YOO-HOO! PTSC! About Those Copyrights PART 1
The Librarian
Oh, ptsc, I am soooooooo so so sorry! But it took me just *forever* to
get your message. And by time I did-- Well...
I was just *So*! *Fed*! *UP!*
Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh! I mean, I had been *poring* for days over *boring*
government documents, and government court rulings, and government
*lies* trying to make *sense* out of nine DECADES of nuttiness on this
B-I-I-I-I-G Time line. So when I say "fed up," I mean I was "FED"
**UP**!
ShhhhhhhheeeeeeEEEEESH!
I just put my black-stockinged feet (I had long since kicked off those
heels!) up against the Reference Desk and *shoved*, sending my office
chair wheeling and spinning and clacking across the old wooden floor of
the ARSCC Chimerical Library. Well, suddenly I was just laughing like a
*lunatic*, my legs and arms spread out wide in the air to keep me from
tipping over.
I - mean - I - had - *lost* it! I was giddy!
The chair lost it, too: its momentum, that is, and rolled to a soft
CLUNK against one of the big polished library tables, next to the cute
little faux Tiffany lamp. Blowing a strand of hair off my face, I
slouched waaaayyyyyy down in my chair (which scooted my skirt
waaaaayyyyy up), s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d my legs out in two directions, folded
my arms, laid my head back on the rounded edge of the table, and just
sat like that for I don't know how long, exhausted, *sick* of all the
paperwork and research. I tapped a nail against my teeth, wondering what
the heck a girl could do for a little entertainment, to get her mind out
of the Federal documents gutter, to let her *hair* down a little. I
mean, I had *earned* it!
Then I glanced up at the glow coming from the computer terminal. Should
I? No, I shouldn't! But it's been so lonnnnng since I checked it. Well,
I better. Just real *quick*. Then I'll relax. Or *party*!
I crab-walked my rolling chair over in front of it. And, knowing better,
I logged in to A.R.S....
And there it was, darn it! Right there on the screen, like some poor
little waif peering pitifully at me through the glass: Message ID
<73DSUCSV37126.0895138889@acapulco> "Re: ATTENTION LIBRARIAN."
Noooooooooooo! I want to go *HOOOOOOMMMMME*!
Then I noticed that it was from *you*: cute little ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT
alias DOT net>. Look at all those darling little DOTs! And you were
being *soooooo* *sweet*! You said:
>Hey, glad to see you around these parts again.
Awwwwwww, ptsc! Bless-your-heart. Well... Come on in! Let me just give
you a big warm bosomy hug. <Sigh> I know I've been neglecting you boys,
but there is *so* much CRUD I have to wade through trying to verify
FACTS, FACTS, FACTS--I mean, just *look* at my desk!--and it takes
*soooo* much time. I think about you all, though, and I miss you lots.
And I *did* see where you had collected up my little posts and reposted
them. <BUH-LUUUUUSH!> You are *such* a little sweetie!
Ptsc. Hmmm. P. T. S. C. Peeteeesscee! <Tch!> Now, *there's* a mouthful!
Honey, you won't mind if I call you Rob, will you? I can say that, like,
*real* throaty--you know? RrrrrrrOB. Oooo. It's almost like "throb."
>In fact, just the other day, I was sitting around conversing with
>various elves on the subject of copyrights and BOTWO books, and the
>"new edition" of Ulysses by James Joyce, and the general notion of
>squirreling, and how hideous locis is.
Eeeek! Don't I know it! I mean, how hard do you have to *work* to take
simple information and make it THAT complicated? And they get *paid* for
it? With *our* taxes? Hellllll-OHHHoh?!? I am sooooo glad there are
*smart* little elves in the world who were able to somehow get all that
copyright information and post it back in 1999. That was *so* exciting,
wasn't it! All those pages and pages and pages and PAGES of HARD FACTS!
It just made me feel *faint*!
I sure hope they didn't have to use LOCIS. I mean, "Ulysses" is "See
Spot Run" compared to LOCIS. *GAG* me with a *Tel*net terminal!
>The topic got around to copyright expiration, and how you can
>effectively end up with a "permanent copyright" on a work merely by
>changing it around enough to qualify as a new work.
Oh? Can you? Now, Rob, I *hope* you know better than to go trying to
slip something by me without having some hot FACTS in your pocket,
honey. I think *somebody* whose name I like to say with a low, gutteral
growl better spend a little time cozied up with USC Title 17. Rrrrobbie.
>The question is whether this is the purpose of the BOTWO materials.
Welllll, it's a *cute* theory, and I *so* love it when you boys actually
THINK with your HEAD instead of-- Well, you know. And you've caught me
at *such* a weak and vulnerable and giddy moment that you've actually
got me to musing about this now; you've got me all rubbery and squirming
and murmuring about *THEORIES,* for the love of Aunt Marcie, instead of
HARD FACTS!
You are a bad, bad boy--trying to ruin my reputation, trying to lull me
into baring it all and giving you a <SHUDDER> naked O P I N I O N.
>Has anyone compared the release dates of BOTWO squirrel materials with
>the date on which such material would ordinarily have lapsed into the
>public domain, to see if there is any merit to this?
Awwww, you know *all* my soft spots, don't you! Let me cuddle your
precious little head. You know I just can't resist when you ask me for
hard, HARD *FACTS*!
To answer your question, sweetie-pie, I don't know of a single soul
who's completely done that comparison. That's a big job. There was
*going* to be <A-HEM!> a court-appointed Special Master who was *going*
<Aa-HEM!> to answer ALLLLLLLL those questions. But *certain parties*
made sure *that* didn't happen, now, *didn't* they. Ohhhhh! <STAMP!> I
wish you hadn't, um...brought that up. *Now* I'm just going to have to
spread it allll out... Rob Clark! How *dare* you leer like that! I
*meant* the FACTS about that Special Master thing! OooooOOOOooo.
"Special Master." I *like* the sound of that. Well, we'll get to that.
When I've cooled down about it. <Humph!>
>I would do this myself, but I take one look at the login for that
>hideous locis interface, and immediately run screaming, deciding to let
>braver souls than I venture into that labyrinth.
Now, Rob! Look, there already *is* that database of all the copyright
registrations and renewals. That little dollface Ralphie Hilton has it
webbed somewhere. So you wouldn't have to deal with <GAG> LOCIS. And
I've got some, like, little factlets and other little thingies that
might help. (I'll throw them in here somewhere before I go. I *know* how
you boys like toys!)
I'll bet it can be done. And I'll bet you're *just* the man for the job!
<wink>.
But for now, let's wrestle.... <SMACK> Stop that! I *meant* with that
PUBLIC DOMAIN thing you brought up, silly! And how it led to the
"Special Master"... OoooOOOO! Annnnywaaaaayz, you've *really* opened a
can of worms with *that*! Oh, there were just scads of *allegations*
flying around for years about some of the copyrights having lapsed into
the public domain. There are just *reams* of posts and legal documents
and all *sorts* of vague accusations and claims and counterclaims and
hoohah about it! But that's, like, a whole spooky story in itself. It's
almost as spooky as CST.
So if you want it, and if you're very *very* good, I'll reluctantly give
you a copy of a Little Mini Time line on the whole copyrights mess that
I extracted from the *B-I-I-I-I-I-G* Time line that The
Coalition--whoever the heck *they* are--dropped off at the ARSCC
Chimerical Library [wdne] that fateful Sunday back in the beautiful
autumn of '98. Every so often I find new updates dropped through the
squeaky little mail slot on the big double doors, but I never see
*anybody.* It's just one more of the *weird* things that go on around
this place. Oh, like I *need* any more!
But, now, Rrrrrrrobbie, sweetie-pie. Darling. Dumpling. Before I give it
to you, I have to be very *very* strict with you:
First thing iiiis, this Little Mini Time line (LMT) will *not* be
complete for many purposes. 'Kay? I do *not* like giving out just
excerpts from the *B-I-I-I-I-I-G* Time line, because, well, you know
*my* motto: the BIGGER the BETTER! But, really, there are *so* many
things that might be related that get left out. For instance: this
extracted Little Mini Time line takes up *very* little about the
overseas copyright events, like in Germany and the Netherlands. It also
by-passes the whole David Mayo-Robin Scott mess, and Grady Ward and
Keith Henson--all related, but, like, their *own* sagas. Even, so, this
thing is lonnnnng. Of course, the LONGER the BETTER, when it comes to
HARD FACTS!
So, *second* thing iiiis, if I'm going to do this one-time single little
itsy-bitsy special favor for you, you have got to *promise* me that you
will study it *all* very carefully. I mean, *I've* had to! And all of
these *very* untidy and random and strange little bits and pieces *do*
have their place, and *do* come together like a string of pearls--*if*
you're a good little scholar! So if you're *not* going to be a good
little scholar, then I would rather that you not even peek under the
cover, okay? <SMACK> Not *that* cover, silly! Pay attention! Now, are
you listening to me? I *am* your Librarian, you know!
So, um, do you want it or not? <SMACK> Not *that*! *Oh*! You *boys*!
Well, I'll just grab it and you can decide for yourself. Oh gosh, it's
down here in the bottom of this file cabinet, though <Unh!>, and now I
have to *crawl* around <Ow-ee!> down here-- DON'T LOOK! <Umph!> Oh, here
it is. Oh! And *look*! No-no-no-no-no! I don't mean *look!* I mean I
found part of a bottle of Peppermint Schnapps I must have left in the
drawer! Want some? *I* do! Ooooo how pretty!
<THUD> Here's your Little Mini Time line (LMT). However, it is
*strictly* provided on a raw and "as-is" basis. And there, on top, are
your Official ARSCC Chimerical Library Disclaimers[TM]:
1) The following Little Mini Time line includes commentary
and/or conclusions by the creators and/or editor[s] of the
time line that may or, like, may *not* be the views of
the ARSCC Chimerical Library and/or its pert, sweet, and
unassuming Librarian.
<Curtsy> That would be *me*. <Dimples>
2) There are *no* ARSCC Chimerical Library Warranties
[wdne], express or implied.
Like, *really*! For the love of Pete, if you see things that happen in
some strange relationship to each other, do *not* come back complaining
to *me*! You will *not* get your money back. It's a Time line, and
things happened when they happened. I mean, Sheeeeesh! *I* didn't make
them happen that way! I am just *so* <STAMP!> *sick* of some of these
*whiners* in A.R.S., like that sniveling little Michael Reuss and Dead
Head Ed, getting their *diapers* in a wedgie just because somebody
provides HARD *FACTS* about things involving the CIA and NSA and the
rest of the alphabet soup group. What a bunch of *babies*! It's like
they want to cover up their eyes and say, "You can't see me! Those
things didn't happen!" Wipe their *noses* for them! Shhhheeeeesh!
