Former CIO sues Diskeeper claims he was fired for not participating in Scientology training
tikk
was CIO and Le Shay hired as the Automation Planning Officer) have filed
a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that Scientology
training was a condition of employment and that their refusal to
participate led to their dismissal. According to the complaint, "{t]he
working conditions and work environment at DISKEEPER were inextricably
intertwined with the Scientology religion such that a non-Scientologist
cannot escape constant impositions of said religion."
[Complaint and accompanying Motion to Strike here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f66e29563a69d945d2db6fb9a8902bda]
When Godelman complained that these programs ran counter to his own
religious belief (Judaism), former Diskeeper CEO and current Chairman
Craig Jensen told Godelman that his attendance at the "training courses"
was "not negotiable," adding that Godelman would become more intelligent
and his personal life would "improve drastically." Jensen also warned
Godelman to not "complain about the process" in emails, which Jensen
feared would be "misconstrued" and/or "taken out of context." Le Shay
was eventually fired after he refused to attend and participate in a
course series entitled "Basic Study Manual" and after Godelman
interceded on Le Shay's behalf, Godelman was also terminated.
The complaint alleges five causes of action--three based on Diskeeper's
alleged violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA): namely, discharge due to religious discrimination, discharge in
violation of public policy, retaliation against persons opposing
wrongful practices. A fourth cause of action claims that Diskeeper
violates California Labor law, which prohibits employers from
retaliating against persons refusing to participate in activity which
would result in a violation of a federal or state statute or regulation.
A fifth cause of action alleges that Diskeeper failed to maintain its
statutory obligation to prevent discrimination.
In response to Godelman and Le Shay's 3rd amended complaint, Diskeeper
filed a Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiffs' complaint,
specifically, Plaintiffs' requested remedy for...
"...prospective injunctive relief in the form of a prohibitory and/or
mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to cease, desist and forever
refrain from forcing or requiring any employee, as a condition of
employment, to study, adopt and/or apply the so-called "Hubbard
Management Technology" and/or the related "Hubbard Study Technology" in
the workplace, according to proof at trial[.]"
Diskeeper argues in its motion that these injunction requests should be
struck from the Complaint because Diskeeper is permitted to introduce
religious training in the workplace and therefore any injunction which
broadly prohibits religious practice in the workplace is unconstitutional.
It would be helpful at this point to explain the purpose of a motion to
strike, which is rarely filed. A party will sometimes move to strike
language in a pleading which is scandalous and has no relevance to the
complaint or relief requested. Filing a motion to strike is also a
useful if one wanted to stall, buy time, or bleed the opposing side of
legal fees, because it extends the time to serve an Answer to the
Complaint. While Diskeeper's argument may actually have some merit and
may ultimately succeed at trial, a motion to strike will likely be
viewed by the Court as an improper procedural tool to confront this
particular argument. Diskeeper will eventually be permitted to make
their argument, but not at this stage of the litigation.
For California law on motions to strike, see the California Code of
Civil Procedure งง 435,436.
What's most notable about Diskeeper's motion, however, is Diskeeper's
implicit admission that Hubbard Management and Study Technology are both
religious in nature, else why would they advance the argument that
Diskeeper has a protected interest in providing religious training to
employees? In footnote 4 of the motion, Diskeeper claims that it in no
way concedes that Hubbard Management and Study Technology are religious,
but to anyone familiar with both Scientology and Hubbard's supposedly
secular "technologies," the two brands are basically indistinguishable,
and indeed, the establishment of supposedly secular fronts was intended
by Hubbard to be a recruiting tool.
It will be interesting to see what happens next but a trial seems likely.
If someone with significant bandwidth could kindly mirror these two
PDFs, that would be great, because the below link is merely a free
Mediafire account, whose bandwidth will cap at some unknown point in the
probably near future.
This post was also posted on my blog [http://realitybasedcommunity.net]
and on WhyWeProtest.net. I'll keep my blog updated with locations where
the files can be found if those who mirror post back here the new locations.
~ tikk
t_shuffle
"tikk" <tr...@tikk.net> wrote in message
news:494c98b5$1...@news2.lightlink.com
> California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 435,436.
