On 5 Aug 1997 04:01:58 -0700, mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:

[snip]

Martin, after reading your recent exchanges with Peter McDermott, I
can't help thinking that you're engaging in a little projection here.

Diane Richardson
refe...@bway.net

Very true.

Me for one.

Get off it.  She answered Dennis' questions - which he already knew
the answers to anyway.  He can't now cry "foul".

I don't see it this way at all.  She has made very good, concise and
straightforward statements all along.  When asked, she answered the
questions.  Unlike many of the people posting on this newsgroup, she
does not seem to have any particular axe to grind and so doesn't have
to take the usual anti-Scientology position, just to get another dig
in.  

This description of events sounds very much like Wollersheim. In fact
those who are really in the know, understand that Wollersheim is first
and foremost a salesman. Actually, he crosses over the line and falls
into the category of a "con" in that he inadvertently hypes the latest
gimmick or product to his customers.  The problem is that every single
money making project that he has ever engaged in has resulted in
failure and people getting burned.  It is the nature of the beast.
That is also exactly what is going on with FACTNet at the present
time.  Wollerhseim has made promises he can't keep, has extended
himself and FACTNet financially, he has even sold shares in his
judgement.  I am sure he has most of his lawyers and other FACTNet
members upset with him for promises that he couldn't keep.

This is only translation of someone who has no judgement.

Bull.

This is quite a vindictive statement in itself and is not meant to be
helpful at all but only to try and hurt Diane's feelings.  

In article <341aac79.77975...@snews.zippo.com>,

What was the deal with Operation Freakout? This is what's
led to Diane's status as being an SP hereabouts, I take it?

In article <33e7b7ec.1993...@snews.zippo.com>,

Indeed. As Dave Bird did to one of my posts recently as well.

I have to say that it rings a bit hollow to have people complaining
about Scieno forgeries and Operation Freakout, and then engage
in exactly the same sort of tactics themselves.

(posted and e-mailed)

In <5DHa+RAcm25zE...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of

I don't use Turnip Version 3.03a but to me it seems you plonked not only
the "Witch of Zun" but also every person posting from bway.net. Because
this From: line is forged you won't see it on the usenet.

Prignillius <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in article
<19970805161805.10921.qm...@nym.alias.net>:

I wouldn't call this type of CAN statement about Wollersheim
exactly a "confidence", except in Dennis manipulative way of
presenting things. It seems to me that these are things that are
being told regularly in the framework of a difficult and
confrontational area such as the cult/anticult one. All it says
is that CAN didn't regard Wollersheim as trustworthy, which is
nothing that will surprise any of us here who can see his many
frailties right here in the newsgroup. Was that such a big
secret that he wouldn't guess already himself on the part of CAN
(if he has a minimum of sense of observation)? Is this something
that they told *only* to Diane and to nobody else and that they
protect as a jealously held secret? Common!

You are a bit quick on the trigger, Prig, playing along with the
typical cult leader game of Dennis and his misrepresentations
and guilt games. You completely ignore the part Dennis played in
the story, as well as his motivations. This makes your analysis,
that are otherwise usually pretty thorough, rather incomplete
this time.

Bernie

e...@address.at.bottom (ef) wrote in article
<ef-0608970822230...@news.portal.ca>:

Hardly.

Diane kept for a long time the Bast tapes for her, out of
courtesy. It must not be easy to keep this type of important
information, yet she did. When Rob Clark and Sister Clara
attacked her and Keith Spurgeon in the most vile and ugly manner
there was post after post in an attempt to silence her and
prevent her to bring that up, she did just that, she brought the
whole thing in full light, and she did well. They called for it
and the information of the Bast tapes really belong to this
newsgroup in the same way as any other information about LRH
that are gathered by ex-members, and other means.

She kept the information about Rob's bomb threat for her, I
don't know for how long. I don't know if *I* or anyone else
could keep such a vital piece of information for that long,
watching how this myth went on and on in the newsgroup, the CofS
being repeatedly "proved" criminal because of it. It is only
when Rob repeatedly insulted her, distorted everything, and
repeatedly misrepresented her dealings with the court where she
obtained the documents, after she had asked him to stop doing so
for post after post, that she came up with this information. And
she did well. Not only he certainly called for it, but it
corrected a serious wrong. Do you think it is something "good"
that a false information such as this one is repeatedly
circulated in the newsgroup? Now, frankly, ef, do you find that
right?

