Criminal Questionnaire - Latest Update
SME
of David Miscavige as well as others connected with the top management
of the Church of Scientology.
For those interested in seeing a link to the criminal investigation
questionnaire, you can find it at:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=468
Since this has been posted at least here on ars, on XSO and on the
ExScn sites many people have contacted me and expressed interest in
this subject. Some have or are giving the information they have but
most who agree with the action want to do something about it but feel
they really can't do much for one of the three following reasons:
I. They have information on abuses, lies and/or crimes not
specifically covered by the questionnaire. They want to help but there
are no questions that cover exactly what they have to say.
To these people I recommend that you just send what information you
have to Factnet as covered by the questionnaire. Those designing the
questionnaire could not think of all possible questions and will
welcome any information you have that is in the spirit of such an
investigation. It is intended to expand the questionnaire and anyone
with specific suggestions for doing so, should email them to the
Factnet email address on the questionnaire.
In the meantime, please feel free to send whatever information you
have.
II. Some people very much want to see the end of crimes and abuses and
want to see justice done for past and/or current misdeeds but feel
nothing will come of this investigation as "the Church" is just "too
powerful" in the legal arena to fight.
To these people I say that is exactly what "the church" wants you to
think so that you will in fact do nothing. They are not an "all
powerful" legal team by any means. The facts are that they have a lot
of money and can tie you up in legal for years. And who of us as
individuals can afford to fight that way, even when we know we are
right?
But you are not being asked to finance any legal action against them.
All you are being asked for is honest information you may want to
share that will help others take specific actions against those
responsible for crimes and abuses. To the extent that class action
suits may come about, I am confident you would be welcomed to join
that class to the extent that your situation is relevant to the action
at hand. As stated in the questionnaire, the information gathered is
planned to be used as follows:
"It will be used to force Scientology to stop abusing its members,
former members, and critics through ethical use of justice systems
throughout the world.
1) It will be used to assemble summary reports for government agencies
responsible to protect the public safety and mental health. These
summary reports will compel the various government agencies to open
new investigations into Scientology.
2) It will help to file new legal actions in the U.S. and other
countries such as a civil RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act) lawsuit, and an "all past victims" class action
lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme court recently ruled that the RICO statutes
could be used against groups forwarding ideological positions if a
pattern could be shown of threatened violence, harassment, or actual
violence. This ruling in an abortion rights case broadens RICO use
beyond organized crime in the traditional sense to include cases like
Scientology.
3) It will assist ongoing civil or criminal litigation.
4) It will be used to challenge the fraud of Scientology's non profit
or religious tax exempt status with the IRS in the U.S. and with
similar agencies in other countries.
5) It will assist investigative media reporters seeking to call the
public's attention to Scientology's ongoing human rights abuses."
As you can see, there are many ways to fight crimes and abuses than
just some individual civil action. There are group actions that can be
taken, there is the civil RICO case building, etc. And, just like they
have "shuddered" so many into silence so can the real truth be used to
"shudder" governments, press and others into ACTION.
Their "success" in hiding lies and crimes and currently having a
relatively "quiet" legal front is not only because they will spend a
lot of money to stop opposition. It is also because those who have
real grievances that could be addressed legally often try to fight on
grounds where "the church" can more easily defend itself using statute
of limitation factors and religious cloaking.
I submit that there are plenty of other legal methods to address
wrongs done to you that are very fact intensive and where the facts
relevant to such cases will in fact expose their crimes and abuses.
Such actions can be taken if only as counter suits when they file any
"fair game" legal actions to try to silence you.
But, again, the point here is that all that is asked for in the
questionnaire is information that many people want to share. No one is
being asked to finance anything.
III. The most common "barrier" I see from people who want to help is
that many of them contacting me feel that, while they have first hand
information of crimes, cover-ups and the like, they do not have enough
information to really make a difference.
To them I say that I firmly believe that there is enough information
out right now on the web and that people have and want to share to
bring the criminal elements of this organization down now.
What "the church" depends on is no one bringing all that information
together again and do something that will really expose it to the
light of day.
In times past when people were really impinging on "the church"
legally (be it back in the Flynn days in Boston, or the Wollersheim
actions or others) it was because many people, each with pieces of the
puzzle, came together and were presenting a compelling overall picture
of the truth. Not one individual had enough information in and of
himself/herself to make a huge difference. But, together they had a
very compelling case.
