> Although my recent posts have not been showing up on here in my
> profile, including ones about getting non Hubbard writings out of
> organized scientology, I recently wrote one clearly showing one of the
> lies he made in a declaration regarding his statement that he was not
> involved in the early 80s "church" corporate sortout.

> I wanted to make this post to give what I think is an important
> "overview" that just may help some understand why the lies have
> existed and not changed for decades. To understand this, one needs to
> understand that the real "power" and "control" in scientology
> never really changed through the decades and it did not really matter
> what person, group or organization really seemed to have power from
> time to time (the GO, CMO, ED Int, Commodore Staff Aides, etc.).

> DM and others have seemed very good  at hiding the truth behind the
> real power and control in scientology and has often put attention
> elsewhere to "show" things have changed concerning the control of
> scientology,

> DM will point out that he took over the GO who "were criminals" and
> new structures were implemented as part of a reform in scientology.
> He'll explain how he "saved" scientology in this fashion. Let me
> give an example: I recently made a posting on ars quoting section 57 of
> a declaration that David Miscavige made on 15 October 1999 in the case
> of Wollersheim vs. the Church of Scientology of California.  I will
> quote section 57 again in this posting:

> "57. Upon the dismantling of the GO, church executives within the
> ecclesiastical hierarchy assumed responsibility for the legal affairs
> which the GO had mishandled. This era was marked by great concerns
> about the religion's future in the aftermath of the GO, and it was
> against this backdrop that newly assigned personnel began to examine
> the legal affairs that had been the exclusive province of the GO for 15
> years. Not being experienced in such matters, they retained legal
> counsel to review the structure of the entire religion. I know the
> concern was not "gutting CSC" to " avoid Wollersheim," or anybody else
> for that matter. The history that Wollersheim ignores concerned events
> of far greater importance than his case. In fact, at the time, I had
> never even heard of the man. I was not involved in that restructuring,
> but I am aware of the events that led up to it. I shortly thereafter
> resigned from church staff for 5 years, as described later in this
> declaration".

> In my previous post, I showed how his statement about not being
> involved in the corporate restructuring was indeed false and in fact
> was shown false by the "church's" own website where they proudly
> said that DM "authored" that corporate sortout. I also happen to
> know that statement was false as I myself was the one who took the
> corporate plan for CSI, splitting up the Church of Scientology of
> California, etc., etc., etc. to DM for approval. (He didn't author it
> BTW so that too is a lie). They can't seem to keep their lies
> straight.

> I can tell you that many parts of just that section 57 are also false
> (as are scores of statements contained throughout that declaration and
> others that he has made under penalty of perjury).

> But I want to focus here on just one piece of the above declaration
> that goes to the very heart of the matter about the real controls of
> scientology and how nothing really has changed about controls, lies and
> the like despite the "restructuring" or any other restructuring
> done in scientology's history.

> Let's focus on this part of the above noted section 57:

> "Upon the dismantling of the GO, church executives within the
> ecclesiastical hierarchy assumed responsibility for the legal affairs
> which the GO had mishandled. This era was marked by great concerns
> about the religion's future in the aftermath of the GO, and it was
> against this backdrop that newly assigned personnel began to examine
> the legal affairs that had been the exclusive province of the GO for 15
> years".

> If you follow DM's "logic" here, you will assume that the GO had
> greatly mishandled "church" legal affairs and that the legal
> affairs (mostly here referring to the corporate structure) were
> exclusively handled by the GO for some 15 years.

> If you follow along with the rest of DM's declaration, you will see
> him talk about how this new group in the "ecclesiastical hierarchy"
> took over from the GO and got it right. And now suddenly there is a new
> and somehow "honest" corporate structure  which has, to quote their
> own website about DM,  "given the religion years of sustained growth
> and stable leadership".

> Well, not only are his statements about a new group doing this
> "sortout" false, as is his statement about the "sortout" not
> being to hide assets from damages claimants false,  but the section I
> quote above actually does go to the heart of what I consider to be the
> primary lie of scientology.

> In all those "15 years" where the GO was handling legal, including
> corporate work, the main person in power over the GO was not in fact
> the Guardian World Wide (Jane Kember) nor was it "The Controller"
> (MarySue). It was Hubbard himself!

> DM, throughout his declarations, positions Hubbard as some how a
> wonderful person betrayed by the GO. Hubbard, according to DM, was not
> involved in GO activities and was off the lines during major corporate
> sortouts.

