The Confessions of Reed Slatkin
ptsc
Slatkin document, Reed's write-up of his overts against his "friends."
ptsc
Tilman Hausherr
wrote in <0k6l2u4jjot0gmapl...@4ax.com>:
>http://www.slatkinfraud.com/docs/confession/01.htm is the latest
>Slatkin document, Reed's write-up of his overts against his "friends."
Page 3 might be .sig material:
"showing non-scientologist that a scientologist is dangerous, dishonest,
a con man, unstable, insane"
"giving scientology a bad reputation with non-scientologists"
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html
roger gonnet
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> a écrit dans le message de news:
0k6l2u4jjot0gmapl...@4ax.com...
> http://www.slatkinfraud.com/docs/confession/01.htm is the latest
> Slatkin document, Reed's write-up of his overts against his "friends."
>
> ptsc
Very interesting. Gave me some thoughts about scientology total failures in
these circumstances, specifically:
1. This Oatee unable to get his "ethics in". Keeps on lying, stealing
friends, exactly like every scieno does when disseminating or insisting with
friends or other scienos, so as to keep them in.
2. This guy uses the "tech of confessions" on himself, and it seems that's
enough to keep him "a good scientologist", and able to continue his
activities, while being much admired by his co-scienos.
3. Complete absence of ability of any [??] other scienos to detect that this
guy was a fraud: probably the mere fact that he was an OT 8 was enough to
reassure them: same error as being confident in L. Ron. Complete absence of
any supposedly existing abilities to telepathy, or even, of signales of
danger which could have avoided these people to be ruined by this
scientologist reverend ??
====
More generally:
I've "confessed" Sea Orgers or ex-sea orgers (never to get blackmail etc).
That was 20 years ago, and the situation was the same: scienos, after a
time, could have done almost whatever including stealing in the orgs or
folo or flag or WDC cashboxes, could have been preparing to blow since
months, without being detected. What's the value of such "confessions"?
Look, these criminal above, the OSA chiefs, the WDC, all the majors of the
criminal cult, they know what happens, and there crimes are never detected
by their own friends inside, despite the great tech...
roger
Beverly Rice
> ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
> >http://www.slatkinfraud.com/docs/confession/01.htm is the latest
> >Slatkin document, Reed's write-up of his overts against his "friends."
> So he reported all this to the "church" in 1988, giving them a dozen
> years to either protect the victims of the scam, or to milk as much
> as THEY could out of it. Which did they choose to do?
They did what LRH Policy required they do:
GOVERNING POLICY
A. MAKE MONEY
B. Buy more money made with allocations for expense (bean theory).
C. Do not commit expense beyond future ability to pay.
D. Don't ever borrow.
E. Know different types of orgs and what they do.
F. Understand money flow lines not only in an org but org to org as
customers flow upward.
G. Understand EXCHANGE of valuables or service for money (P/L Exec
Series 3 and 4).
H. Know the correct money pools for any given activity.
I. Police all lines constantly.
J. MAKE MONEY.
K. MAKE MORE MONEY.
L. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY.
A small sack of beans will produce a whole field of beans. Allocate only
with that in mind and demand money to be made.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCOPL 9 Mar 1972
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
ptsc
wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:51:23 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net>
>wrote in <0k6l2u4jjot0gmapl...@4ax.com>:
>>http://www.slatkinfraud.com/docs/confession/01.htm is the latest
>>Slatkin document, Reed's write-up of his overts against his "friends."
>Page 3 might be .sig material:
>"showing non-scientologist that a scientologist is dangerous, dishonest,
>a con man, unstable, insane"
This is exactly what the Slatkin elves said when they first saw this quote.
Note that this "brutally honest appraisal" might have made Reed somewhat more
sympathetic if it had been written in 2000 when the weasels were closing in on
him to rip his flesh from his miserable bones; however, he wrote this in 1988,
before 12 more years of berserk swindling.
You can be certain that the Slatkin creditors reading this are less than
impressed by Reed's dark night of the soul.
What this whole document says is that for at least 12 years, Reed Slatkin was
entirely aware that what he was doing was illegal, was entirely aware that he
was continually lying, was entirely aware that this was fraud, and that it was
wrong, but nevertheless continued to do it.
Things aren't looking very good for our dear friend Mr. Slatkin.
>"giving scientology a bad reputation with non-scientologists"
As long as we're exchanging quotable quotes, here's one from the Trustee's
Report at http://www.slatkinfraud.com/report/december_2001.htm
Slatkin also had a business association with Patrick Gallagher ("Gallagher")
during 1986-1990. Gallagher was a commodities trader licensed with the Chicago
Board of Trade. Slatkin and Gallagher came to an agreement whereby Slatkin
would make funds available to Gallagher, who was properly licensed, to make the
trades. Ultimately, a bitter dispute arose between them relating to capital
accounts and tax allocations. In the final exchange Gallagher’s attorney
intoned, "We are fearful that a comprehensive review of certain trading and
account activity may reveal unsavory characteristics of a scabrous nature
involving, among other things, irregularities with respect to the exchange rules
and conduct, which, under closer scrutiny, may subject one to prosecution by
various government agencies." Ex. 6 (¶ 7).
The one delightful touch added by the Trustee to this recounting of the end of
Reed's rocky relationship with Gallagher is the word "intoned." I also think it
should be nominated for an award for "Best Use of the Word 'Scabrous' in a
Menacing Lawyer Letter."
ptsc
ptsc
>On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:51:23 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT
>net> wrote:
>>ptsc
>So he reported all this to the "church" in 1988, giving them a dozen
>years to either protect the victims of the scam, or to milk as much
>as THEY could out of it. Which did they choose to do?
The distribution of this letter (which has been often dubbed an "O/W writeup"
although a reliable source describes it instead as an "admin scale") is unknown.
Reed may or may not have given this or a similar "confession" to Church
officials, and there is nothing about the document which indicates who, if
anyone, was its intended recipient; nor is there any indication which would lead
one to conclude whether it had reached a recipient at all.
ptsc
Chip Gallo
Condition ethics handling. This and the "O/Ws" would have been given to an
ethics person (Ethics Officer in an org, or somebody performing that
function for a private company) for review/approval. It would be interesting
to see if he ever applied to reenter the group while doing a Doubt formula.
Chip Gallo
Knowing How to Know is Knowing When to Blow
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message
news:2ncm2ukbuhee6m243...@4ax.com...
Cerridwen
above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message
news:2ncm2ukbuhee6m243...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 23:50:39 -0800, Brent <bst...@kudonet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:51:23 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT
> >net> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.slatkinfraud.com/docs/confession/01.htm is the latest
> >>Slatkin document, Reed's write-up of his overts against his
"friends."
>
> >>ptsc
>
> >So he reported all this to the "church" in 1988, giving them a dozen
> >years to either protect the victims of the scam, or to milk as much
> >as THEY could out of it. Which did they choose to do?
>
> The distribution of this letter (which has been often dubbed an "O/W
writeup"
> although a reliable source describes it instead as an "admin scale")
is unknown.
This is not an admin scale unless there is something missing.
An admin scale is completely different.
HCOPL 6 Dec 70
Admin Scale
goals
purposes
policy
plans
programs
projects
orders
ideal scenes
stats
valuable final products
"The scale is worked up and worked down until it is (each item) in full
agreement with the remaining items. In short, for success all these
items in the scale must agree with all other items in the scale on the
same subject"
> Reed may or may not have given this or a similar "confession" to
Church
> officials, and there is nothing about the document which indicates
who, if
> anyone, was its intended recipient; nor is there any indication which
would lead
> one to conclude whether it had reached a recipient at all.
The intended recipient would have been either the Ethics Officer or
the MAA depending on which org he last did services at.
Does anyone know if this o/w write that was found in his files was the
"original" or a photocopy? If the original was found in his file, then
he probably never mailed it in.
It looks like he did a half assed o/w write up meaning it wasn't done
"standardly" and then started applying the lower conditions.
Being trained in ethics tech,and having a good understanding of the Scn
mindset, I'll give you my take on this.
He applied the Treason and Enemy Formula's (which are part of the
Ethics conditions) and stopped. His next condition formula would have
been doubt. If he had continued and applied the Condition of Doubt,
he would have been forced to actual do something to stop his
criminal actions. He obvioulsy didn't want to do that.
