, which may or may not
be legitimate or legal overrides the TOS. But it don't work that way.
I have an email account with a few pages of TOS that I never read but
agreed to it all anyway. I'm not going to write to them and ask them
what the rules are, duh, I already agreed to the rules, duh.
Having already agreed to the TOS why does Dennis write to somebody
asking what the rules are? Maybe the guy is simply that ignorant, or
maybe he has a plan in mind.
>If you go back and read some of his posts you will see that he came out
>heavily with profanity. I contacted him and said I didn't want the
>profanity on the BBS. So after that you would see words from Erlich
>like "sh*t". Google it.
>
>Dennis Erlich is doing very cynical, wicked, and false re-write of
>history, with his fellow sewer astronaut Robert W. Clark, the attorney.
>
I have a question for you Tom. Let us forget this word play about
'rules' for a moment.
DID, Erlich ever post large portions of the hubbard technology prior
to the raid? It doesn't matter if it were secret levels stuff or
Technology you can buy off the book shelves of an org. I'm wondering
if he ever did exceed Fair Use. In fact, the truth be known, I'm
wondering if he even ever approached fair use in any verbatim tech he
might have posted? IOW, I'm thinking he might never have posted
anything other than a few lines here and there, and even those might
not have been verbatim. I suppose I could look this up, and I still
might. But it occurs to me to ask you Tom, you were there and more
tuned in than most. Did he post tech? Was it verbatim? Was it large
portions?
Ted Mayett
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>And by the way, the title of Professor Dennis uses with my name is
>incorrect, further displaying his ignorance.
It is not ignorance, it is malicious, and you know this.
realpch
Oooooooh!
:-D
Dennis L Erlich
>> i've got the power to bring you down
>>
>> you know something, you see it coming,
>> you know i will stop at nothing.
Nice, Peach. It's been tried before.
Dennis L Erlich
>neither one of you is a winner here.
I dunno, ef. I think I've made my point.
Pigno, Ted, Lerma and Klem will stoop to nothing to Dead Agent someone
who only questions their words. (which is all i have done ~to~ them)
Digging up cult-funded lies from 25 years ago is what they use to
refute my points.
Monica's slieming me started with my pointing out earlier this year
that she does to others exactly what she tries to tell others not to
do to her.
Ted apparently didn't like me pointing out how little he knows about
what he was posting. And calling him on his trolls. (donations to
anonymous)
Lerma went on the warpath against me late last year when I questioned
a quote he made up and posted attributing it to Bob Dylan.
Klem's problems with me apparently started a couple of years ago when
I told him to stop calling me at home late at night, rambling on drunk
out of his mind.
These are not things I went searching for from years ago or quoting
cult documents to discredit them. These are their own recent words
and actions.
OSA's techniques of Dead Agenting should be evident to anyone but the
brain dead, in their attempts to discredit me, my ministry, my
finances and my work.
realpch
efish posted that one. I posted the Gully Jimson declaration from The
Horse's Mouth, on the drawbacks of hating someone.
Tom Klemesrud
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:28:54 -0600, Tom Klemesrud
> <tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
>>>> caps:
>>>>
>>>> THERE ARE NO RULES!
>>>>
>>>> Dennis
>
>> All he did was post to usenet ARS. There was, and is too obvious today,
>> no rules to usenet.
>>
>
> Word play.
>
>> However, there were Terms of Service to the BBS that Erlich had to read,
>> acknowledge he read, and agree to before he ever got access to the BBS.
>> And the Terms of Service said not to infringe copyrignts.
>>
>
> So you were sloppy Tom, unprofessional. And this doesn't make you a
> bad guy, it just says you were not professional. As a pro, when you
> get an email from somebody asking what the rules are, you respond to
> them with a link to the TOS. Because the TOS are the rules.
I'd actually like Erlich to post that message so I can see the IP
address on it. I don't remember any such email, although I am not
denying it. Back then "there are no rules" in the wild west of the
internet, was a constant refrain or catch-phrase back then. It was
written all over Wired Magazine. I certainly did mean that Erlich
should go ahead and use my computer equipment to intentionally break the
law--which it turns out he did, by his own admission--while telling me
he was within allowed fair use.
I did several times--after the Small litigation threat to him--lecture
him on several occasions of what I thought transformative fair use to
be. He said his use was fair, over and over again.
I didn't follow his posts hardly at all. I don't know scientology and
when the message starts talking about L check sheets and such
scientology babble, I lose interest.
When I got a email message from Ron Blake Harris of ABLE that said
someone was infringing copyrights on the system and I should get in
touch with Thomas Small; I asked who the BBS user was that was doing
this. He would not tell me.
When Thomas Small directly threatened Dennis Erlich with infringement
litigation, I contacted Erlich several times, and Erlich assured me that
he was well within fair use of the material, and that as a minister he
was entitled to use it.
Later he wrote to Small to the effect that no court or government could
come between him and his religion and/or relationship to God.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!
> efish <efis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >neither one of you is a winner here.
>
> I dunno, ef. I think I've made my point.
>
> Pigno, Ted, Lerma and Klem will stoop to nothing to Dead Agent someone
> who only questions their words. (which is all i have done ~to~ them)
> Digging up cult-funded lies from 25 years ago is what they use to
> refute my points.
>
> Monica's slieming me started with my pointing out earlier this year
> that she does to others exactly what she tries to tell others not to
> do to her.
>
> Ted apparently didn't like me pointing out how little he knows about
> what he was posting. And calling him on his trolls. (donations to
> anonymous)
>
> Lerma went on the warpath against me late last year when I questioned
> a quote he made up and posted attributing it to Bob Dylan.
Erlich the scientologist style liar makes it up as you goes along...
The last straw were the lies you spouted about ESMB the Ex
Scientologist Message Board
after you were properly banned as a disruptive nutball.
Anonymous
> efish <efi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> neither one of you is a winner here.
>
> I dunno, ef. I think I've made my point.
>
> Pigno, Ted, Lerma and Klem will stoop to nothing to Dead Agent someone
> who only questions their words. (which is all i have done ~to~ them)
> Digging up cult-funded lies from 25 years ago is what they use to
> refute my points.
>
> Monica's slieming me started with my pointing out earlier this year
> that she does to others exactly what she tries to tell others not to
> do to her.
>
> Ted apparently didn't like me pointing out how little he knows about
> what he was posting. And calling him on his trolls. (donations to
> anonymous)
>
> Lerma went on the warpath against me late last year when I questioned
> a quote he made up and posted attributing it to Bob Dylan.
I did that holy Reverend, not Arnie Lerma. I find your use of Bob Dylan
hilarious.
>
> Klem's problems with me apparently started a couple of years ago when
> I told him to stop calling me at home late at night, rambling on drunk
> out of his mind.
My problem with you started when I learned you intentionally used my
computer equipment to infringe copyrights to goad Scientology to raid
you so you could make money from them. Especially after my being
attacked by Miss Bloodybutt and spending a night in jail--in
Scientology's attempt to get you, as we know now, to stop intentionally
infringing their copyrights and trade secrets.
Dennis you are a foul, profane, evil man.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!
hating crime is not a hate crime
Tom Klemesrud
> Ted Mayett wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:28:54 -0600, Tom Klemesrud
>> <tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I will never forget the answer he immediately shot back to me in all
>>>>> caps:
>>>>>
>>>>> THERE ARE NO RULES!
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis
>>
>>> All he did was post to usenet ARS. There was, and is too obvious
>>> today, no rules to usenet.
>>>
>>
>> Word play.
>>
>>> However, there were Terms of Service to the BBS that Erlich had to
>>> read, acknowledge he read, and agree to before he ever got access to
>>> the BBS. And the Terms of Service said not to infringe copyrignts.