Let me give a very small example of this:
Here is a little posting I did on ars some time ago to point out one
lie that DM made in a declaration in one court case. Basically, he
said he was not involved in the early 80s corporate sortout. Then my
posting compared it to an RTC website praising DM saying he authored
the corporate sortout:
Does it show at least one lie? Yes, it obviously does.
Is it enough to "bring down" the criminal elements in this
organization? No, not at all. If confronted with this fact in court
they will try to show that it is irrelevant to the case at hand. If
they were not successful with that argument, they would try to lie
their way out of it and will likely be successful in doing same. They
can say that the people who wrote that about DM on that website just
innocently "over embellished" the truth or that this one little
"mistake" truly proves nothing.
How about if I combined that lie in the Wollersheim vs. CSC case from
1999 with an example of a lie DM made in another case in another year.
Let's say from the C of S International vs. Fishman/Geertz case from
1994 where DM said this:
"Vaughn Young completely misstates my relationship to the plaintiff
Church of Scientology International. Young claims that I somehow
direct, manage and control every facet of CSI's operations and
activities. This also is ludicrous. CSI has well over a thousand staff
members who deal with international promotion and dissemination
efforts, evaluate situations in Scientology churches around the world,
and provide plans and programs that give guidance to these churches.
This is the activity of international and middle management of CSI,
which has an entirely different purpose and sphere of activity than
RTC. My job as Chairman of the Board involves many functions, but does
not include management of CSI or any other Scientology church. I do
not create corporate strategy nor do I direct or manage the personnel
of CSI. I do not remove CSI's directors or officers. I do not run CSI
or its executives. Anyone who would testify to the contrary is either
uninformed or untrustworthy".
Do you know how completely easy it is to show several points of
perjury in just that one paragraph?
So now let's say we have a lie in a 1999 declaration for one case
combined with a lie in a 1994 declaration in another case. Is this
enough? Not hardly. Yes it shows a person comfortable with lying but,
in and of itself, is not all that much in a civil legal action.
How about the fact that I can point out scores of other lies DM has
made in both of those affidavits? Is that enough to bring about some
form of justice? I doubt it very much.
How about the fact that I can show that DM has consistently made such
lies under penalty of perjury in even more cases? Will take make a
difference? It might. They will have to attack my credibility or
honestly just like they have done to many others who were in fact
being honest.
But here's the real kicker! How about if the information I have is
combined with direct, first hand information from many other credible
sources that show clearly a long term pattern of lies, fraud and cover
ups. And let's say this covers declarations he has filed in court
cases, testimony he has given in different cases and in such things as
throughout many filings done with governmental bodies like the IRS?
And let's say all these things combined show a compelling story of
using such lies to gain tax and other advantages, to silence "critics"
when the critics were right, to destroy the credibility and livelihood
or others, etc.. Well....can you spell "R I C O" ? Can you spell
"governmental investigations"? Can you spell "successful civil suits"?
Can you spell "revocation of tax exemption"?
Here are links to two of DM's declarations in civil suits that contain
many inaccuracies and out right lies:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-miscavige-1994-02-08.html#armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-miscavige-1999-09-24.html
Shortly, other records of testimonies will be webbed and made
available to you such as testimony DM made in a case with Lilly.
Yet more things will be webbed covering key statements in order to
gain tax exemptions.
All that is asked is if you have first hand information and want to do
something to correct injustices or other wrongs, then share it as part
of the questionnaire matter. Sooner or later all such facts can be
combined to give a truly compelling story that can be used for all
actions listed earlier.
And the above is only a tiny, tiny piece of the puzzle. People are
telling me all kinds of things that relate to lies, fraud, cover-ups,
etc. on much more than what is covered above.
It is my belief that when all possible facts are known, you will see
many huge cover-ups including such things as what they did in the
early 90s with "records" for the likes of RRF, CSC and others to try
to give the IRS a grossly false picture.
But there is so much more. For example, look at this link:
http://www.skeptictank.org/gs/crimtime.htm#ReignOfTerror
It's not at all important whether or not you agree with the writers
about keeping Hubbard tech pure and the like. I respect many of the
people from that camp, as I respect others who want nothing to do with
Hubbard's writings.