>
> What's most notable about Diskeeper's motion, however, is
> Diskeeper's implicit admission that Hubbard Management
> and Study Technology are both religious in nature, else
> why would they advance the argument that Diskeeper has a
> protected interest in providing religious training to
> employees? In footnote 4 of the motion, Diskeeper claims
> that it in no way concedes that Hubbard Management and Study Technology
> are religious, but to anyone familiar with both
> Scientology and Hubbard's supposedly secular
> "technologies," the two brands are basically
> indistinguishable, and indeed, the establishment of supposedly secular
> fronts was intended by Hubbard to be a recruiting tool.
>
> It will be interesting to see what happens next but a
> trial seems likely.
> If someone with significant bandwidth could kindly mirror
> these two PDFs, that would be great, because the below link is
> merely a free Mediafire account, whose bandwidth will cap
> at some unknown point in the probably near future.
>
> This post was also posted on my blog
> [http://realitybasedcommunity.net] and on WhyWeProtest.net. I'll keep my
> blog updated with
> locations where the files can be found if those who mirror post back here
> the new locations.
> ~ tikk
It's about time. Craig Jensen is a creepy bastard.
xenufrance
multi-decorated by the crime cult, are soon to be named befà re courts for
their scientology dangerous ideas...
r
"tikk" <tr...@tikk.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
494c98b5$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Procedure §§ 435,436.
henri
>Alexander Godelman and Marc Le Shay, two Diskeeper employees (Godelman
>was CIO and Le Shay hired as the Automation Planning Officer) have filed
>a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that Scientology
>training was a condition of employment and that their refusal to
>participate led to their dismissal. According to the complaint, "{t]he
>working conditions and work environment at DISKEEPER were inextricably
>intertwined with the Scientology religion such that a non-Scientologist
>cannot escape constant impositions of said religion."
>
>[Complaint and accompanying Motion to Strike here:
>http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f66e29563a69d945d2db6fb9a8902bda]
My response from WWP.
Having read these documents, I have to say that the complaint itself
is well pled. If the allegations in it can be proven, it's a good case
for a big jury verdict including punitive damages. Apparently, it was
scheduled for trial in January, but this has been postponed to
mid-June.
That's based on this entry on the case summary at lasuperiorcourt.org:
11/24/2008 Order (GRANTING TRIAL CONTINUANCE FROM 1/12/09 TO 6/15/09 )
Filed by Court
As far as I can tell, though, the motion to strike filed by Timothy
Bowles (formerly part of a law firm named Moxon & Bowles) is an
exercise in douchebaggery. A motion to strike is generally used to
strike scandalous, irrelevant, or otherwise improper material from a
pleading. In this case, they're using it to try to get the plaintiff's
request for an injunction stricken from the pleading, despite the fact
that the law the case is filed under, such as the Fair Employment and
Housing Act (FEHA), explicitly allows for injunctions.
My opinion is that part of the reason for this filing is that filing a
motion to strike extends the deadline for filing an answer to the
complaint. Another reason is that it wastes everyone's time and drives
up costs, a standard Scientology-style litigation tactic. There's
almost no chance of this motion being granted, but the plaintiffs have
to pay their lawyer to oppose the motion. Then when it's denied, the
defendants argue the same issue as a motion for summary judgment,
which is what they should have done in the first place.
On the good side, FEHA shifts attorney fees to the losing party, so if
they lose this case, as they probably will if it ever goes to trial,
they will end up paying the plaintiffs' lawyers for fighting their
douchebag motions.
Another notable factor of this motion is that at the same time as they
are claiming that the cult courses they tried to force the plaintiffs
to take were not religious, they are claiming that their use of
Hubbard "tech" is protected by the Free Exercise clause, i.e. freedom
of religion. They can't have it both ways. Either it's a dessert
topping or a floor wax. It isn't both.
On the other hand, while a motion to strike is an improper vehicle for
what Diskeeper is trying to do here, they have IMO accurately
pinpointed a weak part of the request for relief. It is very unlikely
a court is going to grant an injunction prohibiting all use of
Scientology technology in the workplace at Diskeeper. A proper
injunction would be considerably less broad than that. However, the
solution isn't to strike the request from the plaintiffs' complaint,
but simply to grant a more narrow injunction later on after the
plaintiffs win.