It looks like he just wrote the o/w's and then could not confront
going through with coming clean and stopping his criminal actions.
He filed it away and decided he'd confront it another day. That day
came 12 years later when he was forced to deal with it.
If this is an original copy and not a photocopy, it is likely that he
never turned it in.
Especially since he never completed the Conditions.
The C of S probably never saw this. If they did, they will deny it. The
only one who really knows is Reed and he ain't talkin'.
Even though Reed was a big money maker for the C of S, it is more than
likely that they didn't know about this o/w write up or his con.
I know the C of S commits crimes. But you have to understand that
there is a double standard on this. It is quite OK for the C of S to
commit certain crimes, fair game, harrassment, dirty tricks etc. on
critics of Scn. I mean afterall, LRH said it was OK so they think it's
OK.
However, I know that the C of S would not knowingly go along with
Reed's con game. The very last thing the C of S wants is the bad PR
that Reed is heaping upon the C of S. The Church goes to great lengths
do NOT have shit like this happen.
You have to really understand the mindset on this.
Crimes committed by the C of S to "stop the SP's is OK. Crimes
committed by parishioners that have the potential of bringing bad
repute to the C of S is not. It's a crazy but true.
Cerridwen
Ed
It certainly is no Admin Scale. The Admin Scale for an
activity (like a business) is a writeup of the Goals, Purposes, Plans,
Policy, Programs, Projects, Orders, Valuable Final Products, Ideal
Scenes, and Statistics of it. (That list is approximate.) It's
considered a good idea for an executive to figure out and write up all
these things and see that they align properly and don't contradict
each other.
I wasn't paying attention, but how did this document come to light?
Ed
Feisty
Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in message
news:0cel2uk62hu8prhsc...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:51:23 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net>
> wrote in <0k6l2u4jjot0gmapl...@4ax.com>:
>
> >http://www.slatkinfraud.com/docs/confession/01.htm is the latest
> >Slatkin document, Reed's write-up of his overts against his "friends."
>
> Page 3 might be .sig material:
>
> "showing non-scientologist that a scientologist is dangerous, dishonest,
> a con man, unstable, insane"
>
> "giving scientology a bad reputation with non-scientologists"
I think that deserves a nick for him or they who kept the largest ponzi scheme going-
"TutanRonman" or "TutanConmen"
The next life would be whoever is to keep $cn working...
Feisty
roger gonnet
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> a écrit dans le message de news:
I proposed yesterday a possible explanation: The guy was like most SOrgers
or staffs after some time in the cult. Liars. I pretend that most scienos
after some time, and particularly, those having to sell etc, are liars and
know that they lie, even if there is also a paert of truth in their "claims
of results".
To be convinced of this, on can remember how one is selling a two pence item
and a 20000 dollars "service". The same way, apart the fact that the clients
are not the same. Almost promising identical results from reading
"dianetics" than from a 150 hours lot of auditing.
roger
Keith Henson
snip
>The C of S probably never saw this. If they did, they will deny it. The
>only one who really knows is Reed and he ain't talkin'.
>
>Even though Reed was a big money maker for the C of S, it is more than
>likely that they didn't know about this o/w write up or his con.
>
>I know the C of S commits crimes. But you have to understand that
>there is a double standard on this. It is quite OK for the C of S to
>commit certain crimes, fair game, harrassment, dirty tricks etc. on
>critics of Scn. I mean afterall, LRH said it was OK so they think it's
>OK.
>
>However, I know that the C of S would not knowingly go along with
>Reed's con game. The very last thing the C of S wants is the bad PR
>that Reed is heaping upon the C of S. The Church goes to great lengths
>do NOT have shit like this happen.
>
>You have to really understand the mindset on this.
>
>Crimes committed by the C of S to "stop the SP's is OK. Crimes
>committed by parishioners that have the potential of bringing bad
>repute to the C of S is not. It's a crazy but true.
Directly and indirectly Reed was bringing in a lot of money to CoS.
I thought there was some rule that the up stats could get away with
murder.
Keith Henson
>
>Cerridwen
>
Cerridwen
above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3c2ece8a...@news2.lightlink.com...
The True policy on upstats is "So what have you done for us lately?"
I am quite certain you are aware that what the C of S states and what
the C of S does is not always aligned in reality. Witness the Creed.
Upstats are as good as last Thursday at 2:00.
Upstats remain upstats as long as they keep the money flowing in AND
DON'T CAUSE ANY TROUBLE!
The C of S is always on the look out for parishioners who can cause
them trouble.
The C of S wants Knowledge Reports written on any parishioner that
is involved in anything wonky. Especially if it's going to be anything
that involves legal issues.
Divorces, child custody, bankruptcy, lawsuits, and legal threats of
any kind are all of interest to the C of S. Why? Because they want
to know if the C of S is going to be dragged into to anything legal,
and create bad PR due to a parishioners "out ethics".
If and when they do find potential legal/PR trouble with a parishioner
he then becomes persona non grata. I know people who are not even allow
on Flag Land Base to attend a wedding because they have some
"problem" that the C of S thinks "could" create a potential PR flap.
They are absolutely fanatical about this stuff.
It doesn't matter that Reed was a cash cow or had the means to
milk the rest of the cows. What is more important in the eyes of
the C of S is that these so called "upstats" pay up and don't cause
any problems or bad PR.
The Slaktin fraud is a nightmare for the C of S. Here you have an
"OT", and a Scn minister, who is running the biggest Ponzi scheme
in US history. From the C of S viewpoint, not only do the money
lines dry up, not only do hundreds of Scn'ers take a serious fucking,
but worse than all of that, it brings bad repute to the C of S! This
is a much worse "crime" than anything else.
Why do you think the C of S hates the ARS critics so much? ARS is
a continuous source of bad PR. It pisses off the C of S more than
just about anything else. The PR image of LRH, the C of S and DM
is priority A One.
They spend tons of money and time trying to get the best image for
all three. A person in the SO could be sent to the RPF for a very
minor goof if it created the slightest bad PR. Upstats are supposed
to mitigate these things and sometimes they do but then sometimes
they don't. It all depends on who has a hair up their ass that day.
So to answer your question. Yes, Reed was an upstat and because of
that he did get away with "murder" for a long time. Because he was
an upstat the C of S looked the other way on matters concerning
Reed. If some one KR'd him that he was slow on a payment, that he
was not on service, that he was not returning phone calls to the regs,
or whatever, then generally the C of S would look the other way and
not take him up on it because he was an "upstat". As long as the
money was flowing no one was going to look too hard at Reed.
But, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that anybody in the C of S
management knew that he was running a Ponzi scheme. This would
absolutely not be tolerated!! Not just because it was criminal and
harming people, but more importantly, because it could harm the C
of S. The latter is much more important than the former.
If the C of S had known about Reed's con game, they would have
hauled his ass into OSA and Sec Checked him to death. Then legal
affidavits would have been written clearly outlining all of Reed's
activities and it would be stated very clearly that the C of S knew
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THIS NOR WERE THEY INVOLVED WITH IT.
The C of S would have been taking actions to completely and utterly
cover their asses and then they would have thrown Reed to the wolves.
But they would have had those affidavits in place first.
Actually, it would not surprise me if they have those affidavits in
place right now. But maybe not. It depends on who got to Reed first,
the C of S or his attorney's.
"The good of the C of S outweighs the good of the few, or one
crummy millionaire" L. Ron Spock
Cerridwen
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <X4DST2VM3725...@anonymous.poster>
From: "Cerridwen" <nobody@nowhere>.
Organization: mail...@freedom.gmsociety.org.
Wrote on the subject: Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin:
As usual, you do provide extremely interesting insights into how the
cult functions, and how they management thinks. Thanks for being here
Cerridwen.
Sten-Arne
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is interesting to know that a thetan doesn't look through his
eyeballs. He has two little gold discs, one in front of each eye
lens. These are not the lenses of the eyes, but, as you might say,
mocked-up energy. They are little gold discs that are superimposed
over the eye and he looks through these. The eyeballs merely serve
to locate these discs."
- L. Ron Hubbard in Professional Auditor's
Bulletin #111, May 1 1957, _Eyesight and Glasses_
---------------------------------------------------------------------
******* Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! *******
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
IRC #Scientology JavaChat http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/irc.html
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******************* ze...@wineasy.se (Anti-Cult) ********************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Feisty
Cerridwen <nobody@nowhere> wrote in message
news:X4DST2VM3725...@anonymous.poster...