What's important is much of what is written in that link.
For example, did DM and Pat Broker really have a power struggle as
covered in this link? You know one reason why that is relevant? It's
because DM did say in a court declaration that he never had a power
struggle with Pat as Pat had no power, not being on any corporate
board. Most of us know that statement of power within organized
scientology having to do with you being on a board is a complete joke.
Is it true that DM was in fact almost busted by Pat and was Jesse
Price truthful in his web filing that DM was in tears when he thought
he was going down and said he was bringing others down with him? If
you know the truth first hand, tell it! It can make a big difference
in the overall compelling story of the truth to expose the lies behind
it.
Is it true that DM's group (ASI) lost up to $50 million of Hubbard's
money in oil speculation and DM carried out or had carried out many
fraudulent or other awful actions to make up the $50 million before
his losses were found out by Hubbard? How pathetic it would be to find
out that so many were horribly abused so that such things as the $40
million plus funneled to Hubbard by DM in 1982 happened (see Homer
Shomer testimony and Hana declaration) and were simply to cover his
own ass from being busted by Hubbard!!!! Is it true that the "LRH
properties" sold for millions of dollars were based on lies made up by
DM and never really sanctioned by Hubbard? For example, there was that
special Battlefield Earth book in the wooden case "signed by Hubbard"
as a limited edition "special property". Were the 500 or so copies of
this book really signed by either DM or Norman Starkey and not in fact
by LRH? If so, how many people were defrauded on just this one example
for millions of dollars. I know I forgave $20,000 of one person's debt
for a copy of that book "signed by Hubbard" (how dumb was I then?
lol). If true, I was a victim of clear-cut fraud and so were many
others.
I'm not saying this example is true but someone out there knows and
should speak up if true as it's just another of hundreds of examples
of things that can be written up and put together as that overall
compelling story of truth.
Bottom line here is that whatever one has in this area IS valuable
and, should they wish to share it, they really do have the opportunity
now as per that Factnet questionnaire matter.
I can tell you now that people are taking notice again. There are
attorneys, press, book writers, and soon I believe, governmental
contacts that are taking notice and are going to do something about
this.
It doesn't matter if we all agree on everything here. It only matters
that people who want to be involved want the truth to be out and wish
the lies, the crimes and abuses to end.
/ END OF PLUG ON QUESTIONNAIRE /
/ START OF CONCLUDING PERSONAL NOTE /
I myself, for example, am not focused on the scientology attorneys
like Moxen, etc. and others who I feel not to be behind initiating the
lies and abuses. Also, I've never personally seen, for example, Rinder
beating someone or initiating some major fraud.
This doesn't mean I am correct or right. It's just that I am
personally not focused there based on the facts I personally have.
I know of people there like Ellen who have been stuck with lies and
frauds and desperately has tried to gloss over financial records in
some hope she is "saving the good parts of her religion" by doing so
while she attributes the frauds to others like Vicki P., etc. I just
wish she could realize that things like what Vicki did to get Hubbard
money decades ago PALE in comparison to what DM has done afterwards. I
wish people like Nigel could see that too and remember our days we
spent in horror in the GOWW basement secretly discovering scams others
did like RRF and thinking we were making it right for the future in
the corporate sortout in 81. I wish Nigel could see that what we did
in 81, though well intentioned, was used by DM et al to make things
worse than ever before.
And Lyman, what can I say man? You know as well as I do about the
lies, the perjury, the cover-ups, etc. within and without the
corporate structure. You've seen first hand so much of that carried
out by DM. I know you hated it back in the early 80s and I know for a
fact at least then you were never behind the abuses anyway.
I wish this because it is my firm belief that they are going to be
dragged in to testifying in criminal and/or civil legal actions and
they are going to be in a position of either having to perjure
themselves to "protect" the likes of DM or tell the truth and be
horribly abused. I wish they would wake up and get out now and tell
their stories before it is too late for them.
And I wish this on several current OSA/DSA folks I know from the "old
days" who were never abusive and who after some 26 years are STILL
waiting for the insanity of DM and his actions to "blow over". They
are not going to "blow over" as long as he is there.
