Bob Minton, Miscavige's minion, threatens "The Profit" again
henri
The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen at www.theprofit.org
Mark Bunker promptly made a number of dumb statements,
including the following: "Now, if the second partner is releasing video to the
web then we shall see how ready Bob is to sue over the film. My feeling is, he
doesn't care." Mark Bunker, who put up crappy third generation copies,
in order to defame the film and destroy its value, pursuant to Bob Minton's
deal with Scientology that The Profit should "never see the light of day,"
was sued over it and took them down before the case was dismissed for
not being brought by both members of the LLC (Minton and Alexander).
With such an excellent track record on the subject of The Profit, you'd
think he would refrain from stupid statements such as the above, when
anyone who knew anything about the situation at all could have told you
that Minton, as Scientology's stooge, was pretty much obligated to
respond immediately.
And indeed, three days later, on February 19, Bob Minton had his
lawyer Thomas McGowan send a whiny email complaining about the clip and
demanding it be removed from the web.
http://www.theprofit.org/mcgowan208.htm
Attorney McGowan, as evidenced in this power of attorney agreement
witnessed by then head of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs Mike Rinder,
has authorization to make such threats on Scientology/Minton's behalf:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
The negotiations with Minton in which burying The Profit was discussed as
part of Minton's deal with Scientology (including destroying Lisa McPherson's
family's case against the cult) are memorialized in Monique E. Yingling's
written notes of her meetings, as one of the cult's lawyers, with Minton:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/exhibits/191.html
These notes show that the movie was, indeed, discussed. Cult lawyer
Monique Yingling testified that the cult's intention was that the movie
"never see the light of day."
7 Q And again, resolving or making a resolution of the
8 movie The Profit, was there any discussion of -- further
9 explan- -- explaining that?
10 A I don't believe there was. Certainly it was our
11 position that we didn't want the movie ever distributed or
12 to see the light of day, but I'm not sure that that -- that
13 that was specifically discussed.
June 12 2002 testimony of Scientology lawyer Monique E. Yingling
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/_06_12_AM.htm
Minton's lawyer at this meeting was Thomas McGowan.
After this meeting, Minton reversed every previous sworn statement against
Scientology he had ever made, and perjured himself voluminously, resulting
in this ruling:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/legal/oddomtsor030112.html
After receiving this letter, the attorney for Courage Productions, LLC,
First Amendment lawyer Luke Lirot, fires back, explaining Peter Alexander's
rights to inform the public about the movie and keep its reputation alive,
despite Minton attempts (including through Mark Bunker) to destroy its
reputation.
http://www.theprofit.org/lirot208.htm
February 26, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE (727) 821-3117 and U.S. Mail
Thomas McGowan, Esq.
150 Second Ave. North
Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Re: Courage Productions, LLC-“The Profit”
I have spoken to my client and we offer the following response to the last
communications received from your office. First, the film “The Profit” is not
subject to any restrictions based on defamation, or any other content based
concerns. This film is fully and completely protected by the First Amendment and
absolutely nothing contained in the film would suffice to justify any limitation
on its exhibition. The accusations contained in your earlier letter are nothing
more than a clear example of Scientology’s unyielding view of the First
Amendment as a “one way street.” The same constitutional protections that extend
to their “religious practices” extend equally to those who reject their
religious practices and also provide protection to those who are vocal in their
criticism of Scientology, or who would like to place the issues surrounding the
Church for full evaluation through the “robust exchange of ideas and
information.” If Scientology is ever to escape its negative persona, it must
strive to embrace the Voltaireian concept of, “I may disagree with what you have
to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” If Scientology
doesn’t like the criticism leveled against it, it should respond with sensible
responses to that criticism, not censorship or retribution.
As it pertains to the latest letter, In contrast to Mr. Minton's actions and
those of his apparent agent, Mark Bunker, who posted 3rd generation editing
clips, your client's actions made the film appear to be of poor quality and thus
damaged the marketability and value of the film. Further, Mr. Minton's agent,
Bunker, put said poor quality clips on a website for the Lisa McPherson Trust
and Bunker's own anti-Scientology website, Xenutv.com.
As per the letter that you reference, we demanded that any clips and marketing
of the film should be done from THE PROFIT's own website (www.theprofit.org) ,
so your point is therefore moot, since the referenced clip appears on said
website. More importantly, we regard your letter and its attempts to curb the
marketing of our film to be further evidence of Mr. Minton's continued bad faith
regarding the project. The clip being shown on THE PROFIT website is a teaser
segment of the film, and serves as a trailer for the movie. Additionally, since
you've brought the Youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C327nSnqKw8 ) to
our attention, my client was pleased to notice that all the comments were very
positive regarding the film, which should lighten your client’s heart about the
marketability of the film. Please inform Mr. Minton that we see this as a good
sign that releasing the film will be well-timed in this current environment of
avid interest in the perceived subject matter and general hyperbole of the work.
Criticism and satire are protected by the First Amendment, so protestations to
the contrary are pointless.
Rather than damage any asset of the LLC, the short clip merely keeps the film in
the public eye, and in a positive way. The negative and discrediting comments
made by the film's detractors, including Mr. Minton's current or former
employees, such as Mark Bunker, are false and without foundation, and rather are
merely continued attempts by Mr. Minton's new "partners," the Church of
Scientology, to damage and try to destroy this important film through any means
whatsoever, regardless of the best interests of the LLC, or any legitimate
public interest.
We are well aware of the fact that court records show that Mr. Minton made a
deal with the Church of Scientology to ensure that the film "never saw the light
of day," and that his conveyance of power of attorney to you, as witnessed by
Mike Rinder, then chief of the infamous Scientology OSA, was merely a device to
allow the Church to dictate your actions in this matter. Your letter is further
evidence of this.
Therefore, we wish to inform you as the agent of the Church of Scientology that
the posting of a film clip is no more a violation of the agreement than was the
posting of the film's trailer on the internet. This trailer actually was a
marketing tool, and was posted on the internet for seven years without comment
by Mr. Minton or his new partner, the Church of Scientology. This current clip
is just a device to keep the film in the public eye, until such time as Mr.
Minton’s actions with respect to the film are no longer controlled by the Church
of Scientology.
This clip does not detract from the value of the film and therefore does not
show the kind of bad faith that Mr. Minton has continually shown since he became
an accomplice of the Church of Scientology.
In the Second District Court opinion dealing with this debacle, the facts were
accurately noted:
“Primarily, Mr. Alexander claims that Mr. Minton’s actions are inimical to the
LLC’s best interests and to his duty and loyalty to the company required by
section 608.4225, Florida Statutes (2002), because he has now aligned himself
with the adversary.”
During the time since he made the deal to try and destroy the film, Mr. Minton's
actions, as apparently dictated by the Church of Scientology, and as further
evidenced by your letter, show continued and malicious examples of “bad faith”
toward the best interest of the LLC, through the efforts to promote the sole
product of the LLC, the film "The Profit," to such an extent that his rights as
a “good faith” member of the LLC have been compromised. His duty is to the LLC,
and advancing the success and marketing of the sole asset of the LLC, even if
only to recoup his and Mr. Alexander’s huge investments of time and money, is
consistent with all his obligations. Anything else is legally insupportable. I
trust this makes Mr. Alexander’s position clear.
Sincerely,
Luke Lirot, Esq.
Cc: Peter Alexander
jerald
> On February 16, Dave Touretzky posted the url to a clip of
> The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen atwww.theprofit.org
>
> Mark Bunker promptly made a number of dumb statements,
> including the following: "Now, if the second partner is releasing video to the
> web then we shall see how ready Bob is to sue over the film. My feeling is, he
> doesn't care." Mark Bunker, who put up crappy third generation copies,
> in order to defame the film and destroy its value, pursuant to Bob Minton's
> deal with Scientology that The Profit should "never see the light of day,"
> was sued over it and took them down before the case was dismissed for
> not being brought by both members of the LLC (Minton and Alexander).
>
> With such an excellent track record on the subject of The Profit, you'd
> think he would refrain from stupid statements such as the above, when
> anyone who knew anything about the situation at all could have told you
> that Minton, as Scientology's stooge, was pretty much obligated to
> respond immediately.
>
> And indeed, three days later, on February 19, Bob Minton had his
> lawyer Thomas McGowan send a whiny email complaining about the clip and
>
> Attorney McGowan, as evidenced in this power of attorney agreement
> witnessed by then head of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs Mike Rinder,
> has authorization to make such threats on Scientology/Minton's behalf:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
>
> The negotiations with Minton in which burying The Profit was discussed as
> part of Minton's deal with Scientology (including destroying Lisa McPherson's
> family's case against the cult) are memorialized in Monique E. Yingling's
> written notes of her meetings, as one of the cult's lawyers, with Minton: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/exhibits/191.html
>
> These notes show that the movie was, indeed, discussed. Cult lawyer
> Monique Yingling testified that the cult's intention was that the movie
> "never see the light of day."
>
> 7 Q And again, resolving or making a resolution of the
>
> 8 movie The Profit, was there any discussion of -- further
>
> 9 explan- -- explaining that?
>
> 10 A I don't believe there was. Certainly it was our
>
> 11 position that we didn't want the movie ever distributed or
>
> 12 to see the light of day, but I'm not sure that that -- that
>
> 13 that was specifically discussed.
>
Mark has done more to teach the world about the abuses of scientology
than this movie could even hope to do. So kindly step off his back
untill you can say the same.
I'm at the point where I wish this movie would be trashed just so we
wouldn't have to hear about it anymore. The simple fact is the owners
of the movie don't wish to release it and there's not one thing we can
do about it. The other fact is as low budget as it is not to many
would want to even rent it at this point.
jerald
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
Power of attorney was turned over to McGown in 2002, right?
McGowan was a scientlogy attorney before and after this right?
prove Bob did or said anything in February. You are lying.
clam....@googlemail.com
> The other fact is as low budget as it is not to many
> would want to even rent it at this point.
>
> jerald
why rent it when you can read and download more than enough from this
newsgroup and the rest of the internet?
what could it possibly enlighten us with that hasn't been said already?
beech...@gmail.com
> The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen atwww.theprofit.org
>
> Mark Bunker promptly made a number of dumb statements,
> including the following: "Now, if the second partner is releasing video to the
> web then we shall see how ready Bob is to sue over the film. My feeling is, he
> doesn't care." Mark Bunker, who put up crappy third generation copies,
> in order to defame the film and destroy its value, pursuant to Bob Minton's
> deal with Scientology that The Profit should "never see the light of day,"
> was sued over it and took them down before the case was dismissed for
> not being brought by both members of the LLC (Minton and Alexander).
>
> With such an excellent track record on the subject of The Profit, you'd
> think he would refrain from stupid statements such as the above, when
> anyone who knew anything about the situation at all could have told you
> that Minton, as Scientology's stooge, was pretty much obligated to
> respond immediately.
Ummmm.... I saw the clip at theprofit.org, and quite frankly, it
looked low-budget and schlocky.
And I was quite prepared to like it. Sorry, man.
Jeeze, if someone gets so bent out of shape by a bad review, maybe the
movie business isn't for them.
Reviews are subjective. Movies get bad reviews. That's life.
The vitriol you exhibit towards Mark Bunker is kind of weird and
creepy.
henri
over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Bob Minton had his lawyer Thomas McGowan "
>Power of attorney was turned over to McGown in 2002, right?
Power of attorney is revocable by the principal at his sole discretion.
>McGowan was a scientlogy attorney before and after this right?
No, McGowan has been Bob Minton's attorney since before 2002.
>prove Bob did or said anything in February. You are lying.
What a person does through their attorney, they do.
Legally, it is Bob Minton acting. This is trivial Cliff's Notes level law.
I'm not surprised you don't understand this, even with your long
litigation history. You'd probably have a better record at it if you
weren't so stupid. It's astounding you're still baffled by these basic
details after years and years.
Feisty
I would wonder why the parties involved cannot talk about it? Have they been
gagged or paid?
(or already been?)
Ah, it's the weekend, what a wonder topic to start! Let the dumping begin!
(Who can post without calling names?)
Here are some rulez:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/gohist.htm
THE FOLLOWING ARE POSSIBILITIES FOR COLLECTING DATA.
THE LAST TWO ARE, OF COURSE, ILLEGAL.
INFILTRATION COVERS TWO METHODS - SOMEONE JOINING THE ENEMY WITHOUT THE ENEMY'S
KNOWING
AND SOMEONE, DISAFFECTING PRESUMABLY, TO JOIN THE ENEMY.
FOR GIVING THE ENEMY FALSE DATA, YOU CAN DO THE FOLLOWING;
1.. USE INFILTRATOR TO SPREAD ALARM AND FALSE DATA.
2.. SEND OUT FALSE DATA PURPOSELY.
3..
1.. INFILTRATION
2.. BRIBERY
3.. BUYING INFORMATION
4.. ROBBERY
5.. BLACKMAIL.
6..
"DEC. 6, 1968
DEAR MO [Budlong, Deputy Guardian for Information World Wide],
RE: INTELLIGENCE
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ak9hs3tjqgtevs2fn...@4ax.com...
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
you are a two faced waterboy for a sociopath
this is the same as your bob sold out slogan
projecting what you desire people to believe
lemmie tell you something waterboy
Signing over POA, complete control of a piece of rubbish in 2002
so that he might walk away without being
sucessfully pushed to suicide by sociopaths is
NOT THE SAME AS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROJECT
anyone fooled by your band of gypsies
deserves everything they get
Despite all your repetitions that it might be.
quote form OCMB:
"Everything patricia touches turns to shit"
including you
Re: Henri, patricia's waterboy, LIES again
henri
>I would wonder why the parties involved cannot talk about it? Have they been
>gagged or paid?