>>>
>>
>> So you were sloppy Tom, unprofessional. And this doesn't make you a
>> bad guy, it just says you were not professional. As a pro, when you
>> get an email from somebody asking what the rules are, you respond to
>> them with a link to the TOS. Because the TOS are the rules.
>
> I'd actually like Erlich to post that message so I can see the IP
> address on it. I don't remember any such email, although I am not
> denying it. Back then "there are no rules" in the wild west of the
> internet, was a constant refrain or catch-phrase back then. It was
> written all over Wired Magazine. I certainly did
should read DIDN'T :)
henri
Not to mention the smug, self-congratulatory my aren't I so above it
all type posts that some people post (though I wouldn't dream of
naming them).
henri
CON for 15 years!" <arnald...@lermanet.com> wrote:
>hating crime is not a hate crime
Yes, you stole that from me.
And what you do may not be a hate crime, but it's surely felony
stupidity.
realpch
Go read the quote again, Arnie.
Dennis L Erlich
>The last straw were the lies you spouted about ESMB the Ex
>Scientologist Message Board
What lies were those, I wonder. Of course Worma won't produce the
lies I told.
No. I only voiced my opinion on ars about the babysitting style of
the moderator on ESMB.
> after you were properly banned as a disruptive nutball.
No, scumbag. I stopped posting to ESMB and voiced my dissatisfaction
on ARS. If I was banned (and I've never been notified I was) it was
sometime ~after~ I stopped posting there and switched to ars.
Worma and his ilk were very happy to have me fade away. And then they
complained when I began posting again, challenging their bullshit.
Rev J Tesman
Perhaps Reverend you should recite one of your ministry's parables,
rather than use obscenity in the ministry of God:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fables_and_Parables#The_Farmer
The Farmer
A farmer, bent on doubling the profits from his land,
Proceeded to set his soil a two-harvest demand.
Too intent thus on profit, harm himself he must needs:
Instead of corn, he now reaps corn cockle and weeds.
-Tessy
henri
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>worma with more lies <arnald...@lermanet.com> wrote:
>> after you were properly banned as a disruptive nutball.
>No, scumbag. I stopped posting to ESMB and voiced my dissatisfaction
>on ARS. If I was banned (and I've never been notified I was) it was
>sometime ~after~ I stopped posting there and switched to ars.
>Worma and his ilk were very happy to have me fade away. And then they
>complained when I began posting again, challenging their bullshit.
Worma is particularly unwise to raise the subject of nutballs being
banned for being nutballs, since he is one of those himself.
efish
henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> Not to mention the smug, self-congratulatory my aren't I so above it
> all type posts that some people post (though I wouldn't dream of
> naming them).
darlin', if you had the ah, wherewithall to be able to rise above all
this insanity, you too would be congratulating yourself.
but you aren't.
and enough said about that.
-e
Out_Of_The_Dark
stole? How arrogant you are. Dox or it didn't happen, bwahahaha
henri
You're right. I'm not "above" shooting back when someone calls a
friend of mine a liar and a thief. Hope I never am. YMMV.
Jommy Cross
<7ofglcF...@mid.individual.net>:
>Dennis L Erlich wrote:
<snip>
>> Klem's problems with me apparently started a couple of years ago when
>> I told him to stop calling me at home late at night, rambling on drunk
>> out of his mind.
>
>My problem with you started when I learned you intentionally used my
>computer equipment to infringe copyrights to goad Scientology to raid
>you so you could make money from them.
<snip>
Oh, so now you're Tom again, are you? That's a huge fscking surprise.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
efish
henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
actually, were you to stop and think before flipping out, you would
realize that i am not either. however, i am also not above calling out
said friend's pestering of another, obviously troubled person. for what
reason, other than being a totally unempathetic dick, i cannot fathom.
and ironically, that is what started this whole conflagration.
yes, he is being attacked by spurious, vindictive nonsense. but from
perusing of said posts, i figure he could have avoided most of this crap
were he to understand that some people feel hurt by what is perceived by
them to have been less than transparent, arrogant behaviour.
no one looks good in all this. and what gets me, is that not one of
the... subjects (including you) understands that they are in fact
humiliating themselves.
it's fucking disappointing, is what it is. that after all these years,
it comes down to this. that in fact, no one learns anything.
-e
Ted Mayett
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>Pigno, Ted, Lerma and Klem will stoop to nothing to Dead Agent someone
>who only questions their words.
Such generalizations, and nothing wrong with them.
I met you for the first time at one of your court hearings somewhere
in CA, I don't remember the town or city. I met you, and every
warning bell I had went off. I said to myself, "this is a slimeball,
never forget you are dealing with a slimeball, never relax, never
trust the guy." And all the years that went by, and nothing ever
changed my initial first impression of you.
For the last year or two, whatever, you have been out of my Watchfile.
On busy days I might or might not open a post by you. For your posts
were useless, always the same. Tedious, boring and repetitious. And
quite vulgar as a rule. Full of clever things like 'toadly' for
'totally' and so on. Never any beauty, never any humor. Except that
for when you were laughing at someone specific, and that was your
humor. Never any instruction, never any real research. The sum of
your ars life is basically to ridicule hubbard (tubbard to you)
scientology and scientologists. All of it is bad, all of it useless,
all of it evil, on and on until you just get tired of reading the same
thing over and over from you.
Monica does not have a monopoly on being able to change her mind
Dennis. We all have that right, including you. Back there Tilman was
snippy and huffy because you settled after you said you never would
settle. For the record, it never bothered me in the slightest that
you settled. It is your life, and your business, and don't tell me
how to live my life and I won't tell you how to live yours.
But you did shatter my illusions, I will tell you this. For all these
many years Dennis I truly thought you were intelligent, I really did
think that. I'd sit there in front of my monitor reading and giggling
with glee over what this guy, you, was doing. And oh so happy for you
for the inevitable payday that would be coming your way.
Because you had them, and you had them cold. I had actually thought
you had set the whole thing up, not the raid per se. But that you
expected something from them, and then you would counter sue, collect
millions, and spend the rest of your days as a 'fat-cat'. And maybe
you did collect real millions. I'm not asking you about this, mainly
because I wouldn't believe what you said anyway.
You see Dennis, it was that title of Rev that you used. I was always
curious where that title came from. Instinct and observation told me
never to bother asking you a direct question, because there would be
no direct answer, because you are a slimeball.
And you know, Today I'm not even sure you are a slimeball. You might
just be seriously deluded, there is this real possibility. But I
don't really accept this possibility, but rather am happy to go with
slimeball.
I remember so well when I first met you. You were haughty,
belligerent, and soaking up all the attention. Oh what a big man you
were, oh my goodness what a big man you were, oh my. I knew then you
were not a Reverend, that there was nothing about you that was a
Reverend. You were no more a man of God than I was. That was
obvious. And I kept that opinion, at the time, that you were
exceedingly clever, playing an angle, and that one day you would
collect mega millions because of the unconstitutional raid they had
done against you.
It is only recently, from these last few days of reading your
responses to various people that I finally surrendered any thought
that you were intelligent. That you are intelligent. It seemed
utterly obvious to me that all your irs paperwork would be proper to
the Nth degree. I was shocked by how messy and sloppy you are with
that paperwork, I wasn't ready for this, never expected that.
Your paperwork, your posts, your responses, and something I'm not
going to mention, have convinced that you are not intelligent at all.
I really thought you had to some degree orchestrated events. Now I'm
convinced that you were just caught up by events, that it was
accidental so to speak.
As luck would have it you found yourself the 'star of the moment', a
big man on stage. And you never really did anything, an expensive and
competent law firm did all your work for you, for free, you didn't
even have to pay them anything. That was a lucky break for you.