Diane spoke against FACTNet for as long as I can remember it.
She kept this particular piece of information for herself,
though. When Dennis challenged her and actually framed her in
the most manipulative and disgusting manner as he did to
challenge her to reveal this very information, then, yes, I
think that she did well to go ahead and answer the precise
questions he put to her, because that was a clear setup, a clear
manipulative tactic, something that you seem to disregard
completely, ef. *He* certainly has an important part of
responsibility in that, because he *knew* the answer, and he
deliberately pushed Diane's buttons, which he is certainly the
best placed to know. It's too easy to forget the whole context
and just accuse Diane of "breaking confidence" without any
reason.

Diane *proved* that it is not what she does unless she is pushed
to it, she *proved* that she can backup her claim and argue
logically and fairly. How many amongst the dozens claims she
did, did she not substantiate, ef? Yet, nothing of that is
acknowledged. She is putting us the same hard questions she put
the scieno, and for that alone she is a bitch, right? We applaud
when she does it to the CofS, and cry faul and "malevolence"
when we have to face the same questions. How dishonest! How
utterly dishonest. Now how about indulging in deliberate
manipulation, as Dennis did? I have hardly words for it.

As for Dennis, no one can accuse me of telling him for what he
is *now*, because I am not saying anything else than what I said
a few weeks/months ago, when I became aware of his manipulative
and abusive ways. I made posts after posts about that, nothing
new. If anything, he just proved once again the type of
manipulation he engage into. Diane confronted him with his own
words about involuntary conservatorship, something that
supposedly he is not supporting, and since then he didn't stop
trying to pull Diane in his embroiled, messed up, and twisted
state of mind.

Bernie

You have bent judges in the US put there to protect big business. They
are political appointments. They are not earned through merit. What they
do they do because they were appointed to do it. They twist the law to
please their masters knowing they can never be held accountable. The
whole system stinks. "American justice" is an oxymoron.

What you are saying is complete crap anyway - as usual. We know the Co$
lies. It is all based on lies. So to warn people you have to provide the
proof. You have to provide something substantial. The NOTs, or whatever,
are like a photograph taken of the crime in action. Only it belongs to
them. It is proof - but it belongs to them rather than you. To produce
this proof you infringe copyright (not so in the UK). And yet in some
cases this is what you must do.  

I put in the rider "not so in the UK". In the UK it is all decided by
the courts. There isn't even any "fair use" here. The courts will decide
each complaint on its own merits. For a start-off copyright is to do
with protecting the copyright holders entitlement to money from a
performance of their work. In the case described that doesn't apply.
Also if a person is acting in order to protect the public they can do
so, so long as they can convince the courts that that was the reason
they did it. If the courts decided that the Co$ were being immoral in
keeping their stuff hidden from the public then they would not even be
able to use the courts in any case. You are not allowed to use the legal
system to enforce immoral acts. For example, if you had a bet with
someone and they welched on their bet then there is no way you could
take them to court to recover that debt. Gambling is immoral and so you
cannot use the courts to assist you. That is the way it is over here.
That is why the Co$ are going to get crucified when a particular big
case gets to court over here.

*Plonk* the bitch!

On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 01:06:19 GMT, refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:

Diane -

Arnie posted *before* Judge Brinkema offered her ruling.  You make it
seem as though he read her order and then decided to post as he did.

This analogy is getting a little thin, but can you really not think of
a type of danger that should be publicized, and after you do somebody
comes along and says "thanks for the warning, but the material you
quoted is copyright and we don't think it is fair use"?

Finally, the heart of the matter. Arnie did what he did believing it
was right and proper.  Later, the Cof$ brings it to court, and the
Judge says he wasn't completely legal in how he publicized the danger,
and here is a tiny, little, statutory minimum fine for your trouble.

You know, Arnie was probably still *right* to act as he did.  The
point being that if we all failed to act or criticize when we are
confronted with apparent wrongdoing.  If we are self-censored into
silence out of fear that a well-intended and apparently legal protest
would turn to have unfortunate consequences for ourselves, then we
fail in our duty as responsible human beings in a free society.  

We don't have Federal judges standing by to offer binding advice on
the spur of the moment.  We must, each of us, make a good faith effort
to decide what is right and wrong, and how we are going to act in the
face of perceived injustice.  

"When they came for the <....>, I did not complain, because I was not
<....>.  When they came for me, there was no one left to complain."