3) Entries in any Little Mini Time line (LMT) may refer
to entries that are only in the B-I-I-I-I-G Time line,
but do not appear in the excerpted portion.
Okay? Now you have all the disclaimers and the *very* strict rules. So
now behave, and let's study and be *qui-et*. This *is* a library, after
all, even if it is, like, after-hours. But--you won't mind if I just,
um, sort of sit close and sip schnapps and read over you shoulder, will
you? Awwww, you are *such* a doll...
1 October 1972
CIA Office of Technical Service Contract 8473 is dated 1 October 1972.
It is marked CONFIDENTIAL. According to the referenced source--CIA's own
Dr. Ken Kress--it is a $50,000 research contract with "the physicists at
SRI" for an "expanded effort in parapsychology." Kress says that as of
this date, he has been assigned as the CIA Project Officer for the
contract. The "physicists at SRI" are Russell Targ and Scientology OT
Hal Puthoff, but the contract also includes Scientology OT Ingo Swann
and, soon to be added, Scientology OT Pat Price, neither of whom are
physicists. [NOTE: 1 October 1972 is a Sunday.]
SOURCE: A report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and
Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in the Winter 1977 issue
of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's classified internal publication;
report released to the public in 1996
Oh, Robbie, hold it! I mean, we've hardly gotten *started* and I already
need to check something-- Hmmmm! Onnne second, my sweet little scholar.
Let me get out my ARSCC Chimerical Calculator and check the inflation
factor. <Click tick-tick tacky tickity click tick-tick TACK!> Well!
According to this "NowDollars" button, that would be equivalent, in
1972, to just about $213,000.00 today. I mean, let's not sell the boys
*short*. Okey-dokey. Yes, I'm done now. You little cutie.
21 c. December 1972
Scientology OT Ingo Swann arrives at Stanford Research Institute (SRI)
to begin work there with fellow Scientology OT Hal Puthoff on the CIA
contract to develop "remote viewing."
SOURCE: Book, "Remote Viewers--The Secret History," Chapter 7; Ingo
Swann's own accounts, on the internet.
15 c. April 1973
Scientology OT Pat Price becomes part of the CIA-sponsored remote
viewing program at SRI with Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann.
[NOTE: Price later enters into a private contract with CIA in which it
is believed one of his primary duties is training/apprenticing CIA
personnel in remote-viewing, from c. October 1974 through c. July 1975,
(see) just before his mysterious death.]
SOURCE: A report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and
Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in the Winter 1977 issue
of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's classified internal publication;
report released to the public in 1996
1 c. January c. 1974
Robert Vaughn Young claims that as early as 1974 the Department of
Justice and FBI has upper level, confidential Scientology [OT] materials
in their files: "We didn't know how they got in there, but they were in
the government files as well, yes. This would be in the period 1974,
1975, 1976, in that period." [NOTE: Young's horseshoes-and-handgrenades
approach to dates gives us no option but to put this at the beginning of
each year named.]
SOURCE: Transcript of 21 September 1995 Denver testimony of Robert
Vaughn Young in FACTNet case, testifying about his review of FOIA
documents from DOJ and FBI.
1 February 1974
A new CIA program, jointly funded by Office of Research and Development
(ORD) and Office of Technical Services (OTS) is contracted and begun at
SRI with Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann. Kenneth Kress is
the author of the program (he refers to himself as "the Project
Officer"). The project is to proceed on the premise that--from the
results of the earlier contract--the phenomena associated with remote
viewing exist; the objective is to develop and utilize them. The program
is referenced by a cite: "Office of Technical Services Contract, FAN
4125-4099; Office of Research and Development Contract, FAN 4162-8103; 1
February 1974 (CONFIDENTIAL)."
SOURCE: A report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and
Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in the Winter 1977 issue
of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's classified internal publication;
report released to the public in 1996
1 c. January 1975
Meade Emory begins tenure as Assistant to Commissioner of IRS. As
documented in this Time line, Emory's tenure will parallel much of the
so-called "Snow White" thefts of government documents from Internal
Revenue and other federal agencies.
SOURCE: Short bio of Meade Emory as filed with West's Legal Directory
15 c. January 1975
A CIA report describes the results of remote viewing experiments
directed at a Libyan installation, as performed by various CIA
"insiders," all members of CIA's Office of Technical Services (OTS):
"OTS/SDB; Notes on Interviews with F. P., E. L., C. J., K. G., and V.
C., January 1975 (SECRET)." [EDITORS NOTE: This is the first confirmed
indication that the CIA now has their own, in-house personnel as remote
viewers. Available data indicates that Scientology OTs Ingo Swann and
Pat Price have both been off training them--using the same upper-level
Scientology materials Swann and Price were trained in and which Robert
Vaughn Young claims were in government files at the time. Swann has been
away from the Stanford Research Institute labs between 15 August 1973
and 15 October 1974 (see), and Price has been working under a private
contract with CIA beginning October 1974 (when Swann returned to
SRI--see). --Ed.]
SOURCE: A report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and
Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in the Winter 1977 issue
of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's classified internal publication;
report released to the public in 1996.
15 January 1975
The strangely-named "Design Protection Act," S.22, is introduced in
Congress by Senator McClellan. It is a bill for "the general revision of
the Copyright Law, title 17 of the United States Code." It proposes many
changes and amendments, notably changing the term of copyright
protection.
SOURCE: Bill Summary & Status for the 94th Congress
24 March 1975
Laurie Zurn is the Deputy Guardian for Social Coordination US, working
directly with Henning Heldt, Deputy Guardian US.
SOURCE: A USGO Executive Directive dated 24 March 1975 issued by Zurn
10 October 1975
The "Design Protection Act," S.22, is signed into law by President
Gerald Ford, becoming Public Law 94-553. It will not, however, become
effective until 1 January of 1978. It provides for "the general revision
of the Copyright Law, title 17 of the United States Code." Among its
many changes and amendments, the new law:
A. Provides that a copyright in a work created on or
after January 1, 1978 subsists from its creation and
endures for the life of the author and 50 years after
his death.
B. States that any copyright, the first term of which is
subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years
from the date it was originally secured.
C. Provides that registration is not a condition of
copyright protection.
D. Provides that the omission of copyright notice does
not invalidate the copyright in a work if: (1) the
notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively
small number of copies distributed to the public; or (2)
registration for the work has been made before or is
made within five years after the publication without
notice, and a reasonable effort is made to add notice to
all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the
public in the United States after the omission has been
discovered; or (3) the notice has been omitted in
violation of an express requirement in writing that, as
a condition of the copyright owner's authorization of
the public distribution, they bear the prescribed
notice.
E. Makes a copyright infringer liable for either the
copyright owner's actual damages and any additional
profits of the infringer, or statutory damages of up to
$10,000 if the case is settled and up to $50,000 if the
owner proves willful infringement. Sets forth criminal
penalties for willful infringement.
F. Provides for the transfer of copyrights and the
recordation of such copyrights.
G. Makes copyrights subject exclusively to the provisions
of this Act after January 1, 1978.
SOURCE: Bill Summary & Status for the 94th Congress
Monday, 15 c. November 1976
CIA Director George Bush requests and receives an update briefing on
CIA's remote viewing labs at Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which is
being run by Scientology OT Hal Puthoff using Scientology OTs Ingo Swann
and Pat Price.
SOURCE: A report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and
Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in the Winter 1977 issue
of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's classified internal publication;
report released to the public in 1996
1 July 1977
The United States Guardians Office is overseeing Freedom of Information
Act lawsuits pending in federal court against the following federal
agencies and individual federal officials:
National Security Agency (NSA)
Director of NSA
U.S. Intelligence Agency
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Director of CIA
U.S. Department of Defense
Secretary of Department of Defense
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
U.S. Department of the Army
Secretary of the Army
U.S. Army Intelligence
Assistant Cheif of Staff for Army Intelligence
U.S. Department of the Navy
Secretary of the Navy
U.S. Naval Ingelligence
Director of Naval Intelligence
Attorney General of the United States
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Director of FBI
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Commissioner of IRS
All of the intelligence agencies and defense-related agencies and their
personnel are contesting the suits on the basis of "national security."
[NOTE: Ultimately the Guardians Office will lose every single F.O.I.A.
suit, and almost none of the documents being sought (with minor and
relatively meaningless exceptions) will ever be released.]
SOURCE: Copies of federal court rulings and/or interim rulings and/or
appeal rulings on each of the referenced suits, on file.
8 July 1977
The FBI raids offices and installations of the Guardian's Office at
Cedars complex and Fifield Manor in Los Angeles, and in the Washington,
D.C. office, at 06:00 hours Pacific time. [NOTE: This raid is the
precursor to the conviction of Guardian's Office officials, the
destruction of the Guardian's Office, and the later establishment of the
501(c)(3) corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology"
(CST)--which will inherit all the copyrights and controlling interest in
the trademarks of L. Ron Hubbard.]
SOURCE: Newspaper, AP, and UPI reports, court documents, and other
sources on file too numerous to list
9 August 1977
CIA Director Stansfield Turner admits publicly that CIA has had
"operational interest" in parapsychology.
SOURCE: J. O'Leary, "Turner Denies CIA Bugging of South Korea's Park,"
The Washington Star, 9 August 1977.
1 January 1978
The new copyright law, Public Law 94-553, goes into effect.
SOURCE: Bill Summary & Status for the 94th Congress
1 c. July 1978
The Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) sets up its own
unit of military remote viewers at Fort Meade, Maryland. Major General
Edmund Thompson, the Army's Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence,
has encouraged the establishment of the unit. It is part of a remote
viewing programme being managed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
that is codenamed GRILL FLAME. Jon Atack says of this period: "In 1978,
the intelligence community was so pleased with the results of the SRI
team [run by Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann] that funding
was massively extended. A multimillion dollar project called 'Grill
Flame' was brought into being under the auspices of the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Navy. The projects at SRI continued,
but were greatly augmented at Fort George Meade in Maryland. The US Army
Intelligence and Security agency became involved in the project... ."
[NOTE: Exact date in 1978 is not known; only the year is known. Also
note that at least three reports on file--one of them ostensibly
originating from a BBC reporter--state that CIA-funded psychiatrist Dr.
Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West (veteran of CIA Office of Technical Services'
MKULTRA and ARTICHOKE programs, and friend of OTS's Director, Dr. Sidney
Gottlieb) is responsible for "medical oversight" during this approximate
period in the CIA remote viewing program being run by Hal Puthoff and
Ingo Swann. Two reports place West at SRI, one places him at Fort Meade.
It is likely that he spent at least some time at each facility.]
SOURCE: The Independent (London); August 27, 1995, Sunday; SECTION:
REVIEW; Page 10; HEADLINE: TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, PSI; BYLINE: Jim
Schnabel; also The Constantine Report No. 1, "Remote Viewing at Stanford
Research Institute or Illicit CIA Mind Control Experimentation?"; ALSO,
Article, "The Hubbard Intelligence Agency," by John Atack,
posted on the Internet
1 January 1979
The "American Family Foundation" (AFF) is incorporated in Massachusetts
as a 501(c)(3) organization. Part of the purported mission of the
corporation is "to study psychological manipulation and cultic groups"
and "to educate the public and professionals... ." On the board is
CIA-funded psychiatrist Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West, who reportedly is
also, at the time, conducting oversight in the highly secret
CIA-sponsored remote-viewing programs, which are utilizing Scientology
texts to train in-house operatives for CIA, DIA, and other federal
intelligence organizations. [NOTE: No Articles of Organization are in
the files of the Massachusetts Secretary of State Corporations division
for this corporation.]
SOURCE: Massachusetts corporate records; Public Relations information by
AFF, published in print and on the web; The Constantine Report No. 1,
"Remote Viewing at Stanford Research Institute or Illicit CIA Mind
Control Experimentation?"
1 January 1979
"By the beginning of 1979" the funding and the work tasks of remote
viewing are coordinated by the DIA, and the separate elements of the
project are going by the collective code name GRILL FLAME. The
integration of the project also provides political cover for the funding
of psychic spying. Atop this cover is one of the Pentagon's top
scientists, Jack Vorona, who heads the DIA's Scientific and Technical
Intelligence Directorate (known as "DT"). Funding for the SRI branch of
the remote viewing operation alone, where Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff
and Ingo Swann are operating from, is estimated to run close to $1
million annually.
SOURCE: BOOK: "Remote Viewers; the Secret History of AmericaÕs Psychic
Spies," by Jim Schnabel. Chapter 15
Hold on, Rrrrrrobbbie-- I've got my little calculater still out, and my
"NowDollars" button all ready to go. Okay--that $1 million in 1979 is
equivalent in today's dollars to about $2.5 million a year. Juuuuuust
checking. But, Robbie, that's only for the SRI branch, and John Atack
said, back there in 1978, that "GRILL FLAME" was already a
"multi-million dollar project"--in 1978 dollars--so there had to be a
separate budget for at *least* the Fort Meade branch. So-- Well, where
the *heck* to you find a button on this for entering "Secret, Hidden
Intelligence Agency Budget Numbers"? There are all these *buttons* but I
don't see a single *one* for that! What? Oh. Oh, um, yes, dear--I'm done
now. <Dimples> <Eyelashes>
26 October 1979
In a "rare procedure" by a ferderal judge, Judge Charles Richey orders
federal prosecutors to accept a "Disposition Agreement" (which Richey
asserts was made earlier in closed-door sessions) wherein Mary Sue
Hubbard and eight other officials of the Guardians Office are to sign a
government-written "Stipulation of Evidence" and are to be found guilty
of one count each without entering a "guilty" plea. This precludes the
possibility of a jury trial. It allows the defendants to appeal the
conviction to federal appelate courts. However, the "Disposition
Agreement" also debars them from ever challenging the "sufficiency" of
the government's "Stipulation of Evidence" on appeal. [NOTE: Richey then
files his order enforcing the agreement on Columbus Day--a court
holiday. Note also that national and international newspapers and wire
services carry conflicting and false accounts of this incident. In fact
The New York Times publishes a patently false report that the defendants
had entered a "guilty" plea, which they never did--such a plea would
have precluded appeal, which was the entire point of the "Disposition
Agreement."]
SOURCE: AP, UPI, Washington Post, and New York Times articles of 8
October, 9 October, and 27 October 1979, on file.
6 and 7 December 1979
Mary Sue Hubbard and eight other Guardians Office officials are
sentenced by Judge Charles Richey. Richey orders that every defendant
except Mary Sue Hubbard be taken into penal custody and begin serving
their sentences immediately WHILE THEIR APPEALS ARE PENDING. Mary Sue
Hubbard's 5-year prison sentence is deferred pending a three month
"evaluation" by the "prison system." Appeals are soon filed for all
defendants. [EDITOR'S NOTE: There is a likely possibility that Mary Sue
Hubbard's court-ordered three-month "evaluation" included being in the
custody or control of psychiatrists, and perhaps even being put on
psychotropic drugs. --Ed.]
SOURCE: Ruling in U.S. v. Heldt et al., Nos. 79-2442, 79-2447 to
79-2450, 79-2456, 79-2459 and 79-2462. United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit. 668 F.2d 1238 215 U.S.App.D.C. 206;
Newspaper and wire service articles of 7 and 8 December 1979, on file.
1 c. July c. 1980
Former Scientology executive Scott Mayer becomes a "personal assistant"
to Internal Revenue Service's Martin Cohn, who is Senior Counsel to
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Special Cases Division.
SOURCE: 4 April 1994 DECLARATION OF SCOTT MAYER in Church of Scientology
International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, United States District
Court Central Division of California, Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx).
28 July 1980
Larry Wollersheim files suit against the Church of Scientology of
California (CSC) for "severe emotional injury."
SOURCE: California Court of Appeal, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, Defendant and
Respondent., Nos. B084686; B086063 Second Appellate District Division
Three Super. Ct. No. BC074815, Appeals from judgments of the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County; Cite as 96 C.D.O.S. 773
10 November 1980
The trial of Church of Scientology of California (CSC) v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue begins in United States Tax Court.
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Docket No. 3352-78, United States Tax
Court, Filed September 24, 1984.
26 November 1980
The Guardian WW, Jane Kember, and Guardians Office executive Morrison
"Mo" Budlong are convicted on charges of burglary of government offices.
SOURCE: AP, UPI, and New York Times articles of 26 and 27 November 1980,
on file.
19 December 1980
The Guardian WW, Jane Kember, and Guardians Office executive Morrison
"Mo" Budlong are sentenced to six years imprisonment.
SOURCE: AP articles of 19 December 1980, on file
1 c. March c. 1981
Scott Mayer becomes a paid consultant to Internal Revenue Service's
Martin Cohn--Senior Counsel to Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Special
Cases Division--during the trial of CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Docket No.
3352-78, United States Tax Court.
SOURCE: 4 April 1994 DECLARATION OF SCOTT MAYER in Church of Scientology
International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, United States District
Court Central Division of California, Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx);
Also, 24 September 1984 ruling in CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Docket No.
3352-78, United States Tax Court.
1 c. April 1981
According to attorney Sherman Lenske claims, he begins representing "Mr.
L. Ron Hubbard in all aspects of estate planning" on or about this date.
[NOTE: Gerry Armstrong is on the L. Ron Hubbard biography project at the
time, and has province over a huge collection of personal documents and
writings belonging to L. Ron Hubbard. Robert Vaughn Young, who later in
1981 takes over the project from Armstrong, describes it as "hundreds of
thousands of pages of material--much of it originals or carbon copies in
his [Hubbard's] own handwriting... ." Every scrap of it, of course, is
part of L. Ron Hubbard's estate, and the total intellectual property of
the estate will later be valued by Lenske, via Norman F. Starkey, at $25
million. See entry for 16 April 1987.]
SOURCE: Quoted excerpt of Sherman Lenske's Declaration dated November
12, 1995; Armstrong declarations, affidavits, and new stories, cited
herein; United States District Court Central District of California,
Church of Scientology International, Plaintiff, vs. Steven Fishman and
Uwe Geertz, Defendants. Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx), Declaration of
Robert Vaughn Young in support of cost bill for Dr. Geertz's motion for
award of costs, expenses, attorney's fees and sanctions, 4 April 1994.
1 July 1981
Mary Sue Hubbard, Controller and senior over the Guardians Office (and,
as such, over all legal matters related to the copyrights and
trademarks), is removed from her position through the expediency and
force of a "letter prepared by lawyers."
SOURCE: Book, "Religions Inc."
13 July 1981
Norman F. Starkey and Vicki Aznaran are senior executives in Sea Org
missions, called the "040 Missions," sent out to "take over the GO."
SOURCE: United States District Court Central District of California, No.
Cv 91-6426 Hlh (tx) Church of Scientology International, Plaintiff, Vs.
Steven Fishman And Uwe Geertz, Defendants, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran;
ALSO, David Miscavige's affidavit to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in the CSI, plaintiff vs. STEVEN FISHMAN And UWE
GEERTZ, Defendants, CASE No. cv 91-6426 HL
5 August 1981
A Committe of Evidence is held on senior Guardians Office personnel, who
are found guilty and removed from post.
SOURCE: International conditions Order number 1, 5 August 81; Peter
Greene Debrief of 23 June 1982, on the internet
14 September 1981
Laurie Zurn is Deputy Guardian US.
SOURCE: AP story of 14 September 1981, "Shakeup in Top Office;" New York
Times story of same date, "Top Scientology Officials Removed from
Church."
2 October 1981
A final appelate court ruling in the appeals of Mary Sue Hubbard and the
eight U.S. Guardians Office defendants is issued, upholding all of the
convictions and denying all of the defendants' appeals. Mary Sue's case
is then appealed to the Supreme Court.
SOURCE: Ruling in U.S. v. Heldt et al., Nos. 79-2442, 79-2447 to
79-2450, 79-2456, 79-2459 and 79-2462. United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit. 668 F.2d 1238 215 U.S.App.D.C. 206
13 October 1981
Author Services, Inc. is incorporated, installing Norman F. Starkey as
President, with Sherman Lenske as the Registered Agent.
SOURCE: California corporate records
20 c. November 1981
Gerald "Gerry" Armstrong goes to visit Ronald DeWolf, a.k.a. L. Ron
Hubbard, Jr.
SOURCE: Gerry Armstrong, quoted in Bent Corydon's book, "Madman or
Messiah."
1 c. December 1981
Gerry Armstrong deserts his post on the biography project, severing his
ties with L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, and taking, according to him,
"about 2 percent of the accumulated [L. Ron Hubbard] biographical
documents."