> The facts are very different. Hubbard was deeply involved in all major
> GO legal actions involving corporate throughout the history of the GO.
> Not only that, but many horrible abuses some in the GO carried out were
> under Hubbard's orders. Not only that, but the "damages cases"
> and other such cases that the GO was mired into defending where not
> just from things of their own doing. They were trying to defend against
> real damages in fact caused, not just by the GO, but rather by the
> standard application of abusive Hubbard policies found throughout
> scientology.

> Yes the GO did many bad things and some in there committed crimes and
> deserved to go to jail. But the insane policies of Hubbard relating to
> such things as "fair game", "disconnection", the RPF,
> penalties, hard selling, etc., etc. were in fact behind many legitimate
> governmental and private civil actions against the "church".

> Hubbard was creating most of the main legal problems, not the GO.

> As far as corporate legal goes, as mentioned above, Hubbard himself was
> deeply involved in major corporate evolutions and scams from the
> beginning and in fact directed the GO with respect to handlings for
> same throughout the history of the GO.

> This included corporate matters involving RRF and OTC where money was
> secretly funneled to Hubbard for years and goes right up to and through
> that actual corporate sortout in 1981-1983.

> A few examples from personal history include:

> 1) Hubbard being the one behind the mid 70s "Greater Churches of
> Scientology" plan that GO US was following to set up backup
> corporations for each "church" corporation in the mid 70s. This was
> so new corporations were ready to start in the event the IRS seized all
> assets of church corporations in the US via jeopardy assessment.
> Hubbard wrote then that the real assets of any org were its staff and
> contacts and not the cash, buildings, etc. so he instructed the GO to
> get ready with backup corporations that could be funded from financial
> sources outside of the IRS's reach if needed. (Note: the wildest
> thing really about "all the IRS problems" through the decades is
> that most stem, not from GO mishandlings, but from the abusive written
> or other policies of Hubbard himself including the millions of millions
> of dollars he insisted constantly inure to his own private benefit).
> Again, Hubbard was causing the problems, not the GO. And, he was
> directing the GO to cover them up;
> 2) You can see documents from earlier ars posts by others seized in the
> FBI raids on "the church" showing Deputy Guardian USGO's telexes
> to Hubbard where Hubbard's approval was being gotten on funds to use
> to purchase the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater. CSC (Church of
> Scientology of California) funds could be used and they would secretly
> go though a phony front corporation called "Southern Land Development
> and Leasing Corporation" (SLDLC). Hubbard was not only behind this
> but his approval was needed on anything major that the GO did involving
> this. I myself was on the first "SLDLC" mission in Savannah,
> Georgia where I and a "Commodore Staff Aide" were checking out the
> Savannah Country Club as a possible location for Flag when the ship
> came ashore. When that was given up as not practical, Florida was
> chosen and Hubbard himself had to approve it being Clearwater;
> 3) After the whole SLDLC/UCF (United Churches of Florida) scam blew up
> in Clearwater, I wrote a corporate program to stabilize "Flag" in
> Florida. It was Hubbard himself who wrote to me with his approval of
> what the program covered and asking me to get "Flag" a consumer's
> certificate of exemption there so that it could operate and not have to
> be considered as a business and have to charge sales taxes. I did that
> and complied to Hubbard;
> 4) In GOWW, Hubbard constantly had to approve major corporate
> structures and other legal actions. He had to approve CSC being used as
> the main corporation in the UK (when it was thought CSC would be tax
> exempt in the US and that would be a good positioning for the UK);
> 5) Hubbard's were the orders I had to follow to set up the first WISE
> corporation in Liechtenstein (which we didn't use as Hubbard did not
> like the "Limited" in the name as he said that killed the PR for
> WISE);
> 6) I had Hubbard's own orders on MCCS where he pushed them to come up
> with legal solutions to mask his control of the organizations of
> scientology and gave his own instructions on how to brief the
> attorneys;
> 7) Hubbard's own orders were used for the actual corporate sortout
> missions that put in such things as RTC, CSI, broke up CSC, etc.;
> 8) Hubbard continued to order us well into 1983 about that and more.

> I could give many, many more examples but the above are given to point
> out that it was Hubbard who controlled the GO back then, the legal
> actions it took and it was that same Hubbard who controlled it after
> the GO. Despite all that DM says to deny this.