And today you are a total nothing, no different and no better than me,
another total nothing. But you at least had a chance, the fates gave
you an opportunity for greatness. Your name is a name that could have
been sung with pride for all the years to come, but your real name
unfortunately is "potty-mouth reverend". You were put the test, you
were lucky enough to be put to the test. The vast bulk of us will
dance our hour upon the stage and then drift off to total obscurity.
But you dear sir, were lucky, you had a chance, you were put to the
test. And you came out lacking, bummer.
And a testimony to your honesty is that logo for the SubGenius on your
Informer Ministry web page. It is delicate, and perhaps impolite to
questions a persons statements that they are affiliated with God. But
I openly question yours, but then that's the guy I am.
In 1969 the L. Ron Hubbard Technology told you that you were now an
Ordained Minister. Fine, you were about 23 years old then, still a
child, and you believed what they told you, what the Tech told you.
You are not a child now. And we are not here called Judges, Lawyers
or Barristers or anything like this. We are just people talking to
people, just plain folks. And except for a legal definition we know,
and you know, that you were never an Ordained Minister in scientology
just because the LRH Tech said that you were an ordained minster.
Your honesty on that Ministry page of yours lies in that dobbshead
logo that you use. It tells us, who are in the know, what kind of
reverend you actually are. For the message of the SubGenius can be
stated simply, "fuck god and fuck the imbeciles who believe in god."
Openly I say that your belief in god is summed up accurately and
honestly in that logo you use on your ministry page. And it won't
matter if you take it down, or leave it there. You are not fooling
anybody Dennis, only the ignorant, only those who don't know what you
really believe when it comes to god.
There were no Ordained Ministers in scientology in 1969, not a single
ordained minister, not a one. Just fancy paperwork. But today, this
very day right now, you say on your Ministry web page that you were a
minister for the years you spent in scientology.
You are deluded, or a slimeball. And mainly you are a nothing and a
nobody. A pathetic specimen unable to do more than use words like,
"lying sac o shit, bitch, twit, a-hole" and so on. This is you today
Dennis, this is who you are. What a pity.
Enough of this, what is next?
Dennis L Erlich
>> >darlin', if you had the ah, wherewithall to be able to rise above all
>> >this insanity, you too would be congratulating yourself.
>> >
>> >but you aren't.
aytch
>> You're right. I'm not "above" shooting back when someone calls a
>> friend of mine a liar and a thief. Hope I never am. YMMV.
ef
>actually, were you to stop and think before flipping out, you would
>realize that i am not either. however, i am also not above calling out
>said friend's pestering of another, obviously troubled person.
No. Monica is only troubled that I am calling her out.
> for what
>>reason, other than being a totally unempathetic dick, i cannot fathom.
>>and ironically, that is what started this whole conflagration.
Perhaps if I explain it again for the umpteenth time:
My issue is censorship. I went to FOM to correct some obviously
skewed impressions Monica was selling to the un-informed there about
the cult's attitude toward medical treatment. My posts there reflect
this intent. She tried to get me shut down by the moderator with
lies. She then proceeded to denigrate my religious calling, call into
question my finances, and use other OSA tactics on me. When none of
those tactics worked she complained to the moderator so much that the
moderator closed down the forum.
So, foolish me, I thought my points were important enough to post them
here to ars. Sadly I expected some people to read and comment on the
actual points I was making.
However all that happened was that the gang of four decided it was
time to dig out all the old Dead Agent material and take the side of
the cult that produced it. Against me.
It just confirms for me the point I was making: some critics stick to
the facts and others just fling enough shit to make their opponent
smell bad.
Apparently you and some others buy it. Not a problem.
>yes, he is being attacked by spurious, vindictive nonsense.
Oh, I hadn't realize you'd noticed.
And according to you my pointing out the hypocrisy is equivalent to
dredging up 20 or 30 year old material produced by the cult to DA me
while they pursued me in court and financed my ex-wife's divorce case.
>but from
>perusing of said posts, i figure he could have avoided most of this crap
>were he to understand that some people feel hurt by what is perceived by
>them to have been less than transparent, arrogant behaviour.
I'm don't think I am a better person than anyone. Nor do I think that
anyone is above me.
>no one looks good in all this. and what gets me, is that not one of
>the... subjects (including you) understands that they are in fact
>humiliating themselves.
I had important points to make which were "rebutted" by attempts at
censorship and other cult Dead Agent tactics. You may see it
differently.
>it's fucking disappointing, is what it is. that after all these years,
>it comes down to this. that in fact, no one learns anything.
Perhaps if I become as smug, condescending and superior about other
people defending themselves against lies and slieming as you obviously
are.
No. What's disappointing is that no one on ars had any comment on the
content of the material concerning medical treatment for staff and
public I posted here.
It was all, "gee cant you just ignore it and get along or rise above
it?" when these liars stared with their OSA Dead Agent tactics.
Hey, no problem. Apparently such tactics suit the new audience here.
Voltaire's Child
"Ted Mayett" <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:mmm9i5tcqusallne5...@4ax.com... <snip diatribe>
What the FUCK does this have to do with alt.religion.SCIENTOLOGY ???????
Android Cat
"Dennis L Erlich" <info...@informer.org> wrote in message
news:e05ai5pot0tvb5niu...@4ax.com...
> No. What's disappointing is that no one on ars had any comment on the
> content of the material concerning medical treatment for staff and
> public I posted here.
It's not the first time that it's been pointed out that the "always seek
medical attention" policy stuff is just cover-your-ass window dressing that
in practice is frequently ignored or overruled by senior policy.
They toss it in with other lip-service junk like this:
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h233/RogerRamdrive/contract.jpg
But when things go wrong, they keep it quiet and away from even their own
pet doctors:
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h233/RogerRamdrive/Muzzled.jpg
And those pet doctors say "I know nutting, nutting!" when it gets too close.
Trio arrested after wife's wrists are bound
November 8, 2002, Chris Tisch, St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/07/NorthPinellas/Trio_arrested_after_w.shtml
/===
Police called the doctor, who verified Mrs. Hemphill's appointment, her
first. The doctor, whose office is in St. Petersburg, told police he did not
know, nor approve, of Hemphill tying up his wife to bring her there, Ross
said.
\===
I'd love to know who the doctor was in this incident. Probably not Minkoff,
who was selling zapper-type boxes after getting his license back.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Dennis L Erlich
>It's not the first time that it's been pointed out that the "always seek
>medical attention" policy stuff is just cover-your-ass window dressing that
>in practice is frequently ignored or overruled by senior policy.
Thanks, AC. Now I feel better.
Dennis L Erlich
klem as a nony
>>My problem with you started when I learned you intentionally used my
>>computer equipment to infringe copyrights to goad Scientology to raid
>>you so you could make money from them.
><snip>
jom
>Oh, so now you're Tom again, are you? That's a huge fscking surprise.
Hard to keep track of your lies when you're drunk AND stupid. But he
needs to attempt deniability. So mistakes will be made.
Android Cat
"Android Cat" <androi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:892bf$4b251ed9$adce61ae$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
Oh lookie! Husband and wife were AMC employees:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/705a99fcfe6997e/6cc8bac51b1ffc1f?lnk=gst&q=Hemphill#6cc8bac51b1ffc1f
Charges eventually dropped after the usual operation to muddy the waters and
get everyone out of town:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/f0e1c37360ef7c5e/57231c26510b5838?lnk=gst&q=Hemphill#57231c26510b5838
First thread on story:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/2957b66c257d3f07/2052c0b9baf9be4d#2052c0b9baf9be4d
Now that Ben Shaw is out, it'd be nice if he'd tell the truth about that
one, but I'm not holding my breath.
Monica Pignotti
> efish <efis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >darlin', if you had the ah, wherewithall to be able to rise above all
> >> >this insanity, you too would be congratulating yourself.
>
> >> >but you aren't.