My general opinion on this case is that if it goes to trial, they're
going down on this one. If what the plaintiffs say is true, Diskeeper
did everything to these plaintiffs but issue a written memorandum,
signed by the Board of Directors, saying "We're firing you because
you're Jewy, Jewy Jews who refuse to join our cult and we want to
violate your rights and lose bigtime in court."
If the facts are as alleged, you couldn't make a more clear case of
religious discrimination. On top of that, the plaintiffs are
particularly sympathetic. You simply don't persecute Jews and
illegally try to force them to convert and get away with it these
days. This isn't to say that's a determinative factor in this case.
The facts alleged are so bad that I think a Satanist or even an
atheist or some other worst possible plaintiff would win. If the
defendants aren't morons, they'll settle.
(Note: a recent poll found Scientology the least popular religion in
America. Atheism was second worst. Judaism had the highest approval
rating, even over Christianity. While I'm being a bit flippant in this
post, I'm not joking about Jewish plaintiffs probably being the best
possible plaintiffs in a case like this.)
Eldon
They'll try to have it both ways, though, because Scientology has been
utterly hypocritical ever since Hubbard decided "the religion angle"
was the way to go. That schizoid, shape-shifting ruse is so endemic
that it's a hard-wired impulse at this point.
It'll be interesting to watch Craig Jensen and his management staff
sabotage themselves if this goes to court. Hey, look at Timothy
Bowles' completions (from Kristi's site). Looks like we can expect
more footbullets from that culted shyster too.
Timothy Bowles L 11 RUNDOWN EXPANDED Source 58 1987-07-01
Timothy Bowles OEC VOLUME 0 Celebrity 283 1995-05-01
Timothy Bowles OEC VOLUME 1 Celebrity 286 1995-11-01
Timothy Bowles OEC VOLUME 2 Celebrity 297 1996-10-01
Timothy Bowles OEC VOLUME 2 Celebrity 301 1997-03-01
SME
"A few thoughts here I wanted to share related to this
IMHO this case has a lot of merit. I have not posted about it as I did
not know it was "publicly known about".
I was on the very first mission to set up the very first WISE in the
late 70s following Hubbard's orders via telexes. I know exactly why it
was setup and it was not for the reasons stated in their literature. I
also helped with many WISE legal matters and know how the "church" of
scientology established and then ran WISE and how WISE was to get
public and their money into organized scientology.
Later as a "public scientologist" I was in the founding "CEO's Circle"
of WISE, the top membership level, and met with and worked closely
with Jensen who runs Diskeeper (then "Executive Software"). One of our
top purposes was to drive people into WISE and through WISE into
organized scientology.
On top of this I believe Jesen had already perjured himself in this
case. One example was in one of his depositions denying that Xenu
exists in scientology levels when he has done OT III, in fact he is
"OT VIII".
I believe that they will either settle for big bucks in this case or
this will be one of their all time big footbullets.
Also look for an announcement within the next 1-2 months at the most
for a case against organized scientology, and not just some WISE
group, that will make this look like a day at the park. Sorry to be so
cryptic now but I am sure details will be forthcoming shortly.
2009 is going to be an incredible year for those trying to expose and
stop abuses and lies from organized scientology.
IMHO"
SME
Eldon
> For what it's worth, my comments on this from WWP:
>
> "A few thoughts here I wanted to share related to this
>
> IMHO this case has a lot of merit. I have not posted about it as I did
> not know it was "publicly known about".
>
> I was on the very first mission to set up the very first WISE in the
> late 70s following Hubbard's orders via telexes. I know exactly why it
> was setup and it was not for the reasons stated in their literature. I
> also helped with many WISE legal matters and know how the "church" of
> scientology established and then ran WISE and how WISE was to get
> public and their money into organized scientology.
>
> Later as a "public scientologist" I was in the founding "CEO's Circle"
> of WISE, the top membership level, and met with and worked closely
> with Jensen who runs Diskeeper (then "Executive Software"). One of our
> top purposes was to drive people into WISE and through WISE into
> organized scientology.
Not to mention subverting the judicial system by forcing members to
handle disputes in Chaplain's Court. That might barely fly in a
religious context, but I don't think it's permissible in a secular
organization IMHO.