> So, DM's whole point about the GO screwing it up and some new people
> straightening it out is both false and misleading. Hubbard ran it both
> through the GO and then later through CMO and DM.

> To truly understand this, one has to understand the real "power"
> behind scientology.

> Hubbard for years and years was constantly the one in control
> ultimately. And the ones that had the direct communication lines with
> him ran that control. Remember the days of "CSG", "CS7" and the other
> "CS" positions. "CS" meant "Commodore's Staff", an obvious reference to
> the fact that their power came from the Commodore (Hubbard). MarySue
> herself got her real power as "Commodore's Staff Guardian" from the
> very fact that she was directly connected to Hubbard.

> When he was on the ship, those people were at times close to him on the
> ship and it all was quite convenient and pretty much a true reflection
> of powers as they were.

> Over the years the legal and other "threats" that were attaching
> Hubbard himself to liability as one controlling the direction of the
> organizations of Scientology made it be perceived as very dangerous to
> have such titles as "Commodore's Staffs".

> Plus "flag" went to shore where Hubbard was now more reachable by
> "the bad guys" (IRS, damages claimants, etc.) and, after a brief
> stay in Florida, Hubbard himself went into "hiding" to one degree
> or another, ending up, as we all now know, in California. He could no
> longer "sail away" on a ship and be "fabian" by so sailing.

> He still was "the power" but now those closest to him were more
> hidden. And even many of them, over differing periods of time, lost
> regular contact with him for greater or lesser periods.

> No matter what the "evolutions" of top church management became, it was
> nevertheless true that Hubbard did ultimately control it all. Yes he
> would be "offlines" or "mostly offlines" at various different
> periods and yes someone holding a top position could have made many
> decisions and changes without directly consulting Hubbard. But if he
> later disagreed with them or felt they were somehow hurting the cause
> as he saw it, they were blown out of the water eventually.

> For example, there never really was a separate, wise body of people
> called "Watchdog Committee" that somehow oversaw international
> management. They WERE the main international management people (mostly
> in CMO Int) but an apparancy was created that there were somehow these
> unnamed "wise ones" or whatever that oversaw it all. Well if one thinks
> there really was a separate power such as a independent WDC body, for
> example a "WDC SMI, or "WDC WISE", or "WDC Finance" who truly could
> run things independently well I would beg to differ.

> If you saw an issue from "Watchdog Committee" and thought it was from
> some separate body of people who actually got together and voted on it
> or whatever, you were fooled.

> It might have been from Hubbard or whomever at the time had the main
> power from him. Lies about this were often made to "protect him".
> Hell at least a couple issues published from "Watchdog Committee" were
> part of the "corporate sortout" handlings I worked on. I could give
> many, many corporate examples, both attempts by MCCS and
> "accomplishments" by the missions that actually did the corporate
> sortout after MCCS that bear all this out.

> The WDC personal names were "hidden" as somehow a dramatization of
> the actual contact points to LRH "having to be hidden" as well. But
> hiding things does not change where the real power is. It just masks
> it.

> Guess who would be "shot from guns" if, for example, a WDC SMI or
> WDC WISE or WDC Finance really upset LRH?  Guess who ends up getting
> spit on, beaten, assigned to penal camps (RPF) and the like? All it
> would take to lose any power, be it a WDC position, an IMO
> (International Management Organization) position, an old "Staff
> Captain" position, a top productive mission holder, the actual
> Controller of the Guardian's Office or ANYONE else in the overall
> structure was "an advice" from Hubbard.

> And that "advice" did not have to be wise advice or based on
> information that was true or right.

> Even DM would have been blown out of the water just before or during
> all that 1981/1982 "abuse/horror/dog and pony show" if, for
> example, Pat Broker or David Mayo had gotten Hubbard's ear and
> somehow had gotten Hubbard to think DM was evil or trying to stop
> Hubbard's vision. Publicly available affidavits indicate that
> actually almost happened.

> Always make it look like it is not to "protect" the real power from
> perceived legal, financial and/or other "liability". Be it Hubbard
> then or DM (on "behalf of" Hubbard) now.

> Yes, someone like then Executive Director International Bill Franks or
> top mission holders or Commodores Staff or WDC members may have held a
> lot of power but its continued existence depended on Hubbard
> ultimately.

> DM became that "power" but, before he became the sole power, he shared
> it because he got Hubbard's ear to do so (and thus the real power).