>
> aytch
>
> >> You're right. I'm not "above" shooting back when someone calls a
> >> friend of mine a liar and a thief. Hope I never am. YMMV.
>
> ef
>
> >actually, were you to stop and think before flipping out, you would
> >realize that i am not either. however, i am also not above calling out
> >said friend's pestering of another, obviously troubled person.
>
> No. Monica is only troubled that I am calling her out.
>
> > for what
> >>reason, other than being a totally unempathetic dick, i cannot fathom.
> >>and ironically, that is what started this whole conflagration.
>
> Perhaps if I explain it again for the umpteenth time:
>
> My issue is censorship. I went to FOM to correct some obviously
> skewed impressions Monica was selling to the un-informed there about
> the cult's attitude toward medical treatment.
Wrong. You are the one who did the skewing. My challenge to Steve was
simply that his generalization that Scientology dissuaded people from
getting all medical treatment was not correct and I was cautioning
people to not jump to hasty conclusions about the Travoltas. Such
situations need to be thoughtfully considered on a case by case basis
because there is a great deal of variation on how medical issues are
dealt with. Some people, such as Tory, were ultimately allowed to
continue on up the bridge while on meds for epilepsy. Scientology's
position on medication for physical conditions has been inconsistent
so what I wrote back then (just a few weeks after Jett's death) was
that we should not be making hasty generalizations. Dennis then comes
on, at Hassan's request and completely twists and distorts the
position I took. Hassan later apologized to me for Dennis' behavior.
>My posts there reflect
> this intent.
What your posts "reflect" is a matter of opinion. In my opinion and
that of the moderator and several others, your posts reflect you for
the bully you are.
>She tried to get me shut down by the moderator with
> lies.
Wrong again. I simply let the moderator know about your legal
situation, which I was completely honest about. For the umpteenth
time, to correct your misportrayal of this situation, I told her that
I DID NOT KNOW what the terms of your settlement were and that she
needed to ASK you, which she did.
>She then proceeded to denigrate my religious calling,
Wrong again. I question your so-called "religious calling" as
disingenuous, particular since you admitted to having remained
registered with the State of California as a minister of Scientology
since 1969, a religion you long since rejected. That is downright
dishonest of you and I called you out on that. Erlich, in his own
words:
"I'm sorry, you are confused. I thought it was clear that I was
originally ordained as a minister in 1969 by scientology.
As far as the "sanctioning agency" back in those days ministers were
required to register with the State of California, which I did. After
I walked away I didn't withdrawn my registration, so I am still on
file in Sacramento that way."
>call into
> question my finances, and use other OSA tactics on me.
Again, I asked questions, something that like cultists, you appear to
be very threatened by.
>When none of
> those tactics worked she complained to the moderator so much that the
> moderator closed down the forum.
Wrong again. Cathleen stated why she closed down the forum. It had
nothing to do with my complaints, which exist only in Dennis'
imagination. You have had no direct contact with Cathleen since she
closed down the forum. Hence, you have no way of knowing why she
closed it down. This is your unfounded speculation and lies.
>
> So, foolish me, I thought my points were important enough to post them
> here to ars. Sadly I expected some people to read and comment on the
> actual points I was making.
Your are apparently too unaware of how bad you come off to even
recognize how your postings look to others. There was nothing to
comment on because all you do is engage in personal smear tactics.
> However all that happened was that the gang of four decided it was
> time to dig out all the old Dead Agent material and take the side of
> the cult that produced it. Against me.
No need to go into the past. Just read his current ugly statements
about his self admitted history of domestic violence that he tries to
explain away and minimize.
> It just confirms for me the point I was making: some critics stick to
> the facts and others just fling enough shit to make their opponent
> smell bad.
I'm sticking to the facts, the fact of statements made by you, in your
own words.
> Apparently you and some others buy it. Not a problem.
>
> >yes, he is being attacked by spurious, vindictive nonsense.
>
> Oh, I hadn't realize you'd noticed.
>
> And according to you my pointing out the hypocrisy is equivalent to
> dredging up 20 or 30 year old material produced by the cult to DA me
> while they pursued me in court and financed my ex-wife's divorce case.
Domestic violence is serious, no matter how long ago it occurred,
especially the way you spout Scientology jargon to explain it away.
> >but from
> >perusing of said posts, i figure he could have avoided most of this crap
> >were he to understand that some people feel hurt by what is perceived by
> >them to have been less than transparent, arrogant behaviour.
>
> I'm don't think I am a better person than anyone. Nor do I think that
> anyone is above me.
We've all made mistakes but we all do not have the kind of history of
violence you have and we all don't explain it away with Scientology
jargon. Heal thyself, minister. You have no business going near ex-
cult members, in my opinion and if anyone wants my opinion, my advice
would be for them to avoid you like the plague.
> >no one looks good in all this. and what gets me, is that not one of
> >the... subjects (including you) understands that they are in fact
> >humiliating themselves.
>
> I had important points to make which were "rebutted" by attempts at
> censorship and other cult Dead Agent tactics. You may see it
> differently.
You bet I do.
> >it's fucking disappointing, is what it is. that after all these years,
> >it comes down to this. that in fact, no one learns anything.
>
> Perhaps if I become as smug, condescending and superior about other
> people defending themselves against lies and slieming as you obviously
> are.
>
> No. What's disappointing is that no one on ars had any comment on the
> content of the material concerning medical treatment for staff and
> public I posted here.
Perhaps because there was nothing of substance to comment on. Others
obviously do not share your high opinion of your pearls of wisdom.
> It was all, "gee cant you just ignore it and get along or rise above
> it?" when these liars stared with their OSA Dead Agent tactics.
>
> Hey, no problem. Apparently such tactics suit the new audience here.
>
> D
>
> ----------------
>
> "At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
> altogether, I would be all for it." - Professor Monica Pignotti (Nov 2009)
Monica
Whoa, girl. Yes, I hit you. You were about to blow it and get sent to
the RPF, if you recall. You started talking about wanting to leave
Flag.
---Reverend Dennis Erlich, responding to Rosa Erlich Declaration that
he hit her while she was pregnant
Tom Klemesrud
> jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>
> klem as a nony
>>> My problem with you started when I learned you intentionally used my
>>> computer equipment to infringe copyrights to goad Scientology to raid
>>> you so you could make money from them.
>> <snip>
>
> jom
>> Oh, so now you're Tom again, are you? That's a huge fscking surprise.
>
> Hard to keep track of your lies when you're drunk AND stupid. But he
> needs to attempt deniability. So mistakes will be made.
>
> D
What are you talking about Dennis. This is my email address, and my IP
is attached to it?
Are you making this up, or do you really believe it?
Android Cat
"Tom Klemesrud" <tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote in message
news:4b25...@news2.lightlink.com...
This was the e-mail address on that article:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:17:20 -0600, Anonymous <an...@anon.anon> wrote in msg
<7ofglcF...@mid.individual.net>:
Unscrambling individual.net's x-trace is hardly needed, is it?
henri
Yeah, I went back to see it after your post and you hardly have to
read past the first paragraph:
>I met you for the first time at one of your court hearings somewhere
>in CA, I don't remember the town or city. I met you, and every
>warning bell I had went off. I said to myself, "this is a slimeball,
>never forget you are dealing with a slimeball, never relax, never
>trust the guy." And all the years that went by, and nothing ever
>changed my initial first impression of you.
So in other words, he met the guy nearly 15 years ago, thought he was
a slimeball, but didn't think to warn ANYONE AT ALL about this
supposed slimeball, until nearly 15 years later, when the guy beats
the hell out of him in an argument and he gets butthurt.
That makes HIM a pretty dishonest slimeball, to wait like a
chickenshit for 15 years, and only after he has a personal grudge,
from getting his ass kicked, and a bunch of other people are also
dogpiling him.