I say to them that if they truly believe in scientology then go to the
freezone or some other such place that may be trying to practice it
without all the abuses and crimes. It's probably less altered there
than in the sanctioned church anyway. I'm not for the technology in
either place but I will support anyone of good heart in the freezone
or otherwise outside current "sanctioned scientology" over "the
church" as run by DM any day.
As, lastly, I say to them that there are those of XSO who are willing
to help out people fleeing the SO. They will give you a place to stay,
relax, some food, money to get by, etc, until you can have some peace.
They will help you get a job as well. It is absolutely never too late
to break free from the lies and get a new start.
"The church" depends on "critics" being disorganized. That is their
only hope to continue to live with the lies.
I say that, no matter what our differences, we can be organized and do
something about it if we want.
SME
butterflygrrrl
> In article <1175785856.709737.98...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > I say that, no matter what our differences, we can be organized and do
> > something about it if we want.
>
> > SME
>
> to do about it.
I'm pretty sure that by "we" he means critics and dissatisfied members
of the cult of scientology, not disingenuous ops like you, "alex".
>
> You desire to take down the whole church. This is evidenced by your
> statement "I'm not for the technology in either place", and your plans
> to put scientology under examination for its "psychological" damage.
>
Was there a relevant point you were attempting to make?
> Also your pleas for information, and assurances that it is not necessary
> to contribute financially, are disingenuous. If a person were to come
> forward with information and attach their name to it, they had better
> have "representation", as the likelihood of them being subpoened,
> deposed, and possibly sued for slander or libel are real.
> Representation=$
>
Now, now, "alex", your cult op side is showing again. You are
obviously just trying to scare people out of coming forward with the
truth about your cult.
Poor, scared little cultie.
Is this what you joined scientology to do?
You are so pitifully transparent that I wonder how you even face
yourself in the mirror.
SME
> In article <1175785856.709737.98...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > something about it if we want.
>
> > SME
>
> to do about it.
>
> statement "I'm not for the technology in either place", and your plans
> to put scientology under examination for its "psychological" damage.
>
> to contribute financially, are disingenuous. If a person were to come
> forward with information and attach their name to it, they had better
> have "representation", as the likelihood of them being subpoened,
> deposed, and possibly sued for slander or libel are real.
> Representation=$
>
> shotgun approach when a single target and more focused effort would be
> more effective.
>
> You continue to operate under the "ends justify the means" modus.
>
> Same modus as when you were in, flipped goal.
>
> Simon Bolivar: If you take away someones game, the game becomes get you.
>
> DM got your game.
>
> alex
Alex, I have done my best to be open and fair with you both on here
and in private email.
But consider this my last response to what you post about me and my
intentions on here. Feel free to privately email again if you want.
I find it very interesting that the more I say I am focusing on DM and
not others, the more you step up your little "attack" and crazy
evaluation.
I particularly note how you forward the "church" line of trying to
make people fearful of speaking out. Do you get a "stat" each time you
mention that?
If you want to do something different than I do, please free free to
just go ahead and do what you got to do.
I'm not going to justify anything else to you. But in the interest of
being clear, I will post here a few parts of my reply to you in our
private emails. I know it's been over 20 days and you have not replied
to me. I am not quoting your email as you sent it to me privately.
Hopefully my private notes to you listed below will still make some
sense without showing what you said.
If you would prefer, I give you permission to publish both our emails
on here. I'd also be glad to do so if you are ok on it.
You know who I am but you still hide. Fair enough, your choice but it
does give you a heck of a lot less credibility. Here's the parts from
my email to you in the event it helps refresh your memory:
"I appreciate that that has meaning to you. It actually doesn't matter
to me. I am not pondering on such. I know people who loved LRH and
people who hate him. I am positive he had good and bad sides. In one
XSO post I call him, like us all, "a walking contradicition, partly
truth and partly fiction" in poetically taking from an old country
song. lol The difference between him and most of us as we seek
something better is that I and people I know did not ALSO abuse others
who thought differently than us. We did not lie, committ fraud and
such. These are things that I hope are dealt with the most. Yes LRH is
dead but those carrying out his old policies who use them to lie,
abuse and the like need to be dealt with and, to understand that, ones
needs some understanding of that part of LRH"..........