SOURCE: UPI story of May 11, 1984, Friday, BC cycle, SECTION: Regional
News, DISTRIBUTION: California, DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
15 c. December 1981
Quoting Robert Vaughn Young: "Starting in 1981, I had full access to
Hubbard's most private papers, diaries and letters. I continued to have
unlimited access to it for years as part of the work to write a
biography of Hubbard... ." According to Young there are "hundreds of
thousands of pages of material--much of it originals or carbon copies in
his [Hubbard's] own handwriting... ." [NOTE: Given Young's usual
horseshoes-and-handgrenades approach to dates, this entry is put at the
end of year because other data in the Timeline indicates that Young
gained access to the personal Hubbard files by succeeding Gerry
Armstrong on the biography project.]
SOURCE: United States District Court Central District of California,
Church of Scientology International, Plaintiff, vs. Steven Fishman and
Uwe Geertz, Defendants. Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx), Declaration of
Robert Vaughn Young in support of cost bill for Dr. Geertz's motion for
award of costs, expenses, attorney's fees and sanctions, 4 April 1994.
1 c. February 1982
Robert Vaughn Young becomes part of Author Services, Inc. (ASI). In his
position at ASI, he has meetings (characterized as "briefings") with
attorney Sherman Lenske--puportedly L. Ron Hubbard's personal attorney.
SOURCE: 9 March 1994 Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young in Church of
Scientology International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, United
States District Court Central Division of California, Case No. CV 91
6426 HLH (Tx); ALSO, 9 April 1997 Request for Admissions from Plaintiff
Religious Technology Center, Inc. filed by attorney Graham Berry in
Civil Action No. 95-K-2143, United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER v. F.A.C.T.NET, INC.,
LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, and ROBERT PENNY.
1 April 1982
Stacy Brooks Young is appointed as the Org Officer for ASI. As such, she
is effectively second in command over all of Scientology at the time.
SOURCE: United States District Court, Central District of California,
#CV-6426-HLH (Tx); Church of Scientology International v. Steven Fishman
and Uwe Geertz; Declaration of Stacy Brooks Young October 1994.
19 April 1982
Without comment, The Supreme Court of the United States "leaves intact"
the "criminal conspiracy conviction and five-year prison sentence of
Mary Sue Hubbard, the No. 2 official of the Church of Scientology."
SOURCE: AP news stories of 19 and 20 April 1982, on file.
28 May 1982
The Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) [which is not a church but a
corporation] is founded by attorney Sherman Lenske, tax and probate
attorney Meade Emory (former Assistant to Commissioner of IRS), tax and
probate attorney Leon Misterek, and Lyman Spurlock. The corporation is
organized under IRS Code 501(c)(3). Sherman Lenske, along with his
brother--attorney Stephen Lenske--and attorney Lawrence E. Heller (all
non-Scientologists, all from the same law firm), are installed as the
three "Special Directors" of CST, having veto power over the decisions
and actions of the directors and officers of the corporation. [NOTE: CST
is the corporation that will inherit all of L. Ron Hubbard's
intellectual property as a result of the "estate planning" that Sherman
Lenske admits to having entirely engineered. It should also be noted
that one document, referenced below, names attorney Thomas Small as
being involved behind the scenes in the establishment of CST.]
SOURCE: California corporate records; Bylaws of CST; CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL
TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES Defendant. No. 581-88T, UNITED
STATES CLAIMS COURT, June 29, 1992; also, document posted to the
internet: "Report to the Council for Spiritual Integrity (Corporate
Analysis of Scientology)"
Well, my *goodness*, seems like at least they could have let the *ink*
dry on the Supreme Court's Mary Sue ruling, huh? Oh, and look: it *is* a
"Small" world after all! We are going to see *more* of little Tommy
Small before the final curtain. Okay--shhhhhhh...
6 December 1982
A Newsweek story asks, "Is L. Ron Hubbard Dead?" It covers the
parallel-running lawsuits involving Ronald DeWolf (a.k.a. L. Ron
Hubbard, Jr.--who is seeking receivership of L. Ron Hubbard's estate),
and Gerry Armstrong. Both lawsuits are being conducted by Boston
attorney Michael Flynn's office. [EDITOR'S NOTE: There is ENORMOUS
publicity in November and December 1982 and January 1983 on these
contemporaneus cases--articles on file and covered elsewhere in the
Timeline: AP story of 13 November 1982; UPI story of 14 November 1982;
AP story of 15 November 1982; Newsweek story, 6 December 1982; Time
magazine 24 January and 31 January 1983; Clearwater Sun, 28 January
1983. What is striking is the regimented similarity of the stories: they
question whether Hubbard is alive--and if so, competent--and give the
same droning slant, quoting sensationalistic derogatory blurbs about
Hubbard from Armstrong and DeWolf, and Kima Douglas, all asserting or
implying that Hubbard is insane, a "Howard Hughes-like" recluse,
incapable of managing his own affairs, etc. But as will soon be seen,
there is tremendous purpose behind this synchronous media campaign,
because all of this publicity just happens to lead DIRECTLY to a
sensational climax: the presentation by Sherman and Stephen Lenske, in
early Februay 1983, of TWO DIFFERENT fingerprinted letters--one
presented in EACH lawsuit--both purported to be from L. Ron Hubbard,
"proving" that Hubbard is alive, well, and in control of his affairs,
and "proving" that his "estate is in good hands" (the estate is being
handled by attorney Sherman Lenske), and "proving" that he, Hubbard,
endorses Norman F. Starkey and the current management of Scientology
organizations. See entries for 10 and 14 February 1983 --Ed.]
SOURCE: Newsweek magazine, 6 December 1982; other media as listed
10 February 1983
Quoted from the referenced source: "A fully authenticated, handwritten
letter from best-selling author and Dianetics and Scientology founder L.
Ron Hubbard, bearing a set of his fingerprints and dated Feb. 3, 1983,
has been received by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge [John L.
Cole], who immediately ordered that it be made part of the official
court records, the Church of Scientology announced today." [NOTE: This
first letter of two is filed in the Gerry Armstrong case. See also entry
for 14 February 1983.]
SOURCE: PR Newswire story of 10 February 1983
14 February 1983
Quoted from the referenced source: "Church of Scientology officials
Monday produced a second letter purportedly written by church founder L.
Ron Hubbard, saying he is alive and well and believes his estate to be
in good hands.
"The handwritten letter was filed as part of a motion to dismiss
the Riverside County Superior Court probate battle in which Hubbard's
son, Ronald DeWolf, claims his father is either dead or incompetent.
"...DeWolf's attorney, Michael Flynn of Boston, dismissed the letter
as insignificant compared to evidence he said will show Hubbard's estate
is being mishandled.
"'We have a letter from (Hubbard lawyer) Sherman Lenske to a third
party,' in which Hubbard's physical status is discussed, said Flynn.
"'I know he's alive and well. That's all I've ever said,' Lenske
said Monday, denying any letter could have indicated otherwise.
"Church lawyers submitted an alleged Hubbard letter last week in
the church's Los Angeles County Superior Court suit against former
Hubbard assistant Gerald Armstrong. The church is trying to get back
some 30,000 church documents it says Armstrong took.
"...'Any claim that my estate is being mishandled is false,' the
letter said. 'My business affairs are handled by contract with a
Hollywood-based company, Author Services Inc.'
"...Lenske and his brother, attorney Stephen Lenske, said Hubbard
won't appear in person to prove he is in good health because he should
not have to 'dignify the allegations of a crazed man.'
"'The man wants to be left alone, he wants to be private,' Sherman
Lenske said.
"The attorneys would not divulge whether they have had personal
contact with Hubbard, nor whether they know his whereabouts. ..."
[EDITOR'S NOTE: It was truly accomodating of Armstrong and DeWolf--who
just so happened to have met together a year before, while Armstrong was
still in charge of the vast library of documents making up a large
portion of the Lenske-managed Hubbard estate (see entry for 20 c.
November 1981)--to not only have concurrently-running lawsuits being
litigated by the same lawyer, but also to have filled the national press
for three months with the *exact* sorts of allegations that Lenske could
then "disprove" through the expediency of letters arriving via FedEx.
When the criminal warrants and subpoenas are finally issued, I hope
someone remembers to subpoena the FedEx records for February 1983.
Astounding. --Ed.]
SOURCE: AP story of 14 February 1983, on file: "Church Produces
Purported Letter From Hubbard."
February c. 1983
According to almost identical stories from both Robert Vaughn Young and
Jesse Prince, by "early 1983" [Prince] "many of Hubbard's
works"/"thousands of pages of Scientology material written by Mr.
Hubbard" have gone into the public domain:
"I was at ASI in 1983 when it was discovered that many
of Hubbard's works had 'gone public domain.' We were
told this was due to improper copyright registration
and/or renewal. ...[A] massive push was undertaken to
get the works registered. I remember...Pat Brice
remarking that registration notices could not be filed
on vast number [sic] because they were past the five
year time limit when a registration certificate can be
filed. At that time, ASI was being run by David
Miscavige who, although he held a position of Chairman
of the Board of ASI, was the person in actual command.
Miscavige said that it did not matter if the
certificates were late or not but that Ms. Brice was to
file them anyway. I remember Pat Brice trying to
politely explain that it was of no use, but Miscavige
would have nothing of it. He said to copyright
everything, regardless. There subsequently followed a
flurry of copyright filings. As the material was found,
registrations were checked, documents were filed either
as an original registration or as renewals. This is why
there is a sudden surge in 1983."
ROBERT VAUGHN YOUNG
"In early 1983 I attended a meeting at Scientology's ASI
office in Los Angeles. In attendance at this meeting
were David Miscavige, Lymon Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran,
Patricia Brice and Edith Buchele. The meeting concerned
scientology copyrights. In particular, David Miscavige
stated that Scientology was 'in trouble' concerning the
copyright status of the many published materials of
founder L Ron Hubbard. Concern was expressed that many
of Mr. Hubbard's published materials had become 'public
domain' because the materials had not been registered
with the United States Copyright office for many years.
David Miscavige stated that Scientology had failed to
register copyrights for thousands of pages of
Scientology material written by Mr. Hubbard. These
records included the numerous policy letters and
bulletins published by Mr. Hubbard. ...At the same
meeting in early 1983 David Miscavige specifically
ordered Patricia Brice (who at the time was L. Ron
Hubbard's personal secretary and an employee of ASI) to
begin the process of mass copyright registration filings
for all of L. Ron Hubbard's materials. This order was
given despite the fact that Mr. Miscavige was already
aware that many of the materials in question were
already in the public domain. Thus, I know from personal
knowledge that in mid 1983 Scientology began a massive
program to register Mr. Hubbard's material with the
United State's Copyright office."