That's one thing you can sure say about Teddy. He doesn't join in a
fight until it's a dogpile against the other guy. What a dirtbag.
henri
>no one looks good in all this. and what gets me, is that not one of
>the... subjects (including you) understands that they are in fact
>humiliating themselves.
Except of course for you. You are so above it all, so better than the
rest of us. Thanks for your pearls of smug superiority.
henri
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Dennis L Erlich" <info...@informer.org> wrote in message
>news:e05ai5pot0tvb5niu...@4ax.com...
>> No. What's disappointing is that no one on ars had any comment on the
>> content of the material concerning medical treatment for staff and
>> public I posted here.
>It's not the first time that it's been pointed out that the "always seek
>medical attention" policy stuff is just cover-your-ass window dressing that
>in practice is frequently ignored or overruled by senior policy.
Senior policy which includes things like baby watches. While Lisa
McPherson's is obviously the one that went worst, it's not like the
practice is anything new. The others just happened to survive. Nancy
Many has her own and other examples.
Of course, attacking Dennis Erlich is far more important than
attacking Scientology.
As good as it is that the whyweprotest forums exist, it has merely
accelerated the demise of ARS. Most of the people remaining here
(present company excepted) are the bilious, depraved rejects who'd be
chucked off WWP for tinfoil lunacy within minutes of joining.
Tom Klemesrud
>
> "Tom Klemesrud" <tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote in message
> news:4b25...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>> IP is attached to it?
>>
>> Are you making this up, or do you really believe it?
>
> This was the e-mail address on that article:
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:17:20 -0600, Anonymous <an...@anon.anon> wrote in msg
> <7ofglcF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/1c03a43042d027f6/4208072b43c62c5f#4208072b43c62c5f
>
>
> Unscrambling individual.net's x-trace is hardly needed, is it?
>
I'm not sure Ron what you are trying to say here. Can you be more clear?
henri
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>First thread on story:
>http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/2957b66c257d3f07/2052c0b9baf9be4d#2052c0b9baf9be4d
>Now that Ben Shaw is out, it'd be nice if he'd tell the truth about that
>one, but I'm not holding my breath.
Give him a few years. Rinder and Rathbun were certainly on my list of
"last people who will ever talk about" and look at them now.
I think people who quit Scientology should generally just go away for
a few years and get their heads together before jumping out and trying
to spill. Often recent exes are just so nuts they can't be relied on
anyway, and having their heads fucked with by batshit crazy "critics"
isn't going to do them any favors.
They're better off going far away and spending time with their
families and normal people, fine-tuning their own personal bullshit
detector, and only then, if they feel like it, coming back to tell
their story.
As much as cult apologists are FOS in insisting that no "apostate"
testimony is credible, it really does seem that when recent
ex-cultists tell their stories, they tend to conform them with those
of others. I think understanding the reality of cults would be more
benefited by having stories written with the intention of getting them
as accurate as possible, after the fact and calmly, rather than
written to please the recent ex-cultist's new social group.
realpch
Well, a long time ago when I decided I wanted to try picketing, I
contacted Taniwha, who had experience, and we set out together. He told
me that when it really looked as if the Church of Scientology was going
down, expect to see the critics all turn on each other, since he'd seen
the same phenomenon elsewhere. How right he was!
henri
>Well, a long time ago when I decided I wanted to try picketing, I
>contacted Taniwha, who had experience, and we set out together. He told
>me that when it really looked as if the Church of Scientology was going
>down, expect to see the critics all turn on each other, since he'd seen
>the same phenomenon elsewhere. How right he was!
That's why I'm not too upset by the phenomenon. ARS may be a
shitpile, but it's our shitpile. Plus, I'm not sure exactly how we
could compete to destroy Scientology faster than it's destroying
itself.
I still doubt Scientology (the organization) is going to cease to
exist any time soon. But the last couple years have set it into its
final slow death phase. I doubt it's going to end up like LDS, with
vast success. Instead, it's going to end up like Christian Science,
slowly fading away.
In a hundred years, people may still remember that Scientology had a
bad reputation of sorts, but it will look pretty harmless by then.
Maybe every couple years, some public person will wander into one of
their orgs, look at some dust covered books, ask a flippant question
and have some 70+ year old Scientologist rasp out "What are your
crimes, sonny?"
But that will be the extent of their fearsome aggression.
Dennis L Erlich
two-faced "friends" I have come to know and revile.
henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>So in other words, he met the guy nearly 15 years ago, thought he was
>a slimeball, but didn't think to warn ANYONE AT ALL about this
>supposed slimeball, until nearly 15 years later, when the guy beats
>the hell out of him in an argument and he gets butthurt.
I don't think he liked me calling him on his "donate to anonymous"
troll.
>That makes HIM a pretty dishonest slimeball, to wait like a
>chickenshit for 15 years, and only after he has a personal grudge,
>from getting his ass kicked, and a bunch of other people are also
>dogpiling him.
I'm hardly being dog-piled, aytch. This is just a handful, finding
and manufacturing dirt from years ago, just like the scienos did.
No worries about the group-sniff of my bunghole. I'm sure anyone can
find some odor they don't much care for up there.
>That's one thing you can sure say about Teddy. He doesn't join in a
>fight until it's a dogpile against the other guy. What a dirtbag.
No, h. It's just a coincidence. He's been meaning to tell me off for
15 years. The time just wasn't right.
Dennis L Erlich
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:24:51 -0500, "Android Cat"
><androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>First thread on story:
>>http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/2957b66c257d3f07/2052c0b9baf9be4d#2052c0b9baf9be4d
>
>>Now that Ben Shaw is out, it'd be nice if he'd tell the truth about that
>>one, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>Give him a few years. Rinder and Rathbun were certainly on my list of
>"last people who will ever talk about" and look at them now.
>
>I think people who quit Scientology should generally just go away for
>a few years and get their heads together before jumping out and trying
>to spill.
Yes. If the involvement has been more than brief and shallow, the
culture shock of trying to communicate with wogs is too severe. And
in joining up with other ex's in some group-grope kind of forum, where
everyone enforces some ~new~ group norm, there is a risk that
re-enculturation and integration with normal society will not happen
sufficiently to pull the ex OUT of the cult mindset.
>Often recent exes are just so nuts they can't be relied on
>anyway, and having their heads fucked with by batshit crazy "critics"
>isn't going to do them any favors.
It can only lead to more unquestioning group think.
>They're better off going far away and spending time with their
>families and normal people, fine-tuning their own personal bullshit
>detector, and only then, if they feel like it, coming back to tell
>their story.
Plugging back into society, what that means, was the subject of the
one post I really wanted to save out of FOM. I listed out what I
thought that meant in detail. Oh well.
>As much as cult apologists are FOS in insisting that no "apostate"
>testimony is credible, it really does seem that when recent
>ex-cultists tell their stories, they tend to conform them with those
>of others.
You mean what they concentrate on in the telling is the same as what
other exes say? Or they use the same kinda language?
>I think understanding the reality of cults would be more
>benefited by having stories written with the intention of getting them
>as accurate as possible, after the fact and calmly, rather than
>written to please the recent ex-cultist's new social group.
For sure. Or for sensationalism.
This is a fascinating subject to me: re-integrating ex cultists into
society.
D
---------------------
"I'm the fool I never
fool I never thought I was." - M Knopfler
Tom Klemesrud
^THIS Very well thought out, very well said; based on all the facts and
evidence we have.
henri
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>As much as cult apologists are FOS in insisting that no "apostate"
>>testimony is credible, it really does seem that when recent
>>ex-cultists tell their stories, they tend to conform them with those
>>of others.
>You mean what they concentrate on in the telling is the same as what
>other exes say? Or they use the same kinda language?