"Your premise assumes that only it's "misapplication" can cause
damage. For one thing, I really don't believe that and for another, I
think it's just too easy to rationalize every abuse by saying a great
technology was "misapplied" every time there was a bad result. Hubbard
was a mess before he died. In his last years there were many examples
of "insane" actions by him. While I respect that no one is perfect and
while I respect his right to believe in what he believed, he is no
example at all to me as someone who had a workable tech and wonderful
answer for all. I'm not sure he had that even for himself. That said,
I respect differing views. Also, I simply posted the fact that Factnet
was doing a criminal investigation. This was so that people who wanted
to be part of it could. I neither recommended it, nor advised against
it. More and more people are coming to me know that know of many lies,
even crimes as far as I know. It's amazing how they were afraid to
speak out. Well, as one judge said "sunshine disinfects" so let the
truth win out. For one thing, I don't believe in the part of the
investigation surrounding scientology's attorneys. I also am not
personally focused on the section with which you had concerns. But I
am aware of other parts of their investigation that I support and feel
is important. Simple as that".........
"Alex, I can understand how you and others can feel this way. But my
friend countless people who do horrible things where they think they
are "above the law" and then justify it based on their religious
beliefs or whatever. And Hubbard is an example of one of them. He
abused many people, lied repeatedly, sought the destruction of all who
oppose his will, took money by threat, fraud and deception and much
more. If the government said you can not love your children, I would
respect everyone who loved their children in spite of it. I'm not
saying "government" is always right. Nor do I think that. One can get
into subjective arguments on this topic forever. Bottom line for me is
that Hubbard WAY overstepped any "poetic license" to do what is right
despite governement or anything like that. It's very clear and simple
to me"..........
"Again, I consider that a rationalization under some banner like "the
greatest good". That is so very subjective, prone to error and used
all too often in scientiology to harm and destroy others. What is in
front of us are very specific actions of greed, crime and the like. I
am just addressing some of them. That the organizations of scientology
will suffer or that perhaps the practice of same might suffer as
abuses and crimes are exposed ought to be blamed on those doing the
misdeeds, not the ones exposing same. Will Miscavige drag down the
church to protect himself. I don't know, I would guess he probably
will"........
"Sorry Alex, I am saying facts about horrible abuses and such that I
know. Simple as that. What a sweeping, general term is "larger context
perspectives"! ......I respect your feelings and rights to same. And,
thank you for sharing that with me. I hope that those who find gain in
the practice of the non abusive parts of scientology truly find
happiness and spiritual enlightenment. I know of people who would like
to help it do so when abuses and lies and such are stopped. Good for
them. I support that. Just don't try to force it on me or others who
do not want it as if somehow you hold some larger perspective or
truth. For me, and many others, you don't".......
"I certainly hope so Alex. And I wish anyone of good heart trying to
reform it good luck......You certainly have a right to your own views
and you know far better than I what helps you. So I wish you well on
any peaceful and non abusive journey you may take towards personal
spiritual enlightenment.......Take care Alex, Larry"
So, which of us do you suppose is operating in the open and in good
faith Alex?
SME
Lermanet.com
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>In article <1175797216.4...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>I was under the assumption that my viewpoint was so different from yours
>that there was no point in replying to you in private. You are
>dismissive of me and continue to imply that I am a church operative.
Your pattern of conduct, pattern of innuendo, and projected motives
for those who seek justice instead of scientology's pathological lying
for money, make it easy to mistake you for OSA.
However, is also a tenet of scientology that it is ok to LIE to
vermin that might attack what otherwise good people have been
hypnotized into believing is "the most ethical group on the planet"
See "Scientologists taught that CRIME OK" 1992 Toronto Sun
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/canada/toronto-92.htm
>I
>can and have overlooked those "insults", but when I feel I have a valid
>point to make, and you provide the vehicle of your public statements, I
>will.
>
>You say I didnt reply to you for over 20 days, and that I am hiding!
>
>Well here I am. I was, in my consideration, being polite to you by not
>taking up your time and attention with my views.
>
>You still avoid addressing my points.
>
>Your actions attack scientology as a whole rather than focusing on the
>obvious target, David Miscaivage. Thus you dilute your effectiveness,
>and also alienate people who otherwise may support you.