>
> On top of this I believe Jesen had already perjured himself in this
> case. One example was in one of his depositions denying that Xenu
> exists in scientology levels when he has done OT III, in fact he is
> "OT VIII".
It would be nice if they dragged you in as a witness. Maybe Michael
Pattinson too, since he has done OT VIII. At the least, we former
Scienos need to compile and feed some leading questions to the
plaintiff's attorneys. Since they and their clients are wogs, they
won't necessarily know where to dig without some instruction.
R. Hill
>
> What's most notable about Diskeeper's motion, however, is Diskeeper's
> implicit admission that Hubbard Management and Study Technology are both
> religious in nature, else why would they advance the argument that
> Diskeeper has a protected interest in providing religious training to
> employees? In footnote 4 of the motion, Diskeeper claims that it in no
> way concedes that Hubbard Management and Study Technology are religious,
> but to anyone familiar with both Scientology and Hubbard's supposedly
> secular "technologies," the two brands are basically indistinguishable,
> and indeed, the establishment of supposedly secular fronts was intended
> by Hubbard to be a recruiting tool.
>
> It will be interesting to see what happens next but a trial seems likely.
>
> If someone with significant bandwidth could kindly mirror these two
> PDFs, that would be great, because the below link is merely a free
> Mediafire account, whose bandwidth will cap at some unknown point in the
> probably near future.
>
> This post was also posted on my blog [http://realitybasedcommunity.net]
> and on WhyWeProtest.net. I'll keep my blog updated with locations where
> the files can be found if those who mirror post back here the new
> locations.
>
> ~ tikk
Mirrored:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/200810-godelman-leshay-v-diskeeper.html
Indexed:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library.php?t=Alexander+Godelman
--
Ray.
R. Hill
Of course I believe you: Even the Church of Scientology stated to the
IRS that the purpose of "Div 6" is to recruit people into Scientology:
/=====
Div 6 - This is short for Division 6 which is one of the 7 divisions of
a Scientology organizing board. This Division is responsible for
attracting new Scientologists. Due to the scope of this activity, it is
now divided into three divisions. Division 6A, called Public Contacting
Division, is concerned with broad public promotion. Division 6B, Public
Servicing Division, provides introductory services to prospective
members to give them an understanding of Scientology. Division 6C, Field
Control Division, encourages Scientologists to be active in attracting
new members.
http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/irs/1993-1023-csi-questions-3-4.pdf#page=7
\=====
And WISe is part of Div 6, again as per Scientology's own statements:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/scnlink-div6c.html
--
Ray.
barbz
Heh. "Jewy, Jewy Jews?"
Ah Henri, I love ya!
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
"Our belief in freedom of religion has made it impossible, (With a
helping hand from well placed Scientologists in government, of course!)
to recognize when a criminal conspiracy pretends to be a religion."
--Brett Bellmore
Android Cat
> If the facts are as alleged, you couldn't make a more clear case of
> religious discrimination. On top of that, the plaintiffs are
> particularly sympathetic. You simply don't persecute Jews and
> illegally try to force them to convert and get away with it these
> days.
"Baaaaaw! But the Spanish Inquisition did it, so why can't we?! Other
bonafide religions do it, and the IRS said that we're bonafide! It's a
protected religious (while still completely secular at the same time)
activity! You secular/religious bigots!"
> This isn't to say that's a determinative factor in this case.
> The facts alleged are so bad that I think a Satanist or even an
> atheist or some other worst possible plaintiff would win. If the
> defendants aren't morons, they'll settle.
Hmmm. Do you think that they'll get away with the usual ball-gag clause?
The price on that option is hopefully sky-high these days.
I don't think that Timothy Bowles has _really_ put that much distance
between himself and Moxon & [insert name here]. They just shuffled him out
to handle the front groups like YHRI (and Diskeeper), and maybe just added a
paper wall between the desks at the LA complex.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Android Cat
> On Dec 20, 1:23 pm, SME <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
>> For what it's worth, my comments on this from WWP:
>>
>> "A few thoughts here I wanted to share related to this
>>
>> IMHO this case has a lot of merit. I have not posted about it as I
>> did not know it was "publicly known about".
