Update into the criminal investigation of David Miscavige and Scientology
SME
This is a follow-up to a posting that Arnie made on here a few hours
ago.
I took the questionnaire he listed in his posting, with a couple very
minor updates and posted it on the web at the below noted page (on the
ex scn site) in the hopes that it might help with copying it:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=468
Now I just wanted to mention some things that I also just mentioned
about this on the XSO and ex scn sites.
Basically it lists quite a number of questions being asked of both
current and ex staff and scientologists as part of an investigation
into illegal and unethical activities within organized scientology.
It seeks information and especially wants any information concerning
David Miscavige and three of their top attorneys.
One thing I like about the questionnaire is that it is very honest up
front as to what it plans to do with the information collected. You
can see this on page three as it gives five examples of how the
information will be used with their intention "to force Scientology to
stop abusing its members, former members, and critics through ethical
use of justice systems throughout the world".
The group collecting the information is Factnet and I can assure you
that Factnet has no connections whatsoever to the church and is not an
OSA Op. (To say the least lol)
I'm not asking anyone to do anything about this. I just think it is
right that people know that this is really going on.
I have been a member of the XSO group and here on ars for some months
now and have very much enjoyed being a member in both places. But,
both in posts there, here and in many private chats and emails I have
noticed that some people want to do something about the lies and
abuses that do exist in current organized scientology but have no idea
how they can do anything about it.
I suggest that this may be helpful to some of you in taking some
action. I cannot guarantee anything about whether the information you
supply will be used or not. I can guarantee that some people involved
with this want to stop the abuses and do intend to fight them in all
the ways mentioned on page three of the document.
It is my belief that abuses truly cannot last forever and that the
church is truly going to have to confront some major criminal and
civil actions in the future that will go beyond anything they have
confronted before. And I truly believe this also applies to both press
and books being written now.
And, if you do participate, please remember that only the truth is
being sought. This is not a "witch hunt".
OSA truly has no real clue just how much is going on now to fight
injustices, abuses and illegal activities of which they have been a
part. I believe they think their lies have "won the day" but they
could not be more wrong.
I don't know where this is all going to end up for sure, nor do I
necessarily recommend this to any of you. But I think that interested
people deserve to know this.
I truly do believe that based on many years of involvement with
"external affairs" matters for the church that what is ahead of them
is far worse than what they have seen before. And I believe this has
to do with the fact that the abuses have been far worse than ever
before.
And to any OSA spy(s) that might be reading posts in this forum, I ask
you to follow your heart and do what is right. Yes, this questionnaire
does warn you on pages two and three that you have personal legal
liability with respect to crimes carried out by the church and that
"following policy", "following orders" and the like will not be
defenses for you. BUT, I think that you should end your spying and do
what is right and help here because it is simply the right thing to
do.
As for me, whatever information I may supply or may have supplied, has
not nor will it ever say anything about another ex scientologist. Nor
will I help locate another person or ever say what I have been told
privately by another.
Anyway, I've said my piece and completely respect whatever decisions
anyone makes about this
SME
Zinj
@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, larrybr...@aol.com says...
<snip>
> As for me, whatever information I may supply or may have supplied, has
> not nor will it ever say anything about another ex scientologist. Nor
> will I help locate another person or ever say what I have been told
> privately by another.
I'm not sure what the questionaire is about, haven't seen it, am
not an 'ex', so I won't be answering it and don't have any
particular opinion on it.
This last worries me a bit though. As far as I know, there is
no 'privelege' associated with being an 'ex scientologist' and,
if you were served with a subpoena to divulge information *you
would be legally bound to do so*, for better or worse.
Probably what bothers me most about this statement is that you
specifically promise never to say anything about an 'ex-
scientologist' as some kind of 'protected category'.
It sounds about the same as the Scientologist 'Us vs. Them',
with a slightly different 'us' group :)
I'm all in favor of ex (and current) Scientologists speaking
out, but, if their point is to speak out anonymously, they
should take the effort to *be* anonymous (it's not *that* hard)
rather than trust to some 'your information will be held
confidential' however well meaningly said.
In most cases, I'd suggest just speaking out and ignoring the
'need' to be anonymous.
A person's story is that much more credible if he's willing to
stand behind it.
And, if it involves potential legal complications, I would not
suggest sharing the information with 'nice guys on the net' but
with law enforcement and/or a lawyer.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
SME
>
> <snip>
>
> > As for me, whatever information I may supply or may have supplied, has
> > not nor will it ever say anything about another ex scientologist. Nor
> > will I help locate another person or ever say what I have been told
> > privately by another.
>
> This last worries me a bit though. As far as I know, there is
> no 'privelege' associated with being an 'ex scientologist' and,
> if you were served with a subpoena to divulge information *you
> would be legally bound to do so*, for better or worse.
>
> Probably what bothers me most about this statement is that you
> specifically promise never to say anything about an 'ex-
> scientologist' as some kind of 'protected category'.
>
> It sounds about the same as the Scientologist 'Us vs. Them',
> with a slightly different 'us' group :)
>
> A person's story is that much more credible if he's willing to
> stand behind it.
>
> And, if it involves potential legal complications, I would not
> suggest sharing the information with 'nice guys on the net' but
> with law enforcement and/or a lawyer.
>
> Zinj
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Thanks Zing.
I appreciate what you're saying but, just to be clear, I did not make
the above statement to try to solicit any information from an "ex" to
myself.
The information requested will not be going to me anyway.
I guess I was just making a personal statement that while I agree with
getting the truth out, I personally do not plan to drag anyone else
into it unwillingly.
Perhaps my focus on "ex" scientologists was too narrow. I was in no
way implying a "priviledge" to being an ex. I don't make it a practice
to judge people unless I have to and being an "ex" or not has no
bearing on how I feel about someone as a person. The factnet survey is
for scientologists and ex scientologists, thus my directing my
comments there. Perhaps it could be to a broader audience.
You're right on the subpoena point of course.
I was not trying to make up some other "us" and "them" thing. Sorry it
appeared that way to you.
I'm simply letting people know of the questionnaire existing and
anyone can do whatever they want about it, including not reading it.
lol They can take your advice about law enforcement/lawyers, answer
the survey questions relevant to them, do nothing at all or whatever.
It's up to them.
But now those reading this know about it.
Anyway, take care.
SME
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
>
> <snip>
>
> > As for me, whatever information I may supply or may have supplied, has
> > not nor will it ever say anything about another ex scientologist. Nor
> > will I help locate another person or ever say what I have been told
> > privately by another.
>
> I'm not sure what the questionaire is about, haven't seen it,
snip
Here's the questionaire, in all it's parts, it's LONG!
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=468
QUESTIONS FOR FORMER OR CURRENT MEMBERS, THEIR FAMILIES, AND FRIENDS
Please describe any knowledge you have of the following situations.
1) Any fraud or deception used to get money from members using their
credit cards, or loans from lending institutions or their families
2) Any fraud, deception, or unethical high pressure tactics used in
Scientology's sales, advertising, or registration actions
3) Any of Scientology's alleged financial frauds, not limited to
postulate checks, credit card scams, student loan scams, Author
Services "Special Properties" scams, or Scientology asset transfers
4) Any fraud or deception used by Scientology front groups to recruit
new members into Scientology or attack Scientology's adversaries
5) Anyone who was fair gamed or had their reputation destroyed by
Scientology
6) Any abusive or illegal practices surrounding Scientology's money
back guarantee or policies governing refund or return of advance
payments
7) Any abusive actions such as copyright and trademark abuse taken by
Scientology to inhibit the religious freedom of its members or former
members or to inhibit the freedom of such persons to practice their
freely chosen religion
8) Any psychological or physical damage you suffered through your
association with Scientology
8a) Have you experienced any of the following mental or emotional
symptoms while in Scientology or since you left Scientology?
* "Floating" in and out of altered (dissociative) states of mind
* nightmares
* amnesia
* hallucinations or delusions
* Scientology-related phobias (e.g., fears that you won't be
successful or will get sick or go insane)
* inability to break mental rhythms or repetitive thought loops
* violent outbursts
* suicidal or self destructive thoughts
* recurring depression and self depreciating thoughts
* inability to work
* difficulty making decisions for yourself
* general inability to compete tasks
* difficulty reading, studying or focusing
* other (please describe)
8b) Why do you believe the symptoms or health problems mentioned in #8
or #8a are related to your experience with Scientology?