In article <33e9aad5.2681...@snews.zippo.com>,
"Rev. Dennis Erlich" <inF...@super.zippo.com> writes:

 OK.  I actually like Diane, a lot of the time.  I don't like
what she's doing now -- it pisses me off.  Substitute she's
ACTING LIKE a boil on the butt of humanity.  So long as she keeps
doing it, I'm going to call her for it.  If (ever) she packs in
acting like an asshole, we can be friends again: or at least I
will stop being hostile to her...how she reacts to me is up to her.

                                            |~/           |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P |      Woof Woof, Glug Glug               ||____________||      0  | P
O |   Who Drowned the Judge's Dog?          | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O |         answers on                  *---|_______________  @__o0  | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)

Of course he did.  Brinkema would not have had any reason to reach a
decision if Arnie hadn't posted the material.

No, I cannot think of any type of warning that would require wholesale
misappropriation of someone else's copyrighted material.  I believe
that the Washington Post did an excellent job relaying the information
without engaging in copyright violation.  I believe we would do well
to follow the Post's, rather than Lerma's, lead in such a situation.

Arnie posted that material knowing full well the possible consequences
of his actions.  He knew about the earlier raid.  He knew RTC's
reputation for barratry.  He was warned about what to expect from
friends and net acqaintances.

Arnie chose to violate the law to personally confront the cult.  That
was his choice -- his decision.  He certainly feels that what he did
was "right."  All I am saying is that there are other ways of warning
the public against the dangers of the CoS, ways that do not violate
the law and ways that are equally, if not more, effective, than the
path Arnie Lerma chose.

I do not believe that anyone should remain silent about the abuses of
the CoS.  I certainly do not advocate self-censorship.  What I am
saying is that it is not necessary to violate the law to criticize the
CoS.  Utilizing these ways are far more intelligent and far more
effective than the path chosen by Arnie Lerma.

No, but many of us, including Arnie Lerma himself, have attorneys we
can consult before we act.  They are quite capable of providing us
with advice about the wisdom of our plans, if we provide them with all
the circumstances involving our plans.

You misread me entirely if you believe I am advocating silence about
the abuses of the CoS.  I have spent years as an advocate of
intellectual freedom and will continue doing so long after this little
fracas is forgotten.  All I point out is that those who choose their
weapons wisely are those who will prevail.

The fair use section of  the copyright statute is a potent weapon.
Use it.

Diane Richardson
refe...@bway.net

[clip]
      well bernie, since you obviously know *all* the inside
      details, perhaps you will fill us in?

-- see...@ix.netcom.com
   Friends of Dennis Erlich (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)

      look up the word 'crony', barney.  i suspect that jbwebb
      doesn't even know dennis, except here on the net.

      then you can try to hide your animus behind a language
      difficulty, again.

-- see...@ix.netcom.com
   Friends of Dennis Erlich (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)

ah yes. you would be. gives you some ammo, don't it.

oh sigh-of-sighs. here i go finding you despicable again. oh well

<shrug>

ef

--

efisc...@removethisspambait.portal.ca

n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote in article
<B00E3DEE9668DC...@0.0.0.0>:

During the Cooper threads, it came out that Operation Freakout,
that was such a favorite ARS ranting subject, never started
never happened, never was implemented. The papers about this
operation were seized by the FBI in 1976, and it was just a
project planned for 1977. People argued that the forged bomb
threat on Cooper was a proof it was implemented, but this bomb
threat happened in 1973, and so could not be part of operation
freakout that was written in 1976. They then argued that charges
were dropped on Cooper because the paper on operation Freakout
proved that the bomb threat was of the making of the CofS, but
this wasn't the case either. The Federal prosecutor agreed to
drop the charges after Cooper agreed to undergo one year of
psychiatric counseling. The charges were dropped only after she
completed the year of counseling, and this was long time before
the FBI raid.

So, the many dirty tricks attributed to the CofS under Operation
Freakout never were enacted in this particular framework. This
of course, doesn't mean that the CofS didn't harass its critics
and engaged in dirty tricks. It only means that what was
attributed to Operation Freakout was just a myth that critics
bashed the CofS over the head time after time. They assumed it
was correct, but it was just a myth they accepted without
questions.

The Operation Freakout bit was only a tiny part involved in the
Paulette Cooper/Bast thread. Hard to summarize (and probably
impossible without generating new resentments). Probably one of
the most significant event of ARS, and a most fascinating one in
regard to reactions of critics when they themselves are
questionned and not the CofS. Dozens of people were involved in
an ugly and nasty flame war that went on for about two months. I
think that quite a few posters didn't survived it (virtually
speaking of course), and some only started to recover from it
around now.