I don't know that I totally agree with this. Of all the sneaky stuff
they have done and yes, with people who are SP, but what about
all of the operations, all of the infiltration, regging dollar after
frigging dollar from people to pour into their real estate, new books, including the fair
game warchest..etc.....etc..... Could you really think
that when the donations are coming in the billions from Slatkin that
they would wait for a K/W to think that anything looked wrong?
Maybe it happens all the time?
When Maria Gardini was basically looted by staff members for new
books in Italian, to the tune of the hundreds of thousands, what kind of KW report would
be done then? Were these org members harassing her or taking advantage of her?
I will read your words again, but I have a hard time finding compassion for people who are
affixed to dealing with money in this way, especially
while using a tax exemption and under the auspices of a church to do so.
The poor suckers who lost their life savings would probably love to see
their church donated funds returned by the church also. I guess if their name is to be
exhonerated, then the money Reed Slatkin gave to them
has really disappeared - for good.
Feisty
roger gonnet
"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@cogeco.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
3c2ece8a...@news2.lightlink.com...
You're totally right. It has been applied, you can bet -- can be applied for
ten murders in a row (nevertheless, I know personnaly "kha-khans" who were
not allowed to have some decreasing stats for some weeks without being
declared SPs. Such one was Colette Byasson, who was the best reg from Paris
org since years, has been named a kha khan, then was declared an espee later
on... despite the great job she was still doing.
See, that's here, page 324 Modern management spew dictionary:
"KHA-KHAN, 1. in an ancient army a particularly brave deed was
recognized by an award of the title of Kha-Khan. It was not a rank.
The person remained what he was, but he was entitled to be forgiven
the death penalty ten times in case in the future he did anything
wrong, That was a Kha-Khan. That's what producing high statistic
staff members are Kha-Khans. They can get away with murder without
a blink from Ethics. (HCO PL 1 Sept 65 VII) 2. Kha-Khan was like a
medal. It ten times forgave a person the death penalty. He could
ten times Incur the death penalty and not get it. (PDC 26)"
roger
>
> Keith Henson
>
> >
> >Cerridwen
> >
>
Cerridwen
above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/" <Anti-
Cu...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
news:e36q2uknifnjpo4ej...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillanc
e...
> On 29 Dec 2001 00:33:15 -0000.
> In Message-ID: <X4DST2VM3725...@anonymous.poster>
> From: "Cerridwen" <nobody@nowhere>.
> Organization: mail...@freedom.gmsociety.org.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin:
snip
> As usual, you do provide extremely interesting insights into how the
> cult functions, and how they management thinks. Thanks for being here
> Cerridwen.
>
> Sten-Arne
Tack så mycket, Sten-Arne. :-)
Cerridwen
Cerridwen
above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin
"Feisty" <su...@skytoday.com> wrote in message news:yraX7.1108
$0s5.681082@news20...
>
> Cerridwen <nobody@nowhere> wrote in message
> news:X4DST2VM3725...@anonymous.poster...
<snip>
>
> I don't know that I totally agree with this. Of all the sneaky stuff
> they have done and yes, with people who are SP, but what about
> all of the operations, all of the infiltration, regging dollar after
> frigging dollar from people to pour into their real estate, new
books, including the fair
> game warchest..etc.....etc..... Could you really think
> that when the donations are coming in the billions from Slatkin
that
> they would wait for a K/W to think that anything looked wrong?
I don't think that Reed controlled billions. I don't know if anyone
has the exact amount that he was responsible for flowing into the
church.
As I stated below in my last post. I think that KR's (knowledge
reports) would be pretty much ignored by the C of S due to Reed
being considered an upstat.
>
> Maybe it happens all the time?
The exact policy on what to do with a KR that is written on someone
who is upstat is to "file it away with a yawn." This means that as
long as a person is upstat, they are not to be bothered with anyone
writing KR's on them.
However, we don't know who wrote KR's on Reed and what they
said.
The o/w (overt and witholds) write up, of which we were discussing
here is an entirely different matter. It appears Reed wrote this o/w
write up on himself but did not turn it in. O/W write ups are not
ignored, especially if a person is confessing to a massive fraud that
would bring ill repute to the C of S. (see post below)
>
> When Maria Gardini was basically looted by staff members for
new
> books in Italian, to the tune of the hundreds of thousands, what
kind of KW report would
> be done then? Were these org members harassing her or taking
advantage of her?
Absolutely and this goes to my point. Maria Pia Gardini was put
under tremendous pressure to give up her money. I'm not going to
get into what part of this is Maria Pia's responsible for at this
point, but just take up that it happened. I believe that in Maria
Pia's affidavit she stated that she wrote K/R's on this.
These K/R's that Maria wrote would have been filed with a yawn.
They would have been mostly ignored. Why? Well in Scn it's the
regs job to separate you from your money. The viewpoint is that you
have a case (a reactive mind) and the only reason why you wouldn't
want to part with your money and give it to the C of S is because
your "case" was getting in the way. Any "sane" person would want to
give it to the Church.
Additionally if the people involved in regging Maria Pia were
"upstat" then it would definitely be ignored.
Don't get me wrong. I am not stating this is my viewpoint, but it is
the operating viewpoint of the C of S.
Maria Pia's K/R's would be pretty much dismissed as "case".
>
> I will read your words again, but I have a hard time finding
compassion for people who are
> affixed to dealing with money in this way, especially
> while using a tax exemption and under the auspices of a church to
do so.
OK, but I was not asking for compassion. I was just trying to explain
what the o/w write up and conditions were all about in Reed's o/w
write up.
>
> The poor suckers who lost their life savings would probably love to
see
> their church donated funds returned by the church also. I guess if
their name is to be
> exhonerated, then the money Reed Slatkin gave to them
> has really disappeared - for good.
Maybe. I think the money from Reed and the people in Reed's
investment club was just a drop in the bucket. The C of S as a lot of
money and a lot of resources. The Trustee need to use all his power
to find out exactly how much money went to the C of S and for what.
I don't even know if this is possible. But I can assure you, that at
this very moment, the C of S knows the exact amount and has their
attorney's setting up road blocks to that data ever being discovered.
Cerridwen
>
>
> Feisty
>
> >
> > > Directly and indirectly Reed was bringing in a lot of money to
> > >CoS. I thought there was some rule that the up stats could get
> > >away with murder.
> >
> >
> >
> > harming people, but more importantly, because it could harm the
C
Keith Henson
>NOTICE: This message may not have been sent by the Sender Name
>above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
>the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
>
>"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:3c2ece8a...@news2.lightlink.com...
snip
>> Directly and indirectly Reed was bringing in a lot of money to
>>CoS. I thought there was some rule that the up stats could get
>>away with murder.
>
>The True policy on upstats is "So what have you done for us lately?"
>
>I am quite certain you are aware that what the C of S states and what
>the C of S does is not always aligned in reality. Witness the Creed.
>
>Upstats are as good as last Thursday at 2:00.
>
>Upstats remain upstats as long as they keep the money flowing in AND
>DON'T CAUSE ANY TROUBLE!
Read was doing this for 15 years. Didn't cause any public trouble
till last year. As a postulate, he never would.
>The C of S is always on the look out for parishioners who can cause
>them trouble.
Talk about conflict. Here is this guy who directly and indirectly is
bringing in millions. The bad PR may hold off till I am assigned
somewhere else. Or maybe Reed will hit it big again like Earthlink
and be able to pay them off.
snip (good stuff)
>So to answer your question. Yes, Reed was an upstat and because of
>that he did get away with "murder" for a long time. Because he was
>an upstat the C of S looked the other way on matters concerning
>Reed. If some one KR'd him that he was slow on a payment, that he
>was not on service, that he was not returning phone calls to the regs,
>or whatever, then generally the C of S would look the other way and
>not take him up on it because he was an "upstat". As long as the
>money was flowing no one was going to look too hard at Reed.
>
>But, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that anybody in the C of S
>management knew that he was running a Ponzi scheme. This would
>absolutely not be tolerated!! Not just because it was criminal and
>harming people, but more importantly, because it could harm the C
>of S. The latter is much more important than the former.