> Part of the reason that so much about "the 1981/82 takeover" by DM  et
> al was hard to pin down on exact orders and time lines is that so much
> was hidden about it all to mask Hubbard's real control of it.

> I was on WDC from mid 82 to late 83 but here is the odd part of that. I
> was in no way under WDC Chairman/CO CMO Int (then Mark Yager) and he
> could give me no orders. I was the only WDC member like that.

> That was because I was Special Unit IC and really was not on any org
> board. Secretly I was really run by DM who was then supposed to be in
> ASI. When I was Special Unit IC and WDC X, it finally was decided that
> maybe I should report to the Inspector General of RTC as DM made him
> over RTC so that pretty much ended up being the "command line" of sorts
> for me. I did occasionally report to the Inspector General or go to Int
> and brief him, whatever. I did eventually "cc" Yager as WDC Chairman on
> most compliances I wrote to Hubbard orders at that time. But the real
> senior I had was DM and I was at various times over at "ASI" getting
> orders from DM.

> What most people have no clue about really is that there really was a
> "secret" body of people directly run by Hubbard but were only initially
> considered under CO CMO Int DeDe. The unit was referred to as an "All
> Clear Unit" (to make things "all clear" for Hubbard to come out of
> hiding) and DM was part of that unit. It was set up in early 81.

> Miscavige got himself into a position where he took sole control of
> that unit. By mid 81 Miscavige had managed to remove MarySue Hubbard
> and "take over the GO". He also got the CO CMO Int replaced based on an
> alleged Hubbard order..

> Miscavige then made it clear that his All Clear Unit was senior to CMO
> Int as he had the direct line to Pat Broeker and Hubbard.

> This "All Clear Unit" by later 81 was broken down into two "groups"
> both 100% controlled by Hubbard and, through his contacts with Hubbard,
> DM: "Special Project" and "Special Unit". Special Project went on to
> become ASI. Special Unit was the one I ended up running.

> The thing is, all this was on no scientology orgboards and was under no
> one at all except DM and, ultimately, Hubbard. The real controls were
> all very hidden and secretive.

> As covered above, WDC itself was a fiction started in 79 to help mask
> the real controls by Hubbard. By that time, Hubbard had CMO take over
> many things and it could not appear that Hubbard or his messengers were
> really running things due to fears of legal liability and the like.
> While Hubbard was the "real power", his messengers became the real
> control points and eventually took over the real control of scientology
> on his behalf.

> It would have been more honest to just say LRH ran things and CMO Int
> was who he ran things through but instead things like WDC and Special
> Project/Special Unit formed and evolved to run and/or disguise that
> control. Again, "WDC" was really for the most part the CMO Int folks
> who ran things under LRH but that "level" with no named people had to
> be created to forward the fiction that it was not his messengers
> running things under him.

> Things were so hidden to mask the real control that there is no way at
> all to understand the "management evolutions" and why things changed so
> dramatically without first understanding where the real power was.

> Throughout the time DM was "in ASI" he ran scientology operations
> through several contacts in CMO Int/WDC, RTC and Special Unit. I know
> of many, many examples of this, as do others who have posted their
> stories.

> Now for an opinion:

> In my humble opinion the reason why everything was really controlled by
> Hubbard, and then DM as taking over for Hubbard, and the reason for all
> the abuses and the wiping out of anyone else who had a piece of that
> power when Hubbard and then DM felt they were somehow hurting "the
> cause" is because scientology, especially the "upper levels", is
> Hubbard's personal "case" that he felt had to be "fought  and
> defended at all times".

> Why must everyone and everything be destroyed or at least stopped that
> opposes what Hubbard says about the upper levels (those levels that
> cover past and future specifics of "the time track")? Why does the
> real power always come back to that central point? Why were there
> countless management structures and corporate evolutions to protect and
> hide the real power? Why is there "fair game" and great abuses to
> deal with anything imagined by the power that attempts to stop this
> "one way out"? Why are all others expendable and can SO members be
> made to live in squalor and their children not have proper nutrition
> and care while Hubbard and top management controlled by him get tens of
> millions of dollars? Why does someone "near the top" who utterly
> supported him get blown out of the water when their connection to him
> seems to create a risk to him? Why does a hugely successful mission
> holder running things well independent and not under the control of top
> management supervision "have to be destroyed"? Why is it that when
> Hubbard's abusive policies cause governmental and/or civil
> "attacks" do those abusive policies not change but rather the ones
> trying to handle the attacks get "RPFed", declared or otherwise
> wiped out for not "handling it"?