JESSE PRINCE
[NOTE: The source declaration and affidavit are documents filed much
later in support of copyright litigation involving F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. and
its Director, Larry Wollersheim, who states: "[T]he declarations of
Jesse Prince and Vaughn Young...describe Scientology's massive copyright
registration fraud in 1983... ."]
SOURCE: Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young February 1997; ALSO,
Affidavit of Jesse Prince 27 July 1998; ALSO, 8 October 1998 post to
alt.religion.scientology by Larry Wollersheim
Well! My *word*! It's almost like they're reading from the same
*script!*
So, do I *have* this right? That since "early 1983," both Robert Vaughn
Young *and* Jesse Prince supposedly *knew* that there was, like, this
"massive copyright registration fraud" going on--all led entirely by
David Miscavige, and having *nothing* to do with CST or their stupid
"Special Director" lawyers--uh, who were only going to, like, wind up
merrily *inheriting* all these supposedly fraudulent copyrights later
with the blessings of IRS? Is that *right*? I just feel like such an
*airhead* sometimes! Well-- But-- Jeeeeeeez, Rrrrrobbie: Robert Vaughn
Young is, like, having *briefings* with Sherman Lenske, who is
*supposedly* L. Ron Hubbard's personal attorney, and Sherman Lenske is
handling "all aspects of estate planning"--of which the intellectual
property is about 95% (we'll get to *that* in a minute!). So wouldn't
Sherman Lenske have to know about the copyright registrations as part of
his "estate planning"? And Sherman Lenske is *also* a Special Director
of CST, who is going to receive and own *all* the copyrights. So
wouldn't RVY at least, uh, like, *mention* this sort of thing to Shermy
Wormy in their "briefings" they had together? Pllllleeease help me
understand this, Rrrrrobbie.
In fact-- <Tch!> Hang onnnnnn a second. I just *know* I have a little
chart of this *somewhere*. Let me juuuuust get my copyrights folder. Hm
hm hm hm hm. Dee-de-di-dee-dee. Yep! Here it is. Now, see, Rrrrrrobbie,
this is something you *boys* could have done with that database of
copyright registrations, *if* you boys would just *apply* yourselves. So
let's take a look and see about that "flurry of activity" and "sudden
surge" RVY says happened in 1983. Here is a table of all the
Scientology-related copyright registrations that took place from
1978--the year the law changed--through 1998--the year before these
copyright databases showed up in a.b.s.:
YEAR OF TOTAL NUMBER OF WORKS CREATED
REGISTRATION REGISTRATIONS PRIOR TO 1 JANUARY 1978
1978: 21 1
1979: 3 1
1980: 5 2
1981: 15 5
1982: 37 24
1983: 144 64
1984: 114 95
1985: 7 0
1986: 58 13
1987: 219 9
1988: 916 281
1989: 522 87
1990: 403 12
1991: 329 3
1992: 249 3
1993: 304 0
1994: 223 6
1995: 228 34
1996: 283 1
1997: 1,147 569
1998: 1,035 753
Well, *darn*! Sure, there's a blip there in 1983, but it's, like,
*nothing* compared to the deluge that comes after Stormin' Norman
Starkey and CST get hold of the copyrights--in 1986. In fact, I'd say
there is *quite* a little "flurry" and "surge" during 1997 and 1998--the
*very* years that Robert Vaughn Young and Jesse Prince were giving their
declarations, pointing everybody's attention back to 1983 and little
Davey DooDoo Miscavige. And if you'll look in the Copyright
Registrations database <A-HEM!>, you'll find that ALLLLLLLLLL those 1997
and 1998 registrations were being done by CST, Mary Sue Hubbard (for
CST, according to Zed and Title 17), and Normy Stormy Starkey! I mean,
SheeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEeesh!
What the *HECK* is really going on here? I mean...
Oops. Right. Shhh. Yes, this *is* a library. 'Kay. Sorry. Let's read...
17 July 1984
Kathleen Heard, as a representative of "Author Services, Inc." [see
EDITOR'S NOTE, below], issues a press story to PR Newswire that is a
blatant lie. The story claims that an $8 million library is to be built
[no library is ever built] to "house the collected literary works,
original manuscripts, letters, diaries and personal memorabilia of
author-philosopher L. Ron Hubbard." The release goes on to say: "The
Hubbard collection...will be kept in underground vaults until the
library's completion. ...[T]he entire existing Hubbard collection has
now been stored in a series of underground vaults in half a dozen
separate, but undisclosed locations. The collection will be kept in
these vaults until construction of the library and its associated
research facilities has been finished." [EDITOR'S NOTE: Only with
hindsight, hoarding a veritable vault-full of hard-won knowledge, can we
fully appreciate the calculated, callous calumny of this insidious set
of lies. First, the President of Author Services, Inc. is Norman F.
Starkey (see entry for 13 December 1981), who within two years of this
press release will be going around "doing business as" (d.b.a.) the "L.
Ron Hubbard Library" while he is the Executor of the Will and Trustee of
the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard. That d.b.a. will be set up for him by
attorney Sherman Lenske--co-founder of the corporation known as "Church
of Spiritual Technology" (CST) and "Special Director" of CST. It is CST
who will then inherit the deceitful name "L. Ron Hubbard Library" from
Starkey--courtesy of Sherman Lenske, who files the d.b.a. for CST--and
under that deceptive banner will be the builder and owner of the vaults,
the purpose of which will be to keep the original works of L. Ron
Hubbard permanently AWAY from public view and access--the utter
antithesis of a "library." It is also known now that the vaults were not
completed at the time of this press release (see entries for 1 January
1990, 1991, and 1992), and that CST will spend over $50 million on the
vaults and related costs by 1992--the year before they are granted tax
exemption. If any one element of the pack of calculated lies in this
press release can be considered to be more repulsive than any other,
perhaps it is the contemplation of the sort of diseased mind that would
hold out the false hope to Scientologists of a library to hold L. Ron
Hubbard's original manuscripts, connivingly using that as a cover story
or "shore story" for the creation of the vaults, only to then coldly
create and assume the "d.b.a." of the "L. Ron Hubbard Library" while
burying those very works in the vaults for all time. If only Poe could
have contemplated such a sick and twisted mind, literature would have
been richer for it. --Ed.]
31 July 1984
The Way to Happiness International is incorporated.
Corporate classification: Public benefit
President: Laurie Zurn
Registered Agent: Sherman Lenske
[NOTE: In the IRS Closing Agreement of 1 October 1993, this organization
is called "The Way to Happiness Foundation," and is granted tax
exemption under IRS Codes 501(c)(3), 170(c)(2), 509(a)(1), and
170(b)(1)(A)(vi)--but California corporate records of the California
Secretary of State list no such corporation as "The Way to Happiness
Foundation." There is likely, therefore, a d.b.a. filed in California
for "The Way to Happiness International" to do business as "The Way to
Happiness Foundation." Finally, it must be noted that all trademarks for
"The Way to Happiness" are owned exclusively by the Church of Spiritual
Technology (CST).]
SOURCE: California corporate information; United States Trademark Office
records
1 c. January c. 1985
Paul H. Smith, a Strategic Intelligence Officer and Intelligence Project
Officer (remote viewer) for U.S. Army Intelligence and the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA), has been personally trained in remote viewing
by Ingo Swann during 1984. [NOTE: This fully confirms Ingo Swann's
training of federal intelligence personnel.]
SOURCE: Paul H. Smith's biography material as found on his company's web
site at http://www.rviewer.com/main/phs.html
<SHUDDER AND CHATTER> Ohhh, Robbie, I just have goose bumps just
*crawling* all *over* my flesh, like, just *everywhere*! <SHUDDER> Now,
see what you've gone and *done*! I had this nicely buried in my own
little titanium vault--well, okay, in the bottom drawer of the file
cabinet--and now you're making me go through it *allllll* again and get
*spooked* alllllll over again, and now I feel like I'm about to poke
*holes* in my bra! And, more than that, I reeeeeeeally have to tink--
Um, I reeeeeeeally need to go water the plants in the bathroom. But
*you* are coming *with* me, because it is dark and creepy back there by
the Cloak Room this late at night! So here is your very own little ARSCC
Chimerical Library bookmark, with the "XENU IS GRUMPY" picture on it.
There. Now you just stick it in-- Rob Clark! Put that in the Little Mini
Timeline and behave! Good.
And we'll go to the bathroom together, now, like we were *sisters* or
something, and when we come back, we'll start at Part 2, and, oh! this
gets *really* scary *then*! Because now Larry Wollersheim enters the
scene with Jolly West in tow, and then Steven Fishman, and the IRS's
little ferret Scott Mayer is back, and there's the $12 million thing,
and... Oh, *you'll* see! But get *up* now and come *on*! I have got to
gooooooooo!
That's right--walk this way. Quick!
--<The ARSCC Librarian>
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
*The ARSCC, like its hips-shouldn't-be-allowed-to-hinge-that-way
Librarian, does not exist.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQCUAwUBO6Boi+1gRWXeKTRVAQHP9AP3RlRwuXzFVBQ77TF2v8VgjAhvEMGkClfn
KGyOiVh8azBQtMGVBEbZkGkRIwnXyEQ0Am/uC8c3zbq0I+jgOkbjl0/QiUbn8BqO
ZKhoctNxcM4UfenCyXN80sZFjmNx3N8JqGbXJjGfXCkmTvIRCm6VRNcVg907Pu/X
1qFGgjODdw==
=sw8g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Reuss
Ah, we get another great timeline debate from our beloved Librarian,
(AKA Ace of Clubs, Kase Ossifer, CL, Nigel).
>I was just laughing like a *lunatic*
How apropos.
> my legs ... spread out wide in the air
How, er, unladylike...
>I - mean - I - had - *lost* it! I was giddy!
I often have that effect on women librarians who frequent a.r.s.
>The chair lost it, too: its momentum, that is, and rolled to a soft
>CLUNK against one of the big polished library tables,
And I'll bet the back of your head smashed hard into the card catalog,
right?
>I slouched waaaayyyyyy down in my chair (which scooted my skirt
>waaaaayyyyy up)
Why you slutty little tramp.
>I'll reluctantly give
That's not what I heard. I heard you're not reluctant at all...