>(or already been?)
Can you read? The new material I posted was from www.theprofit.org
which is run by one of the parties.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
How is it that the person you carry water for, supposedly dandar's
"trial consultant" patricia greenway, did not know the possible
outcome of visiting with shawn that day, that it might be used to get
him deposed, or was it she did not care? or was it intent?
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
Feisty
Yes I understood. I meant why can't they post and discuss here instead of you,
but guess that's a redundant question.
Maureen
henri
Because I actually post here, and presumably, they have better things to do
than hang out on a newsgroup where they are smeared by obsessed idiots and liars
and have been for years nonstop despite their nonparticipation.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>Mark has done more to teach the world about the abuses of scientology
>than this movie could even hope to do. So kindly step off his back
>untill you can say the same.
"Step off his back ..." Heh. Free clue: no one dances to that tune
here, jerald.
Mark has done some nice things with his videos, it is true. But on
internet he isn't immune from criticism. And seeing that henri has
quoted and given factual information, it seems your bearded paladin
didn't quite know what he was talking about regarding Minton's
reaction.
Also I can see that you have no idea, and apparently would not even
care, what henri has done since the mid 90s to keep the information on
this newsgroup factual.
But I should point out that even someone without henri's impressive
track record for factual accuracy has the right to call out another
critic.
>I'm at the point where I wish this movie would be trashed just so we
>wouldn't have to hear about it anymore.
I guess it doesn't bother you that the people who actually put the
hard work into *making the film* have had their freedom of speech
abridged by the cult and with Minton's help.
>The simple fact is the owners
>of the movie don't wish to release it and there's not one thing we can
>do about it.
Clearly you don't think it's worth the effort that went into making
it, to allow it to even be seen.
>The other fact is as low budget as it is not to many
>would want to even rent it at this point.
Oh, I see you think you can judge a movie without seeing it.
Twit. <plonk>
Dennis
-----------------
"Everybody's doin' somethin'
I heard it in a dream
But when there's too much of nothing
It just makes a fella mean." - B Dylan
Alert
>
> Power of attorney is revocable by the principal at his sole discretion.
On the proviso that the persons hands werent tied at the very outset
of surrendering POA.
You did say "sole discretion" did you not?
Is the any evidence that Minton's "sole discretion" isnt bound by
intimidation or fear?
>
> What a person does through their attorney, they do.
The POA says what it says. It's not by 'interpretation'
You cannot gloss over what it says/implies or dictates.
Again, it says what it says and it gives McGowan power over "all
things" related to Courage.
" full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof".
>
> Legally, it is Bob Minton acting.
Legally, the holder of a POA can say/do *anything* and attribute
*anything* the POA holder/s claim to be via directions from the person
giving/surrendering POA.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen atwww.theprofit.org
>
> Mark Bunker promptly made a number of dumb statements,
> including the following: "Now, if the second partner is releasing video to the
> web then we shall see how ready Bob is to sue over the film. My feeling is, he
> doesn't care." Mark Bunker, who put up crappy third generation copies,
> in order to defame the film and destroy its value, pursuant to Bob Minton's
> deal with Scientology that The Profit should "never see the light of day,"
> was sued over it and took them down before the case was dismissed for
> not being brought by both members of the LLC (Minton and Alexander).
>
> With such an excellent track record on the subject of The Profit, you'd
> think he would refrain from stupid statements such as the above, when
> anyone who knew anything about the situation at all could have told you
> that Minton, as Scientology's stooge, was pretty much obligated to
> respond immediately.
>
> And indeed, three days later, on February 19, Bob Minton had his
> lawyer Thomas McGowan send a whiny email complaining about the clip and
>
> Attorney McGowan, as evidenced in this power of attorney agreement
> witnessed by then head of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs Mike Rinder,
> has authorization to make such threats on Scientology/Minton's behalf:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
>
> The negotiations with Minton in which burying The Profit was discussed as
> part of Minton's deal with Scientology (including destroying Lisa McPherson's
> family's case against the cult) are memorialized in Monique E. Yingling's
> written notes of her meetings, as one of the cult's lawyers, with Minton: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/exhibits/191.html
>
> These notes show that the movie was, indeed, discussed. Cult lawyer
> Monique Yingling testified that the cult's intention was that the movie
> "never see the light of day."
>
> 7 Q And again, resolving or making a resolution of the
>
> 8 movie The Profit, was there any discussion of -- further
>
> 9 explan- -- explaining that?
>
> 10 A I don't believe there was. Certainly it was our
>
> 11 position that we didn't want the movie ever distributed or
>
> 12 to see the light of day, but I'm not sure that that -- that
>
> 13 that was specifically discussed.
>
Another covert posting by Patricia Greenway, who never seems to be out
of propitiative minions to do her propaganda posting when things don't
go her way.
It's not like she's stupid, right? Most of the '8 minute clip from The
Profit'
thread addresses this very possible situation, but no, Patricia =has
to blame it on Bunker, right henri? You are such a fool.
8 minute clip from The Profit
It was good to get a sense of the theme and some of some
characters.This clip is in alot better shape than the trailer.
I guess Peter and Patricia's war with Minton has been taken out of
the
mothballs. Should be interesting to see what happens next.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/7204e7fc76d4c54c
Jonathon Barbera
Maybe henri blames Tory and Mark for the downfall of LMT?
Love,
-- Jonathon
butterflygrrrl
> 8 minute ...
Does anyone know where I can get some propitiative minions? They seem
so useful, and I'd really like to have a few.
Patricia, where did you get yours?
Do you know of any 'two for the price of one' sales going on, by any
chance?
Skipper
<81cd9669-817e-4c1c...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
butterflygrrrl <butterf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Propitiative minions are not bought. They are hypnotized, drained of
their resources, and shamed into joining the Sea Organization.
beech...@gmail.com
>
> Propitiative minions are not bought. They are hypnotized, drained of
> their resources, and shamed into joining the Sea Organization.
What about regular, garden-variety minions?
I think that having any sort of minion would be kind of handy.
If they do laundry, that is.
JAFAW
The impression I've got from Mr.Bunker, repeatedly, is that he fully
supports the release of this move. He just thinks, as movies go, it's not
very good.
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/the-profit-a-review/
He wasn't the only one.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/082301/Weekend/Indie_Flix.shtml
Please tell us what you whining fuckers think Mr.Bunker could do to help
speed along the release of The Profit. I'm sure he'd do anything to help,
except lie.
Perhaps you'd just like him to refrain from exercising his right to freedom
of speech. That would be ironic, wouldn't it?
Lots of apparancies, hyperbole and assertions. Very unbecoming for a laywer.
The "blame it on Bunker" was laughably OTT. Stick to the bare facts or, if
you really do want this movie released pronto, then take Minton to court
FFS! If you think the movie is so great and you are so right then fucking do
it. For whatever stinky reaons, he obviously ain't just gonna give in
anytime soon. (don't forget to bring the *full* financial accounts and bank
records though).
Henri Ladd
> jerald <jerald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark has done more to teach the world about the abuses of scientology
>>than this movie could even hope to do. So kindly step off his back
>>untill you can say the same.
>
>
> "Step off his back ..." Heh. Free clue: no one dances to that tune
> here, jerald.
>
> Mark has done some nice things with his videos, it is true. But on
> internet he isn't immune from criticism.
Not sure Reverend. There are some certain groups and individuals who
are totally immune from criticism her--from you!
That group is the Church of Scientology, Religious Technology Center,
Bridge Publications, David Miscavage, and all the other hoity-toity of
the cult.
> And seeing that henri has
> quoted and given factual information, it seems your bearded paladin
> didn't quite know what he was talking about regarding Minton's
> reaction.
"Bearded palladin"? Heh Reverend, you managed to kill two birds with
one stone here. You not only stepped up to the plate for this movie
company ripping Bob minton's money off, you also managed to get a dig in
on anonymous.
It amazes me to what depths you'll go to sell people out for money.
> Also I can see that you have no idea, and apparently would not even
> care, what henri has done since the mid 90s to keep the information on
> this newsgroup factual.
Well I was there much longer than the Reverend, and all I saw was
cursing, name calling and denigrating people--that is Rob's modus
operandi--that is why Rob is paid money for his work.
> But I should point out that even someone without henri's impressive
> track record for factual accuracy has the right to call out another
> critic.
Yes, he is factually accurate about the finances of the movie. He is so
factually accurate, that the reasonable man would assume that he was the
accountant on the movie; and as such, he would be the first one who
would be subpoenaed if there was any court case.
>>I'm at the point where I wish this movie would be trashed just so we
>>wouldn't have to hear about it anymore.
>
>
> I guess it doesn't bother you that the people who actually put the
> hard work into *making the film* have had their freedom of speech
> abridged by the cult and with Minton's help.
As I told you time and time again Dennis, you have a freedom of speech
in the fact that the government cannot curtail it: I could have at any
moment cut you off the BBS, because I was not the government. The owner
of this film is not the government either. It is not a matter of free
speech. It is a matter of money, and possibly hiding money.
>>The simple fact is the owners
>>of the movie don't wish to release it and there's not one thing we can
>>do about it.
Most people I know, and have worked with in the Hollywood, would run
away from such an aesthetic train wreck to save their reputation. That
is, if they were trying to make a film as a work of art.
In my expert opinion, there is no way that this film could have cost 2
1/2 million dollars. That means there may be money out there somewhere
not accounted for. and, the perfect way to conceal it is through
accounting shenanigans during distribution of the film, in my humble
opinion.
> Clearly you don't think it's worth the effort that went into making
> it, to allow it to even be seen.
First, nobody would want to go see it because it's so amateurish.
Secondly, if I felt like I was ripped off by fronting the money for this
project, I wouldn't want to further murk up the water with distribution
accounting trickery.
>>The other fact is as low budget as it is not to many
>>would want to even rent it at this point.
>
>
> Oh, I see you think you can judge a movie without seeing it.
You can definitely judge a movie by a clip of the movie. I assume that
that clip was one of the best parts... why would any one want to promote
a movie by putting up its worst part.
>
> Twit. <plonk>
>
> Dennis
plonk you, obscene, irreverent Reverend.
Out_Of_The_Dark
It's astounding that you're still such a butt-kisser .
You post about something that was inevitably going to be received by
the queen bee and then blame it on Mark Bunker.
You idiots who do her leg work without even critically evaluating the
information. That's why you and Patty P just don't get it:
Courage Productions LLC is a co-managed company. The injunction
Minton has on the film and assets of the companyt is and will continue
to be intact and enforcible until Peter works with the partner by
producing all the unredacted documents Minton sued him to produce back
in '2002
'MANDATE REVERSING & REMANDING OR12878PG0554-006' comes from
Alexander's Appeal for compelling arbitration instead of the courts
regarding the records issue. You can see the complete Appeal ruling
after the case information on the Injunction case below.
> ALEXANDER PETER <==MINTON ROBERT COURT 0208684CI 12/2/2002
> 12383 1950 2002449878
> ALEXANDER PETER ==> MINTON ROBERT COURT 0208684CI 7/7/2003
> 12878 554 2003277542
> The first is Minton's Injunction, described below, and the separate
> order which was reversed on Appeals.
> The second case is Alexander's Appeal decision, copied & pasted out
> following the injunction record info.
Anonymous wants a copy of "The Profit"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/07f17b0e219e8252
Whatever happened to "The Profit"
http://tinyurl.com/3bxfxg
Alexander must be so whipped to have allowed this clip to have gone up
in the first place. You sound pretty whipped, too.
Mary
t_shuffle
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ak9hs3tjqgtevs2fn...@4ax.com
With all due respect, I just can't see the value in a post like this, at
least at this time.
The internet is here, it's angry at what it's read, and it's proven that
it's serious about wanting to do something about it. It also looks to people
like you for guidance.
The snowball is really starting to roll, getting larger at an almost
exponential rate, and to try and factionalize it right now would be
self-defeating.
henri
>Please tell us what you whining fuckers think Mr.Bunker could do to help
>speed along the release of The Profit. I'm sure he'd do anything to help,
>except lie.
>Perhaps you'd just like him to refrain from exercising his right to freedom
>of speech. That would be ironic, wouldn't it?
I was just pointing out that he was wrong when he made his stupid prediction.
Do you have any quibble whatsoever with the factual nature of this, or are you
just whining?
>Lots of apparancies, hyperbole and assertions. Very unbecoming for a laywer.
>The "blame it on Bunker" was laughably OTT. Stick to the bare facts or, if
It was Minton's lawyer who dragged up the previous events involving Bunker.
Luke was responding to McGowan's bogus assertions.
Do you have any actual dispute with the facts?
If so, which facts, and what was incorrect about them?
I'm so fucking sick of you clowns who respond with brainless shit-flinging
and zero facts.
>you really do want this movie released pronto, then take Minton to court
>FFS! If you think the movie is so great and you are so right then fucking do
>it. For whatever stinky reaons, he obviously ain't just gonna give in
>anytime soon.
Distributing the film requires both partners to agree.
Unlike Minton, Alexander is not a wealthy lawbreaker with money to burn
fighting fruitless litigation battles. Your contempt for living up to one's
business contracts is noted. Alexander is attempting to do that, and
perhaps hoping this can shake the movie free.