>
Yeah, this is IDENTICAL to the rubbish run on me when I first came
out and realized that supporting Dennis Erlich
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=326
was a good this to do, that was in 1994.
>You seem to be motivated by revenge.
This is IDENTICAL to the rubbish run on me when I first came out.
Seeking truth can only be characterized as revenge by those who
profit from lies.
>
>Not a good place to put yourself.
>
>As to forwarding the church's line regarding putting oneself in danger
>by attacking the church, I think the concept has validity regardless of
>whether or not it coincides with the churchs wishes.
Lets see... "the church" hmm... it is only a church in name and
word, and words are not the things. That is a hypnosis trick.
Words become the things in Scientology.
http://www.Lermanet.com/LRonHubbard2.htm
And always remind people how dangerous it is to speak out about a
racketeering and corrupt organizations staffed at the top by
sociopaths
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=88
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=78
whose day to day operations consist of selling blue sky to those who
have not read the net yet.
See factors that Scientology faces as the come out:
>
>It would be more productive for you to establish and promote a vehicle
>by which people could contribute financially, and also be assured of
>some legal backing if there were problems.
Like the free legal services scientology members get after joining
scientology? Oh that would be nice, but telling the truth is not
libel. That telling the truth might recudece the income of a
Rackateering and corrupt Organization is tough.
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/graphicindex.htm
>
>I orginally commented on your public statements, feeling that you were
>intelligent and willing to look at other viewpoints. I have now been
>disabused of that notion.
>
>As to my "crazy evaluations" well at least I know where I stand with you!
>
>From my viewpoint, they have validity.
What is true for you is true, ONLY when you are in a trance - or are
lying.
And if scientology were a religion then lying is a sacrament.
>
>Have fun mocking me and using your DA tactics.
Allways accuse the opposition of your own crimes,...
The commonalities are
No compassion
truth is whatever they say is true
selective display of information
Always works through proxies
Slime and innuendo of Lerma and
ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS HIM
including ladybird
Bob Sold Out
Gerry, Arnie,Tory = Kook
no conscience
Occassionaly say things critical of scientology
rarely if ever ever link to critical information
Spreads Scientology PR writings
Won't talk on the phone
Won't meet face-to-face in person
Rarely use their own names or indentities
Accuse others of own conduct
Scientology is a church
Religions do bad things
Cannot even discuss or comment
How the scam works - HYPNOSIS
>
>Like "they" say, you can take a guy out of scientology but you cant take
>the scientology out of a guy.
Always accuse the opposition of your crimes.
You deserve to be plonked alex, you are not real, you are just another
one of Scientology's more-Rons.
How about pasting your project orders to the newsgroup?
You are right on target:
from Operations Officer Hat
"(3) Providing a believable source of an operation, thereby filling
the vacuum, so that Scn. isn't dubbed in as source.
(4) When planning an Op, mentally following it all the way through
looking for areas which need to be taken into account; and
taking the enemy's viewpoint of the Op for the same purpose.
(5) Full and correct use of target series for each Op. Targets simply
stated and specific as possible. (Helps in debugging and to hat
inexperienced persons)
(6) The major target of the Op is based on a *real*, current
situation.
(7) When hitting a group or individual, hitting their finance and comm
lines.
(8) Getting an enemy to attack another enemy.
(9) Working off of programmes which align Ops actions to other Br 1
sections and other Bureaus and which contain command intention
from LRH on down. (Admin scale and priorities aligned)
(10) Working for VFPs and having such reflected in the statistics,
rather than a lot of sub-products.
(11) Exposure of real, documented enemy crimes and material of a
scandalous nature.
(12) Utilizing current events and trends (and finding the right
buttons for exploitation in Ops channels.)
(13) Keeping plans bright and simple and on target.
(14) Finding real buttons.
(15) Keeping up persistent pressure until the product is achieved."
Keep up the pressure Alex
>
>alex
Arnaldo Lerma
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK FOR OUR FRIENDS and FAMILY
to get them out while they are still alive!