>
>If the C of S had known about Reed's con game, they would have
>hauled his ass into OSA and Sec Checked him to death. Then legal
>affidavits would have been written clearly outlining all of Reed's
>activities and it would be stated very clearly that the C of S knew
>ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THIS NOR WERE THEY INVOLVED WITH IT.
Hmm. How do you know this did not happen way back in 1988? Of
course, an affidavit that you know nothing about something like this
would be as bad as a confession.
>The C of S would have been taking actions to completely and utterly
>cover their asses and then they would have thrown Reed to the wolves.
>But they would have had those affidavits in place first.
>
>Actually, it would not surprise me if they have those affidavits in
>place right now. But maybe not. It depends on who got to Reed first,
>the C of S or his attorney's.
Thank you very much for the insights.
Keith Henson
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <CXVHZFIG3725...@anonymous.poster>
From: "Cerridwen" <nobody@nowhere>.
Organization: mail...@freedom.gmsociety.org.
Wrote on the subject: Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin:
>NOTICE: This message may not have been sent by the Sender Name
>above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
>the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
>
>"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/" <Anti-
>Cu...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
>news:e36q2uknifnjpo4ej...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillanc
>e...
>
>> On 29 Dec 2001 00:33:15 -0000.
>> In Message-ID: <X4DST2VM3725...@anonymous.poster>
>> From: "Cerridwen" <nobody@nowhere>.
>> Organization: mail...@freedom.gmsociety.org.
>> Wrote on the subject: Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin:
>
>
>snip
>
>
>
>> As usual, you do provide extremely interesting insights into how the
>> cult functions, and how they management thinks. Thanks for being here
>> Cerridwen.
>>
>> Sten-Arne
>
>
>
>Tack så mycket, Sten-Arne. :-)
>
>
>Cerridwen
Oh my, and in perfect Swedish too:-)
Jeff Jacobsen
net> wrote:
So why wasn't this stuff caught in auditing?
Feisty
Cerridwen <nobody@nowhere> wrote in message
> NOTICE: This message may not have been sent by the Sender Name
> above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
> the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
>
> Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin
>
> "Feisty" <su...@skytoday.com> wrote in message news:yraX7.1108
> $0s5.681082@news20...
> >
> > Cerridwen <nobody@nowhere> wrote in message
> > news:X4DST2VM3725...@anonymous.poster...
>
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I don't know that I totally agree with this. Of all the sneaky stuff
> > they have done and yes, with people who are SP, but what about
> > all of the operations, all of the infiltration, regging dollar after
> > frigging dollar from people to pour into their real estate, new
> books, including the fair
> > game warchest..etc.....etc..... Could you really think
> > that when the donations are coming in the billions from Slatkin
> that
> > they would wait for a K/W to think that anything looked wrong?
>
>
> I don't think that Reed controlled billions. I don't know if anyone
> has the exact amount that he was responsible for flowing into the
> church.
>
> As I stated below in my last post. I think that KR's (knowledge
> reports) would be pretty much ignored by the C of S due to Reed
> being considered an upstat.
Sorry about the K/W & billions. (haste makes waste).
That upstat is quite an unquestionable thing then.
> >
> > Maybe it happens all the time?
>
> The exact policy on what to do with a KR that is written on someone
> who is upstat is to "file it away with a yawn." This means that as
> long as a person is upstat, they are not to be bothered with anyone
> writing KR's on them.
>
> However, we don't know who wrote KR's on Reed and what they
> said.
That brings the questions I have about his application of $cn. I have not heard mention
that he was on any WISE list. He did not have credentials to do what
he was doing, business wise. I wonder about how he applied $cn in business without any
courses in the business route of WISE. It would just seem so unususal, being that he has
been a member so long. He lived under these guidelines, living and breathing $cn, all
missing the business principles? So in that way, there was no reporting or submissions of
a 15 % or whatever it is that is usually donated. After so much giving to the church, it
is really hard to believe that this churches order of receiving money is so "loose."
>
> The o/w (overt and witholds) write up, of which we were discussing
> here is an entirely different matter. It appears Reed wrote this o/w
> write up on himself but did not turn it in. O/W write ups are not
> ignored, especially if a person is confessing to a massive fraud that
> would bring ill repute to the C of S. (see post below)
I think these are the interesting things to be debated ;)
>
> >
> > When Maria Gardini was basically looted by staff members for
> new
> > books in Italian, to the tune of the hundreds of thousands, what
> kind of KW report would
> > be done then? Were these org members harassing her or taking
> advantage of her?
>
> Absolutely and this goes to my point. Maria Pia Gardini was put
> under tremendous pressure to give up her money. I'm not going to
> get into what part of this is Maria Pia's responsible for at this
> point, but just take up that it happened. I believe that in Maria
> Pia's affidavit she stated that she wrote K/R's on this.
>
> These K/R's that Maria wrote would have been filed with a yawn.
> They would have been mostly ignored. Why? Well in Scn it's the
> regs job to separate you from your money. The viewpoint is that you
> have a case (a reactive mind) and the only reason why you wouldn't
> want to part with your money and give it to the C of S is because
> your "case" was getting in the way. Any "sane" person would want to
> give it to the Church.
>
> Additionally if the people involved in regging Maria Pia were
> "upstat" then it would definitely be ignored.
That would make sense in a way. I see that she was pursued because
she had lots of money. So were people by Slatkin. That is a parallel to
case I think when people are "regged" of money. One difference in the Slatkin
ordeal is that there were non-members. Maybe you can't "reg" per se a non-member but is
there any question that he (Slatkin) would not be looking at
everyone in the same manner of which you speak - that they were sort of a "case." (being
used to such judgement himself fr so long?)
Also, if $cn uses scales or ways to determine where "people are at" how
can this not be used to judge who can be suckered more and who can not.
Maria Gardini was certainly approached more frequently because she was
"very giving." Slatkin knew what he could get from where, possibly another
application of $cn pronciples? I probably did not say that quite right, but maybe you get
the drift. There are courses for all of this stuff!
>
>
> Don't get me wrong. I am not stating this is my viewpoint, but it is
> the operating viewpoint of the C of S.
>
I understand. I appreciate your explaining. For some reason I keep
seeing a "pattern" of people who are "explainable" by $cn order and
the responsibility placed on the individuals rather than these "policies."
> Maria Pia's K/R's would be pretty much dismissed as "case".
>
> >
> > I will read your words again, but I have a hard time finding
> compassion for people who are
> > affixed to dealing with money in this way, especially
> > while using a tax exemption and under the auspices of a church to
> do so.
>
>
> OK, but I was not asking for compassion. I was just trying to explain
> what the o/w write up and conditions were all about in Reed's o/w
> write up.
Oh no, no. I didn't mean a lack on compassion on your part. I appreciate your
explanations. I am expressing my concern about these "policies" that allow
the money to come in to the church non-stop - but the focus is off of the church
and they seek to be exhonerated in name (therefore money?) for being -any- part of any
money. Then there is something wrong with the "policies," and maybe not the people. I
believe the policies allow for this type of thing to happen.
To me, every person practicing and doing business this way has a potential
to do this (so maybe a hint of personal responsibility, yes). But the courses
and temptations for greed are so apparent in the way the church structures
everything (getting everyone in, clearing the planet, etc. etc.) that how could every
person not model the church social and economic structure?
The fair game or harassment is a separate thing yes. But I question why it does- for
questioning the philosophy and not the money? I think because money buys the silence (or
hopes to). Are some here only being harassed because they try to prove $cn a
philosophical fraud? Do some of these people have knowledge about the financial end of the
$cn deal?
You don't have to answer these questions, because they are not "about you."
I try to take away the "philosophy" to see just the financial part, because I think that
is where alot of the focus and problem seems to stem from. I don't mean to
be offensive but I think that the money is really more important to $cn that peoples
lives. Hence, people are only eligible and lauded for $cn by the amount of money they
have. I hear of individual story here or there, but this a a whole
wad of stories together. Hard to see the difference and not see a pattern.
>
> >
> > The poor suckers who lost their life savings would probably love to
> see
> > their church donated funds returned by the church also. I guess if
> their name is to be
> > exhonerated, then the money Reed Slatkin gave to them
> > has really disappeared - for good.