Perhaps if Minton gathers together whatever is left of his balls, he would
realize he has absolutely no reason to be Scientology's gimp in a steamer
trunk, five years after his defeat.
>(don't forget to bring the *full* financial accounts and bank
>records though).
Minton's free to go to arbitration, as the 2DCA ordered years ago, and as
the LLC agreement provides. Why doesn't he go there? Does he think
no neutral tribunal would possibly side with his attempts to help Scientology?
jerald
Yep Dennis he has every right to speak his mind. Just as I do. I
don't care how long any of you have been here. I respect those who
have been fighting for years but that doesn't make you an idol.
The law says the people who paid for the movie own the movie. Not one
thing is going to change that fact.
I didn't agree with the post and I said so. Mark has done some nice
things and he isn't keeping the group honest. He's showing the world
about the abuses of scientology and that rates him pretty high in my
book.
Call me anything you wish, but I stand by what I posted.
jerald
henri
wrote:
>With all due respect, I just can't see the value in a post like this, at
>least at this time.
Scientology is using a former
critic to go around suing people and violate the First Amendment, and
you don't even think it should be discussed.
That really shows just how far you have your head up your ass.
What the fuck is wrong with you morons?
jerald
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:37:00 -0800, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >With all due respect, I just can't see the value in a post like this, at
> >least at this time.
>
> Scientology is using a former
> critic to go around suing people and violate the First Amendment, and
> you don't even think it should be discussed.
>
> That really shows just how far you have your head up your ass.
>
> What the fuck is wrong with you morons?
Henri,
I get what you are saying. But no one is violating the First
Amendment here. The owners of the flim are the only ones who have the
right to decide its fate.
This flim is history and unless the owners decide otherwise it will
never be shown. And since scientology has its hand in this thats just
the way its going to turn out.
Hell I wish some major studio would do a movie on the history of
scientology and someday when this cult messes up enought they will.
Untill then there are more pressing matters we can make a difference
in.
jerald
henri
over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Signing over POA, complete control of a piece of rubbish in 2002
Try to keep up, dumbass. It was in 2005.
Here it is, moron.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
You can recognize it from the signature of Mike Rinder, who was then
chief of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs.
Nice that Rinder and Bob and Stacy were still having good times in 2005.
The difference between Rinder and Minton is that Rinder, unlike Minton,
is no longer serving Scientology
eddieVroom
> I'm at the point where I wish this movie would be trashed just so we
> wouldn't have to hear about it anymore. The simple fact is the owners
> of the movie don't wish to release it and there's not one thing we can
> do about it. The other fact is as low budget as it is not to many
> would want to even rent it at this point.
It would play on TBN. The Profit is right up their alley from what I've
seen of the stuff they're running.
--
"Every Citizen should be given an electric guitar and sixty minutes on
television." -- the Fabulous Stains
the Tortured Spark - a Light in the Dark
the Mystical RevvedErrand Doktor eddieVroom
Northern Lights Motor Lodge
Knights of the Visible Wank-L
http://psyop13013.blogspot.com/
He only comes out when I drink my Djinn...
Henri Ladd
The value in the post appears to be the value for which the poster was
paid by the makers of the film.
henri
wrote:
>On Feb 29, 10:44 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:37:00 -0800, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >With all due respect, I just can't see the value in a post like this, at
>> >least at this time.
>> Scientology is using a former
>> critic to go around suing people and violate the First Amendment, and
>> you don't even think it should be discussed.
>> That really shows just how far you have your head up your ass.
>> What the fuck is wrong with you morons?
>Henri,
>I get what you are saying. But no one is violating the First
>Amendment here. The owners of the flim are the only ones who have the
>right to decide its fate.
Except it's really Scientology that's making that decision.
Yes, I know. You don't care. Stick your fingers in your ears and go
la-la-la.
When people get threatened by Bob Minton, they should just shut up
and fuck off, even when he's acting as a cat's-paw for Scientology, because
the whole subject is taboo. Just avert your eyes, much easier not to think
about it.
Ha ha ha Xenu. Ha ha ha clams. Yeah you're really defeating Scientology.
Fucking idiots.
henri
>The value in the post appears to be the value for which the poster was
>paid by the makers of the film.
Just for the record, I've never taken a penny from anyone who had anything
to do with the making of the film. But don't let that stop you from lying.
It never did before.
That would be unlike you gutless whores attacking me, who almost without
exception took shitloads of money from Bob Minton. It's very telling you
all come up with that identical lie, which you don't have a speck of evidence
for. But that doesn't stop you from lying. You just do it, because lying
is what you do. It's simply beyond your imagination that anyone could
say the truth just for its own sake. Nobody, in your world, says anything
without being paid, because that's how you act.
I'd say you worthless turds have the morals of whores, but that would imply
you had any morals at all.
t_shuffle
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6khs3lt1taies194...@4ax.com
What the fuck is wrong with you? Your snip of my post speaks volumes. It's
easier to focus on one sentence than to reply to the whole thing.
I'm on your side, you fucking asshole. Get it? You can insult me and call me
names all you want. I'm not intimidated, and I don't fear your acidic
tongue.
I appreciate, more than you know, all that you have done. That doesn't mean
that I won't call fucking up when I see it. You don't like it? Fuck you.
henri
wrote:
>What the fuck is wrong with you? Your snip of my post speaks volumes. It's
>easier to focus on one sentence than to reply to the whole thing.
You said you don't see the value of a post about events that are occurring
right the fuck now. So exactly when would they be appropriate? A year
from now? Thirty years from now?
>I'm on your side, you fucking asshole. Get it? You can insult me and call me
>names all you want. I'm not intimidated, and I don't fear your acidic
>tongue.
I'm not intimidating you, I'm calling you the moron you appear to be.
>I appreciate, more than you know, all that you have done. That doesn't mean
>that I won't call fucking up when I see it. You don't like it? Fuck you.
So your policy is, if Scientology threatens to sue you, you should just shut the
fuck up about it.
Okay. Whatever. But don't claim you're on my side, whatever my supposed side
is. If that's your opinion, you're just another OSA supporter.
I'm reporting CURRENT EVENTS.
They involve SCIENTOLOGY. They involve OSA.
If you don't like it, fuck off.
Henri Ladd
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:02:50 -0600, Henri Ladd <hen...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The value in the post appears to be the value for which the poster was
>>paid by the makers of the film.
>
>
> Just for the record, I've never taken a penny from anyone who had anything
> to do with the making of the film.
Then that will come out in the deposition.
> But don't let that stop you from lying.
Not sure which lie you're talking about here Rob? Can you be more specific?
> It never did before.
>
> That would be unlike you gutless whores attacking me, who almost without
> exception took shitloads of money from Bob Minton.
There is some paranoia and the above settings, wouldn't you agree?
It's very telling you
> all come up with that identical lie, which you don't have a speck of evidence
> for. But that doesn't stop you from lying. You just do it, because lying
> is what you do. It's simply beyond your imagination that anyone could
> say the truth just for its own sake. Nobody, in your world, says anything
> without being paid, because that's how you act.
>
> I'd say you worthless turds have the morals of whores, but that would imply
> you had any morals at all.
Rob, it simply isn't healthy for you to stay up three and four days in a
row. Try to do whatever you have to do to get some sleep. Maybe a few
good stiff drinks will help to get the spiders off the walls.
t_shuffle
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:09nhs3hkbud13m97v...@4ax.com
I'm just saying that right now is not the best time draw attention to the
fact that ARS is cliquish and divided. Does that make sense? Are you still
capable of seeing the big picture?
henri
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/17/funny-pictures-if-only-u-waz-useful/
Jonathon Barbera
>On February 16, Dave Touretzky posted the url to a clip of
>The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen at www.theprofit.org
>
I saw a 8 minute clip of The Profit on youtube. From the looks of it,
it could be a pretty good movie. It would be better if RTC helped the
makers of the movie to edit it into something everyone can enjoy
viewing.
In contrast, The Bridge is a totally failed movie. It is so full of
errors that I can only assume that the people making it knew nothing
of Scientology whatsoever. Just in the first few minutes, I screamed
out loud when the auditor fiddled with the sensitivty knob in the
middle of the session. And why was he using the completely wrong
paper? Terrible movie.
So, I hope a newly restored (with RTC's help) edition of The Profit
will eventually be released on youtube for free.
Love,
-- Jonathon
Jonathon Barbera
I have faith in Mr. Mike Rinder. He has integrity.
Love,
-- Jonathon
henri
wrote:
>I'm just saying that right now is not the best time draw attention to the
>fact that ARS is cliquish and divided. Does that make sense? Are you still
>capable of seeing the big picture?
Are you saying the Anonymous people are not smart enough to notice that
and that we should pretend it's all a big circle singing Kum-bay-fucking-yah,
or otherwise they'll go away and stop picketing or whatever?
Trust me, they're smart enough to figure that out on their own. Plus
they really don't give a flying fuck what we do anyway. They have their
own fora on enturbulation.org which, incidentally, is kicking the shit out
of ars in terms of relevant content and for that matter, objectively measurable
results in reality.
Things like books and movies. Like Andrew Morton's book, which if you
didn't notice, had a great big acknowledgment right up front to
PATRICIA GREENWAY, who gets nothing but SHAT ON on this piece of
shit, moron-filled newsgroup. What do you think Andrew Morton knows
that a brainless, semi-literate moron like Lerma, a drunken, lying piece of
shit like Tom Klemesrud, and other nameless, gutless assholes on this
newsgroup don't?
Anyway, your "big picture" can kiss my ass. This newsgroup is not the
big picture, though it's worth a scan by people who actually do care about
actual events going on in reality. To the extent I post here at all, it's for
those people. That and to amuse myself by smacking the mental
defectives around who honestly think they're accomplishing something
other than showing themselves to be pathetic buffoons when they
have nothing better to do, years and years on end, than endlessly
spread insanely stupid lies about Patricia Greenway, never once presenting
anything like evidence to support them.
All I know is if I say anything about events in reality, I back them the fuck
up. Nobody here has the facts to question a GODDAMN thing I say, and
nobody even fucking well tries to. For one thing, they're too fucking stupid
to present an argument. For another, they don't even care about facts.
So I can't really see what the hell you're even talking about. These events
are happening. I'm relating them.
I don't see you criticizing that moron Mark Bunker when he presents
ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT as fact, makes completely BULLSHIT predictions that
turn out to be false, and basically struts around like he actually knows shit,
when he doesn't. But God forbid anyone should point out he's wrong, and
then PROVE IT.
Amazingly, you think in a newsgroup about SCIENTOLOGY, that when
SCIENTOLOGY is using an ex-critic as a TOOL to destroy a movie about
SCIENTOLOGY, that people would do something other than desperately
plead to shut up and be quiet and pretend it's all not happening. For what?
To hide the truth?
Not only would concealing relevant current events be stupid, it wouldn't
work. And it would be dishonest. And did I mention dumb? And stupid?
And if you mean OSA instead of the nonys, trust me, they KNOW. After all,
they're the ones doing this shit, with the witting and unwitting assistance of
many of the morons on this group.
They like doing their victims dirty and in the dark. Many on ARS seem to
approve of this stick-your-head-in-the-sand-and-the-bad-man-will-go-away
kind of denial of reality.
Fuck that shit. Anyone who likes that shit can go back and hide in a cult
if it's so great.
Henri Ladd
No that's not true Rob, we do care about the facts. And it seems to me
that the only way to get the facts would be for Courage Productions to
open up its accounting books. That way, everybody would have the
facts--that you so much desire, an advocate for. However, it is my
understanding that your friends have refused to do this. And I wonder
why? It is very suspicious. All your spite, spitting, cajoling and
swearing can't change the fact that the accounting books have been
hidden by those that you represent.
anothers...@hotmail.com
The bottom line is that organized scientology (I cannot bring myself
to call it a "church") is something about which these argumentative
parties agree: it is a dangerous organization. The evidence of this
is, well, evident -- and all over the net, as well as in physical
print, and aural and visual media.
As Justanother is fond of saying (paraphrased): groups are made of
people, just like soylent green.
In any group of three or more people, there are politics. Add to that
the bizarre paranoia engendered by the policy "Keep Scientology
Working," "Knowledge Reports" that scientologists use to "tattle" on
each other, the shadowy and documented activities of scientology's
"Office of Special Affairs" (google it), and you have a fertile ground
for people accusing each other vile and duplicitous acts,
*Especially* ex-scientologists, whose ability to trust was severely
damaged in the double-think, Knowledge Report, "Ethics" world created
by Hubbard.
Even IF there is some vast plot perpetrated by scientology with the
cooperation of Bob Minton or Patricia Greenway and Peter What's-His-
Name -- I cannot spare the energy to worry about it.
Remember this: People who are critical of scientology share the basic
facts about which they are critical.
Another Surfer
henri
>Even IF there is some vast plot perpetrated by scientology with the
>cooperation of Bob Minton or Patricia Greenway and Peter What's-His-
>Name -- I cannot spare the energy to worry about it.
Your apathy about actual targets of Scientology in the real world is
duly noted, and you are hereby given a Special Star on the Forehead
to note your stellar achievements in the field of abject fucking idiocy.
tikk
t_shuffle
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3kohs35caohf10ko5...@4ax.com
I'm just don't think you're going for the greatest good for the greatest
number of dynamics here.
tikk
> On Mar 1, 12:40 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Power of attorney is revocable by the principal at his sole discretion.