9) Anyone who had to be hospitalized because of their involvement with
Scientology
10) Any celebrities in or out of Scientology who have had similar
symptoms or experiences
11) Any persons who were "baby watched" or subjected to isolation
orders because they became psychotic or suicidal
12) Anyone not already reported on our January questionnaire who ever
threatened, attempted or committed suicide in any way related to
Scientology services
12a) What Scientology services was the person was taking, i.e.,
purification rundown, introspection RD, OT levels, false purpose RD,
RPF, etc.?
12b) Who were the people delivering the service?
12c) Dates and location?
12d) If the individual was a staff member, what post(s) did he or she
hold?
12e) What were the individual's actual reactions, emotional state, and
unguarded comments about what was being done to them by Scientology?
12f) Names and addresses of family and friends who the individual may
have confided in?
12g) How can we obtain further information?
13) Any scientology-related coercion to induce already weakened,
infirm or ill persons to buy dangerous additional Scientology
services, commit suicide, or speed their own deaths by abandoning
normal medical practices for economic, convenience, or security or
political reasons
14) Any psychological or physical damage caused to anyone else that
could be related to receiving Scientology services
15) Any abusive actions taken by Scientology to use Scientology's
copyrights and trademarks to stop members or ex-members from speaking
out about Scientology abuses or illegal activities
16) Anyone who tried to get a refund of the money they paid to
Scientology but was thwarted from getting it
17) Would you be interested in participating in an individual or
collective legal action to get a complete refund of all money ever
paid to Scientology? If so, please answer the following questions.
17a) What was the total amount you paid to Scientology?
17b) When and to what organizations?
17c) What representations were made to you about refunds?
17d) What representations were made to you that you feel were false or
deceptive?
17e) When did you first discover what you believe were
misrepresentations?
17f) Did you sign a written refund agreement?
17g) Do you have receipts for what you paid?
QUESTIONS FOR FORMER STAFF MEMBERS
Please describe any knowledge you have of the following.
18) The names of former GO/OSA auditors, staff C/S's or medical
officers or other staff who would have had access to information or
been involved in the handling of member suicides, attempted suicides,
psychoses or neuroses related to Scientology services
19) Scientology materials or internal knowledge reports (micro film
computer reports etc) which mention the dangers or experimental nature
of Scientology techniques, techniques that could induce psychosis or
suicidal impulses, actual member attempted suicides or psychotic or
neurotic episodes, or the putting the children of staff members at
risk
20) Any coercion, for economic, convenience, or security reasons, to
induce already weakened, infirm or ill persons to buy dangerous
additional "services," commit suicide, or speed their own death by
abandoning normal medical practices
21) Scientology child abuse, child neglect, improper health care,
supervision, or education for children
22) Any type of physical or mental abuse of staff members, including
such things as the RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force), beatings,
confinement, excessive work details, denial of adequate food, threat
and coercion
23) Pregnant female staff members ordered to get abortions, or being
worked so hard and getting such poor quality prenatal care and
nutrition during pregnancy that they gave birth to deformed or low
birthweight babies
24) Scientology letting staff members with cancer or other serious and
expensive illness go without treatment until the cancer or other
illness has progressed too far
25) Staff members who needed health care or operations being sent to
emergency rooms or other government health services and told to say he/
she was indigent and to hide the fact that they were a Scientology
staff member
26) Any staff member who was physically or mentally coerced, abused or
punished by David Miscavige or by his orders or by the orders of any
other Scientology staff member
27) Any administrative Sea Org or non Sea Org staff member who was
paid less than minimum wage and the appropriate overtime wage while
working on staff (Religious organizations are not exempt from these
regulations if the individual was primarily performing administrative
or maintenance services versus religious services. So, you may still
be entitled to these wages now plus penalties. Contact your local
Department of Labor)
28) Any current or former staff member who was dismissed from the
organization because they filed a complaint related to unfair labor
practices
29) Any current or former staff member who was blackmailed, given
sweetheart loans, or paid hush money to agree to never disclose
illegal activities or abuse if or when they left Scientology
30) Any fraud perpetrated on any government agency by Scientology
while you were a member
31) Anyone who threatened to commit or planned a crime against any
adversary of Scientology, up to and including murder
32) Anyone who worked in Scientology's law firms or accounting firms
who is no longer there because he/she felt the Scientology account was
a legal risk
33) Scientology secretly funding bogus independent studies of its own
effectiveness
34) Scientology falsely constructing or projecting a religious image
to unfairly obtain tax, legal, and other economic advantages
35) Secret and non secret locations of all records, copies of records
and archives of records for Scientology, including microfilms, CD,
computer files, whether text or image, whether encrypted or not, or
any other type of copies
36) Scientology records that have been destroyed by shredder,
chemical, or other process
37) Scientology falsifying any financial record or transaction
38) Any artifice or device used by any Scientology-related
corporations designed to deceive, prevent detection or inquiry, escape
investigation, or mislead or hinder future investigation on the
subject of asset transfers or corporate records
39) Any of Scientology's past or present law firms or accounting firms
being knowledgeable of or involved in any deception or falsification
of records
ALLEGATIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY
Please describe any knowledge you have of the following situations.
These allegations concern any legal, government, or other action
Scientology has been or is involved with in any country. In addition
to the preceding, we are particularly interested in lawsuits involving
former members like Gerry Armstrong, Arnie Lerma, Lawrence
Wollersheim, the Tichbornes, Steve Fishman, etc.
40) Destruction of any evidence after it was ordered by the court
41) Alteration of any evidence or court records before, during, or
after trial
42) Theft of any evidence or court records
43) Planting any false evidence in court records
44) Death threats or assault on any attorney or judge
45) Attempting to blackmail, bribe, or intimidate any attorney or law
firm to impede their ability to prosecute a case against Scientology
46) Infiltration of any law firm to gather intelligence, to subvert
opposition cases, or to intimidate the principals of opposing law
firms into supporting positions adverse to their clients interests and
favorable to Scientology's interests
47) Blackmail, intimidation, or bribery of any judge directly hearing
any Scientology-related action or issue, or indirectly in a position
to influence the case's outcome
48) Attempted or actual intimidation or bribery of key witnesses with
the result that they did not appear at the trial, investigation, or
hearing; or changed their testimony after swearing to it
49) Death threats, intimidation or harassment of the family members,
friends or employers of anyone testifying or scheduled to testify
against Scientology
50) Repeated perjury and fraud committed by Scientology's witnesses,
executives, or attorneys upon the courts
51) Scientology attorneys or staff drilling Scientology witnesses how
to lie on the stand or telling them it is O.K. to lie because of the
greatest good, or that it was their valences or BT's (Body Thetans)
lying, not them, or any other excuse
52) Scientology attorneys swearing out false affidavits or charges to
intimidate, harass, stop, or discredit a critic or enemy
53) Theft or alteration of documents from opposing law firms
54) Theft of personal or business records from anyone opposing
Scientology
55) Harassment of opposing parties by the creation of frivolous,
malicious, or spurious lawsuits intended only to punish and silence
the opposition
56) The creation of tangential lawsuits in which Scientology
surreptitiously is the hidden controller and financier of both the
plaintiff's and defendant's positions, attorneys, and witnesses. These
may be lawsuits in which Scientology hoped to fraudulently create
bogus periphery precedents to unfairly and illegally influence other
adverse litigation
57) Arranging secret meetings with members of the court or government
officials to influence ongoing actions
58) Repeated use of frivolous and expensive lawsuits to deter
individuals or the media from stating anything hostile to Scientology
whether factual or not
59) Scientology and/or its attorneys deliberately ignoring court
orders
60) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately doing
everything possible to create their own mistrial to obstruct the
justice process
61) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately filing
meritless complaints with legal, medical or other professional ethics
boards to hinder opposing expert witnesses or attorneys
62) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately using
confidential materials, disclosures, or confessions given to
Scientology by members for blackmail, to silence or to intimidate the
individual
63) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately using
electronic eavesdropping or bugging against its adversaries
64) Infiltration of organizations that are enemies of Scientology by
obtaining jobs under false pretenses or identification
65) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
creating false identification and documents to aid in covert
operations
66) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
breaking and entering into the attorney offices of a critic or enemy
67) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
forcibly detaining an enemy or critic
68) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
staging a fake hit and run auto accident involving a pedestrian
69) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
circulating false black PR stories about its adversaries
70) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
framing critics for lewd sexual conduct
71) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
framing a critic as being connected to organized crime
72) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
planning or attempting to drive a person insane or get a person
incarcerated in a mental institution
73) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
impersonating a person to frame or discredit them
74) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
sending bomb threats and/or framing someone else for it
75) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
conspiring to commit murder or assault
76) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately using
a front law firm as a de facto extension of Scientology's intelligence
division and intimidation intelligence strategy
77) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately
recruiting and using "do anything / report anything to get the fee"
private investigators
78) Scientology and/or its attorneys knowingly and deliberately buying
political influence
79) Scientology and/or its attorneys destroying or hiding documents or
evidence ordered by a court
ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE IRS AND TAXES
Please describe any knowledge you have of the Church of Scientology or
its agents (attorneys and accountants) or front groups being involved
financially or in the planning of any of the following situations.