[Snipped my own evaluation about it to avoid a new flame war]

If you want to have a glimpse into these events, create a filter
in DejaNews on alt.religion.scientology between 1996, Oct 1 and
1996, Nov 30, and search for "Cooper" - and good luck to dig
into the 1735 hits!

Bernie

In article <33ef9d88.3240...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:

So clue me in.

Of course I missed it. I haven't read ARS for two years. Sadly,
it seems that Rod's Week in Review doesn't contain all of the
really interesting stuff.

Ah. ARSCC stopped issuing declares then? I don't believe it.
I think this is akin to what the nutkult says about fair
game.

"Oh, we don't do that any more. That was just the results of
a few misguided souls, but we've sent them off to ARSCC RPF now,
and besides, they were never really members anyway."

: Of course I missed it. I haven't read ARS for two years. Sadly,
: it seems that Rod's Week in Review doesn't contain all of the
: really interesting stuff.

That sort of bickering is exactly the kind of thing many of the
subscribers are trying to avoid. I get frequent emails about how nice it
is to be able to read the new stuff without wallowing in all the personal
in-fighting.

I listened to the realaudios, and I can't say I remember any really
interesting stuff.

--
Rod Keller / rkel...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go
Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully

In article <B00F65E896684B...@0.0.0.0>,

The Bast tapes are a collection of audio tapes that were made by
either Paulette Cooper or her employer at the time, Richard Bast.
Bast was a PI hired by Scientology[tm] to investigate a judge who
was giving them some grief (I think it was Richey, but am doing this
as a quick summary off the top of my head and am unsure.) Bast, posing
as an employee of some fictitious, wealthy parents who'd lost a child
to Scientology[tm], hired Paulette Cooper as an investigator. Her
instructions were to surreptitiously tape phone calls and meetings with
her contacts and, unknown to her, Bast taped his phone calls and meetings
with her. The tapes are archived at a federal records center near Boston
because they're considered to have historical value. I haven't listened
to the tapes, but they're apparently somewhat embarrassing to Paulette Cooper
as Bast leads conversations into salty language and speculation about doing
dirty tricks on the cult.

henri told some people that he was the actual author of the "Blow up
your church of scientology today" post and word got back to Diane.

What Diane revealed about Paulette Cooper is a bit more controversial.

The first point is that the campaign of harassment against PC was not
Operation Freakout. If I'm quoting Diane accurately, she maintains that
Operation Freakout was an unimplemented plan of harassment to be used
against PC if PC didn't accept and abide by a new settlement. The harassment
directed at PC that's bandied about the group, including the forged
bomb threat frame up, were apparently not done under the name Operation
Freakout.

The second point Diane made is that PC had a break in her fight with
Scientology[tm]. After signing one settlement, PC spent two years
relatively free of harassment (this is my assessment of what Diane has
said, I haven't done any research and PC doesn't want to risk breaking
her gag agreement by speaking freely on these matters.) After her break,
PC went back into litigation against the cult and got tangled up in Bast's
investigation of (I think) Judge Richey. This discussion was very heated,
and I don't think Diane and PC like each other so I didn't follow that
particular thread very closely. I think Diane was trying to refute someone
who'd claimed that PC was harassed continuously for x years when it looked
to Diane like PC had settled once then jumped into the fight again on her
own knowing what it entailed. The Bast tapes compromised PC enough that
she did sign and abide by a settlement with Scientology[tm].

That settlement was itself an issue on ars, since PC signed an affidavit
that was used against Michael Flynn and some of his clients. (PC was a
former client of Flynn.) The affidavit was signed several months after
the settlement and Diane maintains that PC signed it for an additional
sum of money. Others believe that the settlement was not finalized when
PC signed the affidavit and that it was signed under pressure. PC did not
feel that her gag order allowed her to discuss the issue.

There's a tremendous amount of flamage around the Bast/PC/DR threads,
and I'm not sure that the matter can be reopened without generating
more heat and flame. With PC feeling at risk for cult retaliation if she
speaks, some people in the group feel a need to take her side against
perceived attacks and then other people take issue with the attacks
from the defenders and then both sides claim the moral high ground and
start lobbing grenades while the snipers fire randomly at anyone who
goes too far from cover. If anyone wishes to add more to this, *please*
*please* *please* don't point fingers or throw accusations.

kEvin
m...@primenet.com

Diane speaks for you?