>>
>> I was on the very first mission to set up the very first WISE in the
>> late 70s following Hubbard's orders via telexes. I know exactly why
>> it was setup and it was not for the reasons stated in their
>> literature. I also helped with many WISE legal matters and know how
>> the "church" of scientology established and then ran WISE and how
>> WISE was to get public and their money into organized scientology.
>>
>> Later as a "public scientologist" I was in the founding "CEO's
>> Circle" of WISE, the top membership level, and met with and worked
>> closely with Jensen who runs Diskeeper (then "Executive Software").
>> One of our top purposes was to drive people into WISE and through
>> WISE into organized scientology.
>
> Not to mention subverting the judicial system by forcing members to
> handle disputes in Chaplain's Court. That might barely fly in a
> religious context, but I don't think it's permissible in a secular
> organization IMHO.
Secular? WISE? Hahahaha!
http://stop-wise.biz/pdf/wise-incorporation-1983.pdf
"It is organized under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law primarily for
religious purposes. Its purposes are to promote and foster the religious
teachings of L. Ron Hubbard in society, and to have and exercise all rights
and powers from time to time granted to nonprofit corporations by law."
>> On top of this I believe Jesen had already perjured himself in this
>> case. One example was in one of his depositions denying that Xenu
>> exists in scientology levels when he has done OT III, in fact he is
>> "OT VIII".
>
> It would be nice if they dragged you in as a witness. Maybe Michael
> Pattinson too, since he has done OT VIII. At the least, we former
> Scienos need to compile and feed some leading questions to the
> plaintiff's attorneys. Since they and their clients are wogs, they
> won't necessarily know where to dig without some instruction.
Also, they may or may not expect the brazen amount of bare-faced lies,
misrepresentation and perjury that will come from Scientology Inc.
Android Cat
> henri wrote:
>> My general opinion on this case is that if it goes to trial, they're
>> going down on this one. If what the plaintiffs say is true, Diskeeper
>> did everything to these plaintiffs but issue a written memorandum,
>> signed by the Board of Directors, saying "We're firing you because
>> you're Jewy, Jewy Jews who refuse to join our cult and we want to
>> violate your rights and lose bigtime in court."
>
> Heh. "Jewy, Jewy Jews?"
> Ah Henri, I love ya!
He's just channeling Scientology's reflexive answer to any criticism.
The full statement from Los Angeles lawyer Elliot Abelson: "Liar. Liar.
Liar. Liar. Liar. Hateful Liar. That's what she is."
Local lawyers, prosecutor defend medical examiner January 24, 1997, Thomas
C. Tobin, St. Petersburg Times
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/16996790.html?FMT=FT&dids=16996790:16996790&FMTS=ABS:FT
Tom C has his own riff on that:
"Of course, as a Scientologist you go, that's a lie. [Outpoint.] Lie. Liar.
Fine."
EPA a bunch of liars says Tom Cruise January 18, 2008, eCanadaNow.com
http://www.ecanadanow.com/news/entertainment/epa-a-bunch-of-liars-says-tom-cruise-20080118.html
R. Hill
I wasn't aware of this document. Hopefully, the plaintiffs' lawyer(s)
will include it as part of their collection of evidences.
A bit confused though: From this document, WISE was incorporated in
early 1983. However WISE is mentioned in the MCCS meeting of Sep. 1980:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/mccs-meeting-transcript-1980-09-29.html
So I gather it was about WISE Inc. in that meeting, not World Institute
of Scientology Enterprises.
>>> On top of this I believe Jesen had already perjured himself in this
>>> case. One example was in one of his depositions denying that Xenu
>>> exists in scientology levels when he has done OT III, in fact he is
>>> "OT VIII".
>> It would be nice if they dragged you in as a witness. Maybe Michael
>> Pattinson too, since he has done OT VIII. At the least, we former
>> Scienos need to compile and feed some leading questions to the
>> plaintiff's attorneys. Since they and their clients are wogs, they
>> won't necessarily know where to dig without some instruction.
>
> Also, they may or may not expect the brazen amount of bare-faced lies,
> misrepresentation and perjury that will come from Scientology Inc.
>
--
Ray.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't think that Timothy Bowles has _really_ put that much distance
>between himself and Moxon & [insert name here]. They just shuffled him out
>to handle the front groups like YHRI (and Diskeeper), and maybe just added a
>paper wall between the desks at the LA complex.
