Not long ago there were postings on here concerning an investigation 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:
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
...
> > I say that, no matter what our differences, we can be organized and do > > something about it if we want.
> > SME
> Yes "we" can. Although what you want to do about it is not what i want > 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.
> > I say that, no matter what our differences, we can be organized and do > > something about it if we want.
> > SME
> Yes "we" can. Although what you want to do about it is not what i want > 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
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?
>> > > I say that, no matter what our differences, we can be organized and do >> > > something about it if we want.
>> > > SME
>> > Yes "we" can. Although what you want to do about it is not what i want >> > 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
>> 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
>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"
>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.
> > I say that, no matter what our differences, we can be organized and do > > something about it if we want.
> > SME
> Yes "we" can. Although what you want to do about it is not what i want > 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-o...
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.
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.
Babblestop is brought to you as a public service for those that wish not to read (or see) posts by the monsterous Barbara Schwarz and her OSA psych flooders.
On Apr 6, 12:31 am, StopSpamStopS...@myway.com wrote:
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.