These questions would include legal or managerial assistance or
intervention, gathering intelligence, covert operations, use of staff
or any organization resource directly, indirectly, or through the use
of undue influence over third parties or related entities.
80) Lobbying
81) Political activities such as opposing or proposing legislation or
opposing or supporting candidates (This could include such means as
telling members to write congressmen or make donations to particular
candidates, or buying political influence for Scientology)
82) Using tax free income secretly or not so secretly to support
litigation against private individuals or corporations
83) Use of tax exempt money for the benefit of for-profit entities
(For example, any of Scientology's tax exempt organizations might be
the source of money paid to ASI's "special properties" or Bridge
Publications. That for-profit entity could then pay commissions,
kickbacks, royalties, service awards, or any other type of reward or
credit of value to individuals.)
84) Giving members investment advice directly or indirectly, or
allowing investment advisors to give presentations in Scientology
facilities or in association with a Scientology event or organization
86) Getting members involved in investment plans or tax avoidance
plans
87) Conducting a trade or business primarily for profit and not in
furtherance of its alleged religious and charitable tax exempt
purposes
88) Using any of its tax free income or assets to destroy individuals
or organizations it perceives as fair game
89) Using Author Service Inc.'s trust A and B, or any other
corporation trust or estate, as a secret method of paying commissions,
kickbacks, royalties, service awards or any other type of reward or
credit of value to executives, principals, directors, officers, or the
Hubbard estate
90) Any staff member, resource, or asset of any Scientology tax exempt
organization being used to create, enhance, or maintain any facility,
product, or service that creates a value for a private individual, for
profit or private trust, estate, or for profit corporation
91) Individuals, trusts, estates, or other entities outside of
Scientology who receive preferential treatment or benefit of value
from any asset or resource in any of the Scientology-related
corporations because of some special or undue influence relationship
to Scientology in the past or present, or because of some special or
undue influence relationship to Scientology's command structure or
corporate officers
92) Any fraud or false statement in any application to the IRS to
obtain a 501(c)(3) non profit exemption or on a Scientology tax
return
93) Scientology or its agents exercising any undue influence over the
IRS investigation of Scientology or its decision makers, including
such things as using former IRS employees with inside knowledge to
negotiate with the IRS, intimidation or IRS agents or their families,
offering any present or future inducements to IRS staff such as money
or jobs with outside accounting firms, or other infiltration of the
investigation and decision process
94) Any artifices or devices used by any Scientology-related
corporation designed to deceive, prevent detection or inquiry, escape
investigation, or mislead or hinder future investigation related to
any financial fraud, IRS violations or fraud, or corporate fraud
allegedly committed by any Scientology-related corporation. (This
could include secret meetings where inequitable asset transfers or
sham corporate structures were planned or discussed, or the
encrypting, destroying, hiding or altering of documents, as well as
the creation of false documents related to these matters.)
95) Any of Scientology's past or present law firms or accounting firms
being knowledgeable of or involved in any activity listed previously
ALLEGATIONS ABOUT FINANCIAL FRAUD
Do you have any knowledge of or proving:
96) Assets transferred out of Scientology that were transferred into
other corporations that were ultimately controlled by the same people
or command structure
97) Bogus, inequitable, or non market value asset transfers out of
Scientology
98) That all Scientology-related corporations are controlled by one
unified management and that the separation between corporations is a
sham and mere instrumentality, and that was the intention when the new
Scientology corporations were set up in the early 1980's
99) Anyone who has exerted undue, unfair, disproportionate, or
coercive influence over any asset or asset transfer involving any
Scientology corporation
100) Anyone who has exerted undue, unfair, disproportionate, or
coercive influence over Scientology's assets, trusts, or reserve
accounts from other Scientology-related corporations, or who ordered
these other corporations to buy books, products, or services from
another Scientology-related corporation or pay royalties to another
Scientology-related corporation
101) Any trustee or fiduciary of one Scientology trust or corporation
who was posted or removed by an officer or executive from a different
Scientology-related corporation
102) Any irregularities involving Scientology trust or reserve
accounts such as posting trustees or fiduciaries who must first sign
undated letters of resignation
103) Copyrights and trademarks created by Scientology staff and from
Scientology resources, and then transferred to L Ron Hubbard and his
estate without equitable compensation to the Scientology corporations
that created them
104) That refunds, return of advance payments, or transfers of money
on account were used to inequitably or secretly transfer money out of
Scientology corporations inuring undisclosed benefit to third
parties.
105) Any fraud in the handling of mission or Sea Org reserves moneys
106) Any fraud in Scientology corporations cosigning or guaranteeing
loans or debts
107) Any kickbacks, trust management fees, royalties or any type of
secret payment of value of any nature paid to Scientology's top
officials from any Scientology-related organization
108) Any money laundering or undeclared transfer of Scientology assets
or cash out of the U.S. by courier or other secret means
109) The tens of millions of dollars in royalties paid to L. Ron
Hubbard and/or his estate for an E-Meter he did not invent
110) Improper administration of any Scientology account or fund
transfer
111) Any false or secret contracts made between Scientology executives
and various for profit and non profit Scientology corporations
designed to perpetrate a fraud
112) The names, account numbers and locations of any U.S. and foreign
bank, savings, safe deposit box, or other type of account which serves
or served the purpose of holding any assets (Look on the back of your
old check stubs for payments you made to Scientology organizations.
Photocopy the backs and send them to us)
113) The U.S. and foreign storage location of other valuable assets
held by Scientology (including art, antiques, books, coin and stamp
etc. collections, archives, stocks, bonds, precious metals or jewel
storage)
114) Artifices or devices used by any Scientology-related corporation
designed to deceive, prevent detection or inquiry, escape
investigation, or mislead or hinder future investigation related to
any coercion, trickery, financial or corporate fraud involving David
Miscavige's takeover of the Mission network, its separate
corporations, and its income
115) Any secret or non secret intent, meetings or actions by
Scientology to convey the substantial portion of its assets out of any
of its corporations such as Church of Scientology of California, while
a lawsuit of considerable amount is pending
116) Does money flow from Scientology's non profit corporations into
the L. Ron Hubbard estate and Scientology's for-profit corporations?
How? How many millions of dollars?
117) Any lies, unfairness, or type of fraud not mentioned above. This
could involve assignments of asset value, credit card billing or other
billings or conditional bills of sale, transfers between accounts of
different organizations, "special properties," invoices, loans,
royalty payments, or any other type of financial document, financial
transfer, or transaction.
118) Artifices or devices not mentioned above, used by any Scientology-
related corporation designed to deceive, prevent detection or inquiry,
escape investigation, or mislead or hinder future investigation
related to any financial fraud or inequitable asset transfers between
Scientology-related corporations
ALLEGATIONS ABOUT CORPORATE FRAUD
Do you have any knowledge of:
119) Any secret or non secret intent, meetings, or actions by L Ron
Hubbard, his family, estate, trusts or trustees, or David Miscavige,
or any current or former Scientology executive, their family estate or
trusts, to effect defacto control (ignoring corporate boards, lines,
or separate integrity) over all related Scientology corporate
entities
120) Any artifices or devices used by any Scientology-related
corporation designed to deceive, prevent detection or inquiry, escape
investigation, or mislead or hinder future investigation related to
Scientology's corporate reorganization, being merely the creation of
an alter ego made to look like separate control but in reality is
essentially the same control. Where the many Scientology corporations
are essentially the same pair of pants where the current command
structure can draw from any asset no matter what corporate "pocket"
the asset is in.