Both, and it's actually hard to tell how much of the similarity of the
stories to ascribe to the similar mindsets of recent exes, how much to
the unconscious influence of a new peer group, and how much to the
fact that cult experiences *are* in fact often remarkably similar,
even from cult to cult.
Dennis L Erlich
>>>As much as cult apologists are FOS in insisting that no "apostate"
>>>testimony is credible, it really does seem that when recent
>>>ex-cultists tell their stories, they tend to conform them with those
>>>of others.
yhn
>>You mean what they concentrate on in the telling is the same as what
>>other exes say? Or they use the same kinda language?
h
>Both, and it's actually hard to tell how much of the similarity of the
>stories to ascribe to the similar mindsets of recent exes, how much to
>the unconscious influence of a new peer group, and how much to the
>fact that cult experiences *are* in fact often remarkably similar,
>even from cult to cult.
Can you give me a general example of what you noticed in their stories
that brought this to your attention? Without naming names of course.
D
---------------------------------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
Anonymous
Because this is the newsgroup that Dennis Erlich used in order to steal
scientology's intellectual property. He admitted it--albeit for his own
financial gain.
Android Cat
news:dfiai5pmf9rtfo2v2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:24:51 -0500, "Android Cat"
> <androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>First thread on story:
>>http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/2957b66c257d3f07/2052c0b9baf9be4d#2052c0b9baf9be4d
>
>>Now that Ben Shaw is out, it'd be nice if he'd tell the truth about that
>>one, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
> Give him a few years. Rinder and Rathbun were certainly on my list of
> "last people who will ever talk about" and look at them now.
>
> I think people who quit Scientology should generally just go away for
> a few years and get their heads together before jumping out and trying
> to spill. Often recent exes are just so nuts they can't be relied on
> anyway, and having their heads fucked with by batshit crazy "critics"
> isn't going to do them any favors.
And leaping headlong into a campaign to save Scientology from Davey and
restore it to the Good Old Days isn't going to let their internal
gyrocompass resync with the real world either.
realpch
Nope, probably not.
Ted Mayett
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>So, foolish me, I thought my points were important enough to post them
>here to ars. Sadly I expected some people to read and comment on the
>actual points I was making.
It seems they did not comment on the actual points you were making.
Perhaps you find this deflating? How are you holding up?
>
>However all that happened was that the gang of four decided it was
>time to dig out all the old Dead Agent material and take the side of
>the cult that produced it. Against me.
>
You've got me in this group of four. And yet even a microscopic
examination of the archives will show I've never ever jumped on this
particular band-wagon of 'old dead agent material'. I've never played
that game, never. But you now have me listed of being part of that
activity. Now I'm not going to sit and here call you a 'liar' and
demand that you bring up the posts 'where I' and all of that. You are
not a liar in this, you are simply wrong. You are inaccurate here.
This inaccuracy, this flawed memory of yours seems to be a constant
with you BTW.
And of course, to belabor the obvious. You did *not* mention me by
name in this particular post right here as being in that gang of four.
So you can use clever words and your potty mouth to slam dunk me and
you will probably will do just that. <yawn>.
I'll tell you Dennis, and all your Faithful Readers what the bad news
is, the really bad news.....
>However all that happened was that the gang of four
Yeah buddy, ONLY four, only four. The time was back in the old days
when you had a slew of people slam-dunking you. Ahhhhh, do you think
back on that and smile I wonder? And today, only four.
This will all fade quickly enough. Monday right now, by next Monday
all these 'Erlich' discussions should have been ended. And the next
time this comes up Dennis, the next time you need to feed your ego,
you might find it is a 'gang of two'. And after that, maybe a gang of
one. And after that.....
I'm a nobody myself, I have it made, the world is mine. But you dear
sir need to be a somebody. You are a minister or a reverend or a
something that tirelessly works to help to people and oh my goodness
and oh my gracious aren't you just something else! And oh they pick
on you and denigrate you and call you names and oh my goodness.
Surely you have read Hubbard, surely you have listened to his tapes.
If not, allow me to remind you. Scientology/Hubbard were the only
people on earth able to reverse the downward spiral of the planet.
And because of this, because of their sincere desire to help, because
of their sincere desire to do good, because of this they are and were
relentlessly attacked.
And oh they do attack you don't they Rev. Dennis Erlich. A gang of
four relentlessly attacking the wonderful, caring, only wanting to do
good in the world Rev. Dennis Erlich.
Gee guy, used to more than four, read the writing on the wall, your
popularity is slipping badly.
And what pray tell are your qualifications for helping people???
Well lets see now.... no formal schooling, no accredited titles, no
approved and recognized training. What are you anyway?
That's right! You are a Reverend. And you are following your
God-given religious calling.
This truly grows tedious, this god-boy plaything here. Not a
challenge, not even interesting anymore. I'm almost done with you
Dennis, or maybe done, I haven't decided. You putz.
Ted Mayett
<tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote:
>
>^THIS Very well thought out, very well said; based on all the facts and
>evidence we have.
Thank you. But I'm a mere pretender. If Diane Richardson had torn
into this subject matter, we would have had a fantastic show. The
kind of performance that makes you glad you have a computer, an
internet connection, and can log into ars.
And not only her, but Rob Clark also. He could have torn this thing
up every which way.
My initial impression of Rob was that he was honorable and
trustworthy. I even met him in person. And with that meeting and all
the years that passed, nothing ever changed that impression I have of
him. I still feel you can tell this guy something and the odds are
99.999999999% that he will never betray a confidence. It might even
be a 100% that he is totally honorable.
But there is more, Rob also cares, he has compassion.
So I wonder, why does Rob, with his skills, not point out to Dennis
the obvious flaws in this song and dance that Dennis does repeatedly
on this ars stage?
And I answer that he ignores the obvious half truths because he ~does~
have compassion, and that Dennis to this very day is still quite
damaged goods.
Personally I don't accept this, that Dennis is still recovering from a
harrowing experience, I don't buy that act all. But then I don't
believe there are any victims of scientology, but only people that for
whatever reason decided to play silly destructive games among
themselves.
All these many years of reading what horrible things scn does to
people. I was a scientologist, I never did those horrible things,
they were never done to me. Sure, some of them liked that "screaming
in your face" act. Nobody ever screamed in my face, you looked at me
and you just knew that I did not play that game. But, some of them
did play that game and other games. Some few of them.
However, lets be gracious and say that Dennis Erlich is still
recovering from the traumatic experience of being involved with and
being the victim of a destructive criminal cult.
Lets just agree that this is the situation today, a guy who has still
not fully recovered from all the abuse they heaped upon him.
Well, he is about 60 years old now, and gone from scn for some many
long years. If he is not over the trauma by now, it isn't going to
ever happen. And so lets not worry about, lets just have some with
the god-boy as long as he is willing to be a plaything.
And once again Tom, and for the record, and for legal reasons if ever
needed at some future date I say this to you: We are not 'brothers in
arms' you and I. We are not 'comrades' on a quest to legally harass
that impotent InFormer Ministry. I could care less about that
ministry and the charlatan at the helm. In a legal sense I have no
interest whatsoever in that ministry. Beyond posts to ars I am taking
no actions whatsoever regarding that ministry or Erlich.
But I am going to follow your posts to see if you do something in a
legal sense. And I don't understand why you would even bother. There
would be no victory, there would be nothing won. The ministry is
legal, Erlich is legal. And if he forgot a form or something once or
twice, big deal. Nobody will care about that legally. And you
certainly don't have the resources to take anything to the supreme
court. You can only flail your arms for long, and then you are up
against a solid unyielding wall, and that is that.
And Rob, maybe you don't really have compassion, and only integrity.