>First thing iiiis,
But this depends on what your definition of iiiis is. Or is that is
iiiis? Or is it iiiis iiiis? Aw, fuck it.
>So, *second* thing iiiis, if I'm going to do this one-time single little
>itsy-bitsy special favor for you, you have got to *promise* me that you
>will study it *all* very carefully. I mean, *I've* had to!
You've studied it too long. You've studied it so long you're
hallucinating and seeing things that aren't really there.
>I am just *so* <STAMP!> *sick* of some of these
>*whiners* in A.R.S., like that sniveling little Michael Reuss
Are you still pissed off at me because I wouldn't let you touch my
huge "man meat?"
Geez, you're acting like this is the first time you've ever been
rejected.
>getting their *diapers* in a wedgie just because somebody
>provides HARD *FACTS*
I love the hard facts, too, CL.
But then you add so much more. You add implications, you add your
inane editorial comments, and then you refuse to add evidence or even
consider evidence from people you don't like, or evidence which
quarrels with your foregone conclusions.
And mostly you never state your entire theory. You try to get away
with simply implying it, surreptitiously.
>1 October 1972
>CIA Office of Technical Service Contract 8473 is dated 1 October 1972.
>It is marked CONFIDENTIAL. According to the referenced source--CIA's own
>Dr. Ken Kress--it is a $50,000 research contract with "the physicists at
>SRI" for an "expanded effort in parapsychology." Kress says that as of
>this date, he has been assigned as the CIA Project Officer for the
>contract. The "physicists at SRI" are Russell Targ and Scientology OT
>Hal Puthoff, but the contract also includes Scientology OT Ingo Swann
>and, soon to be added, Scientology OT Pat Price, neither of whom are
>physicists. [NOTE: 1 October 1972 is a Sunday.]
>SOURCE: A report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and
>Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in the Winter 1977 issue
>of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's classified internal publication;
>report released to the public in 1996
Great, Kase. We have no dispute so far. But spending money on an
experiment does not prove anything.
Just recently, on the PBS program Nova, I saw a lively discussion
between physicists over whether or not time travel would be possible.
The amount of money spent to try to find an answer to this theoretical
question will have absolutely no bearing on the answer itself.
>According to this "NowDollars" button, that would be equivalent, in
>1972, to just about $213,000.00 today. I mean, let's not sell the boys
>*short*. Okey-dokey. Yes, I'm done now. You little cutie.
More money and even more money doesn't prove anything either, CL.
>21 c. December 1972
>Scientology OT Ingo Swann arrives at Stanford Research Institute (SRI)
>to begin work there with fellow Scientology OT Hal Puthoff on the CIA
>contract to develop "remote viewing."
>SOURCE: Book, "Remote Viewers--The Secret History," Chapter 7; Ingo
>Swann's own accounts, on the internet.
But Nigel, Swann is a self-aggrandizing nut-case.
I'd bet him 5 million dollars right now, that he could not
successfully remote view in a double blind experiment that had
adequate levels of skepticism and possibilities for falsification
built into it.
And from what I hear, he could really use the money. He's reduced to
peddling coffee cups and tee-shirts on his web site. I mean, at least
he should be able to look into the future and pick a few horses or
something, shouldn't he?
>15 c. April 1973
>Scientology OT Pat Price becomes part of the CIA-sponsored remote
>viewing program at SRI with Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann.
>[NOTE: Price later enters into a private contract with CIA in which it
>is believed one of his primary duties is training/apprenticing CIA
>personnel in remote-viewing, from c. October 1974 through c. July 1975,
>(see) just before his mysterious death.]
Who believed this? Since when did "it is believed" become a hard fact?
Ace, hard facts would be things like documents and experiments showing
that remote viewers are being trained by the CIA, and more
importantly, that they could do what was advertised. Here, you appear
to have jack squat.
Where are these CIA remote viewers today? Who are they? How many of
them are there? Most importantly, what makes you think they can
actually successfully remote view (other than the fact that the CIA
spent $50,000 dollars back in the seventies, and we've had some
inflation since then?).
Why did these great and glorious remote viewing spooks fail to detect
the presence of the hijackers who just demolished the WTC? Why has our
government not been able to employ these supermen to find Osama Bin
Laden before now?
These are issues with which you must deal, Nigel. You're clearly
implying that government remote viewers are capable of miraculous
things, and yet, our world is operating (or failing to operate, as the
case may be) in a way that contradicts your claims.
>1 c. January c. 1974
>Robert Vaughn Young claims that as early as 1974 the Department of
>Justice and FBI has upper level, confidential Scientology [OT] materials
>in their files: "We didn't know how they got in there, but they were in
>the government files as well, yes. This would be in the period 1974,
>1975, 1976, in that period." [NOTE: Young's horseshoes-and-handgrenades
>approach to dates gives us no option but to put this at the beginning of
>each year named.]
So what, Libby (you don't mind if I call you Libby, do you?)?
What does that prove about remote viewing? Not a god dammed thing. The
government probably did have some files. The government infiltrated
lots of subversive groups back then. And wrt, Scientology, with good
reason. Scientology poses a totalitarian, subversive risk to our
society.
>The project is to proceed on the premise that--from the
>results of the earlier contract--the phenomena associated with remote
>viewing exist;
So what? All this means is that they proceeded based on an unfounded,
false, pie-in-the-sky premise. The earlier experiments were sloppy,
and their results were fatally tainted and skewed by the wishful
thinking of the experimenters themselves, who not only stood to gain
financially, but who were also caught up in self-hypnotic suggestion,
just like the regular, on-lines Scientologists are.
There have been many experimental protocols which were similarly
flawed by wishful thinking and sloppy and unscientific practices of
researchers. Cold fusion being announced by two scientists at Utah
University is probably the most famous recent example.
>the objective is to develop and utilize them.
And this objective was never reached a meaningful and scientific way.
No one today is utilizing and developing so-called "psi" powers. The
Librarian masks this inconvenient little fact by placing all the
people who can allegedly do it, inside a secretive government agency.
But if the OT levels are so powerful, before the CIA funded
experiments provided the government with a motive to "steal/take
over/ruin the training program that Hubbard "discovered" why do no old
timer Scientologists, who trained before the mid to late 70s, appear
to be able to remote view? What about the old-timer OT Scientologists,
Ace? Why can't they demonstrate remote viewing in a scientific
experiment?
The answer is, because they can't do it. They are just hypnotized to
believe they can.
>Meade Emory begins tenure as Assistant to Commissioner of IRS. As
>documented in this Time line, Emory's tenure will parallel much of the
>so-called "Snow White" thefts of government documents from Internal
>Revenue and other federal agencies.
>SOURCE: Short bio of Meade Emory as filed with West's Legal Directory
Now don't take this the wrong way, CL, but in this case, time lines
suck. Theories should group supporting evidence by the conclusion they
are being used to advance. Here you introduce Mead Emory, and we're
still not past the hurdle of the fact that no one can successfully
"remote view" one damn thing, except in their own imagination.
Without the hard reality of successful remote viewing, you lose your
motive for the government to take over Scientology training processes.
>15 c. January 1975
>A CIA report describes the results of remote viewing experiments
>directed at a Libyan installation, as performed by various CIA
>"insiders,"
What did they see? How were their observations verified? Oh, right, we
don't know, because it's a state secret...
How convenient to your unspoken conspiracy theories, Ace.
>Available data indicates that Scientology OTs Ingo Swann and
>Pat Price have both been off training them--using the same upper-level
>Scientology materials Swann and Price were trained in and which Robert
>Vaughn Young claims were in government files at the time.
With the results undoubtedly being that no CIA trainee could remote
view, just as no upper level Scientologist can remote view.
>Monday, 15 c. November 1976
>CIA Director George Bush requests and receives an update briefing on
>CIA's remote viewing labs at Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which is
>being run by Scientology OT Hal Puthoff using Scientology OTs Ingo Swann
>and Pat Price.
Now there's a great fact. A report exists. Great.
However, you've said nothing about what the report says. The report
could very well say that Ingo Swann is a hopeless, badly deluded
nutcase. Without the report, this is a worthless "fact."
>8 July 1977
>The FBI raids offices and installations of the Guardian's Office at
>Cedars complex and Fifield Manor in Los Angeles, and in the Washington,
>D.C. office, at 06:00 hours Pacific time. [NOTE: This raid is the
>precursor to the conviction of Guardian's Office officials, the
>destruction of the Guardian's Office, and the later establishment of the
>501(c)(3) corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology"
>(CST)--which will inherit all the copyrights and controlling interest in
>the trademarks of L. Ron Hubbard.]
This is where Kase begins to believe that the government was beginning
to actively take over the cult of Scientology, so it could control the
training processes, and have them for itself... and to put normal,
everyday people off the scent, began squirreling the tech and actively
working to discredit and destroying Scientology itself.
>The Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) sets up its own
>unit of military remote viewers at Fort Meade, Maryland. Major General
>Edmund Thompson, the Army's Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence,
>has encouraged the establishment of the unit. It is part of a remote
>viewing programme being managed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
>that is codenamed GRILL FLAME. Jon Atack says of this period: "In 1978,
>the intelligence community was so pleased with the results of the SRI
>team [run by Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann] that funding
>was massively extended.
BFD. It's just more money thrown down a rat hole of wishful thinking,
based on overly optimistic conclusions by Swann and others. Those
conclusions were not supported by substantive evidence, and have never
been successfully duplicated by anyone else, at any time, in any
place, including those OT Scientologists trained before Hubbard bowed
out and the CIA took over (according to your theory).
>1 January 1979
>"By the beginning of 1979" the funding and the work tasks of remote
>viewing are coordinated by the DIA, and the separate elements of the
>project are going by the collective code name GRILL FLAME. The
>integration of the project also provides political cover for the funding
>of psychic spying. Atop this cover is one of the Pentagon's top
>scientists, Jack Vorona, who heads the DIA's Scientific and Technical
>Intelligence Directorate (known as "DT"). Funding for the SRI branch of
>the remote viewing operation alone, where Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff
>and Ingo Swann are operating from, is estimated to run close to $1
>million annually.
Great. We spent more money. But where are the experimental results?
Nowhere.
>Hold on, Rrrrrrobbbie-- I've got my little calculater still out, and my
>"NowDollars" button all ready to go. Okay--that $1 million in 1979 is
>equivalent in today's dollars to about $2.5 million a year.
The Defense Department once spent a huge number of dollars researching
how to build an in-plane coffee maker that could survive the plane's
crashing.