OK; here's my question for you, then. Why did Lisa McPherson die?

No "axe to grind", eh? Sorry; I think she has an entire armoury
to grind. But then, she's going easy and soft on Scientology, so
I guess that's the only real reason you take issue with her. What's
your opinion of someone like Martin P., who answers questions and
gives straight, honest answers and does not appear to have any
axe to grind? You should love his posts, right? I mean, logically.

I thought his claim to fame wasn't so much in sales as in winning
a US Supreme Court decision against Scientology in which your cult
was commanded to pay him millions of dollars?

What's your opinion about that? Was the Supreme Court wrong? If
so, how? In what way? And is "wog justice" ever naturally right
in opposition to Scientology, or is it only right when it comes
down on Scientology's side, and wrong in all other cases?

L. Ron Hubbard was an accomplished con man who said that making Scientology
out to be a religion is "merely a matter for tax accountants".

Unlike L. Ron Hubbard, who said that the "best way to make a million
dollars is to start a religion", and spent the last years of his life
raking in millions and millions of dollars from his con game, spending
them on ships and oppulent ranches.

The "Beast 666", Aleister Crowley, L. Ron Hubbard's "very good friend"?

That's the multi-million dollar judgment the US Supreme Court upheld
against Scientology something like ten years ago? Say, when is Scientology
going to pay up, anyway?

Pay your bills, culties.

Not nearly as many people as Scientology has pissed off over the
years through its constellation of nefarious activities.

I thought you said he had a judgment? Is David Miscavige still
chanting ritualistically "not one thin dime for Wollersheim,
not one thin dime for Wollersheim, there's no place like home..."?

Didn't he just pay Wollersheim $400,000 on that huge judgment?
So much for postulates. Scientology paid good money to Larry W.
Why is that, Walter?

You trust her all you like. Trust DM, too. And trust Hubbard. Trust
the GO 11. Trust your boss. Trust your Body Thetans. Trust yourself
to become more transparent as you blow the Body Thetans off.

Third partying? Heh; won't work, Walter. Welcome, my son; welcome to
the machine.

Scientology is a dead organization. Get out and join the freezone or
something, pal. How much money did you lose last year? The year
before? How much longer can you stand there hemorrhaging cash all
over the planet before you go bankrupt?

Wgert, why don't you tell us how much money Scientology has and
current annual losses so we can calculate when the beast will fall?
Scientology will be very different in another ten years. Look at
the media attention now. No publicity is bad publicity? I think
that's being proved wrong. Had any good recruits lately? Or is it
just the usual stream of blows?

--
  Cogito, ergo sum.  Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Join the Scientology Webring: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/webring.htm

In article <19970807182523.29610.qm...@nym.alias.net>,

Hunh? With tin foil you can make a hat to ward off body thetans
and evil intention beads. Can't do that with gold and diamonds.

kEvin
m...@primenet.com

On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 03:59:20 -0700, jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com>
wrote:

He posted no commentary whatever.    

Not hard at all.

Rather than accepting Brinkema's decision with pride, Lerma went back
to court demanding that the CoS not be allowed to claim they had
prevailed in the lawsuit.  Judge Brinkema was not moved by Lerma's
whining.

Diane Richardson
refe...@bway.net

mre...@rmi.nospam.net (Michael Reuss) wrote in article
<33f15cf0.10424...@news.frii.com>:

Are you claiming that Dennis didn't use the word torture in his
sentence?

Bernie

jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote in article
<33E9A525.2...@gramercy.ios.com>:

You are. You prove once more that you are blind to your guru's
failings and will go to all kinds of stupid rationalizations to
explain them.

Bernie

see...@spamtrap.ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote in article
<seekon-0608972002240...@utc-ny1-13.ix.netcom.com>:

Which is of course, as usual with you, a very "personal" account
of events, to say the very least. And because Mr. Number 3 said
it all to be so, it must be so, right?

Bernie

[...]

: You have bent judges in the US put there to protect big business. They
: are political appointments. They are not earned through merit. What they
: do they do because they were appointed to do it. They twist the law to
: please their masters knowing they can never be held accountable. The
: whole system stinks. "American justice" is an oxymoron.

A point clearly made in the ABC News documentary, "The Trouble with
Lawyers" with John Stossel, tonight 10/9c.  It's great. A probable Emmy
winner.  "A must see." - TV Dude.