Erlich is a charlatan, a typical ill equipped or non equipped
do-gooder. Charlatans like this are capable of causing more harm than
they are capable of causing good. The world is dotted with these
types of untrained people who would delve into the field of human
mental problems. And the easiest ploy to use is the god-ploy, doing
gods work, for god. So easy to say, I could say that with ease
myself, you could say that easily if you so desired. He wants to help
people because it is his god-given religious calling to help people.
And this doesn't bother you Rob, you have no problem with this?
What say you?
Charlatans like Erlich, no training, no schooling, just a charlatan,
are a facet of our society. And fully unstoppable by Law. You can't
force them to be honest or respectful. You can't force them to get
accredited schooling. They hide behind a cloak of religion, they are
properly affiliated with god. They are unassailable.
This is your good friend Rob. A man deceitful enough to treat a
scientology ordination as something actually valid. A low-life,
incapable of honesty. A god-boy. A plaything. A putz.
Ted Mayett
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>He went on pretending he was my friend for years. This is the kind of
>two-faced "friends" I have come to know and revile.
>
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
LOL
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
You knew, and Rob knew, I was not part of your click. I never
outright said "fuck you" on irc, but I never made the cluck-cluck
noises I should have made to 'prove' I was a friend of yours.
Besides, you had me pegged from the word 'GO'. Right off the bat you
knew I would be a problem. And you were right. I'll give you that,
your instincts were correct.
I never put you on an altar, never defended you on ars. I just never
attacked you is all. (twist this around, yawn).
I don't like phony god-boys like you, never have.
And I most certainly never did pretend to be a friend of yours,
please. Give me credit for being able to allow an impression I
desire, to those too stupid, or usually too grand, to realize that I
am allowing an impression to be made.
You are not the only clever monkey here Dennis, I'm sorry, but that is
a fact. It was that 'reverend' title, that's what I was waiting on
all these many years. Waiting and then waiting and then waiting some
more. For if you were a reverend in any sense of the word, then I was
wrong, and I've been wrong before, it is no big thing with me.
But if I was right, and that reverend title you fling around was
untruthful, then you were truly a slimeball.
And lo and behold, but quiet reasoned discussion finds you are not a
reverend. You are a slimeball. A pretending god-boy.
Monica Pignotti
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:59:03 -0600, Tom Klemesrud
>
>
> >^THIS Very well thought out, very well said; based on all the facts and
> >evidence we have.
>
> Thank you. But I'm a mere pretender. If Diane Richardson had torn
> into this subject matter, we would have had a fantastic show. The
> kind of performance that makes you glad you have a computer, an
> internet connection, and can log into ars.
I'm not so sure, since Diane and Dennis at least at one time were very
close. She would have had a field day, though, with the content of
what was being claimed, though.
I think he dished out at least as much as he got. He didn't get to the
position of Flag Cramming Office by being a victim. He was one of the
SO bullies and seeing how long this personality has stayed with him
after leaving, I would say it seems to be a natural fit for him.
> Well, he is about 60 years old now, and gone from scn for some many
> long years. If he is not over the trauma by now, it isn't going to
> ever happen. And so lets not worry about, lets just have some with
> the god-boy as long as he is willing to be a plaything.
The issue, as I see it is that he still thinks in Scientology jargon.
This has happened more than once, just in the past few weeks. He just
can't seem to help himself -- when his chain is yanked, he reverts to
it.
> And once again Tom, and for the record, and for legal reasons if ever
> needed at some future date I say this to you: We are not 'brothers in
> arms' you and I. We are not 'comrades' on a quest to legally harass
> that impotent InFormer Ministry. I could care less about that
> ministry and the charlatan at the helm. In a legal sense I have no
> interest whatsoever in that ministry. Beyond posts to ars I am taking
> no actions whatsoever regarding that ministry or Erlich.
Neither am I. He is so not worth it.
> But I am going to follow your posts to see if you do something in a
> legal sense. And I don't understand why you would even bother. There
> would be no victory, there would be nothing won. The ministry is
> legal, Erlich is legal. And if he forgot a form or something once or
> twice, big deal. Nobody will care about that legally. And you
> certainly don't have the resources to take anything to the supreme
> court. You can only flail your arms for long, and then you are up
> against a solid unyielding wall, and that is that.
Yep, he does appear to be perfectly legal, but of course a person can
be dishonest, hypocritical and unethical without breaking any laws.
> And Rob, maybe you don't really have compassion, and only integrity.
> Erlich is a charlatan, a typical ill equipped or non equipped
> do-gooder. Charlatans like this are capable of causing more harm than
> they are capable of causing good. The world is dotted with these
> types of untrained people who would delve into the field of human
> mental problems. And the easiest ploy to use is the god-ploy, doing
> gods work, for god. So easy to say, I could say that with ease
> myself, you could say that easily if you so desired. He wants to help
> people because it is his god-given religious calling to help people.
> And this doesn't bother you Rob, you have no problem with this?
> What say you?
>
> Charlatans like Erlich, no training, no schooling, just a charlatan,
> are a facet of our society. And fully unstoppable by Law. You can't
> force them to be honest or respectful. You can't force them to get
> accredited schooling. They hide behind a cloak of religion, they are
> properly affiliated with god. They are unassailable.
>
> This is your good friend Rob. A man deceitful enough to treat a
> scientology ordination as something actually valid. A low-life,
> incapable of honesty. A god-boy. A plaything. A putz.
Yes, he treats his Scientology ordination as if it were valid, yet
professes not to believe in Scientology any longer. Yet he lists it on
his resume as experience. He seems to want to have it both ways and
when people try to call him on it, he throws a tantrum.
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>So in other words, he met the guy nearly 15 years ago, thought he was
>a slimeball, but didn't think to warn ANYONE AT ALL about this
>supposed slimeball, until nearly 15 years later, when the guy beats
>the hell out of him in an argument and he gets butthurt.
>
I'm not a do-gooder, sorry Rob, I'm not saving the world from anybody
or anything. Save that I'm somewhat critical of scientology.
It was my impression he was a slimeball, my opinion. And opinions
like assholes and blah everybody has one blah.
So I never voiced my opinion, my impression. And I might have been
wrong anyway.
But there in an idle part of my mind always lingered that title of
reverend that he uses. Just dangling there like unfinished business,
but nothing to get worked about. Nothing important. Nothing that
would ever be of any material value to me.
And I get lucky and read that post by Monica, and suddenly,
Revelation!
The title reverend came from scn, which means he was never a reverend.
And this is what I suspected all along, that the title was bogus,
simply a maneuver to some means.
Dennis and I are in complete agreement on one very important issue.
We both agree, fully, that legally speaking Dennis is a Reverend. I
mean if I were in court and was asked, "is Erlich a reverend?". I
would respond, "yes", and be able to produce the paperwork proving
that he is a reverend now. And was indeed a reverend while a
scientologist. The paperwork is irrefutable, the guy is indeed a
reverend. Legally speaking.
And don't make the mistake of putting me on some altar you sorry assed
fuckface. I got's no compassion, none. Fuck them all. I only care
about me and those I hold dear and valuable to me. There might be a
few billion Ministries planet wide with egotists like our Rev. Dennis
Erlich here. This InFormer Ministry is just another one of many.
Peopled with caring souls who tirelessly and with no charging of fees
give of themselves fully and passionately to those in need of guidance
and comfort and humble they are and oh so wonderful and gracious and
caring look at all they do and they try so hard and have to fight so
many battles from the ungrateful who don't praise their awesome
sacrifices and would even belittle the almighty god they cherish so
dearly. OMG, these fucking people will give you diabetes they pour
that sugar on so heavy.
Fuck people, retards will flock to retards. If it is not Erlich
because that one is busy at the moment, they will find another
retarded charlatan. Because retards will find other retards, and that
is the way of things.
Dennis will have/get customers/clients. And he honestly tells them
right up front in clear english, "I have no special qualifications."