121) Any artifices or devices used by any Scientology-related
corporation to prevent anyone from piercing the corporate veil (i.e.,
designed to deceive, prevent detection or inquiry, escape
investigation, or mislead or hinder future investigation related to
the use and abuse of copyrights and trademarks to exercise defacto
complete control of all related Scientology corporations)
122) Do you have knowledge of W.I.S.E., I.A.S., Office of Special
Affairs, and other Scientology front groups and their connections to
the business community; the controlling persons of such businesses and
Scientology's procedures for policing these business activities?
123) Do you know of any infiltration into corporations for the purpose
of gaining control to make stock offerings, issue options and warrants
to fellow Scientologists and organizations at cheap prices, to
unfairly manipulate stock values through false dissemination of
information and the spreading o[ rumors; the unethical and oppressive
treatment of shareholders and subsequent dilution of their values, the
looting and stripping of assets out of a corporation or business?
124) Do you know of any connections to unethical promotions in gold
and silver penny mining stocks, gold and silver bullion, coin scams,
stamp scams, technology stocks, oil drilling and leases, real estate,
hotels, motels, or other types of investments owned, managed, or
controlled by Scientology or its agents and fronts?
125) Do you have knowledge of any non-profit Scientology organizations
which have benefited from such deals?
126) Do you have knowledge of the investment activities of Author's
Family Services, any other Scientology organization, or the upper
level rulers of Scientology?
127) Are you aware of any stock brokers, corporate promoters, or
corporate principals who liaison with Scientologists, or who are
Scientologists, who have been fined, given sentences, cease and desist
orders, sent to prison for fraud, and who may reveal facts about their
connections, controllers, and working relationships with Scientology?
128) Do you know of any Scientologists who are operating anywhere in
the Vancouver securities industry? Such positions could include being
a Governor of the Exchange, employees or officials of the Vancouver
Stock Exchange, employees and officials of the British Columbia
Securities Commission, employees and officers and directors of B.C.
stock brokerage firms, judges, politicians, RCMP, attorneys of the
Province, University affiliates, or any other affiliation that is
secret?
129) Are you familiar with any Scientology members who are newsletter
writers and promoters who may unethically aid in the promotion and
support of fraudulent corporate schemes or other products through the
mails, wires, or on radio and television?
130) Do you have knowledge of stock promotions whereby kickbacks or
various illegal payments are given to induce non-Scientology brokers
to aid in any fraudulent scheme?
131) Do you know any names of Scientologists or fronts of any kind who
have connections to BCCI?
IMPORTANT CLOSING QUESTIONS FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS
132) To help inform others, would you be willing to appear on TV or
have your story told in other media or to discuss your knowledge about
Scientology in the areas of this questionnaire?
133) Would you be willing to appear in court to testify about the
things you have knowledge?
134) Would you be willing to sign a petition to the government asking
them to open or reopen an investigation into Scientology relevant to
the allegations of this questionnaire?
135) Would you be willing to participate in a "class action" against
Scientology.
136) Are you willing to write an affidavit or declaration that the
information you are providing is true and correct?
137) Are you willing to clip news articles that you read in your area
on Scientology and its front groups and send them to us?
138) Do you have Scientology-related materials you would be willing to
donate to our archive? (If so go ahead and send them)
139) Do you have names of former or current Scientologists or others
who should receive this questionnaire or be on our mailing list? (If
so go ahead and send them)
140) Do you feel that any law firm, accounting firm, or private
investigation firm and their insurance companies that may have
assisted Scientology with any illegal activity through act or lack of
due diligence should be help individually and legally liable?
141) Do you know of any past or current lawsuits or government
investigations involving Scientology? Please list them and if possible
the people to contact involved in them so we can make available to
them the information of this questionnaire and other Scientology
information already assembled. (Information we have received already
or that will be received may effect the reopening of old lawsuits and
investigations)
142) Do you know the present address of and if they are still in
Scientology the family's address for any of the following: Wendel
Renolds, Herbie Parkhouse, Lyman Spurlock, Steve Marlowe, Mark Yager,
John Nelson, Nigel Oaks, Pat and Annie Broker, Bob Tomas, Cat Morrow,
formerly Cat Klinger, Mary Rush, Foster Thompkins, Mark Ingbar, Marty
Rathbun, Maureen Brigatti, Carl Heldt, and Paulene Chaterlan.
143) Do you have any information about Scientology and Satanism,
including origins and practices such as excorcism, etc.?
144) Do you have any information about Scientology or Scientologists
and neo-Nazi organizations, tactics or ideology?
FACTNet wishes to thank everyone who answered its previous
questionnaires and for taking the time to do this one. Be sure to
conclude your report with your name, address, phone, fax, e-mail etc.,
the date, and the words: "I swear the preceding is true and correct."
Then sign it and mail it to us. (This document may be translated to
other languages)
Please make and distribute copies of this questionnaire by any and all
means to every current and former Scientologist or family member you
can contact, and to anyone else who has had problems with Scientology.
If you send us their address we will email or mail it for you.
IMHO FACTNet
FACTNet , Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated)
is a nonaligned, nonprofit, research and educational public service.
FACTNet specializes in informing the public about human rights abuses
caused by coercive psychological systems much the same way that
Amnesty International informs the public about human rights abuse
caused by physical coercion
This editorial/opinion/news alert has been provided or distributed by
FACTNet, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network.) Re-
distribution and re-posting of this document using proper net
etiquette when doing so, is appreciated! Factnet is the largest online
news and referral service as well as research archive for defending
freedom of thought and mind from all forms of unethical influence
tactics, mind control and mental coercion/torture used in destructive
cults and fundamentalist groups. Since 1993 millions have been helped.
FACTNet is a tax deductible, IRS Approved 501(c)(3) non profit
organization.
For breaking news, personal stories, recovery information, support
groups, expert referrals, message boards, newsletters and books
relating to destructive cults and fundamentalism, mind control, mental
coercion and unethical psychological influence, please visit our web
site at http://www.factnet.org If you would like to view over 350,000
postings on various cults, comment on this editorial/opinion/news or
to share your personal experiences, go to one of our many various
message boards at http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. PO Box 1315 , Ignacio, CO. 81137 USA, E-mail:
man...@factnet.org
Barbara Schwarz
wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:35?pm, Zinj <zinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1173398621.979436.259090
> > @q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, larrybren12...@aol.com says...
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > As for me, whatever information I may supply or may have supplied, has
> > > not nor will it ever say anything about another ex scientologist. Nor
> > > will I help locate another person or ever say what I have been told
> > > privately by another.
>
> > I'm not sure what the questionaire is about, haven't seen it,
>
> snip
>
> Here's the questionaire, in all it's parts, it's LONG!
>
> http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=468
>
> QUESTIONS FOR FORMER OR CURRENT MEMBERS, THEIR FAMILIES, AND FRIENDS
Lol. Do you really think anybody answers to these questions? And who
wants to know?
If you ask Scientologists these questions, you also should send the
same questionaires to the anti-religious extemists and answer these
questions yourself.
Don't forget that numerous bad apples who infiltrated the orgs are now
the alleged good "critics".
> formerly Cat Klinger, Mary Rush, Foster Thompkins, Mark Ingbar,MartyRathbun, Maureen Brigatti, Carl Heldt, and Paulene Chaterlan.
Why do you want the address of these individuals and their families?
So that anti-religious extremists can harass them?
Exposing p$ychiatric agents and trolls:
If you are intelligent and think for yourself, they defame, libel and
abuse you as being mentally ill. If you are not intelligent and don't
think for yourself but adopt their mentally retarded, narrow, false,
insecure and hate filled opinions, they call you sane. - Thanks, I
rather be my own thinking person. -- Barbara Schwarz
Check these guys out:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/
And by the way: Wikipedia (Wikipiggi), AHBL and the anti-freespeech
spam bot NOCEM Babblestop lie, harass and defame.
> site athttp://www.factnet.orgIf you would like to view over 350,000
> postings on various cults, comment on this editorial/opinion/news or
> to share your personal experiences, go to one of our many various
> message boards athttp://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
Zinj
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
<snip>
> Larry,
>
> You have posted on alt.religion.scientology. This is an unmoderated,
> freely open to any person, usenet group. There are NO SPYS here as there
> is no barrier to entry or implied privacy in this group. For you to
> imply that a person who doesnt share your viewpoint has any other
> standing here than you do, is offensive.
It's a bit of a quibble. Nobody has to *sneak* into ARS. There
is no requirement to 'tell the truth' beyond the obvious impact
on credibility and, pretty much anybody can spout any kind of
garbage he wants. But, there is no 'requirement', not even that
of politeness, that requires that garbage be 'accepted'.