>
> of surrendering POA.
> You did say "sole discretion" did you not?
> Is the any evidence that Minton's "sole discretion" isnt bound by
> intimidation or fear?
>
>
>> What a person does through their attorney, they do.
>
> You cannot gloss over what it says/implies or dictates.
>
> Again, it says what it says and it gives McGowan power over "all
> things" related to Courage.
>
>
> " full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
> and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
> PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
> full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
> McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
> by virtue thereof".
>
>> Legally, it is Bob Minton acting.
>
> *anything* the POA holder/s claim to be via directions from the person
> giving/surrendering POA.
>
>
>
Not as if you're going to understand this since I've already explained
it to you but for the benefit of those listening in ...
A power of attorney is not an assignment of rights as the above poster
would suggest. An agent/attorney acts at the behest of his/her principal
and the power of attorney can be revoked by the principal (here, Minton)
at any time. Ordinarily, a power of attorney is signed so an attorney
can sign documents on behalf of an out-of-state principal, as Minton
most likely would be, with any scenario arising with regard to Courage
Productions.
It's really as simple as this: Bob doesn't want the movie to be marketed
because Scientology doesn't want the movie to be marketed. Despite what
Bunker and Lerma would have you otherwise believe, Bob is still working
with Scientology; look at Mike Rinder's signature on the POA FROM 2005.
If Bob was the least big interested in resolving issues related to the
partnership (Courage Productions), which was created specifically to
produce the movie, Bob would go to arbitration as the partnership
agreement states. Bob has no interest in actually resolving issues
related to the partnership, however, because Bob is only interested in
doing Scientology's bidding, which is, in this instance, to play catspaw
to The Profit.
You can dredge up all the alleged dirty laundry you supposedly know
everything about with regard to Minton and Alexander and Greenway but
Bob has an avenue to remedy those problems if he likes, and that's
arbitration, as stipulated for in the agreement. Bob has never opted for
arbitration. He'd rather you all carry his water (and Scientology's
water) for him here, on A.R.S.
Suckers.
~ tikk
anothers...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:50:18 -0800 (PST), anothersurfer...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Even IF there is some vast plot perpetrated by scientology with the
> >cooperation of Bob Minton or Patricia Greenway and Peter What's-His-
> >Name -- I cannot spare the energy to worry about it.
>
> Your apathy about actual targets of Scientology in the real world is
> duly noted, and you are hereby given a Special Star on the Forehead
> to note your stellar achievements in the field of abject fucking idiocy.
I do not understand how you extrapolated that I am apathetic about the
"actual targets" of scientology -- are we ALL not actual targets,
being critical of it? I am concerned for each and every one of us.
I'm sure I am not the only critic who simply wishes to bring to light
the abuses of scientology.
For my money, all this internal squabbling amongst the "critics" is
EXACTLY what organized scientology would want-- divide and conquer has
been its modus operandi since Hubbard focused on how to Keep
Scientology Working.
As long as everyone is suspicious of everyone else, you eliminate
consensus -- Verbal tech is verbotten! Tattle on your friends
(Knowledge Reports). Only discuss doubts or dissent with an "Ethics
Officer" (bleah).
DON'T TRUST ANYONE is scientology's downfall, ultimately.
Hubbard designed his "religion" -- er "applied philosophy" -- oh wait,
"science" -- ugh, got it wrong again "Technology" -- no, "Dessert
Topping" -- um, "Candy Mint" -- no, "Breath mint!" bah.
Anyway, he designed it so that he could eliminate any consensual
questioning by its adherents. He made it so that it was impossible to
think critically and freely and to share those thoughts with others
BECAUSE THEY WOULD REPORT YOU; to actually confront the reality that
scientology is designed to bilk as much money from each adherent as
possible. Keep Scientology Working is "Make Sure the Dupes Stay
Duped!"
Godspeed. Henri.
Another Surfer
LaserClam
> Hubbard designed his "religion" -- er "applied philosophy" -- oh wait,
> "science" -- ugh, got it wrong again "Technology" -- no, "Dessert
> Topping" -- um, "Candy Mint" -- no, "Breath mint!" bah.
> Anyway, he designed it so that he could eliminate any consensual
> questioning by its adherents. He made it so that it was impossible to
> think critically and freely and to share those thoughts with others
> BECAUSE THEY WOULD REPORT YOU; to actually confront the reality that
> scientology is designed to bilk as much money from each adherent as
> possible. Keep Scientology Working is "Make Sure the Dupes Stay
> Duped!"
Trying to help someone to go catholic?
> Godspeed. Henri.
t_shuffle
become pretty much irrelevant. Get over it. There are much larger things
afoot.
"tikk" <tr...@tikk.net> wrote in message
news:47c8...@news2.lightlink.com
tikk
> "Bob Minton had his lawyer Thomas McGowan "
>
> Power of attorney was turned over to McGown in 2002, right?
2005.
that's FIVE. Not TWO.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
This power of attorney agreement did not arise at the time of Minton's
supposed come-to-jesus moment that caused months of extraneous
litigation moments for ken dandar. This arose years later.
And again, Power of Attorney is not an assignment of rights, as too many
people on this newsgroup would prefer to believe. A non-durable Power of
Attorney, where the principal is not incapacitated, is basically an
assignment of the right to sign paperwork on behalf of the principal,
and not much more. That's it. Extrapolate the language of the POA all
you like but it won't change how the boilerplate POA is treated by the
legal profession.
Minton's lawyer still acts on behalf of Minton, regardless of how so
many of you would prefer to delusionally view the paperwork, so long as
Minton retains the power to revoke. A non-durable POA only delegates
power, it does not *assign* it; and that delegated power can always be
revoked by the principal. Minton did not give anything away with this
POA; he merely permitted his attorney (who is obligated to act within
the scope Minton's stated goals) to sign papers on his behalf. That's
the legal significance of this POA. The non-legal significance of this
POA is that Mike Rinder just so happened to be in the room sometime
during 2005 when Minton suddenly needed to sign this thing. Nothing to
see there, nope.
Ask yourself then, perhaps, the following: if Minton assigned all
control to McGowan, why doesn't *McGowan* go to arbitration, as the
agreement provides? Why would McGowan hold out? Is it because McGowan
isn't actually seeking a remedy either?
~ tikk
henri
wrote:
>'scuse the top posting, but... Minton turning tail and fucking everyone has
>become pretty much irrelevant. Get over it. There are much larger things
>afoot.
It's hilarious you fucking zombies don't tell Arnie Lerma it's irrelevant when
he rants, year after year after year, about his demented fantasies about
things Patricia Greenway supposedly did years and years ago.
But if OSA threatens to sue someone, LAST FUCKING WEEK, it's irrelevant
the very first time it's discussed.
You've made entirely clear what side you're on. You're on OSA's
side, whether or not you're too stupid to recognize it.
Fuck you.
tikk
> 'scuse the top posting, but... Minton turning tail and fucking everyone has
> become pretty much irrelevant. Get over it. There are much larger things
> afoot.
It's not irrelevant if he's continuing to do it. And Bunker and Lerma
are acting on his behalf, so it's especially relevant.
~ tikk
Alert
Ahh, but it is.
*This* (not "a power of attorney", but the one that >I< am referring
to speciifically) POA clearly states McGowan or his successor can say/
do *anything* related to Courage "and all things" at the supposed
behest of Minton.
Strange that the POA should never ever *ever* apply to anything now or
in the future *other* than to Courage and all "things" related?
" full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof".
Ya think a revocation would ever arrive if Minton surrendered POA
under duress?
After all, he did a 180 under duress in the LMT debacle, didnt he?
>An agent/attorney acts at the behest of his/her principal
> and the power of attorney can be revoked by the principal (here, Minton)
> at any time.
Oh! So a nefariously obtained POA from someone that isnt of sound mind
(like elderly with dementia etc) can be revoked by the person who
surrendered the POA under false pretenses when they dont even know
what they signed?
Puhleaze
But we are talking about a POA that was surrendered after Minton
capitulated years earlier due to some sort of threat of possible
imprisonment.
Again, Minton originally captulated years earlier through
intimidation, and then goes on to surrender POA that *only* applies to
Courage and "all things" related, what is the likelihood Minton will
ever revoke a POA that may well have been obtained under duress?
> Ordinarily, a power of attorney is signed so an attorney
> can sign documents on behalf of an out-of-state principal, as Minton
> most likely would be, with any scenario arising with regard to Courage
> Productions.
Ordinarily? Ya think any of this is under the heading of "ordinarily"?
Cut it out
Nobody knows but Minton and the cult what the actuality of the
circumstances are surrounding the surrendering of the POA. Im sure
Rinder could cast some light.
McGowan can say/do whatever he (or his possible masters/successors)
wants and attribute it to Minton himself, anything.
>
> It's really as simple as this: Bob doesn't want the movie to be marketed
> because Scientology doesn't want the movie to be marketed.
You say that on the pretense that Minton didnt capitulate through
intimidation.
Yet, you nor anyone else knows the actuality, yet
>Despite what
> Bunker and Lerma would have you otherwise believe,
My post has NOTHING to do with Lerma or Bunker. Yet, you seem to think
its ALL about the aforementioned
> Bob is still working
> with Scientology; look at Mike Rinder's signature on the POA FROM 2005.
Again, you do not know that and base your assertions on McGowans
claims that Minton himself is making demands.
> If Bob was the least big interested in resolving issues related to the
> partnership (Courage Productions), which was created specifically to
> produce the movie, Bob would go to arbitration as the partnership
> agreement states.
All on the proviso that Minton willingly surrendered POA without any
duress to sign.
> Bob has no interest in actually resolving issues
> related to the partnership, however, because Bob is only interested in
> doing Scientology's bidding, which is, in this instance, to play catspaw
> to The Profit.
All on the proviso of yadda yadda yadda in the above
>
> You can dredge up all the alleged dirty laundry you supposedly know
> everything about with regard to Minton and Alexander and Greenway
I dont give a flying fuck about Greenway, Alexander or even Minton for
that matter.
The POA says plenty. But you insist it says nothing at all. Factor in
all the variables, the cults history etc, and its quite obvious that
there are still unknowns that, if they ever come to light, the whole
picture will be complete.
You speak purely on the basis on conjecture and projection
> but
> Bob has an avenue to remedy those problems if he likes, and that's
> arbitration, as stipulated for in the agreement. Bob has never opted for
> arbitration.
Again, all on the basis that he willfully and willingly surrendered
POA without any duress
> He'd rather you all carry his water (and Scientology's
> water) for him here, on A.R.S.
You still cant get beyond how some people arent about defending the
guy. He fucked up, the cult kicked his head in to capitualte. He did
what he thought he had to do to save his skin or the skin of his loved
ones.
The cults history dictates plenty when the scum are getting backed
into a corner
>
> Suckers.
Ahhh, but who are the REAL suckers in all this?
>
> ~ tikk
MARDI GRAS!
Eldon
> jerald wrote:
> > I'm at the point where I wish this movie would be trashed just so we
> > wouldn't have to hear about it anymore. The simple fact is the owners
> > of the movie don't wish to release it and there's not one thing we can
> > do about it. The other fact is as low budget as it is not to many
> > would want to even rent it at this point.
>
> It would play on TBN. The Profit is right up their alley from what I've
> seen of the stuff they're running.
I guess it might. From what I've seen, it appeared not quite clunky
and campy enough to be taken as a low-budget "cult movie" parody, yet
not quite slick enough to be taken seriously either.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:55:53 GMT, "JAFAW" <a...@anon.net> wrote:
> >Please tell us what you whining fuckers think Mr.Bunker could do to help
> >speed along the release of The Profit. I'm sure he'd do anything to help,
> >except lie.
> >Perhaps you'd just like him to refrain from exercising his right to freedom
> >of speech. That would be ironic, wouldn't it?
>
If she was so damned "legally smart" that Dandar required her service
in the Lisa civil case,
then one would have to assume that she knew full well the probable
legal
repercussions of what she did with Lonsdale and what she attempted to
do
with Anonymous on Feb. 10, ............so she showed up to either set
them up, ...........
OR because she's so consumed with her own delusions self
importance,......
or she is incredibly STUPID
or it was INTENT to cause Anonymous to get deposed
And who sits outside in summer in florida? when there are obver 150
cameras pointed at public places
in Clearwater
You ever been sued or deposed? no
As I recall you Mr clark were almost whimpering when you thought you
might
get hauled into court in the Clearwater 13, same as the one you carry
water for,
who begged to be taken off the witness lists. Ya'd think, that when
given anopportunity to
testify against her arch enemy bad bob, if you had the real, honest,
truthful, dirt on bob
wouldnt you jump at the chance to testify? boy, I'd be rarin to go,
Ive been deposed plenty,
truth has never killed me... I never worry about perjury..... I just
call it like I see it
why didnt greenway seize an opporuntity to testify UNDER OATH against
her enemy?
Bob had been deposed and on the stand for over 50 hours.. he was
feeling like he was loosing it
as was intend by osa that uses color of law to interrogate nazi style
as described by Dr Joost Meerloo describing nazi interrogation tactics
Why did going into court worry you so much.....?
Why did testfying under oath worry Greenway so much she begged dandar
to remove her..........
whe she had th perfect opportunity to skewer her enemy, Bad Bob?