If you've never been involved in Federal agencies, you'd realize that
budgets are power, not results. I've read of agencies going out and
buying all brand new office furniture at the end of the year, when
they didn't need a damn thing, because if they didn't spend their
entire budget, they risked having it cut the following year.
And that's just one kind of stupid spending you get for your Federal
tax bill.
>[EDITOR'S NOTE: There is a likely possibility that Mary Sue
>Hubbard's court-ordered three-month "evaluation" included being in the
>custody or control of psychiatrists, and perhaps even being put on
>psychotropic drugs. --Ed.]
"There is a likely possibility" sounds an awful lot like a bald-faced
assertion, especially from someone so in love with those hard facts as
you.
[snip the rest]
Pull your head out of your ass, Ace. No one can successfully remote
view. The CIA has no successful remote viewers, nor does Scientology,
even from the days before the Tidy Bowl Man (*) took over.
Scientology is nuts, and all on it's own.
The government can be nutty at times, too. But for entirely different
reasons.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Frog2
Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote in message
<b13aqtgu2doosf7t1...@4ax.com>:
>and then you refuse to add evidence or even consider evidence from
>people you don't like,
Who specifically are you referring to? I see plenty evidence from all
sides, a great deal of it from government and court sources. I see
evidence from Gerry Armstrong, Robert Vaugn Young, the Copyright Office,
Associated Press, UPI, the United States Trademark Office, federal
courts, the Congressional Record... Who are your sources? What's
stopping you from presenting the alleged "evidence" you create in the
air with words but don't produce?
>evidence which quarrels with your foregone conclusions.
What evidence? If you have evidence that actually negates or refutes any
facts in her timeline, post it please. I'd really like to see it.
What "foregone conclusions"? State them.
>And mostly you never state your entire theory.
Oh. That answers that question. She said she wasn't presenting a theory
but a timeline of events. Do you have a reading problem? When enough
facts are gathered, I'm sure the people whose job it is to construct
theories will construct an "entire theory." But then it won't be called
a "theory": it'll be called an "indictment."
Why don't you present some constructive facts as well-researched and
sourced as hers instead of finding nitpicking fault with others who
have? You'd be a lot more credible then. All I see from you is an
extreme effort to "explain away" all her sourced facts, without any
specific facts from you. In the industry, they call that "spin."
Are you a spin doctor?
>How convenient to your unspoken conspiracy theories, Ace.
An unspoken conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory. Therefore you
have no conspiracy theory to argue against and so create one? Why don't
you address the facts and disprove them with facts instead of try to
discredit them with spin?
Are you a spin doctor?
>Now there's a great fact. A report exists. Great.
Right. And I see zero facts from you: only spin and lots of it.
Are you a spin doctor?
Michael Reuss
>> Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote:
Hi Frog2,
This is a complex topic, so I'm going to discuss this in a bit more
depth, and possibly reorder your questions to make the whole thing
make a bit more sense. I hope that's okay with you, and if you think
I'm doing an injustice to your questions or objections, please let me
know. I'm more than happy to discuss it.
I suppose my response to The Librarian in this specific post does come
across as somewhat incomprehensible and snide.
You should understand that there is a long history of debate on these
subjects, over several years. When I saw this time line again (a full
time line has been posted in the past) I didn't go into all the past
details of the debates, I suppose because I was somewhat tired of
rehashing it. I was picking up in the middle, if you will.
But now I see that to simply lay into the Librarian for unspoken and
tacit arguments of the past, without giving the appropriate
background, could be perceived to be an unfair tactic by those not
familiar with the long history of Ace's conspiracy theories here.
And why do I call "Librarian" Ace? Because the person making these
posts is known by many names. Have you read any post by "CL" in the
past? They contain some direct argumentation. How about Nigel's? Nigel
makes lots of specific claims. So does Ace of Clubs. They are all the
same person.
>Oh. That answers that question. She said she wasn't presenting a theory
>but a timeline of events.
In case you have to be hit over the head with a baseball bat, the
person who created this time line posts under various pseudonyms, and
then tries to use different styles to disguise that fact. It doesn't
work. The sarcastic sense of humor, and long-winded flaming rhetoric
give him away.
The identities are: "Ace of Clubs," "Nigel," "CL," "Kase Ossifer,"
"The Librarian," and there have been at least one or two more. I shall
refer to him (and I believe it is a man, not a woman, posting these
Librarian posts), as Ace.
The particular time-line posting technique is just a disingenuous
dodge used by Ace when posting as the allegedly fact-driven, allegedly
impartial, allegedly objective "Librarian" persona. There are some
facts in there, yes. But there's also a lot of smoke and mirrors, if
you start to deconstruct it a bit.
If you want the full historical perspective, I recommend you peruse
the archives, and search for posts to a.r.s from all these nyms. If
you do, you will start to see many clear arguments, some direct, some
by implication, and some trying to disguise themselves as time lines.
The arguments are often subtle, and sometimes purely tacit. Ace has
made explicit claims, too, but in the time line, he never comes right
out and lays his entire theory bare, for all to see.
He leaves that exercise to his readers, and I have taken him up on it,
repeatedly.
>What "foregone conclusions"? State them.
Here is my interpretation of what he is arguing. (Ace, please jump in
and correct any misperceptions, if you would).
1) Ace believes David Miscavige is not in charge of Scientology.
(source: direct statements to a.r.s in the past)
2) Ace believes Miscavige is not smart enough to be in charge of
Scientology.
(source: direct statements to a.r.s in the past)
3) Ace believes Miscavige is a puppet, whose strings are being pulled
by shadowy, behind-the-scenes lawyers, who are in league with the U.S.
Government's Intelligence community.
(source: direct statements to a.r.s in the past)
4) Ace believes that the U.S. government has surreptitiously taken
over control of the CoS and Miscavige through a corporate vehicle
called the Church of Spiritual Technology.
(source: direct statements to a.r.s in the past)
5) Ace believes that the reason the U.S. government sought to control
the CoS was because they feared that super powered psychic abilities
could be learned by normal, everyday people, simply by training in
Hubbardspew Brand Technology (btw, "Hubbardspew" is an editorial
comment of my own).
6) Ace believes that the way this all came to be an issue for the U.S.
Government in the first place, was because we learned that the Soviets
were already working on it, and so they funded the Stanford, Hal
Puthoff, Ingo Swann "psi" experiments.
7) Ace believes that the Stanford experiments were successful; that
they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that psi super powers exist,
and could be mastered.
8) Ace believes that "psi" powers existed in the Stanford experiments
primarily because L. Ron Hubbard discovered them first, and that it
was their Scientology training which put Puthoff and Swann onto the
correct procedural path to developing them.
9) Ace believes that the correct procedural path to developing "psi"
powers now exists only within the CIA (and possibly the KGB), and that
the version of the procedural path that Scientologists follow has been
intentionally altered and corrupted by the government, specifically so
that it will NOT work as advertised.
(source for 5 thru 9: implied by the timeline and direct statements)
10) Ace believes that the CST incorporation papers prove beyond any
doubt, that Miscavige could not possibly be in control of the CoS
(source: direct statements to a.r.s in the past)
11) Ace reveres L. Ron Hubbard as a God-like person, and he reveres
the "real" tech, but despises Miscavige and the lawyers and the spooks
for altering (squirreling) the CoS tech delivery, and for commanding
Miscavige to do stupid things, in order to ruin the reputation of
Scientology among the general populace.
What Ace discounts:
1) Ace discounts Hal Puthoff's current position wrt the Stanford
experiments. FYI, Puthoff now dismisses the overall tests, and admits
that the protocols were sloppy and flawed, and that the experimenters
didn't really observe strict procedures designed to eliminate bias and
wishful thinking.
(source: direct statement from CL)
2) Ace discounts naval records and virtually all research done by
Chris Owens, Russell Miller, and others, who have exposed L. Ron
Hubbard's grandiose claims of being a decorated war hero as bald-faced
lies.
(source: direct statements from Nigel)
3) Ace dismisses the L. Ron Hubbard "affirmations" documents as
forgeries of Gerry Armstrong, claiming Armstrong forged them simply to
embarrass the great man, Hubbard.
(source: direct statements from Ace of Clubs)
4) Ace dismisses much (if not most ) of the research done by Jon Atack
and Russell Miller, which taints the reputation of L. Ron Hubbard. Ace
believes the more embarrassing things in Hubbard's journals and source
documents turned over by Gerry Armstrong, were forgeries created by
Armstrong and Vaughn Young, at the direction of the U.S intelligence
community.
>Who specifically are you referring to?
I hope you forgive me for confusing you. I am arguing against the
beliefs listed above. I am not necessarily arguing against particular
facts on a time line, even though some of those "facts" are worthless,
and some other items are not really facts at all.
I do make the claim that there is tacit editorializing and
argumentation within the time line. I think the choices made of what
to include and what not to include, create parts of a tacit argument
of an overall model of current-day Scientology, which is more
succinctly stated above.
>What evidence? If you have evidence that actually negates or refutes any
>facts in her timeline, post it please. I'd really like to see it.
I did point out a few worthless facts, and made the point that
including worthless facts is sometimes done by the Librarian as an
editorial vehicle.
>Do you have a reading problem? When enough
>facts are gathered, I'm sure the people whose job it is to construct
>theories will construct an "entire theory."
It's no one's "job" to construct a theory. Anyone can do it, if they
wish to. I'm just saying that Ace HAS constructed a theory, and he
continually refuses to just lay it out on the table openly, in it's
entirety, for everyone to ponder. He only hints and implies his
theory, leaving the reader to fill in the gaps.
> But then it won't be called a "theory": it'll be called an
>"indictment."
Are you talking about a legal theory, which centers around a criminal
prosecution?
I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about a tacit theory by
Ace, which explains why Scientology behaves as it does, and why Ace
thinks David Miscavige is a puppet of the U.S. Government intelligence
community, and not actually in charge of the CoS hydra.
>You'd be a lot more credible then. All I see from you is an
>extreme effort to "explain away" all her sourced facts, without any
>specific facts from you.
I did not really explain away any facts, and I wasn't trying to.
I just pointed out a few worthless facts which don't prove anything,
and which seem to have been included in the time line to make a tacit
argument.
Among these worthless facts are that in spending money on experiments
it is somehow proved that the thing being experimented on must
therefore be true. If you read segment one of the timeline, you will
see this tactic repeated several times.
>In the industry, they call that "spin."
Pick a specific comment I made, and let's discuss it.
>Are you a spin doctor?