So, in a certain sense, there are no 'spies'. There are however
*agents*; people serving as 'injection points' for other people
or groups who are *not* posting directly.
There are people expressing opinions which may not be their own.
There are people claiming 'authority' they don't have. There are
people flying under 'false colors' and disguising their actual
agenda.
There are people intent not on 'discussion' but instead on
*disrupting* discussion, sabotaging 'communication' and
misleading.
In the rare instance where that person is just 'working for
himself', he's just a dishonest discussion partner; where he is
performing this 'duty' *for someone else*, or some group he is
an *agent* for that group. If he doesn't disclose that
'agency' he is a 'Secret Agent' :)
A 'spy'.
> Your questionaire goes beyond investigating the dwarf and his cronies.
> It seeks information by which to attack the technology of scientology.
What's wrong with that? *Every* point of view, philosophy,
claim or 'fact' is subject to being 'attacked'. It's how we
'test' them. Not that there's any dearth of 'attack material'
for Scientology 'Tech' already, especially considering that
there is no *basis* for Scientology Tech beyond foundationless
claims and bootstrapped 'certainties'.
I suppose that, if the 'Church' of Scientology and
'Scientologists' in general were willing to *stipulate* the
*fact* that Scientology is fraudulent; that its 'Source' is a
fraud; that its 'evidence' is inconclusive where not outright
untrue, then a case could be made that there is no *need* for
further 'invalidation'.
But, over and over and over again Scientology and Scientologists
*re-present* already debunked arguments and claims and outright
*lies* as if they hadn't already gone down in stinking flames.
So, the debunking continues :)
> As a person who once benefited from that tech and who as a high ranking
> member of the sea org ENABLED by action or inaction the corruption of
> sucn and the ursurpment of the control of it, I find your actions to
> have an air of duplicity.
Heh. I suppose you would be the one to know about *that* Alex :)
But, you present a false premise. Apparently your 'theory'
here is that Larry, since he was 'high ranking' in Scientology
has no 'standing' to criticize it.
Same old same old.
If he *hadn't been* high ranking, you would say he had no
standing because of his ignorance.
As always, Scientology (as 'agented' by you) wants to have it
both ways.
The cute part here is that you *blame* him for the problems with
the 'Church' and the 'Tech' by his failure to *correct* the
problems.
Ignoring the *fact* that there is *no mechanism* in the 'Tech'
or the 'Church' that would allow correction.
Again, PKB. By your own cover story you 'disagree' with any
number of actions of the 'Church'; many 'policies' and yet, you
continue to 'support' them by your continued support of the
'Church' (and the philosophy.)
What have *you* done to 'fix things' Alex? Hell, you even
publicly support 'Keeping Scientology Working', which is the
core justification for *all* of the worst of Scientology.
> Target precisely. Perhaps a context larger than you currently occupy
> would be to the advantage of all. No viewpoint is "wrong", the problem
> is in the convergence.
>
> alex
If 'no viewpoint is wrong' then it's pretty silly of Scientology
to want to 'eradicate' other viewpoints so intolerantly.
But, while all 'perception' may be subjective; all perceptions
are not created equal.
Right and Wrong may not be 'black and white' issues in many
cases, but, in some they are, and, even where there are 'shades
of grey' there will be some 'perceptions' that are so insanely
off-kilter as to be worthless or even destructive.
Gerry Armstrong
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>In article <1173398621.9...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
>Larry,
>
>You have posted on alt.religion.scientology. This is an unmoderated,
>freely open to any person, usenet group. There are NO SPYS here as there
>is no barrier to entry or implied privacy in this group.
Sheepdip.
A "spy" is a broad term equivalent to "secret agent."
There most definitely are spies here. You in fact are, as far as
a.r.s. is concerned, a "spy." Spies have all the tasks of
intelligence, including disseminating disinformation, which you do,
destroying their employers' "enemies," which you attempt to do,
forwarding their employer's goals, which you do.
> For you to
>imply that a person who doesnt share your viewpoint has any other
>standing here than you do, is offensive.
Your taking phony offense, as you're doing here, is one of the
activities of the Scientology cult's "spies."
A.r.s. has a number of "spies" who serve your cult's maleveolent
purposes toward good people, as you do, who are not Scientologists, as
you say you are.
>
>Your questionaire goes beyond investigating the dwarf and his cronies.
>It seeks information by which to attack the technology of scientology.
Good.
The technology is Scientology is criminal. It is patent fraud, and
worse, it generates sociopathy, which you defend and manifest.
>
>As a person who once benefited from that tech and who as a high ranking
>member of the sea org ENABLED by action or inaction the corruption of
>sucn and the ursurpment of the control of it, I find your actions to
>have an air of duplicity.
You say you once benefited from the tech and were a high ranking SO
member. What are you now?
You say that by your action or inaction you enabled the corruption of
the tech and the ursurpation of its control. I agree, but what did you
do exactly?
And to then accuse someone attempting to bring justice to your
criminal cult of duplicity. What a piece of work!
>
>Target precisely.
Deal with your cult's "Suppressive Person" doctrine. And deal with the
Scientology v. Armstrong war. Those are precise targets, and you flee
from any confront of those targets.
> Perhaps a context larger than you currently occupy
>would be to the advantage of all.
Larry, "Alex" is a cult op. Just take a look at how he (or anyone on
a.r.s. for that matter) deals with these two issues -- the SP doctrine
and the Scientology v. Armstrong war -- and you can do a pretty good
job of winnowing out the ops.
> No viewpoint is "wrong",
What tripe. It's this kind of "think," as they call it, that "allows"
Scientologists to commit crimes against wogs. After all, they say, the
viewpoint of the murderer is not "wrong." It's just as "right," they
say, as the viewpoint of the murderee. This is Hubbard's occult think
he called "A=A." Any viewpoint, they say, is equal to any other
viewpoint.
> the problem
>is in the convergence.
More tripe.
>
>alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> As for me, whatever information I may supply or may have supplied, has
>> not nor will it ever say anything about another ex scientologist. Nor
>> will I help locate another person or ever say what I have been told
>> privately by another.
>>
>> Anyway, I've said my piece and completely respect whatever decisions
>> anyone makes about this
>>
>> SME
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
SME
> In article <1173398621.979436.259...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
> Larry,
>
> You have posted on alt.religion.scientology. This is an unmoderated,
> freely open to any person, usenet group. There are NO SPYS here as there
> is no barrier to entry or implied privacy in this group. For you to
> imply that a person who doesnt share your viewpoint has any other
> standing here than you do, is offensive.
Possibly a good point about no "spies", just agents I guess. I don't
see where I implied that anyone not sharing my viewpoint has any other
standing here than I do. But, whatever Alex, sorry you if what I said
made you feel offended.
>
> Your questionaire goes beyond investigating the dwarf and his cronies.
> It seeks information by which to attack the technology of scientology.
Thanks for your opinions Alex. The survey asks for information about
possible crimes, abuses and the like done under the banner of
scientology. If the application of parts of "the technology of
scientology", as you put it, was behind crimes and abuses then that
needs to be known and dealt with accordingly. For example, if someone
died because of "standard application" of scientology technology then
the public has a right to know and see that this is remedied.
I'm not saying that every piece of what is called "technology" in
scientology should be eliminated or attacked. In fact I'm quite a huge
believer in people following their own dreams and being free to
believe in what they want, as long as they are not hurting others.
I'm not trying to argue my opinions here, and I am not even saying my
opinions are necessarily wise. But I am saying they are honest
opinions.
I have no disagreement, for example, that communication is better if
one acknowledges someone who says something to him or her. That is
part of the "technology of scientology" (and BTW not limited to the
teachings of Hubbard).
What I do object to are those many parts of the "technology of
scientology" that actually bring about harm. And should they lead to
crimes or abuses, they should be investigated and dealt with
accordingly.
For example, here are just a few parts of "the technology of
scientology" with which I disagree and concerning which I happen to
know abusive and illegal actions were taken:
"Dissemination of Material" - March 55
"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to
win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment
on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway ... will generally
be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of
course, ruin him utterly."
"Dept of Govt Affairs PL of 15 August 1960"
"...(3) Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail ... (6)
If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or ... any
organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them
to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack.
Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's
front ranks works best."