Just as you LIE in your title of this newest spin thread,
just like you did when you said Bob sold out in those titles,
Greenway argues misstating what I say on her own irc channel cause
the truth is not good enough for greenway..
she knows she loses when it comes down to truth
so do you, all you can do is collect fools at any cost,
even getting anonymous kids deposed in CW..
Is the bag big enough for this?
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
t_shuffle wrote:
>
>
> "henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:09nhs3hkbud13m97v...@4ax.com
[...]
>>
>> I'm reporting CURRENT EVENTS.
>>
>> They involve SCIENTOLOGY. They involve OSA.
>>
>> If you don't like it, fuck off.
>
> I'm just saying that right now is not the best time draw attention to the
> fact that ARS is cliquish and divided. Does that make sense? Are you still
> capable of seeing the big picture?
Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone with a functioning mind can see that a.r.s.
is cliquish and divided. Some of the division is the result of successful
OSA actions, some of the it is simply people being, well, people.
Live with it.
Best Regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 829 985
"Daphne! You're leading again" Osgood, 'Some like it Hot'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHyR4oimJs3AlyPBIRAjBaAKDM++OTiD+gYNKVrH7F4PNJDSTGsgCeK9SA
oVHNidDlArvyKTD3zyx8pfQ=
=9bl3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years! wrote:
>
> > "Bob Minton had his lawyer Thomas McGowan "
>
> > Power of attorney was turned over to McGown in 2002, right?
>
> 2005.
>
> that's FIVE. Not TWO.
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
>
> This power of attorney agreement did not arise at the time of Minton's
> supposed come-to-jesus moment that caused months of extraneous
> litigation moments for ken dandar. This arose years later.
>
> And again, Power of Attorney is not an assignment of rights, as too many
> people on this newsgroup would prefer to believe. A non-durable Power of
> Attorney, where the principal is not incapacitated, is basically an
pontification comes to mind
> ~ tikk
oh boy make hay of that error of date you got nothing else
2005 oe 2002, the point remains the same
but its never about the point with you guys
it is all about details oe whether the bag was big enough
irrelevant details of no consequence
especially when the facts suck
Yuo pals argue irrelevant details as if they had meaning
miss state what people are doing
to argue fallaciously, always seeking to swoon
the ignorant, or those impatient to grasp something shred of substance
in your specious argument, If she was so damned "legally smart" that
Dandar required her service in the Lisa civil case,
then one would have to assume that she knew full well the probable
legal repercussions of what she did with Lonsdale that resulted in
his deposition and I dont know how anyone that might be suicidal
coule be helped by deposition.
And I detest the lot of you, for IMO trying to force a fellow warrior
to suicide
And what Greenway attempted to with Anonymous on Feb. 10, .......
.....so she showed up to either set them up, ...........
OR because she's so consumed with her own delusions self
importance,......or she is incredibly STUPID
or it was INTENT to cause Anonymous to get deposed as you do know
scientology was and is deperate to find out WHO runs them..if anyone..
And who sits outside in summer in florida? when there are over 150
cameras pointed at public places in Clearwater
Clarl have never been sued or deposed...
As I recall Mr clark was almost whimpering when he thought he
might get hauled into court in the Clearwater 13,
same as the one you carry water for,
who begged to be taken off the witness lists. Ya'd think, that when
given an opportunity to testify against her arch enemy bad bob,
if you had the real, honest, truthful, dirt on bob
wouldn't you jump at the chance to testify? boy, I'd be rarin to go,
Ive been deposed plenty, truth has never killed me...
I never worry about perjury..... I just call it like I see it
why didnt greenway seize an opporuntity to testify UNDER OATH against
her enemy?
the only thing you have to fear during deposition is lying,
or being caught in a lie
Bob had been deposed and on the stand for over 50 hours.. he was
feeling like he was loosing it as was intended by osa and greenway
that both used color of law to interrogate nazi style
as described by Dr Joost Meerloo describing nazi interrogation tactics
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/ see Rape of the Mind
Why did going into court worry Rob Clark so much.....?
Why did testfying under oath worry Greenway so much she begged dandar
to remove her..........when it would have beenthe perfect
opportunity
to skewer her enemy, Bad Bob
Just as your pal LIEs in the newest spin thread title
just like heu did when he said Bob sold out in those titles, back in
2002
Greenway argues misstating what I say on her own irc channel cause
the truth is not good enough for greenway..
she knows she loses when it comes down to truth
so do the lot of you, all you can do is argue irrelevant details
while trying to collect fools at any cost,
even to DARE RISK getting anonymous kids deposed in CW..
Is the bag big enough for this?
And who the hell sits outside in Florida in the summertime?
When there are 150 camera's pointed at the public
Hartley Patterson
> I'm just saying that right now is not the best time draw attention to the
> fact that ARS is cliquish and divided. Does that make sense? Are you still
> capable of seeing the big picture?
The Gravity newsreader not only has a 'Bozo bin' for people who annoy me
but an 'Ignore Thread' button, that I'm about to use. There, all gone.
--
alt.religion.scientology FAQ
Please read before posting
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/faq.htm
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
>
> Why did going into court worry Rob Clark so much.....?
> Why did testfying under oath worry Greenway so much she begged dandar
> to remove her..........when it would have beenthe perfect
> opportunity
> to skewer her enemy, Bad Bob
>
> Just as your pal LIEs in the newest spin thread title
> just like heu did when he said Bob sold out in those titles, back in
> 2002
> Greenway argues misstating what I say on her own irc channel cause
> the truth is not good enough for greenway..
> she knows she loses when it comes down to truth
> so do the lot of you, all you can do is argue irrelevant details
> while trying to collect fools at any cost,
> even to DARE RISK getting anonymous kids deposed in CW..
> Is the bag big enough for this?
>
> And who the hell sits outside in Florida in the summertime?
>
> When there are 150 camera's pointed at the public
>
> http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=268
>
> http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6
And greenway stands behind the curtain, choreographing your arguments
for you.. just like she did in the Mcpherson case against Bob
In BOTH cases afraid to come out and post in her name,and for the same
reason I'd wager
BUT, bless us! She posted into the Londale thread - amazingly, for
the first time in ages,
she was moved to say something in public, man that must have been
important... for your puppeteer to
come out and bless us with her wisdom. And what did she say?
seems the Lonsdale findings are taking a long time to be made public
because the police
haven't located next of kin. Greenway felt it so important to post
into that thread.
What did she say?
That he had no relatives... then someone else villified as a fool by
henri in this very
thread posted that she found a relative. then Greenway edited or
canceled her post...
VERY STRANGE don't you think?
Is the bag big enough?
henri
wrote:
>Ahh, but it is.
> *This* (not "a power of attorney", but the one that >I< am referring
>to speciifically) POA clearly states McGowan or his successor can say/
>do *anything* related to Courage "and all things" at the supposed
>behest of Minton.
>Strange that the POA should never ever *ever* apply to anything now or
>in the future *other* than to Courage and all "things" related?
This is boilerplate language. You don't know what it means. Amazingly,
you continue not knowing what it means despite it being explained to you,
slowly, in small words, rather like you are the fucking moron that you,
indeed, are. Despite this, your skull remains impermeable, an
unstoppable barrier to any clue, no matter how heavy, and no matter
the velocity with which it is hurled.
You can get nearly identical POA forms in any practice manual. Your baffling
stupidity in the face of repeated explanations defies the understanding
of mere mortals. It may, in fact, be actually impossible to express the
sheer depths of your willful ignorance using only human language.
Your fantasies to the contrary, there is absolutely nothing special about
this document. It will continue not to have any of the legal meaning you
ascribe to it, no matter how obdurately you remain convinced of your
own imbecilic assertions, which are uninformed by even the glimmerings
of the tiniest shiny bit of illuminating information.
Congratulations on exceeding all previously known limits on ars stupidity.
Mark Bunker
> On February 16, Dave Touretzky posted the url to a clip of
> The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen at www.theprofit.org
>
> including the following: "Now, if the second partner is releasing video
> to the
> web then we shall see how ready Bob is to sue over the film. My feeling
> is, he
> doesn't care." Mark Bunker, who put up crappy third generation copies,
> in order to defame the film and destroy its value, pursuant to Bob
> Minton's
> deal with Scientology that The Profit should "never see the light of day,"
> was sued over it and took them down before the case was dismissed for
> not being brought by both members of the LLC (Minton and Alexander).
>
> With such an excellent track record on the subject of The Profit, you'd
> think he would refrain from stupid statements such as the above, when
> anyone who knew anything about the situation at all could have told you
> that Minton, as Scientology's stooge, was pretty much obligated to
> respond immediately.
>
> And indeed, three days later, on February 19, Bob Minton had his
> lawyer Thomas McGowan send a whiny email complaining about the clip and
> demanding it be removed from the web.
> http://www.theprofit.org/mcgowan208.htm
>
> Attorney McGowan, as evidenced in this power of attorney agreement
> witnessed by then head of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs Mike
> Rinder,
> has authorization to make such threats on Scientology/Minton's behalf:
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
>
> The negotiations with Minton in which burying The Profit was discussed as
> part of Minton's deal with Scientology (including destroying Lisa
> McPherson's
> family's case against the cult) are memorialized in Monique E. Yingling's
> written notes of her meetings, as one of the cult's lawyers, with Minton:
> http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/exhibits/191.html
>
> These notes show that the movie was, indeed, discussed. Cult lawyer
> Monique Yingling testified that the cult's intention was that the movie
> "never see the light of day."
>
> 7 Q And again, resolving or making a resolution of
> the
>
> 8 movie The Profit, was there any discussion of -- further
>
> 9 explan- -- explaining that?
>
> 10 A I don't believe there was. Certainly it was our
>
> 11 position that we didn't want the movie ever distributed or
>
> 12 to see the light of day, but I'm not sure that that -- that
>
> 13 that was specifically discussed.
>
> June 12 2002 testimony of Scientology lawyer Monique E. Yingling
> http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/_06_12_AM.htm
>
> Minton's lawyer at this meeting was Thomas McGowan.
>
> After this meeting, Minton reversed every previous sworn statement against
> Scientology he had ever made, and perjured himself voluminously, resulting
> in this ruling:
> http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/legal/oddomtsor030112.html
>
> After receiving this letter, the attorney for Courage Productions, LLC,
> First Amendment lawyer Luke Lirot, fires back, explaining Peter
> Alexander's
> rights to inform the public about the movie and keep its reputation alive,
> despite Minton attempts (including through Mark Bunker) to destroy its
> reputation.
>
> http://www.theprofit.org/lirot208.htm
>
>
> February 26, 2008
>
>
> VIA FACSIMILE (727) 821-3117 and U.S. Mail
>
> Thomas McGowan, Esq.
> 150 Second Ave. North
> Suite 870
> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>
> Re: Courage Productions, LLC-"The Profit"
>
> I have spoken to my client and we offer the following response to the last
> communications received from your office. First, the film "The Profit" is
> not
> subject to any restrictions based on defamation, or any other content
> based
> concerns. This film is fully and completely protected by the First
> Amendment and
> absolutely nothing contained in the film would suffice to justify any
> limitation
> on its exhibition. The accusations contained in your earlier letter are
> nothing
> more than a clear example of Scientology's unyielding view of the First
> Amendment as a "one way street." The same constitutional protections that
> extend
> to their "religious practices" extend equally to those who reject their
> religious practices and also provide protection to those who are vocal in
> their
> criticism of Scientology, or who would like to place the issues
> surrounding the
> Church for full evaluation through the "robust exchange of ideas and
> information." If Scientology is ever to escape its negative persona, it
> must
> strive to embrace the Voltaireian concept of, "I may disagree with what
> you have
> to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." If
> Scientology
> doesn't like the criticism leveled against it, it should respond with
> sensible
> responses to that criticism, not censorship or retribution.
>
> As it pertains to the latest letter, In contrast to Mr. Minton's actions
> and
> those of his apparent agent, Mark Bunker, who posted 3rd generation
> editing
> clips, your client's actions made the film appear to be of poor quality
> and thus
> damaged the marketability and value of the film. Further, Mr. Minton's
> agent,
> Bunker, put said poor quality clips on a website for the Lisa McPherson
> Trust
> and Bunker's own anti-Scientology website, Xenutv.com.
>
> As per the letter that you reference, we demanded that any clips and
> marketing
> of the film should be done from THE PROFIT's own website
> (www.theprofit.org) ,
> so your point is therefore moot, since the referenced clip appears on said
> website. More importantly, we regard your letter and its attempts to curb
> the
> marketing of our film to be further evidence of Mr. Minton's continued bad
> faith
> regarding the project. The clip being shown on THE PROFIT website is a
> teaser
> segment of the film, and serves as a trailer for the movie. Additionally,
> since
> you've brought the Youtube link
> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C327nSnqKw8 ) to
> our attention, my client was pleased to notice that all the comments were
> very
> positive regarding the film, which should lighten your client's heart
> about the
> marketability of the film. Please inform Mr. Minton that we see this as a
> good
> sign that releasing the film will be well-timed in this current
> environment of
> avid interest in the perceived subject matter and general hyperbole of the
> work.
> Criticism and satire are protected by the First Amendment, so
> protestations to
> the contrary are pointless.
>
> Rather than damage any asset of the LLC, the short clip merely keeps the
> film in
> the public eye, and in a positive way. The negative and discrediting
> comments
> made by the film's detractors, including Mr. Minton's current or former
> employees, such as Mark Bunker, are false and without foundation, and
> rather are
> merely continued attempts by Mr. Minton's new "partners," the Church of
> Scientology, to damage and try to destroy this important film through any
> means
> whatsoever, regardless of the best interests of the LLC, or any legitimate
> public interest.