I don't think he's put ANY distance between himself and Moxon. Read
the Motion to Strike. He might as well be a sock puppet with Moxon's
hand up his ass. I am certain that WISE is DEEPLY concerned about
this case and the repercussions of cult businesses being forced to
obey the law.
Android Cat
> Android Cat wrote:
>> Eldon wrote:
>>> Not to mention subverting the judicial system by forcing members to
>>> handle disputes in Chaplain's Court. That might barely fly in a
>>> religious context, but I don't think it's permissible in a secular
>>> organization IMHO.
>>
>> Secular? WISE? Hahahaha!
>>
>> http://stop-wise.biz/pdf/wise-incorporation-1983.pdf
>>
>> "It is organized under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law
>> primarily for religious purposes. Its purposes are to promote and
>> foster the religious teachings of L. Ron Hubbard in society, and to
>> have and exercise all rights and powers from time to time granted to
>> nonprofit corporations by law."
>
> I wasn't aware of this document. Hopefully, the plaintiffs' lawyer(s)
> will include it as part of their collection of evidences.
>
> A bit confused though: From this document, WISE was incorporated in
> early 1983. However WISE is mentioned in the MCCS meeting of Sep.
> 1980:
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/mccs-meeting-transcript-1980-09-29.html
>
> So I gather it was about WISE Inc. in that meeting, not World
> Institute of Scientology Enterprises.
Yeah, they've been shuffling WISE under a number of corporate shells over
the years. They agreed to close one of them as part of IRS agreement.
Cerberus
Good Solstice to you and anyone else who needs the comfort of a
celebratory day that everyone can share, regardless of one's
religion or lack of religion or the popularity thereof. Solstice
happens Sunday morning in the US.
Bonne Hiver, Northern Hemisphere. No darkness shall endure.
henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
[snippity snip]
>My response from WWP.
[more snip]
I just want to offer a big AOL "me too" to WWP's analysis.
Who, may one ask, is WWP? If you've posted his curriculum vitae
elsewhere, I missed it.
If his ID and bona fides are secret, please 'scuse me fer askin'.
Just wanted to do some cheerful lawyer-dawg butt sniffin', or
whatever the usenet version of that very useful, if
unsettling-to-primates doggy activity is.
Finally, some red meat in a.r.s.! Thanks tikk.
Best,
Cerberus
__________________
Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent
lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis
the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never
mine own man since.
Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2
cerb...@phlegethon.com
cerb...@aol.com _________________________________________
"In Germany they first came for the insane, raving, IQ-testing,
barratrous, money-laundering, tax-dodging cultists, and I didn't
speak up because I was not an insane, raving, IQ-testing, barratrous,
money-laundering, tax-dodging cultist. Then things got MUCH better,
and we're all fine now. Thanks for asking."
Pastor Martin Niemoller III (Germany, 2010)
http://www.xenu.net
_________________________________________________________
henri
wrote:
>Hiya henri,
>Good Solstice to you and anyone else who needs the comfort of a
>celebratory day that everyone can share, regardless of one's
>religion or lack of religion or the popularity thereof. Solstice
>happens Sunday morning in the US.
Hiya Cerberus you busted-down old three-headed mutt. Glad to see you
around.
>Bonne Hiver, Northern Hemisphere. No darkness shall endure.
>henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>[snippity snip]
>>My response from WWP.
>[more snip]
>I just want to offer a big AOL "me too" to WWP's analysis.
>Who, may one ask, is WWP? If you've posted his curriculum vitae
>elsewhere, I missed it.
WWP is whyweprotest.net which is where much criticism of Scientology
is occurring these days. Needless to say there are also many other
sites. ARS is simply not the center of Scientology criticism any
more. (Usenet itself is looking pretty sickly.)
When I said it's my response from WWP, I meant it's a post I made, but
I made it to this thread on the whyweprotest site:
http://tinyurl.com/9wcq89
Hartley Patterson
> For what it's worth, my comments on this from WWP:
> Also look for an announcement within the next 1-2 months at the most
> for a case against organized scientology, and not just some WISE
> group, that will make this look like a day at the park. Sorry to be so
> cryptic now but I am sure details will be forthcoming shortly.