""Attacks on Scientology PL of 25 February 1966"
It states, Scientology must respond to attacks by "... attacking the
attackers only. NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY
agree to an investigation of the attackers. This is the correct
procedure: (1) Spot who is attacking us. (2) Start investigating them
promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not
outside agencies ... (4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime,
actual evidence on the attackers to the press. Don't ever tamely
submit to an investigation of us. Make it tough, rough on attackers
all the way.... There has never yet been an attacker who was not
reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would
come out."
Bulletin of 5 November 1967, "Critics of Scientology"
"Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we
have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have
found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under
existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have
criminal pasts. Over and over we prove this." Hubbard continued on
page 2, "Two things operate here. Criminals hate anything that helps
anyone, instinctively. And just as instinctively a criminal fights
anything that may disclose his past ... If you, the criticized, are
savage enough and insistent enough in your demand for the crime,
you'll get the text, meter or no meter. Never discuss Scientology with
the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act
completely confident that those crimes exist. Because they do."
Taped lecture in June 1952, "The Journal of Scientology"
"The only way you can control people is to lie to them ... When you
find an individual is lying to you, you know that the individual is
trying to control you. That is the mechanism of control.....Not "is
going to", but "is lying to you."
Policy "O.T. REGULATIONS" -30 September 1966
"No Operating Thetan may engage in a suppressive action against any
person, state or country in the absence of an ... Ethics Order
labeling the person, state or country suppressive. Such orders must be
obtained beforehand."
Policy of 18 October 1967 "PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS"
"SP Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any
means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the
Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
Policy of 21 October 1968, "CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME"
This is a key policy quoted by Scientologists as purportedly canceling
"FAIR GAME," in fact upholds the "Fair Game" treatment of suppressive
persons with criminal acts. It states,
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may
not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/
L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP"
NB: The first Hubbard policy on "Fair Game" was printed 1st March
1965, "JUSTICE SUPPRESSIVE ACTS SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND
SCIENTOLOGISTS THE FAIR GAME LAW"
"By FAIR GAME is meant, without rights for self, possessions or
position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of
Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person
or Group during the period that person or group is "fair game ... "
Look Alex, even if Hubbard thought he had "the great answers" or
whatever, he was at best arrogant thinking all had to follow his
ideas. As far as that goes, fine, he can believe what he wants to
believe.
But that so many lives were destroyed and people abused and illegal
actions were taken to try to stop all opposition and "make all
believe" is just plain wrong.
>
> As a person who once benefited from that tech and who as a high ranking
> member of the sea org ENABLED by action or inaction the corruption of
> sucn and the ursurpment of the control of it, I find your actions to
> have an air of duplicity.
You have no clue Alex what I have in fact "ENABLED" or not.
Furthermore, you are not in any position to know just how much Hubbard
himself was behind all that. My older posting on the real powers
within scientology went into that.
I'm not going to defend myself nor my actions on here or otherwise to
you. You are free to believe what you want. And, if you stick to
applying your version of "the technology" and think it helps you do
better in life then more power to you as long as you are not part of
abusing others.
I do not happen to believe in most of what I'm guessing you would call
"the tech" either before it was "corrupted" or after it was
"corrupted" so pardon me if I do not feel guilty as somehow "enabling"
this to happen. Were whole track incidents such as those covered on
some OT Levels applicable to me? No. Did they happen to me? No. Am I
bound to "live in ignorance" for all time if I do not do what Hubbard
said must be done? No. Must the tech of auditing be part of what I
must do to become "free"? No.
There, now you have my views on that.
If I wanted to "corrupt" parts of the tech, I guess I would just do
things like cancel any application of fair game, financial
irregularities, corporate fraud, tax evasion, RPF, disconnection and
the like. I would have STOPPED standard actions of funneling millions
to Hubbard and International management, often by use of fraud and
other illegal means, while thousands of staff went without and while
countless public went bankrupt.
As to any other parts of "the tech" that might help you do better in
life, more power to you and I hope you and others prosper in life
applying it. Just don't try to force it on me nor abuse others while
applying same.
SME
Gerry Armstrong
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>In article <1173462912....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "SME" <larrybr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 10:13 am, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>> > In article <1173398621.979436.259...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > Larry,
>> >
>> > You have posted on alt.religion.scientology. This is an unmoderated,
>> > freely open to any person, usenet group. There are NO SPYS here as there
>> > is no barrier to entry or implied privacy in this group. For you to
>> > imply that a person who doesnt share your viewpoint has any other
>> > standing here than you do, is offensive.
>>
>> Possibly a good point about no "spies", just agents I guess. I don't
>> see where I implied that anyone not sharing my viewpoint has any other
>> standing here than I do. But, whatever Alex, sorry you if what I said
>> made you feel offended.
>
>I do not feel offended. I noted your offense. Subtle difference.
>
>Your labeling of people with other viewpoints than yours, as spys, a
>pejorative in context, implies your superiority. This is an open forum.
Sheepdip.
A "spy" is a broad term equivalent to "secret agent."
There most definitely are spies here. You in fact are, as far as
a.r.s. is concerned, a "spy." Spies have all the tasks of
intelligence, including disseminating disinformation, which you do,
destroying their employers' "enemies," which you attempt to do,
forwarding their employer's goals, which you do.
And by the way, Scientology is every Scientologist's service
facsimile. It is the means by which they make themselves right and
others wrong. (The only others in existence of course are wogs.)
The whole purpose of Scientology is to give them the feeling of
superiority over wogs. If they did not feel superior to wogs they
would cease being Scientologists.
That's why "Alex" accuses you of "superiority," Larry. And all you're
claiming to be is a wog, a garden variety humanoid.
>
>> >
>> > Your questionaire goes beyond investigating the dwarf and his cronies.
>> > It seeks information by which to attack the technology of scientology.
>>
>> Thanks for your opinions Alex. The survey asks for information about
>> possible crimes, abuses and the like done under the banner of
>> scientology. If the application of parts of "the technology of
>> scientology", as you put it, was behind crimes and abuses then that
>> needs to be known and dealt with accordingly. For example, if someone
>> died because of "standard application" of scientology technology then
>> the public has a right to know and see that this is remedied.
>
>My particular concern is with the questions 8 and 8a
>
>"8) Any psychological or physical damage you suffered through your
>association with Scientology
>
>8a) Have you experienced any of the following mental or emotional
>symptoms while in Scientology or since you left Scientology?
>* "Floating" in and out of altered (dissociative) states of mind
>* nightmares
>* amnesia
>* hallucinations or delusions
>* Scientology-related phobias (e.g., fears that you won't be successful
>or will get sick or go insane)
>* inability to break mental rhythms or repetitive thought loops
>* violent outbursts
>* suicidal or self destructive thoughts
>* recurring depression and self depreciating thoughts
>* inability to work
>* difficulty making decisions for yourself
>* general inability to compete tasks
>* difficulty reading, studying or focusing
>* other (please describe) "
>
>These seem to be prompting questions to develop an attack on what I
>consider to be a workable technology.
What hyprocrisy! You clams have no trouble developing attacks on
wogs' technology that we consider workable. E.g., psychiatry and
psychology and education.
>
>A technology you once availed yourself of to good result by your own
>testament.
So what! Larry found out that it doesn't work. He woke up. Is he
supposed to stay asleep once he's awake?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I'm not saying that every piece of what is called "technology" in
>> scientology should be eliminated or attacked. In fact I'm quite a huge
>> believer in people following their own dreams and being free to
>> believe in what they want, as long as they are not hurting others.
>>
>> I'm not trying to argue my opinions here, and I am not even saying my
>> opinions are necessarily wise. But I am saying they are honest
>> opinions.
>>
>> I have no disagreement, for example, that communication is better if
>> one acknowledges someone who says something to him or her. That is
>> part of the "technology of scientology" (and BTW not limited to the
>> teachings of Hubbard).
>>
>> What I do object to are those many parts of the "technology of
>> scientology" that actually bring about harm. And should they lead to
>> crimes or abuses, they should be investigated and dealt with
>> accordingly.
>>
>> For example, here are just a few parts of "the technology of
>> scientology" with which I disagree and concerning which I happen to
>> know abusive and illegal actions were taken:
>
>You are mainly referencing policy below, and placing it in the context
>of the viewpoint you had while applying it.
Oh the context of the viewpoint! Oh the banality!
>
>And that is the enabling to which I referred.
And this is the refutation of your reference.
>
>In a new unit of time and free of all other consideration, can you see
>how the below could be legitimately applied?