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speake
If the Borg were to breed with the Ferengi you'd get Scientology!
http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
"it's incredible how much money the hypnotized disciples of a clever and ruthless operator will plead and beg of him to accept from them"
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hubbard-the-hypnotist4.htm
"Scientologists believe that most human problems
can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial
people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million
years ago. These spirits attach themselves by "clusters"
to individuals in the contemporary world, causing
spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives
of their hosts"
[Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion]
29 November 1995
Memorandum Opinion Judge Leonie Brinkema
"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation..
in suing Lerma, ...is to stifle criticism of
Scientology in general and to harass its critics. "
What do we get from getting people out of scientology?
We create an individual who has become a Houdini of
all mind traps.. folks who won't be fooled again.
People who can DE-program, People who can spring mental
traps..
We create, by freeing someone of scientology, a being
who has the ability to break the strongest slave chains
of all.
Those forged of lies. (c) Arnaldo Lerma
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
"He exuded evil, malice, and stupidity"
Gore Vidal on meeting L Ron Hubbard
Barbara Schwarz
> In article <1175785856.709737.98...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > something about it if we want.
>
> > SME
>
> to do about it.
>
> You desire to take down the whole church. This is evidenced by your
> statement "I'm not for the technology in either place", and your plans
> to put scientology under examination for its "psychological" damage.
>
> Also your pleas for information, and assurances that it is not necessary
> to contribute financially, are disingenuous. If a person were to come
> forward with information and attach their name to it, they had better
> have "representation", as the likelihood of them being subpoened,
> deposed, and possibly sued for slander or libel are real.
> Representation=$
>
> As I have publicly and privately pointed out to you, you are using a
> shotgun approach when a single target and more focused effort would be
> more effective.
>
> You continue to operate under the "ends justify the means" modus.
>
> Same modus as when you were in, flipped goal.
>
> Simon Bolivar: If you take away someones game, the game becomes get you.
>
> DM got your game.
>
> alex
The subject line is killing me, Alex. :) Who wants to do a criminal
questionaire, unless it is a criminal?
--
The Wikipedia gang lies that I edited their article on me. This should
suggest that this article is correct as I contributed to it. In fact,
no word in this wrongful article is mine.
Number one suspect of being Wikipedia (Wikipiggi) smearer, defamer,
abuser, harasser, and hate monger "Orsini" is Canadian Kady O'Malley.
She defamed not only Mark (Marty) Rathbun and I - but according to
below website, fanatical O'Malley is specialized of harassing other
Scientologists too. What she is doing could be also defines as
stalking:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/kady-omalley/
Copurights violations are also involved. Immediately after it was
published that Kady is the main "Orsini"-suspect, "Orsini" removed a
few copyright violating items but not all - but under the law, she is
also legally responsible for past copyright violations, current
copyright violations, defamation, abuse, harassment and libel.
"Orsini" teams up on Wikipedia with defamer, forger, and harasser
"Vivaldi", who drug rehab hating Korey Jerome Kruse from Olathe,
Kansas. He was recently in jail and is, according to the court, a
habital offender:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS210US211&q=korey%20Kruse&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wg
Official records on him:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/4bdb5044754f611f
These fanatical people are protected by a Wikipedia administrator from
England, with name Christopher Owens. Chris Owens is biased towards
Scientology and Scientologists and uses his bias to protect defamers
and harassers on Wikipedia and assist them in defaming Scientology and
Scientologists. He never bans any fanatical and harassing anti-
Scientologist from Wikipedia but Scientologists are banned for nothing
else but being Scientologists. Even non-Scientologists are banned from
Wikipedia, if they don't hate Scientology or Scientologists.
According to this website, Wikipedia administrator Christopher Owens
admires Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/david-touretzky/terrorism/
----
Barbara Schwarz
Babblestop NOCEM
wish not to read (or see) posts by the monsterous Barbara Schwarz
and her OSA psych flooders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/barbara_schwarz.html
http://www.ahbl.org/notices/barbschwarz.php
http://www.xenu.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: babbl...@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Babblestop00736
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<1175808672.1...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> alt.religion.scientology
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBRhVsCCqwMoRBNDxCEQKC3gCghQlLWoB86DtHP/sO77NqW2WRBMcAnRZD
zJrSLAYIjgQQcKtv84VHVTAz
=u66e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
SME
As some are obviously trying to hide this subject from other in ars, I
have changed the subject
name back to the original name in the hopes that it can be found
again on ars.
SME