>
> We are well aware of the fact that court records show that Mr. Minton made
> a
> deal with the Church of Scientology to ensure that the film "never saw the
> light
> of day," and that his conveyance of power of attorney to you, as witnessed
> by
> Mike Rinder, then chief of the infamous Scientology OSA, was merely a
> device to
> allow the Church to dictate your actions in this matter. Your letter is
> further
> evidence of this.
>
> Therefore, we wish to inform you as the agent of the Church of Scientology
> that
> the posting of a film clip is no more a violation of the agreement than
> was the
> posting of the film's trailer on the internet. This trailer actually was a
> marketing tool, and was posted on the internet for seven years without
> comment
> by Mr. Minton or his new partner, the Church of Scientology. This current
> clip
> is just a device to keep the film in the public eye, until such time as
> Mr.
> Minton's actions with respect to the film are no longer controlled by the
> Church
> of Scientology.
>
> This clip does not detract from the value of the film and therefore does
> not
> show the kind of bad faith that Mr. Minton has continually shown since he
> became
> an accomplice of the Church of Scientology.
>
> In the Second District Court opinion dealing with this debacle, the facts
> were
> accurately noted:
>
>
> "Primarily, Mr. Alexander claims that Mr. Minton's actions are inimical to
> the
> LLC's best interests and to his duty and loyalty to the company required
> by
> section 608.4225, Florida Statutes (2002), because he has now aligned
> himself
> with the adversary."
>
> During the time since he made the deal to try and destroy the film, Mr.
> Minton's
> actions, as apparently dictated by the Church of Scientology, and as
> further
> evidenced by your letter, show continued and malicious examples of "bad
> faith"
> toward the best interest of the LLC, through the efforts to promote the
> sole
> product of the LLC, the film "The Profit," to such an extent that his
> rights as
> a "good faith" member of the LLC have been compromised. His duty is to the
> LLC,
> and advancing the success and marketing of the sole asset of the LLC, even
> if
> only to recoup his and Mr. Alexander's huge investments of time and money,
> is
> consistent with all his obligations. Anything else is legally
> insupportable. I
> trust this makes Mr. Alexander's position clear.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Luke Lirot, Esq.
>
> Cc: Peter Alexander
Good. Put more up.
henri
10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>If she was so damned "legally smart" that Dandar required her service
>in the Lisa civil case,
Christ, learn to speak in complete sentences you fucking retard. It's
impossible even to respond to your quasi-literate droolings if you can't
even manage to make sense.
Mark Bunker
"Rev Dennis L Erlich" <info...@informer.org> wrote in message
news:4eehs3hj6tjj78glf...@4ax.com...
> jerald <jerald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark has done more to teach the world about the abuses of scientology
>>than this movie could even hope to do. So kindly step off his back
>>untill you can say the same.
>
> "Step off his back ..." Heh. Free clue: no one dances to that tune
> here, jerald.
>
> Mark has done some nice things with his videos, it is true. But on
> internet he isn't immune from criticism. And seeing that henri has
> quoted and given factual information, it seems your bearded paladin
> didn't quite know what he was talking about regarding Minton's
> reaction.
>
> Also I can see that you have no idea, and apparently would not even
> care, what henri has done since the mid 90s to keep the information on
> this newsgroup factual.
>
> But I should point out that even someone without henri's impressive
> track record for factual accuracy has the right to call out another
> critic.
>
>>I'm at the point where I wish this movie would be trashed just so we
>>wouldn't have to hear about it anymore.
>
> hard work into *making the film* have had their freedom of speech
> abridged by the cult and with Minton's help.
>
>>The simple fact is the owners
>>of the movie don't wish to release it and there's not one thing we can
>>do about it.
>
> it, to allow it to even be seen.
>
>>The other fact is as low budget as it is not to many
>>would want to even rent it at this point.
>
>
> Twit. <plonk>
>
> Dennis
Dennis is right when he says that I am certainly not above criticism. Henri
was right when he posts the documents showing that Bob no longer wishes the
headaches of the film. I am right when I say the film sucks.
All these things are true.
Mark Bunker
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:02:14 GMT, "Feisty" <Lerma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:51:05 GMT, "Feisty" <Lerma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> >I would wonder why the parties involved cannot talk about it? Have they
>>> >been
>>> >gagged or paid?
>>> >(or already been?)
>
>>> Can you read? The new material I posted was from www.theprofit.org
>>> which is run by one of the parties.
>
>>Yes I understood. I meant why can't they post and discuss here instead of
>>you,
>>but guess that's a redundant question.
>>Maureen
>
> Because I actually post here, and presumably, they have better things to
> do
> than hang out on a newsgroup where they are smeared by obsessed idiots and
> liars
> and have been for years nonstop despite their nonparticipation.
Patricia can't get away from her chat channel long enough to post about her
movie? But then why should she if she has you?
Mark Bunker
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:55:53 GMT, "JAFAW" <an...@anon.net> wrote:
>
>>Please tell us what you whining fuckers think Mr.Bunker could do to help
>>speed along the release of The Profit. I'm sure he'd do anything to help,
>>except lie.
>>Perhaps you'd just like him to refrain from exercising his right to
>>freedom
>>of speech. That would be ironic, wouldn't it?
>
> prediction.
Yes, I was wrong about the clip.
>Do you have any quibble whatsoever with the factual nature of this, or are
>you
> just whining?
>
>>Lots of apparancies, hyperbole and assertions. Very unbecoming for a
>>laywer.
>>The "blame it on Bunker" was laughably OTT. Stick to the bare facts or, if
>
> It was Minton's lawyer who dragged up the previous events involving
> Bunker.
> Luke was responding to McGowan's bogus assertions.
>
> Do you have any actual dispute with the facts?
>
> If so, which facts, and what was incorrect about them?
>
> I'm so fucking sick of you clowns who respond with brainless shit-flinging
> and zero facts.
>
>>you really do want this movie released pronto, then take Minton to court
>>FFS! If you think the movie is so great and you are so right then fucking
>>do
>>it. For whatever stinky reaons, he obviously ain't just gonna give in
>>anytime soon.
>
> Distributing the film requires both partners to agree.
>
> Unlike Minton, Alexander is not a wealthy lawbreaker with money to burn
> fighting fruitless litigation battles. Your contempt for living up to
> one's
> business contracts is noted. Alexander is attempting to do that, and
> perhaps hoping this can shake the movie free.
>
> Perhaps if Minton gathers together whatever is left of his balls, he would
> realize he has absolutely no reason to be Scientology's gimp in a steamer
> trunk, five years after his defeat.
>
>>(don't forget to bring the *full* financial accounts and bank
>>records though).
>
> Minton's free to go to arbitration, as the 2DCA ordered years ago, and as
> the LLC agreement provides. Why doesn't he go there? Does he think
> no neutral tribunal would possibly side with his attempts to help
> Scientology?
Mark Bunker
>>fact that ARS is cliquish and divided. Does that make sense? Are you still
>>capable of seeing the big picture?
>
> and that we should pretend it's all a big circle singing
> Kum-bay-fucking-yah,
> or otherwise they'll go away and stop picketing or whatever?
>
> Trust me, they're smart enough to figure that out on their own. Plus
> they really don't give a flying fuck what we do anyway. They have their
> own fora on enturbulation.org which, incidentally, is kicking the shit out
> of ars in terms of relevant content and for that matter, objectively
> measurable
> results in reality.
>
> didn't notice, had a great big acknowledgment right up front to
> PATRICIA GREENWAY, who gets nothing but SHAT ON on this piece of
> shit, moron-filled newsgroup. What do you think Andrew Morton knows
> that a brainless, semi-literate moron like Lerma, a drunken, lying piece
> of
> shit like Tom Klemesrud, and other nameless, gutless assholes on this
> newsgroup don't?
>
> Anyway, your "big picture" can kiss my ass. This newsgroup is not the
> big picture, though it's worth a scan by people who actually do care about
> actual events going on in reality. To the extent I post here at all, it's
> for
> those people. That and to amuse myself by smacking the mental
> defectives around who honestly think they're accomplishing something
> other than showing themselves to be pathetic buffoons when they
> spread insanely stupid lies about Patricia Greenway, never once presenting
> anything like evidence to support them.
>
> All I know is if I say anything about events in reality, I back them the
> fuck
> up. Nobody here has the facts to question a GODDAMN thing I say, and
> nobody even fucking well tries to. For one thing, they're too fucking
> stupid
> to present an argument. For another, they don't even care about facts.
>
> So I can't really see what the hell you're even talking about. These
> events
> are happening. I'm relating them.
>
> I don't see you criticizing that moron Mark Bunker when he presents
> ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT as fact, makes completely BULLSHIT predictions that
> turn out to be false, and basically struts around like he actually knows
> shit,
> when he doesn't. But God forbid anyone should point out he's wrong, and
> then PROVE IT.
Well, I'm not sure what the horseshit is but I admit that my prediction was
wrong. And I thought Kerry would win the last election, too. Okay, I'm not
Kreskin.
Mark Bunker
> t_shuffle wrote:
>> 'scuse the top posting, but... Minton turning tail and fucking everyone
>> has become pretty much irrelevant. Get over it. There are much larger
>> things afoot.
>
>
> It's not irrelevant if he's continuing to do it. And Bunker and Lerma are
> acting on his behalf, so it's especially relevant.
Tikk, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you because I'm not working on
Bob's behalf. I have my opinions of the movie. I've expressed them. I've
laid out what I saw take place and how I feel things turned out. And I was
wrong in my prediction about he clip.
I still say the film should be released.
Mark Bunker
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:02:50 -0600, Henri Ladd <hen...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>The value in the post appears to be the value for which the poster was
>>paid by the makers of the film.
>
> Just for the record, I've never taken a penny from anyone who had anything
> to do with the making of the film. But don't let that stop you from
> lying.
> It never did before.
>
> That would be unlike you gutless whores attacking me, who almost without
> exception took shitloads of money from Bob Minton.
Might I point out that I was very happy to work for Bob at the LMT and
worked long and hard to help him expose Scientology fraud and abuse. The
end product of my relationship with Bob is the continuing legacy of the
videos which still help people learn about Scientology's practices.
I might also point out that Peter and Patricia took $2.5 million from Bob.
Somehow Bob has no problem with allowing my videos to continue to be
distributed. I've not gotten a threatening letter from Bob or Scientology.
Although now I have silly remarks about me from Lirot in his letter.
It might have something to do with the way Peter and Patricia treated their
full partner and the fact that Bob probably doesn't feel he'll ever see a
dime out of the movie and doesn't want to hear about it again.
Peter and Patricia didn't need to piss away Bob's friendship but they did
and they put their project in jeopardy by their actions as much as by Bob's
actions.
>It's very telling you
> all come up with that identical lie, which you don't have a speck of
> evidence
> for. But that doesn't stop you from lying. You just do it, because lying
> is what you do. It's simply beyond your imagination that anyone could
> say the truth just for its own sake. Nobody, in your world, says anything
> without being paid, because that's how you act.
>
> I'd say you worthless turds have the morals of whores, but that would
> imply
> you had any morals at all.
Gilbert Roland (sponge diver)
<jonatho...@ispname.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:58:47 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:54:19 -0800 (PST), "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for
>>over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Signing over POA, complete control of a piece of rubbish in 2002
>>
>>Try to keep up, dumbass. It was in 2005.
>>
>>Here it is, moron.
>>
>>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
>>
>>You can recognize it from the signature of Mike Rinder, who was then
>>chief of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs.
>>
>>Nice that Rinder and Bob and Stacy were still having good times in 2005.
>>
>>The difference between Rinder and Minton is that Rinder, unlike Minton,
>>is no longer serving Scientology
>
>I have faith in Mr. Mike Rinder.
Correction:
You have "fecks" in Mr. Rinder in the old willy word sense relevant to
this social forum, not "faith", in whatever useless abstract sense
that has no meaning in print.
The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
**Fecks \Fecks\, n.
A corruption of the word faith. --Shak.
[1913 Webster] feculae
>He has integrity.
>
>Love,
>-- Jonathon
Integrity \In*teg"ri*ty\, n. [L. integritas: cf. F.
int['e]grit['e]. See Integer, and cf. Entirety.]
[1913 Webster]
1. The state or quality of being entire or complete;
wholeness; entireness; unbroken state; as, the integrity
of an empire or territory. --Sir T. More.
[1913 Webster]"
from WordNet (r) 2.0 :
*Asshole: (literal complete meaning)
Excretory opening at the end of the alimentary canal [syn: anus,
arse, arsehole]
Gilbert Roland (sponge diver)
http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/westerns/gilbertroland/gilbertroland2.jpg
琦laka~
--
--
Diving for Minton POA sponges as to sponge 'go ahead' "why" source:
http://www.pixpeep.com/pix/sponge_diver.jpg
Is 'henri' really rhetoritician swami Carl Levin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdsj3dTTM7A&feature=related
[ARS wants to know]
Is 'Arnie' really Robert Byrd trying to 'boot out' "Code Pink"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmifC7weWnY
[ARS wants to know]
How to remove tikks using 'Tikk Twister':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcW3E3jNv8I
[do to tikks what they do to your pets]
//
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
JAFAW
"t_shuffle" <thorazin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ej7yj.9168$Ru4....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> 'scuse the top posting, but... Minton turning tail and fucking everyone
has
> become pretty much irrelevant. Get over it. There are much larger things
> afoot.