Larry, "Alex" is trying to get you to dissociate, as every
Scientologist does in order to get Scientology to work. Who or what is
free of all other considerations? LF
A Key to Life Grad. LF
An unreasonable Scientologist. LFBD
A dissociopath. LFBD F/N
But all right, Alex. You tell us how using the law to harass can be
legitimately applied.
Tell us how every critic of Scientology has crimes for which that
person or group could be imprisoned under existing law.
>
>Perhaps your "think" that accompanies your understanding is the problem.
Address your cult's "Suppressive Person" doctrine and the Scientology
v. Armstrong war. Your little "think" is pretty limp on the real
issues.
>
>LRH's greatest failure was in underestimating the degree to which what
>he said could, would and did be misconstrued.
Oh the sickness you spread!
>
>Where does he say to apply these in situations where the target was
>undeserving?
In everything he wrote about "critics."
And you "Alex" are *contracted*, the same as virtually every
Scientologist, to suppress and destroy human rights. And you do
nothing about it. Every Scientologist does nothing about it, other
than follow, as you do, command intention to suppress and destroy
human rights.
You cannot but believe every being on the planet *deserves* to have
his basic human rights and his person suppressed and destroyed.
> That is the misconstruction of HIS HAT WRITE UP (HCOPL's
>and HCOB's) that the inheritors of Scientolgy worked so hard at after
>his comm lines into and out of the organization were throttled.
Hubbard created the fair game policy. No one deserved to be fair gamed
by your cult.
Your cult does not fair game people who deserve it. Hubbard never
ordered the fair gaming of anyone who deserved it. None of your cult's
victims, either under sociopath Hubbard or sociopath Miscavige
deserved to be victimized.
>
>And now we get to the little man himself. Ever flow power in his
>direction?
You certainly do. You do it by attacking your cult's victims. You do
by continuing as a Scientologist. You do it with your banality and
dissembling right here on a.r.s.
>I am well familiar with more than you think.
Wow. I'll bet your little needle's just floating it's tip off.
> I have a much different
>viewpoint on it than you do.
Oh the banality!
>
>You think in a smaller context than serves you well.
How's that psychoinval working out for you Alex?
You've made a factual claim here. Just prove you think in a larger
context than Larry, or e.g., me.
I know for a fact you utterly avoid the key issues of your cult's
"Suppressive Person" doctrine and the Scientology v. Armstrong war.
You don't avoid them because you think in such a large context. You
avoid them because you're a coward.
>
>There are many viewpoints, and the convergence of some of them is a
>context.
Oh the banality!
>
>Only when all viewpoints are your context, only when you can inhabit all
>viewpoints, can you also then have none.
What tripe. Only this only that.
Address the issues.
>
>And that point is where you are free.
Sheepdip. Prove it.
>
>Neither of us are there, only visitors.
How is that psychobanality working out for you anyway?
>
>I am not asking you anything more than to target the exact isness, which
>when duplicated will ensure others can visit too.
This is black Scientology this op is running on you Larry.
>You are confusing me with someone else.
You're a cult op. You're a.r.s.' Lynn Farny.
>
>alex
Gerry Armstrong
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>In article <a363v2tkuon84c2sj...@4ax.com>,
> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
<snip>
You missed this part:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:26:27 GMT, alex
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>In article <1173462912....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "SME" <larrybr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 10:13 am, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>> > In article <1173398621.979436.259...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > Larry,
>> >
>> > You have posted on alt.religion.scientology. This is an unmoderated,
>> > freely open to any person, usenet group. There are NO SPYS here as there
>> > is no barrier to entry or implied privacy in this group. For you to
>> > imply that a person who doesnt share your viewpoint has any other
>> > standing here than you do, is offensive.
>>
>> Possibly a good point about no "spies", just agents I guess. I don't
>> see where I implied that anyone not sharing my viewpoint has any other
>> standing here than I do. But, whatever Alex, sorry you if what I said
>> made you feel offended.
>
>I do not feel offended. I noted your offense. Subtle difference.
>
>Your labeling of people with other viewpoints than yours, as spys, a
>pejorative in context, implies your superiority. This is an open forum.
Sheepdip.
A "spy" is a broad term equivalent to "secret agent."
There most definitely are spies here. You in fact are, as far as
a.r.s. is concerned, a "spy." Spies have all the tasks of
intelligence, including disseminating disinformation, which you do,
destroying their employers' "enemies," which you attempt to do,
forwarding their employer's goals, which you do.
And by the way, Scientology is every Scientologist's service
facsimile. It is the means by which they make themselves right and
others wrong. (The only others in existence of course are wogs.)
The whole purpose of Scientology is to give them the feeling of
superiority over wogs. If they did not feel superior to wogs they
would cease being Scientologists.
That's why "Alex" accuses you of "superiority," Larry. And all you're
claiming to be is a wog, a garden variety humanoid.
>
>> >
>> > Your questionaire goes beyond investigating the dwarf and his cronies.
>> > It seeks information by which to attack the technology of scientology.
>>
An unreasonable Scientologist. LFBD
A dissociopath. LFBD F/N
>> > As a person who once benefited from that tech and who as a high ranking
>> > member of the sea org ENABLED by action or inaction the corruption of
>> > sucn and the ursurpment of the control of it, I find your actions to
>> > have an air of duplicity.
>>
Oh the banality!
Oh the banality!
Address the issues.
Sheepdip. Prove it.
>
>alex
>>
>> SME
HTH, Lynn.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Zinj
ge...@gerryarmstrong.org says...
<snip>
> >A technology you once availed yourself of to good result by your own
> >testament.
>
> So what! Larry found out that it doesn't work. He woke up. Is he
> supposed to stay asleep once he's awake?
Well, yes. That's *exactly* what he's supposed to do.
Anything else is a violation of the Scientology Code of Honor:
----------------------------------------
Never withdraw allegiance once granted.
Never desert a group to which you owe your support.
----------------------------------------
As Hubbard put it; he's supposed to be 'in it for the long run',
even when he decides he *doesn't want to be in it* and doesn't
think it's worth being 'in'.
By the way; the 'Scientology Code of Honor' has been *removed*
from Rick Ross' website at:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien285.html
Anybody know whazzup with that?
It's still in cache, and, it's still available elsewhere, but,
if this is another DMCA 'pulldown', it's one of the most
egregious I can think of.
Zinj
zinj...@yahoo.com says...
<snip>
> By the way; the 'Scientology Code of Honor' has been *removed*
> from Rick Ross' website at:
>
> http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien285.html
>
> Anybody know whazzup with that?
> It's still in cache, and, it's still available elsewhere, but,
> if this is another DMCA 'pulldown', it's one of the most
> egregious I can think of.
Oh my. The *whole* Rick Ross website is down!!
Out_Of_The_Dark
The reformatting is appreciated :)
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=468
SME
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:26:27 GMT, alex
>
> >In article <1173462912.937107.68...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Thanks very much Gerry. I appreciate your support and I have been
laughing like crazy reading your post! lol
I just made one last post to Alex, just being open and honest and have
now closed the discussion, for me anyway.
I try my best to allow for different views and to respect those of
others. But this is getting silly and I'm afraid that you are right on
here about this being an OSA-like Op.
Anyway, thanks again Gerry:)
SME
SME
> In article <1173462912.937107.68...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1173398621.979436.259...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> Your labeling of people with other viewpoints than yours, as spys, a
> pejorative in context, implies your superiority. This is an open forum.
>
Cute Alex lol I've already addressed this. And BTW, I'm not really
into weird online chats involving telling each other what they think,
they have superiority complexes or other evaluative horse crap. If I
said something that was wrong about you, then I take it back. Fair
enough, I did not offend you. Your comments about my air of
superiority and such are silly to me and I will leave it at that.
Whatever, believe what you want.
>
> My particular concern is with the questions 8 and 8a
>
> "8) Any psychological or physical damage you suffered through your
> association with Scientology
>
> 8a) Have you experienced any of the following mental or emotional
> symptoms while in Scientology or since you left Scientology?
> * "Floating" in and out of altered (dissociative) states of mind
> * nightmares
> * amnesia
> * hallucinations or delusions
> * Scientology-related phobias (e.g., fears that you won't be successful
> or will get sick or go insane)
> * inability to break mental rhythms or repetitive thought loops
> * violent outbursts
> * suicidal or self destructive thoughts
> * recurring depression and self depreciating thoughts
> * inability to work
> * difficulty making decisions for yourself
> * general inability to compete tasks
> * difficulty reading, studying or focusing
> * other (please describe) "
>
> These seem to be prompting questions to develop an attack on what I
> consider to be a workable technology.