> I'll tell you again my opinion of why. It is because it is
> Hubbard's "case" and NOT yours. In my opinion the entire, ever
> "evolving", power structure (no matter how well hidden corporately
> or physically) and policies to enforce it all are nothing but
> dramatizations of Hubbard's personal case.

> The manifestations of what seemed to be the real power changed through
> new postings, new org boards and/or new corporate structures but the
> true power behind it all never really changed.

> The structures "evolved" to mirror how Hubbard himself
> "evolved" in his moves to here or there or to what degree he stayed
> in contact or was  physically or mentally well.

> I don't think you will ever find true and complete "answers" to
> questions relating to who had what real powers in the scientology
> structure without realizing the above first. It makes all else make
> sense. All people who will try to research this later, including
> whatever scholars who may do so, will never get the real answers from
> looking at "management org board changes" or corporate evolutions
> unless they realize where the true power always was. And also, how
> everything else changed as Hubbard's own position in space or his
> connections with others changed.

> The GO wielded many powers. Sometimes in a very destructive way. But
> Jane Kember got her powers via Hubbard's appointment of her and via
> MarySue who was connected to Hubbard as CSG and under other title.
> (Note: the change of MarySue's title from "Commodare's Staff
> Guardian" to "Controller" sure made it look like she and not
> Hubbard controlled things huh?). MarySue, Jane and others from the GO
> went to jail for crimes they committed. But for one second do you think
> Hubbard did not know of this or even order it? You are incorrect if you
> think so. Even docs seized by the FBI in the GO raid showed some of his
> orders about snow white and so much more. Proving it legally as a
> criminal matter with high standards of proof needed in criminal cases,
> verses lowers standards of proof accepted in civil cases, is a whole
> other thing.  Just ask OJ! lol

> When the heat got too close to the real power, for example executives
> in the GO being charged for crimes they committed, those below him were
> wiped out and his connection to them was "vetted away" or otherwise
> denied or hidden "to protect the real source and power". The same
> thing, if less dramatically, happened to all others who held high
> positions if what they did in any way really compromised Hubbard or how
> he felt things must be at that time. Hubbard even let his own wife take
> the fall for him.

> ALL power in scientology was fleeting but his own.

> (Personally, I believe that the constant trouble to get approval of new
> management org boards and the like, why it can even take years and why
> DM "always has to be the only one who "can do it" is NOT because
> other Int staff are stupid or not as "aware" as DM. It's because
> it is really complicated as it based on a lie of the real power that
> can't even be spoken much less committed to writing there).

> On Hubbard's demise, DM is the one who now runs that control and who
> now is defending and dramatizing that "case". He may think he has
> "that power" now but I personally think what he has now is "that
> curse".

> The entire corporate structure is nothing more than a legal
> dramatization of that "case" of protecting the power at all costs,
> protecting that "one way out" and destroying everything that
> opposes it.

> Bottom line, what DM says in his declaration about "changes in
> power" from the GO to CMO is meaningless. The real power NEVER
> changed. The lies and abuses continue. The only difference is that
> Hubbard later died with DM having the reigns and now an even crazier,
> more hostile and abusive person holds the purse strings of scientology
> where abuses even dwarf those done by ones that came before him.

> Current "church" management has had and will continue to have the
> same legal problems as the GO had, as they are based on the same lies
> and the same abusive policies. Even after the corporate sortout of
> 81/82, money was funneled to Hubbard in fraudulent and deceptive ways
> just as bad as in the old RRF/OTC days. All under demands by DM with
> threats of such things as strangulation for non compliance. Some of the
> people doing that corporate sortout thought it was a new beginning
> where lies about control, inurement and the like would discontinue.
> Little did they know that nothing would truly change.

> Sorry for the length. I just wanted to say this as all this is what
> truly lies behind perhaps more than 100 lies DM has made in court that
> are being documented. I feel it explains what is really behind such
> lies.

> And, I would like to conclude by saying that I deeply do respect
> one's own religious and/or spiritual beliefs and this includes the
> right of people who feel they can make spiritual or other gains through
> the application of different scientology practices (communicate better,
> do better in their own estimation, whatever). If abuses could stop
> (which means many policies have to change) I support scientologists,
> like anyone else, having the rights to their beliefs. I just don't
> happen to be one of those believers and this does not change the points
> about secret controls and lies above.

> SME