>
> Maybe. I think the money from Reed and the people in Reed's
> investment club was just a drop in the bucket. The C of S as a lot of
> money and a lot of resources. The Trustee need to use all his power
> to find out exactly how much money went to the C of S and for what.
> I don't even know if this is possible. But I can assure you, that at
> this very moment, the C of S knows the exact amount and has their
> attorney's setting up road blocks to that data ever being discovered.
I hope the trustee can see this because I feel for all members and non-members alike who
were taken. Everyone knows about missing documents from $cn
and changed stories and websites. There are more stories to keep straight.
Feisty
Ed
I believe WISE only has become as big and important in the
overall C of $ financial setup as it is in the last maybe 10-15 years.
Originally I believe WISE was fairly minor in the 1970s. Only well
into the 1980s, after most of the good tech auditors and C/Ses had
been purged by the DM/RTC, etc., regime did they crank up WISE to what
it is now. Part of this is that WISE was a new way to extort money
from the longterm Scns who were off lines for one reason or another.
Whether or not they wanted to donate for services, they were still
making money with their various businesses, so it was a "bright idea"
to demand protection money, and that's what WISE fees are!
I think in the mid-80s when Reed was getting started he didn't have a
solid idea of where he was going. I don't conclude at all that he
intended to do a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. I think he deluded
himself into thinking he was a brilliant investor when he really
wasn't, and he imagined all "the greater good for the dynamics" if he
could flow money into Scn thereby. Then the natural path of least
resistance led to Ponzi. Also, I don't think he was formally organized
as a business in a way that WISE could bite into him.
As to applications of Scn policy and business, it's my impression that
back then (well after I was out of Scn) most of the hard core longterm
Scns were quite familiar with the basics of policy and tech. In the
old days everyone was eager to read and study as much of it as they
could get their hands on and much of this reading and study was
informal. Under DM et al they have systematically stripped all
spontaneity, informality and fun out of every part of Scn, training
and otherwise -- probably because DM and/or his masters (if any) are
"rock slammers" with "Evil Purposes" to destroy anything positive and
useful in Hubbard's work.
(Which reminds me, it's about time for someone to repost "Safe"'s
materials on the systematic alteration of the tech under the current
regime.)
As to Slatkin regging people, I would theorize as follows...
first, of course, all con artists appear utterly charming, sincere and
persuasive. If you don't pass a very high standard in those three
attributes, you won't succeed enough to ever be thought of as a con
artist. The "reg" technique of a con artist using charm is very
different from that of an organizational "reg." The latter is like a
nice cop with a lot of very "bad" cops all around. You give the nice
cop what he asks for because he makes it clear what the alternaives
are.
A lone wolf con artist charmer plays a very different game. He must be
completely free both in appearance and reality from any connection to
totalitarian organizations or methods. He creates the impression that
he is not a cop or a thug or a hard salesman, but someone who is
friendly, charming and a genius, and above all, your friend. You are
very privileged indeed to have access to this wonderful soul, and you
are flattered beyond belief that he really likes you. He doesn't ask
you for anything -- absolutely no hard sell -- because he wants to
create the impression that he absolutely isn't looking for or
dependent on you for business. He offers to perform a service for you
only because he really likes you as a person, and there is nothing in
it for him.
Get the difference? Now I don't know of any school or training
anywhere at all that teaches people how to do succeed in this way as a
con artist. Some people seem to have the right personality and the
ability to deceive themselves, and they just fall into it.
[rest snipped]
Thank you, Cerridwen, for a very spot-on correct analysis!
Ed
ptsc
Why. . .my guess would be because the tech doesn't work.
ptsc
Cerridwen
above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:pbas2uko7d3mk93pr...@4ax.com...
Do you have any data on when Slatkin last did any services?
(auditing)?
I believe he is OT 5. He did that at either AOLA or Flag. It would be
interesting to know the date (or approximate date) he completed that
level.
Cerridwen
>
> ptsc
ptsc
>Do you have any data on when Slatkin last did any services?
>(auditing)?
Actually, no. In his O/W writeup (assuming that's what that is) in 1988, he's
remarking about how he must get back on the Bridge immediately as well as
bemoaning other failings.
http://www.slatkinfraud.com/depo_jan.htm has his January 2000 deposition,
though, including about fifty pages of expository rambling about Scientology and
his history in it, including being connected to founding ASHO in the summer of
1968. He describes basic Scientology principles in a very fluid, familiar way,
not as if he were out of practice or were struggling to remember it. In a
strange way, it's one of the better explanations I've seen of Scientology,
though it is quite incongruous in the context it's in.
I'm not sure what kind of auditing he was doing, but he didn't mention it, and
he mentioned about everything else he'd ever done. I'd make a wild guess he'd
been off the Bridge for some time.
However, he continued to make substantial donations to ABLE and other
Scientology entities right up until days before he declared bankruptcy. (No,
not millions and millions, but at least a couple tens of thousands--I think the
Trustee will find the timing of these rather suspicious although other things
are far fishier--like Mr. Kreiner who smells like a week-old halibut.)
>I believe he is OT 5. He did that at either AOLA or Flag. It would be
>interesting to know the date (or approximate date) he completed that
>level.
ptsc
Feisty
Cerridwen,
Sorry again if my comments were a bit angry. It is
difficult to understand and I appreciate your taking
time to. You have brought much info here and I appreciate
your effort to explain.
There are obviously a number of things going on with
this "ordeal" and taking the time to chew through it
helps many to begin to understand.
No doubt you feel badly for the things that have gone down,
just as much as you have "brought things" here for everyone to
see.
It would be unfair to judge every $cn involved or paint a picture
in such a way because many do not have the same freedom as we may
have to be as objectionable. And if they lurk here, they may not
understand at all by the way I lashed out. Your explanation may help
such members to understand. It also helps me to understand the need
to have a little more compassion. Keep On!
Happy New Year,
Feisty
(snip)
Feisty
Ed <met...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C2E1D2F...@aol.com...
That's why it is so hard to understand. How could someone live such
a "double life" when in $cn? Is it so much like telling the auditor "anything"
while deep down knowing that there is nothing else to find within oneself ?
Under such scrutiny so-to-speak, it is difficult to believe that he was not following
everything or telling all. Technically he would be on a power trip of his own then,
without $cn;
>
> (Which reminds me, it's about time for someone to repost "Safe"'s
> materials on the systematic alteration of the tech under the current
> regime.)
Are you saying that he was a victim of the current regime and not the past?
A lone artist con artist may not be so "socially adept." They do not usually hang around
in movie theatres or in groups where people who "drop names"
and assume that the circle of friends will say they know "Greta Van Sustern"
or are part owners of a internet company. That is an assumption on my part but the "circle
of friends" denotes many stars and movers and shakers abroad.
I would think lone wolves may think they can do snow shoveling for a little old lady who
has the family wealth or some isolated person like Raul Lopez where there was no state or
international borders to cross. Slatkins' offenses cross "international" borders for God
sake!
[rest snipped]
>
> Thank you, Cerridwen, for a very spot-on correct analysis!
Again, I do not look to offend anyone, but I am trying to better understand.
Feisty
>
> Ed
Cerridwen
above. Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify
the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.
"Feisty" <su...@skytoday.com> wrote in message news:7bRX7.1245
$0s5.785249@news20...
Thanks so much for these kind words. I truly appreciate you taking the
time to talk with me about these issues and listening to my point of
view.
I had actually replied to your last post to me [ it was kind of long,
too ] but it seems that it didn't make it through the remailers. I
will try to post it again later today
Happy New Year to you as well. :-)
Cerridwen
Nessie
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> schreef in bericht
news:pbas2uko7d3mk93pr...@4ax.com...
I think 'the stuff' _was_ caught during auditing, but the scieno's couldn't
care less as long as Slatkin brought a lot of cold cash into the cult.
Nessie.
Cerridwen
"Feisty" <su...@skytoday.com> wrote in message news:57nX7.1142
$0s5.704200@news20...
>
> Cerridwen <nobody@nowhere> wrote in message
> news:91MJHPC83725...@anonymous.poster...