>
> A technology you once availed yourself of to good result by your own
> testament.
>
I think the problem in this communication is the word "technology".
It's too broad. I did not apply ALL things considered "technology" in
scientology, nor do I know what specific parts of what Hubbard wrote
are those parts that you feel are "workable technology". I also hated
the pressures surrounding doing much of the OT Levels as a public
knowing the only "out" was to be declared and lose connections to
family and work. It sucks Alex what pressures are brought on so many
public by these folks. Be that as it may, I would think that
psychological or physical damage associated with practicing parts of
scientology is relevent to inquiry. Perhaps you don't think so. It's
certainly your right to have your opinion.
>
> > For example, here are just a few parts of "the technology of
> > scientology" with which I disagree and concerning which I happen to
> > know abusive and illegal actions were taken:
>
> You are mainly referencing policy below, and placing it in the context
> of the viewpoint you had while applying it.
>
> And that is the enabling to which I referred.
Once again Alex, you think you know something that you do not. You
actually have no clue what I did while on scientology staff. I am not
trying to defend myself but list the below just to make my point:
I never did nor ordered done any of the following:
1) considered a person fair game;
2) ran any litigation against anyone;
3) hired a private investigator, did any actions to "find crimes" on
anyone or ordered any such thing;
4) in any way beat or otherwise physically or verbally or mentally
abused anyone, staff or not;
5) even hollered at a staff member or public;
6) sent anyone to the RPF;
7) ever declared anyone;
8) even busted a staff member; etc.
Heck, I was one of the few people in a higher position at Int that did
things like refuse to spit on broken RPF members when Hubbard himself
ordered it! Yes, Alex, I had his orders to spit on them right in my
own hands.
I was also one of only a very few people I know trying to see mass
financial inurement to Hubbard stop and when in Special Unit spent a
good deal of my time trying to STOP horrid abuses by the likes of the
Int Finance Police under orders by the likes of both Hubbard and DM. I
thought it all would smooth out. It didn't. I sure was stupid.
So your assumption that I applied the referenced policies and had some
"viewpoint" in applying same and thus was "enabled" in the way you
stress is a joke.
I'm sure I've done lots of stupid things while on staff, but I didn't
"apply" the things you said I did.
Your tactic is so very "scientological". It reminds me of a recent
communication from a scientology lawyer stressing how I applied refund
policy regularly while on staff. In fact I never did. The finance
bureau of the GO did then, and if it got to legal, Branch 2
(litigation) handled it, not my area. Once again a "spokesperson" for
scientology just assumes that I did the crazy things they either did
or agreed with, when I had not.
Please do not confuse me with someone who agrees with abusive policies
with which you agree. I don't and never did. I've done enough dumb
things in the past that I don't need to also have to take
responhsibility for dumb things I haven't done. lol
>
> LRH's greatest failure was in underestimating the degree to which what
> he said could, would and did be misconstrued.
>
> Where does he say to apply these in situations where the target was
> undeserving? That is the misconstruction of HIS HAT WRITE UP (HCOPL's
> and HCOB's) that the inheritors of Scientolgy worked so hard at after
> his comm lines into and out of the organization were throttled.
First of all, who the heck is Hubbard or scientology management to say
who "DESERVES" to be financially ruined, lied to, tricked, sued,
destroyed, etc???
Secondly Alex, I do not have near the time here to do justice to fully
answer this. Hubbard wrote the policies, ran the GO on many of its
abusive programs (including Snow White) and Hubbard ordered some of
the most abusive things I have ever seen or known about in
scientology. I don't know what pasts posts you may have held but if
you saw the Hubbard orders I saw when I was on WDC and Special Unit
IC, you would know what he ordered then. This included the orders
behind abuses of hundreds if not thousands of people by CMO and the
Int Finance Police, spitting on people, funnelling millions to him
that he did not earn, etc., etc.
>
> And now we get to the little man himself. Ever flow power in his
> direction?
This Alex is the closest thing to a "point" you have made. Yep I sure
did flow power to both DM and Hubbard through my work on all the
corporate matters, including being the one to present the "solutions"
of breaking up CSC, CSI, trusts, contracts, etc., etc. I was the one
who took it to DM and went over it with him for hours to get the
approval and I was the one to most spearhead it's implimentation
legally. Yep I did that and sure was a fool thinking all the inurement
and such would eventually stop. I felt like an even bigger fool when
last year I started going to ars and researching on the internet and
for the first time see the incredible magnitude of the abuses, lies
and such that have gone on since then.
Initially taking so long to find the truth made me regret things like
I could not have been there helping people like Vaughn Young when he
was trying to fight lies by the church in courts. I initially felt
sick seeing Vaughn's testimony about corporate fraud and DM
controlling everything and then DM et al somewhat successfully
countering it by giving pages of lies and making some "point" by
stressing how Vaughn could not possibly know as he was not involved
with the corporate evolutions.
Heck Alex, I was involved and I know the truth and I happen to know
that Vaughn was right all along on so many corporate and control
points and lies about same, as were others like Wollersheim,
Armstrong, Lerma, etc. In fact I am probably one of a small handful of
people who fully understands their corporate scene. So I guess I
better do something about that now huh? I bet that you would be
shocked to know how many writers and other people have now come to me
to get the truth after being lied to by OSA.
But you know what Alex, if you are part of the "church" you should not
be in any way bothered by anything I have to say. It was made clear to
me recently by a "church" representative that the "church" considers
that my news is old news and not of interest to anyone.
>
> I am well familiar with more than you think. I have a much different
> viewpoint on it than you do.
Fair enough. I certainly have no doubt that we have different views.
lol
>
> You think in a smaller context than serves you well.
>
> There are many viewpoints, and the convergence of some of them is a
> context.
>
> Only when all viewpoints are your context, only when you can inhabit all
> viewpoints, can you also then have none.
>
> And that point is where you are free.
>
> Neither of us are there, only visitors.
>
> I am not asking you anything more than to target the exact isness, which
> when duplicated will ensure others can visit too.
>
You know what Alex, try as I may I have no clue what you are taking
about above. I have no desire to have all viewpoints or no viewpoints.
I guess I'll just settle for my own viewpoint for now. lol
No offense man but I am done with this line of chat. I just don't have
the time for it. If you want to privately email me sometime feel free.
Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
realpch
<snipped some>
<snip>
Heck of a post.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Zinj
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
<snip>
> I will grant you that abuses happen and did happen, but your even
> mentioning the above items, implies an intent that is not in line with
> other aspects of scientology. You reference a limited context, and infer
> it to be the character of scientology when in fact it is the character
> of a small portion of the leadership currently in power.
Well Alex, have you campaigned against the leadership to 'bring
them into line' with the 'intent' (as you see it) of 'Policy'?
Have you *voted* against them?
Ummm... no, probably not. Since Scientology, per 'Ron' has a low
opinion of 'democracy' and there *are* no 'votes'.
Right? What *is* the mechanism forseen by Ron to *Keep
Management On The Rails*?
Oh, that's right; *none*.
What have you 'done' about it?
> No I accuse you of not being aware of what was the intent of the policy,
> versus what and how is was being applied.
But Alex! The 'intent' of 'Policy' was to create a system with
no checks and balances whatsoever. One that could be
arbitrarily applied, changed or circumvented at *will*.
Because Ron only saw Himself making those arbitrary decisions.
Supposedly He *voluntarily* 'dropped the body'.
Do you buy that? If so, why would he leave his 'baby' in such a
shambles that a wheezing weasel could hijack it?
I mean; Ron was by His *own* claims experienced enough to have
foreseen the state of 'current management' wasn't he?
Whatever Scientology is now is what Ron pulled in. He had total
control over 'Policy' and created it and it's *Policy* that
created 'current management'.
And *you* are'nt doing anything about it; because you're a 'good
little Scientologist'.
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
wrote:
snip
> >http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=468
> Lol. Do you really think anybody answers to these questions? And who
> wants to know?
> If you ask Scientologists these questions, you also should send the
> same questionaires to the anti-religious extemists and answer these
> questions yourself.
> Don't forget that numerous bad apples who infiltrated the orgs are now
> the alleged good "critics".
> snip
> Barbara Schwarz
Barbara,
Did you ever study any of the LRH material listed below:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/agiadmin/agiadm1.htm
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/scans/GO_intel_actions_1969.pdf
Chuck Beatty