>
Anonymous is nobody's private army but, as a byproduct of their ongoing
actions, the stalemate in this movie case could eventually be broken by
default (or at least made simpler by the scientology element being taken out
of the equation).
Tom Newton
> On February 16, Dave Touretzky posted the url to a clip of
> The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen at www.theprofit.org
>
The Catholic Church is a 10,000 times as wealthy as the Scientology Church.
Much of that wealth came, and comes, from de facto peasants in the the
'third world' countries where the Catholic Church is still dominant.
Especially Central and South America, these days.
These are incredibly poor people by modern standards.
Now let's throw in the paedophile priests and the ownership of
businesses around the globe that exploit the hell out of even
poorer people under the rule of despotic governments supported by
the Catholoc Church, and you have a real picture of a global evil
that makes the Church of Scientology look like a host of angels.
So why are these people after the Church of Scientology instead
of the Catholic Church?
Because they perceive the Church of Scientology to be weak enough
for them to destroy.
They aren't interested in justice or making the planet a better
place. They want to destroy something. And they don't want to
get hurt or have to work too hard to do it.
They don't want to have their identities exposed so that they
will have to assume the responsibilities for their actions and
words.
And if they took on the Catholic Church, supporter of the
allies of the Nazis in WWII, the Italian-based Fascists,
that would happen in a hurry.
<snip>
Tom
--
calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>I'm just don't think you're going for the greatest good for the greatest
>number of dynamics here.
Well ~I'm~ just think you need extensive deprogramming.
D
----------------
"But you see that line there
moving through the station?
I told you, I told you, told you,
I was one of those" - L Cohen
barb
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:51:05 GMT, "Feisty" <Lerma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would wonder why the parties involved cannot talk about it? Have they been
>>> gagged or paid?
>>> (or already been?)
>> Can you read? The new material I posted was from www.theprofit.org
>> which is run by one of the parties.
>
> Yes I understood. I meant why can't they post and discuss here instead of you,
> but guess that's a redundant question.
> Maureen
>
>
rational, and he's totally ignoring the assumptions Henri corrected,
choosing rather to call names instead. Why would anyone voluntarily
subject themselves to that kind of treatment?
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
I can haz Legion?
“I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don’t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.”
--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC
barb
> On Feb 29, 9:39 pm, Skipper <dadwri...@gmail.not> wrote:
>> Propitiative minions are not bought. They are hypnotized, drained of
>> their resources, and shamed into joining the Sea Organization.
>
> What about regular, garden-variety minions?
>
> I think that having any sort of minion would be kind of handy.
>
> If they do laundry, that is.
In some states, those are called 'wives.'
henri
>I might also point out that Peter and Patricia took $2.5 million from Bob.
No, PETER ALEXANDER agreed to form an LLC with Bob, for the purposes of
making a movie. While the nutcases on this newsgroup, including you, like
to drag Patricia into this, she had no ownership interest in the money
whatsoever. Neither did Peter. He did act and continues to try to act
in the interests of the LLC.
This they, in fact, did. Peter wasn't paid just to pocket it and take off,
which he didn't do. Bob has never even contested this or
made any substantial allegation of fraud.
He could have, simply by showing up, had a full accounting of every dime
spent and what it went to. He chose not to do this. What he wanted was a
list of NAMES. When he could not get a list of NAMES, for SCIENTOLOGY,
he dropped the issue entirely.
>Somehow Bob has no problem with allowing my videos to continue to be
>distributed. I've not gotten a threatening letter from Bob or Scientology.
>Although now I have silly remarks about me from Lirot in his letter.
>It might have something to do with the way Peter and Patricia treated their
>full partner and the fact that Bob probably doesn't feel he'll ever see a
>dime out of the movie and doesn't want to hear about it again.
This is because of his agreement with Scientology. Cult lawyer Monique Yingling
had it in her notes and in her testimony touched on how the film should
"never see the light of day." Bob Minton was publicly enthusiastic about the
film until he was blackmailed into changing sides.
>Peter and Patricia didn't need to piss away Bob's friendship but they did
>and they put their project in jeopardy by their actions as much as by Bob's
>actions.
It wasn't Peter and Patricia who met with Bob and Stacy, without
lawyers present, before recanted all his previous testimony and statements about
Scientology, Bob testified Scientology critics were worse than Scientology,
Stacy Brooks testified that Scientology didn't kill Lisa McPherson, and then
Bob went and did everything cult lawyer Monique Yingling demanded of him
in the list in her handwritten notes:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/exhibits/191.html
It certainly wasn't Peter and Patricia who horrified Bob so badly at what
he had to do next, for Scientology, that after the meeting, Bob had to go
outside and throw up in the bushes. Do you think Bob was happy with the
decision he just made about what he was going to do?
3 And on Saturday when we went over and talked to --
4 talked to them, we were there for quite a while before
5 Mr. Minton said, you know, "I have got to go outside for a
6 break." And we went outside and he just started gagging at
7 the idea of what he was about to start doing. You know, it
8 was like, in our minds, it was so treasonous, so traitorous
9 to do that. And then we looked at each other and he said,
10 "Okay, let's go." Then he started telling them what was
11 really going on in the case.
Stacy Brooks
So, no, your contention that Bob Minton just rationally and calmly came
to these decisions of his own volition, and that they just randomly coincided
with a meeting with Scientology so brutal that he had to go out and throw
up in horror at what he was about to do, doesn't have any credibility at all.
You really have to ignore a lot of the reality of the circumstances of when
Bob Minton suddenly decided he hated the movie, no longer thought Scientology
killed Lisa McPherson, and all these other decisions, which just happened to be
on the to-do list he was given by Scientology lawyer Monique E. Yingling to
avoid disclosure of whatever he was afraid of.
Unless he is a man of extraordinarily weak fiber, it had to be something truly
bad. Do you disagree? If so, what is your factual basis for it?
henri
>Tikk, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you because I'm not working on
>Bob's behalf. I have my opinions of the movie. I've expressed them. I've
>laid out what I saw take place and how I feel things turned out. And I was
>wrong in my prediction about he clip.
>I still say the film should be released.
Well, it's nice we can find something to agree on.
R. Hill
<snip>
> Dennis is right when he says that I am certainly not above criticism. Henri
> was right when he posts the documents showing that Bob no longer wishes the
> headaches of the film. I am right when I say the film sucks.
>
> All these things are true.
Mark, as an outside observer to this whole thing, I can't make sense
of "Bob no longer wishes the headaches of the film." It's not what the
documents show (and with Mike Rinder's signature on it!) Really
wanting "no more headaches" might involve taking a loss and move on,
but that is not what is happening here.
Ray.
henri
>On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:56:58 -0800, "Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>I might also point out that Peter and Patricia took $2.5 million from Bob.
>No, PETER ALEXANDER agreed to form an LLC with Bob, for the purposes of
>making a movie. While the nutcases on this newsgroup, including you, like
>to drag Patricia into this, she had no ownership interest in the money
>whatsoever. Neither did Peter. He did act and continues to try to act
>in the interests of the LLC.
To clarify: he has an ownership interest in the LLC. But he had no direct
ownership interest in the money, such that he could legally dispose of it
according to his own wishes. Minton and Alexander are fiduciaries
with respect to each other. Neither Minton nor Alexander have the
option to dispose of or damage the property of the LLC to the detriment
of the other.
Thus, Minton's bad faith efforts to bury the film are in violation of this
duty. Scientology, by using Minton as a cat's paw, is illegally interfering
with the free speech rights of Peter Alexander, as well as financially
harming him.
(I suppose we'll get the usual clown car of dimwits at this point honking
their clown noses, spraying seltzer water, and telling us Scientology's illegal
practices in shutting down its critics and trying to financially ruin them
is irrelevant, at least if that critic is Peter Alexander.)
Henri Ladd
> On 2008-03-01, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On February 16, Dave Touretzky posted the url to a clip of
>>The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen at www.theprofit.org
>>
>
>
> The Catholic Church is a 10,000 times as wealthy as the Scientology Church.
>
> Much of that wealth came, and comes, from de facto peasants in the the
> 'third world' countries where the Catholic Church is still dominant.
> Especially Central and South America, these days.
That's interesting Tom, because I thought that it was the other way
around--just the opposite. I know from my personal experience of
funding a child in South America through the Christian Children's Fund,
in which the benefits of well-to-do Christians are distributed to the
poor by the Catholic church.
In my case the Catholics maintain a school for the children of poor
people to go to, and provide nutritional, and medical services. The
poorer families are the beneficiaries of the money that the more
fortunate Catholics send to aid their brothers.
Of course there are the thousands of Catholic hospitals around the world
who benefit poor people, and well-to-do people as well. For I am one of
those persons, having had two open heart surgeries in two different
Catholic hospitals. I've never been to a Church of Scientology hospital,
because they don't exist. I've never heard of a free school where
children to go to that was wronged by the Church of Scientology. I've
never heard of any form of benevolence given freely by the Church of
Scientology, other the hack literature designed to entrap new members
for victimization.
Scientology's mockery of Christian compassion is an insult to Christians
everywhere. Scientology is the antithesis of Christian compassion and
real charity.
tikk
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:56:58 -0800, "Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I might also point out that Peter and Patricia took $2.5 million from Bob.
>
> No, PETER ALEXANDER agreed to form an LLC with Bob, for the purposes of
> making a movie. While the nutcases on this newsgroup, including you, like
> to drag Patricia into this, she had no ownership interest in the money
> whatsoever. Neither did Peter. He did act and continues to try to act
> in the interests of the LLC.
>
> This they, in fact, did. Peter wasn't paid just to pocket it and take off,
> which he didn't do. Bob has never even contested this or
> made any substantial allegation of fraud.
Exactly. If Bob has a problem with how the money was spent, his remedy
is to go to arbitration, as the agreement stipulates. His refusal to do
so speaks volumes, and leads to the obvious conclusion that he--and
Scientology--would instead prefer use his connection to the film to
prevent its release. But instead of moving to arbitration, Bob uses
Lerma and Bunker to insinuate all sorts of evil being perpetrated by
Patricia and Peter. If this sleazy whisper campaign had any merit
whatsoever, Bob could air his grievances to an arbitrator. But
Scienotlogy isn't interested in Bob going to arbitration, because then
the matter might be resolved and the film might be able to be released.
So instead of resolution, this newsgroup receives on a nearly daily
basis unsubstantiated, defamatory bile from Lerma and Bunker about the
evil Patricia Greenway, who doesn't even post here. And because Lerma
and Bunker are otherwise generally revered by other critics, very few
people call them on it. And those that do call them on it get screeched
at for 'dredging up the whole Minton thing again,' or the more subtle
plea/lament as to why we call can't just get along. But Minton is still
working on behalf of Scientology, as McGowan's recent letter amply
demonstrates, and the people who argue on Minton's behalf with regard to
the evil that Patricia and Peter supposedly perpetrated might as well be
working on behalf of Scientology too, even if they're not bright enough
to be aware of it.
~ tikk
Henri Ladd
> On 2008-03-01, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On February 16, Dave Touretzky posted the url to a clip of
>>The Profit to this newsgroup. It can be seen at www.theprofit.org
>>
>
>
> The Catholic Church is a 10,000 times as wealthy as the Scientology Church.
>
> Much of that wealth came, and comes, from de facto peasants in the the
> 'third world' countries where the Catholic Church is still dominant.
> Especially Central and South America, these days.
That's interesting Tom, because I thought that it was the other way
around--just the opposite. I know from my personal experience of
funding a child in South America through the Christian Children's Fund,
in which the benefits of well-to-do Christians are distributed to the
poor by the Catholic church.
In my case the Catholics maintain a school for the children of poor
people to go to, and provide nutritional, and medical services. The
poorer families are the beneficiaries of the money that the more
fortunate Catholics send to aid their brothers.
Of course there are the thousands of Catholic hospitals around the world
who benefit poor people, and well-to-do people as well. For I am one of
those persons, having had two open heart surgeries in two different
Catholic hospitals. I've never been to a Church of Scientology hospital,
because they don't exist. I've never heard of a free school for children
to go to that was run by the Church of Scientology. I've never heard of
code name six
Dennis what a surprise! I have been lurking here for a few weeks and
saw your postings. I hope everything is going well for you. I think
it's been 18-19 years since you and I met along with DB.
Did you know that DB died of cancer last year? It was quite a surprise
to me.
I'm in the process of blowing, and am still living in California. Maybe
someday we can meet again. :-)
Be well,
Doug J.
R. Hill
<snip>
> Dennis is right when he says that I am certainly not above criticism. Henri
> was right when he posts the documents showing that Bob no longer wishes the
> headaches of the film. I am right when I say the film sucks.
>
> All these things are true.
Mark, as an outside observer to this whole thing, I can't make sense
of "Bob no longer wishes the headaches of the film." It's not what the
documents show (and with Mike Rinder's signature on it!) Really
wanting "no more headaches" might involve taking a loss and move on,
but that is not what is happening here.
I should add also that as an outside observer to this whole thing, I
think it's silly to depict you as intent on "damag[ing] and try[ing]
to destroy this important film," (as seen at http://www.theprofit.org/lirot208.htm
) just because you happen to have an opinion about the movie. One
should be able to have an opinion on a movie one saw without being
presumed malicious.
Ray.