>
> That brings the questions I have about his application of $cn. I have
not heard mention
> that he was on any WISE list. He did not have credentials to do what
> he was doing, business wise. I wonder about how he applied $cn in
business without
any
> courses in the business route of WISE. It would just seem so
unususal, being that he
has
> been a member so long. He lived under these guidelines, living and
breathing $cn, all
> missing the business principles? So in that way, there was no
reporting or submissions
of
> a 15 % or whatever it is that is usually donated. After so much
giving to the church, it
> is really hard to believe that this churches order of receiving money
is so "loose."
Let me clarify some data about WISE for you.
Not all Scientologists that are members of WISE pay a weekly percent (
10 or 15%) of their income.
There are several different types of WISE members.
WISE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP
"For people in business by themselves or who are just getting started,
there is the WISE General membership level. This provides all the
basic benefits of WISE membership including: all Model of Admin Know-
How program, all WISE Business Handling Checklists, listing in the WISE
Directory and copies of all WISE publications. A General
membership gets you started and is available at the annual fee of
$500.00"
General members do not pay a weekly percentage of their business
income. The $500.00 is the annual fee and that's all they pay.
WISE COMPANY MEMBERSHIP
"A WISE Company membership provides you with eight LRH admin tech
implementation programs....(I am going to omit the list of all the
stuff WISE sends you)
"You are also listed in the WISE directory, and receive copies of all
WISE publications. As a WISE Company member, you can train your
employees on LRH admin tech courses in your own in house course room.
(omit list of courses you can offer)
"A Company member may consult other businesses after signing the proper
license agreement and may deliver al the courses available at this
membership level to clients. A Company membership is for a business
owner who has up to twenty staff. The membership fee is $ 1500.00
annually."
This is where the 10 percent being paid to WISE comes into play.
Example:
Joe Blow owns and operates XYZ Software Company. He is a Wise Company
member and has signed a "proper license agreement" with WISE that
allows him to not only deliver certain courses to his own staff but he
has permission to consult others on the LRH admin tech and offer them
courses. He will charge others for this service. He must
pay 10% on the money he makes from consulting and delivering courses to
others. He does NOT pay 10 percent of his income from XYZ software.
WISE CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP
A corporate membership includes all of the "benefits" of a Company
Members and allows you do deliver many more courses and services. The
membership fee is $6000.00 annually.
Now the same rules apply as above. As long as the Corporate Member has
a "proper license agreement" with WISE, he can sell consulting and
courses to others for a fee and he ONLY pays 10% to WISE on those
services sold. He does not pay 10% to WISE on his own companies income.
WISE CHARTER MEMBERSHIP
"This membership level is composed of WISE members of the highest
ethical standards [Remember I am quoting here, these are not my words]
Each takes responsibility for bringing ethics and sanity to their
business communities through the administration of ethics and justice
matters within the membership. They also provide a dispute resolution
service. WISE Charter members receive all the benefits of Corporate
membership, They have the right to establish and serve on a regional
WISE Charter Committee (the authorized body which administers ethics
and justice in a area and handles business disputes) and collect fees
for the services rendered [NOTE and the fees are not cheap
either.] Serving on a WISE charter Committee is a trust and all
Charter member qualifications are reviewed before being authorize to
serve on a WISE Charter Committee. Charter members, after singing the
proper license agreement may also consult Scientologists on LRH Admin
tech. The annual membership fee is $12,000."
The same applies to Charter Committee Members. They only pay 10% of
the income the get from actually delivering LRH Admin courses and
consulting services. PLUS they have the added status of being the only
ones that can consult other Scientologists and handle Scientology
business disputes. I can assure you that WISE Charter Committee
members stay very busy handling Scn business disputes.
As I recall, and I am sure someone here has more accurate data, Reed
Slatkin had not been a WISE member for some years. However, even if he
paid the $500.00 General Membership fee, he would NOT have had to
report any specifics about his business to WISE, NOR would he have paid
any kind of percentage to them.
Scientology business do not tithe 10 percent of their business earnings
to WISE or the C of S. Some of them may elect to pay for auditing and
training for their staff and get some kind of tax write off, but it is
not demanded of Scn businesses to do that.
While the C of S is invasive when it comes to the lives of
Scientologists, they are not as invasive as you might think. WISE
companies do NOT report to WISE or the C of S about the internal
activities, profits, etc. of the business. The only time this would
happen is if it was concerning the delivery of LRH tech.
Reed was not reporting to anyone in the C of S about his daily
investment activities nor was he expected to.
> >
> > These K/R's that Maria wrote would have been filed with a yawn.
> > They would have been mostly ignored. Why? Well in Scn it's the
> > regs job to separate you from your money. The viewpoint is that you
> > have a case (a reactive mind) and the only reason why you wouldn't
> > want to part with your money and give it to the C of S is because
> > your "case" was getting in the way. Any "sane" person would want to
> > give it to the Church.
> >
> > Additionally if the people involved in regging Maria Pia were
> > "upstat" then it would definitely be ignored.
>
> That would make sense in a way. I see that she was pursued because
> she had lots of money. So were people by Slatkin. That is a parallel
to
> case I think when people are "regged" of money. One difference in the
Slatkin
> ordeal is that there were non-members. Maybe you can't "reg" per se a
non-member but
is
> there any question that he (Slatkin) would not be looking at
> everyone in the same manner of which you speak - that they were sort
of a "case."
(being
> used to such judgement himself fr so long?)
Reed Slatkin found himself caught between a rock and a hard place. He
made very bad investment decisions and lost a lot of money for a lot of
people. He could not imagine reporting his failure. Who knows exactly
why? I'll take a stab at what I think may have happened. But it's
only my conjecture.
He may have been afraid that he would have gotten declared if he came
clean and being a fully indoctrinated Scientologist was in fear
of "loosing his eternity" His solution was to develop this Ponzi
scheme to cover his losses. He may not have even known what a Ponzi
scheme was. I don't honestly know.
He was like the chronic gambler who was looking for the "big score".
He did it once with Earthlink and he figured he could do it again. He
probably intended to "score big", refund everyone their money and
retire as some kind of overworked genius hero.
He would "reg" anyone and everyone that he could. It appears he only
got into serious trouble when he went for the big bucks with the non
Scientologists. If a Scientolgist was the one asking Reed for refund
of millions of dollars this entire scene would have played out
differently and we may not have ever found out about it. The C of S
would have attempted to handle this all on internal lines and would
have demanded that the Scn'ers that were bilked out of all their money,
keep their mouths shut about it until they
sorted it out.
>
> Also, if $cn uses scales or ways to determine where "people are at"
how
> can this not be used to judge who can be suckered more and who can
not.
> Maria Gardini was certainly approached more frequently because she was
> "very giving." Slatkin knew what he could get from where, possibly
another
> application of $cn pronciples? I probably did not say that quite
right, but maybe you get
> the drift. There are courses for all of this stuff!
LOL! Well there is the professional Reg course! Sorry that I find
this amusing, but there is so much about the C of S that hits me funny
these days.
IMO, Maria Pia and others who go bankrupt have to take some
responsibility for this.
There are plenty of Scientologists that do not go bankrupt. There are
plenty of Scientologists who tell the regs (in a very nice way of
course) to fuck off.
Yes, the C of S is coercive, yes they are after your money and will
keep after you until you give them all of it, but for Christ sakes,
somewhere along the line a person has to stand up and say NO!. And many
Scientologists do say NO. I know it's difficult and it doesn't
excuse the actions of the C of S in any way. Scientologists generally
want to help and support their Church. The Church knows the right
buttons to push on people to get them to part with their money. But
this does not mean that THEY HAVE TO DO IT!
Con men have been around for a long time. Some people are easier to
prey on than others. I truly believe that Reed did start out with good
intentions and thought he could invest Scientolgists money for them and
make them a tidy profit so they could pay for services at the Church.
I don't think he started out with the intention to fuck people over.
His o/w write up shows that. He was guilt ridden at what he was doing.
If he was truly evil from the start, he would never have attempted to
do that o/w write up. Scientologists do o/w write up because they want
to handle their unethical actions.
This does not excuse Reed in any way!!! He somewhere along the line
decided to handle his problems of failed investments by becoming a
criminal. This is sad. It's sad for the victims of his fraud and it's
sad for Reed and his family.
While we can all gloat that another "OT" committed crimes that have an
adverse effect of the C of S, it is not, imo, a normal daily occurrence
for Scientologists to do this.
