>I have been doing some study of testimony/documents signed by DM under
>penalty of perjury. They contain many lies.

>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