Out_Of_The_Dark
I agree. This is why the United Kingdom won't give CoS Charity status.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>Dennis what a surprise! I have been lurking here for a few weeks and
>saw your postings. I hope everything is going well for you.
Yes, all's well with me, Doug.
>I think
>it's been 18-19 years since you and I met along with DB.
I'm sorry but I can't place your name, nor does DB ring a bell.
>Did you know that DB died of cancer last year? It was quite a surprise
>to me.
Sorry to hear it. I wish I knew who DB was.
>I'm in the process of blowing, and am still living in California. Maybe
>someday we can meet again. :-)
It's possible.
>Be well,
>Doug J.
Thanks, Doug. Refresh my memory, please.
D
swat2p...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:55:53 GMT, "JAFAW" <a...@anon.net> wrote:
> >Please tell us what you whining fuckers think Mr.Bunker could do to help
> >speed along the release of The Profit. I'm sure he'd do anything to help,
> >except lie.
> >Perhaps you'd just like him to refrain from exercising his right to freedom
> >of speech. That would be ironic, wouldn't it?
>
> I was just pointing out that he was wrong when he made his stupid prediction.
Tom Cruise the profit........
Friendly Xenu
>Scientology's mockery of Christian compassion is an insult to Christians
>everywhere. Scientology is the antithesis of Christian compassion and
>real charity.
A lot of Christian "charities" are frauds. Jim Bakker was running a
Christian fraud claiming to be sending money and "missionaries" to
Africa, raking in the money from his insane Christian moron followers
by the millions daily. The insane Christian criminal even had
"on the scene" video of his miracle work in Africa -- which turned out
to be a sound stage in one of his Christian homosexual buttfucking
friend's residence.
Scientology isn't a religion, it's organized crime. But actual religions
are very much organized crime, far worse than most actual religions out
there.
---
"Don't threaten me, chuckles. I might be the mask
standing right next to you some day." -- Cousin Barb
code name six
> code name six <an...@anon.anon> wrote:
>
>
>>Dennis what a surprise! I have been lurking here for a few weeks and
>>saw your postings. I hope everything is going well for you.
>
>
> Yes, all's well with me, Doug.
>
>
>>I think
>>it's been 18-19 years since you and I met along with DB.
>
>
> I'm sorry but I can't place your name, nor does DB ring a bell.
I don't think I should be more specific than this given my circumstances
but think about what people like to spread on their toast or a brand
of pancake syrup ;-)
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>I don't think I should be more specific than this given my circumstances
> but think about what people like to spread on their toast or a brand
>of pancake syrup ;-)
I'm at www.informer.org or on Undernet channel #altreligionscientology
if you want to chat.
D
Alert
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:42:35 -0800 (PST), Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Ahh, but it is.
> > *This* (not "a power of attorney", but the one that >I< am referring
> >to speciifically) POA clearly states McGowan or his successor can say/
> >do *anything* related to Courage "and all things" at the supposed
> >behest of Minton.
> >Strange that the POA should never ever *ever* apply to anything now or
> >in the future *other* than to Courage and all "things" related?
> This is boilerplate language.
It doesnt change *anything* in regard to what Mintons POA enables the
holder to do and attribute it as if it were drections from Minton.
" full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof".
> You don't know what it means.
It means what it implicitly says. Its not by interpretation.
POA will only ever. now and forever, no matter what, apply to "all
things" related to Courage.
> Amazingly,
> you continue not knowing what it means despite it being explained to you,
> slowly, in small words,
I can read, I dont need it explained or written off as "just another
boilerplate POA"
Why havent *you* elucidated the terms of "durable" or "ordinary" in
the 2 major POA's, cum-stain that you are?
> rather like you are the fucking moron that you,
> indeed, are. Despite this, your skull remains impermeable, an
> unstoppable barrier to any clue, no matter how heavy, and no matter
> the velocity with which it is hurled.
Awww, the little dancing monkey is getting angry. Ask ya fuckin organ-
grinder for some peanuts, pushead.
>
> You can get nearly identical POA forms in any practice manual.
Nearly identical? Youre screaming that is boilerplate and imply that
its a generic POA. Yet, youre now saying "nearly identical"?
Give yaself a right-cross, you drooling softcock
> Your baffling
> stupidity in the face of repeated explanations defies the understanding
> of mere mortals.
There arent "explanations", only shrieking shit that THIS POA doesnt
mean what it says. Again, its not via interpretation, wingnut.
> It may, in fact, be actually impossible to express the
> sheer depths of your willful ignorance using only human language.
Where is the ignorance in knowing what the POA says and the
possibility it was surrendered under some sort of duress. Ya know that
duress that had Minton capitulate in the first place?
>
> Your fantasies to the contrary, there is absolutely nothing special about
> this document.
You keep saying it, but it doesnt change:
" full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof".
> It will continue not to have any of the legal meaning you
> ascribe to it, no matter how obdurately you remain convinced of your
> own imbecilic assertions, which are uninformed by even the glimmerings
> of the tiniest shiny bit of illuminating information.
Im not attaching *any* meaning to the POA, YOU are.
It says what it says and means what it means. No matter how many times
you say it doesnt mean anything out of the "ordinary".
" full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof".
>
> Congratulations on exceeding all previously known limits on ars stupidity.
Congratulations on considering yourself the harbinger of all things
when it comes to intent/meaning of *this* POA, dickhead.
http://www.theprofit.org/PROFIT-McGowen%20letter%20to%20stop%20release/PROFIT-Minton%20to%20McGowan%20Power%20of%20Attny.JPG
After all, its not as if the cult has a long history of circumventing
Law, threatening people, buying peolpe, killing people etc etc etc.
henri
wrote:
>There arent "explanations", only shrieking shit that THIS POA doesnt
>mean what it says. Again, its not via interpretation, wingnut.
It won't mean what you think it does no matter how much you jump up and
down and cry. Sorry you're too stupid to be helped. Must suck to go
through life incurably ignorant.
The concept of what a POA is and does is very simple to understand.
I'm amazed at your abject inability to understand what nobody else
has any trouble with.
But go ahead and believe what you want, and best of
luck in your life of cretinism. You'll need it.
Alert
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:31:05 -0800 (PST), Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There arent "explanations", only shrieking shit that THIS POA doesnt
> >mean what it says. Again, its not via interpretation, wingnut.
> It won't mean what you think it does no matter how much you jump up and
> down and cry. Sorry you're too stupid to be helped. Must suck to go
> through life incurably ignorant.
It means what it dictates your snott infested throwback.
Not by interpretation
> The concept of what a POA is and does is very simple to understand.
> I'm amazed at your abject inability to understand what nobody else
> has any trouble with.
Nice avoidance of several points I made. Dont address "ordinary" or
"durable" with relation to "wah wah its a boilerplate POA"
shitface
>
> But go ahead and believe what you want,
Its not a belief thing, lickspittle. The wording is clear, the intent
is clear.
The only thing unclear is if Minton again capitualted through being
under some sort of duress.
Minton fucked up, his fuck-up fucked up other parties, period..
> and best of
> luck in your life of cretinism. You'll need it.
Ohhh, Im so fucking in awe of you henri. Im so jealous I dont lead you
wonderous pontificating life immersed in the Internet and posses your
mundane ability to insult anyone that wont agree with how you want
things to be in actuality.
Go fuck yaself ya pontificating, self congratulatory, narcissitic
fuckwit.
Hows them for drunken rants, ya softcock?
Mark Bunker
I never said any of those things. I have said in the past what I witnessed
which was Bob being driven to the brink of dispair and suicide by the legal
onslaught of Scientology, being slapped with another $10 million dollar suit
over aiding Gerry Armstrong and threatened with another $30 million RICO
suit when they sat down to attempt to settle every legal matter except
McPherson.
All the time this was going on, Patricia was leading her gang to constant
backstabbing assaults that further broke his spirit, desire and ability to
fight on. So, good move there for a person in charge of sheparding the $2.5
million investment to the screen. That's some fine producing for you.
And yes, throwing up in the bushes was a clear indication of how difficult
it was to go through all this.
> You really have to ignore a lot of the reality of the circumstances of
> when
> Bob Minton suddenly decided he hated the movie, no longer thought
> Scientology
> killed Lisa McPherson, and all these other decisions, which just happened
> to be
> on the to-do list he was given by Scientology lawyer Monique E. Yingling
> to
> avoid disclosure of whatever he was afraid of.
>
> Unless he is a man of extraordinarily weak fiber, it had to be something
> truly
> bad. Do you disagree? If so, what is your factual basis for it?
Where did Bob say he hated the movie? Patricia continually has one of you
re-post his message of support for the film after I published my review.
What Bob said on the stand and reported in the St. Pete Times was, "This is
too hard. I don't want to do it anymore. I can't do it anymore."
Everyone has a breaking point. Even Mike Rinder.
Roan
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:31:05 -0800 (PST), Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com>
So, what...? Is there like 2 or 3 people left in the world today who
remain mesmerized, hypnotized and controlled by Patricia Greenway?!?
Wake up dude. How does it feel to be The Last Of The (gypsy) Mohicans
in that regard? Do you wash her underwear too?
Do you think using the word 'fuck' in every other sentence makes your
arguments more powerful?!? You come across as a petulant,
brainwashed, psuedo-intellectual, laundry boy.
Scientology will come crashing down within the next year or so and one
of the great things about that is how irrelevant their current free-
fall makes your ilk.
henri
>Everyone has a breaking point. Even Mike Rinder.
Rinder's actions should be an inspiration to Minton. If even Rinder can
stop being Scientology's slave, so can Bob.
Mark Bunker
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:42:47 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:56:58 -0800, "Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>I might also point out that Peter and Patricia took $2.5 million from
>>>Bob.
>
>>No, PETER ALEXANDER agreed to form an LLC with Bob, for the purposes of
>>making a movie. While the nutcases on this newsgroup, including you, like
>>to drag Patricia into this, she had no ownership interest in the money
>>whatsoever. Neither did Peter. He did act and continues to try to act
>>in the interests of the LLC.
>
> To clarify: he has an ownership interest in the LLC. But he had no
> direct
> ownership interest in the money, such that he could legally dispose of it
> according to his own wishes. Minton and Alexander are fiduciaries
> with respect to each other. Neither Minton nor Alexander have the
> option to dispose of or damage the property of the LLC to the detriment
> of the other.
So was it Patricia or Lirot who wanted you to clarify?
> Thus, Minton's bad faith efforts to bury the film are in violation of this
> duty. Scientology, by using Minton as a cat's paw, is illegally
> interfering
> with the free speech rights of Peter Alexander, as well as financially
> harming him.
You know, even I'm finally tiring of talking about "The Profit." But it
sounds like Peter would have a good case to try in court and I wish him
well.
Now, Peter certainly has the free rights speech to make another movie
without Bob's involvement. God speed.
henri
wrote:
>Ohhh, Im so fucking in awe of you henri. Im so jealous I dont lead you
>wonderous pontificating life immersed in the Internet and posses your
>mundane ability to insult anyone that wont agree with how you want
>things to be in actuality.
>Go fuck yaself ya pontificating, self congratulatory, narcissitic
>fuckwit.
>Hows them for drunken rants, ya softcock?
Well, you're certainly drunk. I'll give you that.
---
Because some people with a total lack of knowledge of the law
insist on perpetrating myths about the McGowan/Minton POA, a
routine document the only significant aspect of which is that it is witnessed by
then-OSA chief Mike Rinder, I'm going to explain it.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
It's a completely generic form POA. The wording is pretty much identical to
the kind of form document that is at the back of any practice manual on the
subject of agency, Nolo books, and other such sources. In this case, it's so
common in Florida that this court site has one online that is certainly based on
the same source as whatever McGowan used:
The archaic and somewhat unusual opening "Know All Men by These Premises,"
which is usually "Know All Men by These Presents," and these days, is usually
not gender-specific, seems to be a quirk of Florida practice.
This form authorizes the attorney to act in the interests of the principal, this
attorney's client. It is revocable at the sole discretion of the principal.
It would be revocable even if it purported not to be. This is settled law.
The only substantial difference between Minton's POA and this generic
fill it out yourself POA that you can get some version of from any
do-it-yourself manual is that Minton's specifically states that McGowan
can't sell, devise, or otherwise transfer the asset. A POA ordinarily
does not have to state this, because an attorney is a fiduciary bound not
to do such things, otherwise facing disbarment and criminal prosecution.
Therefore, if anything, this POA displays LESS trust than is ordinarily shown
to an attorney appointed via a normal, everyday, plain old POA agreement
with no sinister meaning whatsoever, the meaning of which is completely
clear to any competent practitioner. It is baffling that anyone could fail to
understand this when it is explained simply.
A power of attorney is nothing more mystical or complex than a simple
instrument, easily understandable, which appoints another person to
perform acts as the agent of another. This requires authorization in
writing. The written instrument itself is what is used to prove agency,
should anyone question it.
It empowers the attorney in fact (in this case also an attorney at law)
to do nothing more than the will of the principal.
In the case of the McGowan POA, it doesn't even do that. McGowan
couldn't even sell the property with Minton's authorization. Because of the
terms of the POA, Minton would have to execute a separate agreement
to do that, not to mention that nobody would purchase a property from
an agent who wasn't even authorized to sell.
Anyone who's still having difficulty should consult
3 Am Jur 2d Agency งง 21-26 or other elementary explanations, though
anyone still having difficulty at this point is probably incapable of
understanding legal sources at all.
Mark Bunker
See, and you didn't even have to curse.