Yes, it happens and it happens way more than it should based on what
Scn preaches. And it's easy to gloat when the C of S promotes that
Scientologists are "the most ethical people on the planet". It's all
part of that elitist crap that the C of S promotes and it's
false.
But where Scn does have some responsibility for Reed Slatkin is in
their dreaded indoctrination policies.
If Reed was not afraid of "loosing his Bridge", if he had a Church that
he could have gone to where there was some compassion for him when he
screwed up and lost money way back in the 80's, then this entire scene
could have been averted.
When people invest in the Stock Market or Commodities or what ever, its
a gamble! No one is assured profits. People loose money in the Stock
Market all the time. Reed was unqualified to represent people from the
very start. However, Scientologists tend to trust other Scientologists
especially ones that are OT's.
Reed should have been able to say that he screwed up and lost peoples
money way back when it first happened. He was unable to do that.
Partly due to his own stupid pride, and partly because he knew if he
did, the C of S would have declared him.
>
> >
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. I am not stating this is my viewpoint, but it is
> > the operating viewpoint of the C of S.
> >
> I understand. I appreciate your explaining. For some reason I keep
> seeing a "pattern" of people who are "explainable" by $cn order and
> the responsibility placed on the individuals rather than
these "policies."
I understand. I do think the responsibility lies mostly with the
individual, but I would agree that the C of S also shares
responsibility in creating bad situations for people based
on their totalitarian policies.
Cerridwen
LronsScam
In article ID <3C2E1D2F...@aol.com>,
On or about Sat, 29 Dec 2001 14:44:47 -0500,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
Ed says...
>I think in the mid-80s when Reed was getting started he didn't have a
>solid idea of where he was going. I don't conclude at all that he
>intended to do a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. I think he deluded
>himself into thinking he was a brilliant investor when he really
>wasn't, and he imagined all "the greater good for the dynamics" if he
>could flow money into Scn thereby. Then the natural path of least
>resistance led to Ponzi. Also, I don't think he was formally organized
>as a business in a way that WISE could bite into him.
I think much of what Reed got into was what Scn'gy teaches you: don't worry
about the past, don't worry about the future, what you do in the present will
bring you into success. This is much of how Hubbard lived his life, and the
attitude is an extension of how many Scn'gsts perceive the world and how
Scn'gy is run. I think it's not just the words that have had an effect on
them but the overall theme of being a Scn'gst. It's inevitable that many
Scn'gsts would think this way. And with that attitude I believe that's what
makes some Scn'gsts become con-men.
Reed took money and more money with the attitude in mind, I suspect, that he
could postulate some kind of success with it. I'd sure like to see the time
frame of how bad his investments were becoming and afterward what course he
was taking in Scn'gy. It would be interesting to know.
I often wonder how many of Reed's investors read horrible things about Scn'gy
on the net and about how some Scn'gsts found themselves in legal trouble, and
brushed it off as nonsense, "Reed's different." The same goes for some of the
Scn'gsts. I wonder if they now have looked more closely as to what others are
saying. At any rate, there's a sucker born every minute. Scn'gy as well as
any con is a long way off from dying.
Feisty
Hi there ! Sorry for the late reply -
Cerridwen <nob...@nowhere.no.domain.specified> wrote in message
news:UW53AR8X37255.9413888889@anonymous.poster...
> 10 or 15%) of their income.
>
> There are several different types of WISE members.
>
> WISE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP
>
> "For people in business by themselves or who are just getting started,
> there is the WISE General membership level. This provides all the
> basic benefits of WISE membership including: all Model of Admin Know-
> How program, all WISE Business Handling Checklists, listing in the WISE
> Directory and copies of all WISE publications. A General
> membership gets you started and is available at the annual fee of
> $500.00"
>
> General members do not pay a weekly percentage of their business
> income. The $500.00 is the annual fee and that's all they pay.
I see. Maybe a couple thousand though, for a seminar ;{
>
> WISE COMPANY MEMBERSHIP
>
> "A WISE Company membership provides you with eight LRH admin tech
> implementation programs....(I am going to omit the list of all the
> stuff WISE sends you)
>
> "You are also listed in the WISE directory, and receive copies of all
> WISE publications. As a WISE Company member, you can train your
> employees on LRH admin tech courses in your own in house course room.
> (omit list of courses you can offer)
>
> "A Company member may consult other businesses after signing the proper
> license agreement and may deliver al the courses available at this
> membership level to clients. A Company membership is for a business
> owner who has up to twenty staff. The membership fee is $ 1500.00
> annually."
>
> This is where the 10 percent being paid to WISE comes into play.
>
> Example:
>
> Joe Blow owns and operates XYZ Software Company. He is a Wise Company
> member and has signed a "proper license agreement" with WISE that
> allows him to not only deliver certain courses to his own staff but he
> has permission to consult others on the LRH admin tech and offer them
> courses. He will charge others for this service. He must
> pay 10% on the money he makes from consulting and delivering courses to
> others. He does NOT pay 10 percent of his income from XYZ software.
I get it. The more delivery of LRH , the more a business owner makes.
Sounds like a kickback.
>
> WISE CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP
>
> A corporate membership includes all of the "benefits" of a Company
> Members and allows you do deliver many more courses and services. The
> membership fee is $6000.00 annually.
>
> Now the same rules apply as above. As long as the Corporate Member has
> a "proper license agreement" with WISE, he can sell consulting and
> courses to others for a fee and he ONLY pays 10% to WISE on those
> services sold. He does not pay 10% to WISE on his own companies income.
I get it.
>
> WISE CHARTER MEMBERSHIP
>
> "This membership level is composed of WISE members of the highest
> ethical standards [Remember I am quoting here, these are not my words]
> Each takes responsibility for bringing ethics and sanity to their
> business communities through the administration of ethics and justice
> matters within the membership. They also provide a dispute resolution
> service. WISE Charter members receive all the benefits of Corporate
> membership, They have the right to establish and serve on a regional
> WISE Charter Committee (the authorized body which administers ethics
> and justice in a area and handles business disputes) and collect fees
> for the services rendered [NOTE and the fees are not cheap
> either.] Serving on a WISE charter Committee is a trust and all
> Charter member qualifications are reviewed before being authorize to
> serve on a WISE Charter Committee. Charter members, after singing the
> proper license agreement may also consult Scientologists on LRH Admin
> tech. The annual membership fee is $12,000."
>
> The same applies to Charter Committee Members. They only pay 10% of
> the income the get from actually delivering LRH Admin courses and
> consulting services. PLUS they have the added status of being the only
> ones that can consult other Scientologists and handle Scientology
> business disputes. I can assure you that WISE Charter Committee
> members stay very busy handling Scn business disputes.
I have never read about these formal "plans" from WISE.
By now, I'm thinking how can this benefit $cn when they only pay 10 % in the
more graduated plan? They must be so greatful for this new way to make money.
The regging also takes place and more courses by members must gnaw away at these
"earnings." I can see the proverbial greed factor getting in here.
Excuse my expression of this issue, but innuendo to make money here is so
obvious!
This is getting away from Slatkin, but it has helped to better understand the
$cn end of things and how Reed Slatkin figures in.
>
> As I recall, and I am sure someone here has more accurate data, Reed
> Slatkin had not been a WISE member for some years. However, even if he
> paid the $500.00 General Membership fee, he would NOT have had to
> report any specifics about his business to WISE, NOR would he have paid
> any kind of percentage to them.
I must not have read this yet. But based on your saying, he must have been a member of
WISE at sometime. I'm not sure if Earthlink was a WISE business, although I would doubt
they would list it if so.
He knew some type of ropes of some business though. I would imagine that if he interested
anyone in $cn he wouldn't do anything but ship them to the Org for "processing." Wouldn't
anyone get tired just thinking of all that paperwork?
Who needs WISE said Reed? I can get and give triple and be a cornerstone member this way!
It is so devastating to think that there is really no security net of place established
that he could have felt comfortable with in $cn. He was grandiose appearing to be
overdosed on Hubbard tech in the depos.
>
> He was like the chronic gambler who was looking for the "big score".
> He did it once with Earthlink and he figured he could do it again. He
> probably intended to "score big", refund everyone their money and
> retire as some kind of overworked genius hero.
At some level, probably. He was making money and giving to the church
then, and liked that lifestyle and status position he was in too. He most likely
had others doing this for him also.