I do tell the local Anonymous placard carriers that lots of things are
going on behind the scenes that are 'need to know'. Sometimes their own
propaganda about keeping everything in the open gets to them and they get
dispirited when nothing new has happened for a few weeks.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Eldon
Oops! Ol' Craig sorta misspoke there, didn't he?
SME
>
> > "It is organized under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law primarily for
> > religious purposes. Its purposes are to promote and foster the religious
> > teachings of L. Ron Hubbard in society, and to have and exercise all rights
> > and powers from time to time granted to nonprofit corporations by law."
>
> I wasn't aware of this document. Hopefully, the plaintiffs' lawyer(s)
> will include it as part of their collection of evidences.
>
> A bit confused though: From this document, WISE was incorporated in
> early 1983. However WISE is mentioned in the MCCS meeting of Sep. 1980:
There were WISE corporations setup prior to 1983. The first one was in
the late 70s (maybe as late as 1980 -I'll have to check my records)
where two of us then from GOWW went to Vaduz, Liechtenstein following
Hubbard's telex orders to us to incorporate WISE there. We did that
but Hubbard later decided against it as it had to be a "Limited"
company with "Limited" in the name and Hubbard said that "WISE
LImited" killed the PR. (I gotta agree with that actually- lol).
Keep in mind that you'll NEVER find the real power of who runs what in
organized scientology by following the corporate structure as
corporate is nothing but a convienent shell game to organized
scientology used to hide the real controls. They want you to follow
what the corporate structure seems to say of who runs what but they
even screw up that by not keeping track of their lies and then later
contradicting them.
As for the questions about people testifying in this case or not, I
think it is safe to say that the attorney fighting the case against
Diskeeper et al has some helpful contacts in this area. IMO
SME
My blog: http://larrybren.blogspot.com/
tikk
slashdotted [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/2239255].
You'll want to pay attention to your bandwidth, as the story links to
your version of the documents.
~ tikk
Hartley Patterson
> As for the questions about people testifying in this case or not, I
> think it is safe to say that the attorney fighting the case against
> Diskeeper et al has some helpful contacts in this area. IMO
Does a short, sharp and to the point information pack exist that shows how
Hubbard ORDERED his followers to use courts to time waste and harass, and
that they have repeatedly done so at taxpayers expense? To be presented to
each Judge before any court case starts?
FairUse...@gmail.com
http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/200810-godelman-leshay-v-diskeeper.html
Link to access official Los Angeles Superior Court Documents:
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil
Ex Scientologist Message Board Discussion:
http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=9154
Operation Clambake Discussion:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=29787
henri
<hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>larrybr...@aol.com:
>> For what it's worth, my comments on this from WWP:
>> Also look for an announcement within the next 1-2 months at the most
>> for a case against organized scientology, and not just some WISE
>> group, that will make this look like a day at the park. Sorry to be so
>> cryptic now but I am sure details will be forthcoming shortly.
>I do tell the local Anonymous placard carriers that lots of things are
>going on behind the scenes that are 'need to know'. Sometimes their own
>propaganda about keeping everything in the open gets to them and they get
>dispirited when nothing new has happened for a few weeks.
Well, I generally take as having zero informational content
announcements of big things around the corner. The history of such
pre-nouncements in anti-Scientology circles is an almost unbroken
pattern of nothing panning out.
The grander the announcement, the less likely anything is to happen.
Not to be too cynical, though. Larry Brennan is guilty of fewer of
these kinds of announcements than some people I could name and more
likely to actually know what he's talking about.
Alex Clark
People still use Diskeeper?!
Quaoar
Really? WWP has some few valuable resources, but taken as a whole, it
is a vast wasteland of anything one would actually use for critical
reference. OCMB is crippled by a dwindling user base that never seems
to publish much of anything valuable anymore. ESMB is extremely good
for personal reflections from ex-Scientologists and hosts some good
revelations, but is not suited for the general viewer.
You are correct, IMO, that ARS/Usenet has degenerated as a source of
critical comment, especially in the last year when major broadband ISPs
declined free access for their subscribers.
What is needed is a significant replacement for ARS as a public forum.
This would take primarily someone with the $$ to invest, initially, in
such a site.
Q