But that won't stop some retards from using his ministry, they won't
be stopped. And if InFormer is down due to server error, they will
find another ministry equally qualified, retards will find retards.
You and Dennis want to insult me Rob? Are you out of your mind?
I offer nothing, have never offered help or guidance to those in need,
for I have nothing to offer, nothing. I couldn't even tell you what a
good net resource would be, and I don't even intend to bother with
learning even that little.
Have your fun, compliment yourselves on your wit. I walk with my head
held high. I respect people while I call them retards. If they need
help they cannot come to be because I'm not equipped to offer help.
And I certainly would not prance about posturing about god speaking to
me and telling me my religious calling is to help people. That is
simply too lame, it is not me, sorry. If a god spoke to me he would
tell me to go to school and learn how to help people, and *then* go
about helping them.
The wonderful giving caring charlatan the Rev. Dennis Erlich. A
wannabe with nothing of substance to offer.
Enjoy these moments Dennis, the fame, the attention. But also, let me
try a direct question with you. An exercise in futility if you will.
Dennis, do you consider the Ordination you received, based on the
L. Ron Hubbard Technology, while a Scientologist, to be a valid
Ordination?
(oops, he missed this post, oh well)
Dennis L Erlich
>He told
>me that when it really looked as if the Church of Scientology was going
>down, expect to see the critics all turn on each other, since he'd seen
>the same phenomenon elsewhere. How right he was!
Critics split into separate and mutually exclusive camps waaay before
this, peach.
Perhaps you weren't around for the Fishman "Lonesome Squirrel"
episode. Many of the less scrupulous critics wanted to embrace his
fictional criticism as true and use the made-up material against the
cult. Others called him for the liar he was.
After that we had Minton and his "Damian" fiction. Many of the
brain-dead critics believed this was a good way to attack the cult.
Worma and his ilk invented material for criticism out of whole cloth
(the bogus Oatea Ate & electrical hypnosis) and still swear by it.
Some critics believe it's best to stick to verifiable facts in their
criticism of the cult. (and each other)
Others, not so much.
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>That's one thing you can sure say about Teddy. He doesn't join in a
>fight until it's a dogpile against the other guy. What a dirtbag.
ummm, Erlich said it is four people. Hardly a dogpile, and quite
dramatically down in numbers from years gone by.
Besides this number will drop soon. I'm almost done with the god-boy,
almost.
We always get side tracked, we never really focused on the raid
itself. We know the date it happened, the time it happened, how long
it lasted. We know some of the names involved.
We know, I think we know for a fact that Dennis never did exceed fair
use in what he posted. We know for a fact beyond any doubt that
Dennis had his constitutional rights excessively violated by that
raid. But there is so much we don't know.
Certainly Dennis punished them, legally, for what they did to him in
his home that day. We know they took his floppy disks from him,
without even an inventory.
I'm thinking, and maybe I'm wrong. I'm thinking Dennis legally forced
scientology to return his floppy disks! The raid was illegal,
unconstitutional. No way in the world Dennis let them get away with
this without legal retaliation of some kind.
Yes, this is what I think. The raid was so illegal and
unconstitutional that they had to return his floppy disks!
Maybe we do this one day........
realpch
I wasn't around for Fishman. I think I turned up in 97 or 98, so I also
missed some vintage Diane Richardson. I certainly was around for Ralph
Dorian. I'm always sad when this crap starts up. This feels different to
me, though, and what with one thing and another, this has been a long
siege, where personalities in their less attractive aspects have been
center stage, and not too much else is happening in this news group.
I think that an important aspect of social interactions is NOT saying
everything you think. Sure you might know that Joe pulled his cat's tail
and broke the scissors and lied about it to his mom when he was nine,
but is it necessary to mention it when you and Joe are arguing about
politics? Some reservation is necessary to grease the wheels of society,
or we'd all be clubbing each other to death.
Dennis L Erlich
>I think that an important aspect of social interactions is NOT saying
>everything you think.
Words of wisdom!
Ted Mayett
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Thank you. �But I'm a mere pretender. �If Diane Richardson had torn
>> into this subject matter, we would have had a fantastic show. �The
>> kind of performance that makes you glad you have a computer, an
>> internet connection, and can log into ars.
>
>I'm not so sure, since Diane and Dennis at least at one time were very
>close. She would have had a field day, though, with the content of
>what was being claimed, though.
>
Hadn't thought of that in regards to Diane. And frankly I find it
odd that they were very close. For here was an excessively profane
reverend. And a 'vulgar reverend' is quite a contradiction.
But, Diane was good. You are good also Monica, you get them to
yapping quite well. But Diane, she was the best there ever was here
when it came to making them scream and holler. You've had some decent
amount of posts/threads with your name in the Subject line. But with
Diane, well you could log on and find 90 and more posts/threads with
her name listed. She was truly awesome. And if she rolled up her
sleeves and got really playful she could keep them howling at a fever
pitch for 4-5 days in a row.... ahh it was beautiful.
>> Lets just agree that this is the situation today, a guy who has still
>> not fully recovered from all the abuse they heaped upon him.
>
>I think he dished out at least as much as he got.
Without a doubt.
> He didn't get to the
>position of Flag Cramming Office by being a victim.
Was Flag, even back then, The Mecca Of Technical Perfection?
Possibly. It had to be demanding to be the Chief Cramming Officer.
Without a doubt it took a ruthless personality to hold that position.
I agree with you here, a Victim, would never keep that title.
> He was one of the
>SO bullies and seeing how long this personality has stayed with him
>after leaving, I would say it seems to be a natural fit for him.
>
Allow me to perhaps educate a bit here. Sure he is a bully, but more
accurate to say is that he CAN be a bully when desired. What this man
has is a style, him and I are about the same in one respect. Either
of us, when we desire, can plow our way to the front of a long line,
like in the DMV or something. And not only get to the front of the
line, but have people being happy they let us get to the front of the
line. He has that ability. To simply think of him as a bully is to
not truly realize what you are dealing with.
>Yep, he does appear to be perfectly legal, but of course a person can
>be dishonest, hypocritical and unethical without breaking any laws.
>
What do they call that? Buyer Beware ?
>> This is your good friend Rob. �A man deceitful enough to treat a
>> scientology ordination as something actually valid. �A low-life,
>> incapable of honesty. �A god-boy. �A plaything. �A putz.
>
>Yes, he treats his Scientology ordination as if it were valid, yet
>professes not to believe in Scientology any longer. Yet he lists it on
>his resume as experience. He seems to want to have it both ways and
>when people try to call him on it, he throws a tantrum.
Yeah. But again, too bad Diane didn't take up these issues. She
would have Dennis and Rob frothing at full velocity. I can barely
get a rise out them, you are having success though, congrats.
I notice you leave that Ordination of his from the SubGenius alone,
you don't bother with that one.
Anyway, and once again, I'm really glad I caught that post of yours
that day. I still smile thinking about how you said something like,
"we gently asked Dennis about his title of reverend." <smile>, you
gently asked :-))
I had him pegged as a slimeball all those many years ago, and my
impressions/opinions all hinged on that title of reverend that he used
and still uses. For if the title were bogus, then I was correct, and
he was bogus. But if there had been anything like Baptist, Lutheran,
almost anything at all behind that title, anything at all and that
would have been fine.
I had figured at the time that the reverend title had come from some
magazine and had cost a few dollars. For it was obvious that this
foul mouthed egotist was not a real reverend. This was not a person
who had anything to with god or a god. In his posts, in how he spoke
in real life, and in his bearing there was absolutely nothing
religious about Dennis Erlich. This was plainly obvious. But I
wasn't ready for what we learned. That he was a reverend because of a
course he took while in scientology. I just wasn't ready for that
one.
So I guess we are about done with all of this?