>
> He would "reg" anyone and everyone that he could. It appears he only
> got into serious trouble when he went for the big bucks with the non
> Scientologists. If a Scientolgist was the one asking Reed for refund
> of millions of dollars this entire scene would have played out
> differently and we may not have ever found out about it. The C of S
> would have attempted to handle this all on internal lines and would
> have demanded that the Scn'ers that were bilked out of all their money,
> keep their mouths shut about it until they sorted it out.
A "reg a go-go"
>
> >
> > Also, if $cn uses scales or ways to determine where "people are at"
> how
> > can this not be used to judge who can be suckered more and who can
> not.
> > Maria Gardini was certainly approached more frequently because she was
> > "very giving." Slatkin knew what he could get from where, possibly
> another
> > application of $cn pronciples? I probably did not say that quite
> right, but maybe you get
> > the drift. There are courses for all of this stuff!
>
>
> LOL! Well there is the professional Reg course! Sorry that I find
> this amusing, but there is so much about the C of S that hits me funny
> these days.
Did I describe a course or something - Or just the fact that this is something
learned like "courses for this stuff?" In any event, it seems all relative to put
it shortly. It's just what I feel from my observations.
Your observations of the New Year event and others have made me laugh too.
If anyone can take two steps back and view this like you, they would agree.
I would need a muzzle to hear that stuff! It is also seriously disturbing to hear
that kind of need for loyalty on the other hand.
>
> IMO, Maria Pia and others who go bankrupt have to take some
> responsibility for this.
>
> There are plenty of Scientologists that do not go bankrupt. There are
> plenty of Scientologists who tell the regs (in a very nice way of
> course) to fuck off.
>
> Yes, the C of S is coercive, yes they are after your money and will
> keep after you until you give them all of it, but for Christ sakes,
> somewhere along the line a person has to stand up and say NO!. And many
> Scientologists do say NO. I know it's difficult and it doesn't
> excuse the actions of the C of S in any way. Scientologists generally
> want to help and support their Church. The Church knows the right
> buttons to push on people to get them to part with their money. But
> this does not mean that THEY HAVE TO DO IT!
Some people are really genuinely nice. This is where the "conscience" comes in.
Knowing someone is more vulnerable or more giving than we are does not allow us to take
advantage of them. Repeatedly asking for someones time in a church for example, because
they are always available would be eluding to asking them to burn out. Repeatedly asking
for someones money because they knew there was alot to give and the person was equally
willing to share their time and soul for betterment indicates calculated fraud. There are
no two ways about it. Taking someones money does not cure them of anything. It is short of
a gypsy fortune teller that they need money to be cleansed of the curse. No one deserves
to have their money coerced from them. (Stop rant!)
>
> Con men have been around for a long time. Some people are easier to
> prey on than others. I truly believe that Reed did start out with good
> intentions and thought he could invest Scientolgists money for them and
> make them a tidy profit so they could pay for services at the Church.
>
> I don't think he started out with the intention to fuck people over.
> His o/w write up shows that. He was guilt ridden at what he was doing.
>
> If he was truly evil from the start, he would never have attempted to
> do that o/w write up. Scientologists do o/w write up because they want
> to handle their unethical actions.
The OW could also sound like what has been used before, where people have
been asked to write up a confession, so to speak. In an attempt to later be hung
with. Certain ex-members here have affadavits to that degree when co$ feels they know too
much.
>
> This does not excuse Reed in any way!!! He somewhere along the line
> decided to handle his problems of failed investments by becoming a
> criminal. This is sad. It's sad for the victims of his fraud and it's
> sad for Reed and his family.
I keep thinking that he was proud to be doing what he was doing.
He was talking Hubbard in the depos until it became pleading the 5th!
>
> While we can all gloat that another "OT" committed crimes that have an
> adverse effect of the C of S, it is not, imo, a normal daily occurrence
> for Scientologists to do this.
He was "special" in that he courted the rich and famous. I cannot believe that
he was not being watched very carefully. $cn welcomes new poster people every day! The
error is clear in that no paperwork was due from him yet - he was giving
in lots.
>
> Yes, it happens and it happens way more than it should based on what
> Scn preaches. And it's easy to gloat when the C of S promotes that
> Scientologists are "the most ethical people on the planet". It's all
> part of that elitist crap that the C of S promotes and it's
> false.
I know there are many good people out there. They need to know
what happens so they can learn to live without these "elite" role
models. Everyone started out like Reed Slatkin so to speak. He in
a sense played the social game better. Just think of the members who
read those magazines, seeing his name amongst the big cheeses and stars,
an "OT." Many people put themselves in those shoes every day.
It is misleading.
Thanks for explaining some of the policies and for your
opinions and reporting of the facts.
Thanks again Cerridwen. Happy New Year!
Feisty
>
> Cerridwen
>
>
Phil Scott
Wise has gotten smarter then, when they tried to sign me in 1984 they wanted 10%
of my gross receipts for my entire contracting business.
I guess someone told them that legitimate business has a hard time even netting
10% on total sales.
This arrangement you describe below networks a bunch of people together to do
business and promote each other...thats a very very powerful mix. Its the cults
power base these days. Fortunately it will end up just being business and some
of the usual fraud, the brain wash operations do appear to be history. :) Wise
or no wise.
Phil Scott
ptsc
wrote:
>WISE CHARTER MEMBERSHIP
>"This membership level is composed of WISE members of the highest
>ethical standards [Remember I am quoting here, these are not my words]
>Each takes responsibility for bringing ethics and sanity to their
>business communities through the administration of ethics and justice
>matters within the membership. They also provide a dispute resolution
>service. WISE Charter members receive all the benefits of Corporate
>membership, They have the right to establish and serve on a regional
>WISE Charter Committee (the authorized body which administers ethics
>and justice in a area and handles business disputes) and collect fees
>for the services rendered [NOTE and the fees are not cheap
>either.] Serving on a WISE charter Committee is a trust and all
>Charter member qualifications are reviewed before being authorize to
>serve on a WISE Charter Committee. Charter members, after singing the
>proper license agreement may also consult Scientologists on LRH Admin
>tech. The annual membership fee is $12,000."
By the way, on this level of membership, when they say "members of the highest
ethical standards" do they just mean members who pay the highest fees, or is
there some other standard applied other than $12,000 a year?
ptsc
Feisty
Phil Scott <phils...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c39b977...@news.tdl.com...
>
> Wise has gotten smarter then, when they tried to sign me in 1984 they wanted 10%
> of my gross receipts for my entire contracting business.
Did you ever make an affadavit explaining your story, or have you mainly posted
about your past in $cn? I can gather that you are not $cn anymore from what you say in
posting, and have also gathered that you have been harassed. Are these stories somewhere?
>
> I guess someone told them that legitimate business has a hard time even netting
> 10% on total sales.
>
> This arrangement you describe below networks a bunch of people together to do
> business and promote each other...thats a very very powerful mix. Its the cults
> power base these days. Fortunately it will end up just being business and some
> of the usual fraud, the brain wash operations do appear to be history. :) Wise
> or no wise.
>
I think it's meant to be fixed. That's my opinion. If someone tries to create a society or
a different "golden rule" amongst a society, how can you keep the philosophy restrained?
It's pyramidal as seen in the monetary sense and the ranking of people within
(bridge)works on rigid rules of behavior management, (you will only feel this way because
the "tech said so.") As thousands if not millions of stories come out of people, the
withholding of "the company secret" information is extremely censored, and the way that
members use their tonal "tech" to assuage the outside world.
It is a dominance seeking model I believe. Clearing the planet, ridding the world of
psychiatry and tampering with free speech issues are three that I am certain they have
made some marks. They have attempted and done damage in these areas. Of course that is
what I seek to find out. The way that this movement goes about assimilating these measures
is what does not seem ordinary. That is obvious. More tech policies cover
the unlawful actions. I feel somewhat unsure of how they are "reverse-recycling" past
history, but that is what I am sensing as far as motivation goes. It seems to go towards
the flow of a totalitarian military state. There's more to learn and I am not a great
history student. Hence, I am learning. But it is a model, there's no doubt.
By the way, your date seems to be off here. I posted this message on 1/8/2002 at 2:25 am
and your reply is at 1/7/2002 at 9:14am. That's weird!
Feisty