No, most certainly not. But I did fail to provide the appropriate
background for those not familiar with the long history of posts from
Ace/Librarian/CL/Kase/Nigel/et.al.
>>How convenient to your unspoken conspiracy theories, Ace.
>An unspoken conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory. Therefore you
>have no conspiracy theory to argue against and so create one? Why don't
>you address the facts and disprove them with facts instead of try to
>discredit them with spin?
I have now filled you in on my interpretation of Ace's unspoken
conspiracy theory. Make no mistake, Ace has a conspiracy theory. That
theory is, I believe, substantially as I have stated above.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
ptsc
>11) Ace reveres L. Ron Hubbard as a God-like person, and he reveres
>the "real" tech, but despises Miscavige and the lawyers and the spooks
>for altering (squirreling) the CoS tech delivery, and for commanding
>Miscavige to do stupid things, in order to ruin the reputation of
>Scientology among the general populace.
You missed the "double Hubbard" theory and the disclaiming of the RPF, but
mostly you got it.
I still find these timelines useful research materials and have not found
anything directly incorrect in them.
I find the "theory" as such unworkable, however since it has never been stated
directly, it is not easy to refute. This shows a higher level of intelligence
than your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist. In any case, the research is
top-notch. I just wish the person(s) doing it were in complete agreement with
me, since everyone knows that everyone's definition of "reasonable" is agreeing
with themselves.
In any case, the Librarian is still my favorite of these valences and almost
nobody else (except another librarian and a very few others) has ever really
mastered the ghastly locis copyright database interface.
ptsc
Frog2
>When I saw this time line again (a full time line has been posted in
>the past) I didn't go into all the past details of the debates, I
>suppose because I was somewhat tired of rehashing it.
I have found and studied the earlier timeline posted by this Librarian
but it covered only from 1972-1982. I also read one by CL which he says
he augmented from the one she originally posted and it covers the same
decade. But over 3/4 of the most recent series of posts covers events
after 1982. So you did not see "this time line again." Now you are
making dishonest statements and I don't understand your motive. You seem
to be trying to convince people not to read it. Is that your motive in
lying about a "rehash" and lying about it having been "posted in the
past"?
>And why do I call "Librarian" Ace?
You are asking yourself questions to answer for yourself, but they are
not the questions I asked you, and you are busy answering your own
questions to yourself and not answering my questions.
This is the tool of the spin doctor.
You are busy trying to shift the focus off the documented facts and onto
personalities. You resort to ad hominem and to try and discredit the
source of documented facts.
This is the tool of the spin doctor.
I don't care what you call "Librarian" or why. I did not ask you for
pages and pages of your interpretation of "theories" you create. You
didn't quote any of them. You told me what you think someone's mind
processes are. I am not interested in your ad hominem guesses about
these people or that person or whatever you believe.
That has nothing to do with what I asked you. I asked you to address the
facts in the timeline. I asked you to honor your claims about the poster
of this timeline, when you said
>>>and then you refuse to add evidence or even consider evidence from
>>>people you don't like,
and I asked you
>>Who specifically are you referring to?
and you have now said
>I hope you forgive me for confusing you. I am arguing against the
>beliefs listed above.
No, I do not forgive you for attempting to confuse me, because that
seems to be your purpose. You are trying to change the subject. I did
not ask you about anyone's beliefs, or about your beliefs about anyone's
beliefs. You made very specific claim that she did not include evidence
from certain people, and now you won't answer who. I think you are being
dishonest. You won't answer the question I ask you, and instead ask
yourself another question to answer.
This is the tool of the spin doctor.
I also asked you
>>What evidence? If you have evidence that actually negates or refutes
>>any facts in her timeline, post it please. I'd really like to see it.
You did not post any such evidence. You posted more ad hominem and spin.
You answered
>I did point out a few worthless facts, and made the point that
>including worthless facts is sometimes done by the Librarian as an
>editorial vehicle.
I don't need you to tell me what facts are worthless. That is your
editorial vehicle. I can make those decisions for myself without your
guidance. That is nothing but more ad hominem and spin from you.
You continue to use the tools of the spin doctor.
I asked you to post any evidence you have that negates or refutes any
facts in the timeline and you haven't. I can only conclude you don't
have any.
But you do have a lot more spin and ad hominem, don't you?
I believe you are merely trying to put more and more spin on the
well-documented facts. Now I only wonder why you are so determined
to do so.
>>All I see from you is an
>>extreme effort to "explain away" all her sourced facts, without any
>>specific facts from you.
>
>I did not really explain away any facts, and I wasn't trying to.
>
>I just pointed out a few worthless facts which don't prove anything
Yes, you did try to explain away facts. It is recorded in your post. You
cannot escape it.
That is the tool of the spin doctor. And now you continue the same
explaining away by saying the facts are "worthless." Don't you realize
how obvious you are in your spin?
Who appointed you to tell the world what facts are worthless and what
facts are important? Do you do our thinking for us? You won't tell me
what is worthless and what is not. You won't do my thinking for me.
I wonder why you have appointed yourself to try.
>Among these worthless facts
Do you realize how obvious you are in your spin?
>>Are you a spin doctor?
>
>No, most certainly not.
Do you realize how obvious you are in your spin?
>I have now filled you in on my interpretation of Ace's unspoken
>conspiracy theory.
I did not ask you for your interpretation of any "unspoken conspiracy
theory." Your "interpretation" is nothing but spin and ad hominem. If
your alleged "conspiracy theory" is "unspoken," then it doesn't exist.
It is only spoken by you. Therefore it is your own conspiracy theory for
you to spin about and a platform for ad hominem.
Do you realize how obvious you are in your spin?
I asked you
>>Why don't you present some constructive facts as well-researched and
>>sourced as hers
Where are they? Where are actual facts from you that negate or refute
the facts in her timeline? That is what I asked you for. You have
provided not a single documented and sourced fact. You changed the
subject. And then you give more spin.
You said
>There are some facts in there, yes. But there's also a lot of smoke and
>mirrors, if you start to deconstruct it a bit.
There are many many facts in there, well documented, well sourced. I
would estimate at least 90% sourced fact in the timeline.
You, though, are all smoke and mirrors, and zero facts.
That is the robe of the spin doctor.
And I ask you again that instead of your spin why don't you present some
constructive facts as well-researched and sourced as hers?
And I ask you again, what evidence? If you have evidence that actually
negates or refutes any facts in her timeline, post it please.
But you do not. You have not answered my questions. You have not
answered any of the facts in the timeline with facts, only with spin and
ad hominem against the person or persons posting the facts.
These are the acts of the spin doctor.
If it walks like a spin doctor, if it talks like a spin doctor, I call
it a spin doctor.
And so I predict that you will not answer the facts in the timeline with
any facts. I predict that you cannot. I predict that you can only try to
put more spin on the facts.
Do you realize how obvious you are in your spin?
Here is what you have said about the facts and the timelines in just
your one post:
> The particular time-line posting technique is just a disingenuous
>dodge
>some of those "facts" are worthless, and some other items are not
>really facts at all.
>I did point out a few worthless facts
>including worthless facts is sometimes done by the Librarian as an
>editorial vehicle.
>I just pointed out a few worthless facts which don't prove anything
>Among these worthless facts
Do you realize how obvious you are in your spin?
Here is a bibliography of sources taken from this recent timeline of the
Librarian. I am adding some court case references from the timeline of
CL that are just mentioned in the Librarian's timeline but not cited.
Now people can look these documents up for themselves. Now they can
compare this to your undocumented statements and opinions and decide for
themselves who is providing facts and who is providing spin.
I can see for myself who is providing facts and who is providing spin. I
just don't yet know why.
TIMELINE BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and
Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in the Winter 1977 issue
of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's classified internal publication;
report released to the public in 1996
2. Book, "Remote Viewers--The Secret History," Chapter 7; Ingo
Swann's own accounts, on the internet.
3. Transcript of 21 September 1995 Denver testimony of Robert
Vaughn Young in FACTNet case, testifying about his review of FOIA
documents from DOJ and FBI.
4. Short bio of Meade Emory as filed with West's Legal Directory
5. Bill Summary & Status for the 94th Congress for S.22.
6. The FOUNDING CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF WASHINGTON, D. C., INC.,
Appellant, v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al. No. 77-1975. United States
Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
7. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, a nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY: Howard H.
Callaway, Secretary of the Army; U. S. Intelligence Agency; Major Aaron,
Assistant Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence, Defendants-Appellees,
No. CV-75-3056-F.
8. Church of Scientology v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; Office
of the Secretary of Defense; James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of the
Department of Defense; United States Department of the Navy; J. Wm.
Middendorf II, Secretary of the Navy; Naval Intelligence Command: Rear
Admiral E. F. Rectanus, Director of Naval Intelligence, No.
CV-75-4072-F.
9. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, a nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; Office of
the Secretary of Defense; James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of the
Department of Defense; United States Department of the Navy; J. Wm.
Middendorf II, Secretary of the Navy; Naval Intelligence Command: Rear
Admiral E. F. Rectanus, Director of Naval Intelligence,
Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 78-1168, 78-1169. United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
10. The Founding Church of Scientology v. Clarence Kelley, et al., C.A.
No. 77-0175.
11. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA (CSC), Plaintiff, v. [Secretary
of the Treasury] William E. SIMON et al., Defendants Civil Action No.
76-1719, United States District Court, District of Columbia
12. FOUNDING CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF WASHINGTON, D. C., INC.,
Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al.,
Defendants; Civ. A. No. 78-0107; United States District Court, District
of Columbia.
13. The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. Edward H.
Levy, et al., D.C. Civil Action No. 75-1577
14. The FOUNDING CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF WASHINGTON, D. C., INC.,
Appellant, v. Griffin B. BELL et al., No. 78-1391, United States Court
of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
15. Church of Scientology of California v. Department of the Air Force,
et al., Civil Action No. 76-1008
16. Civil Action No. 75-1048--CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
Appellant v. Stansfield TURNER, Director, Central Intelligence Agency,
et al.
17. United States District Court, District of Columbia, CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA (CSC), Plaintiff, v. [Secretary of the
Treasury] William E. SIMON et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 76-1719.
18. The Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. (FCDC) vs.
the National Security Agency (NSA), appelate case No. 77-1975.
19. J. O'Leary, "Turner Denies CIA Bugging of South Korea's Park,"
The Washington Star, 9 August 1977.
20. The Independent (London); August 27, 1995, Sunday; SECTION:
REVIEW; Page 10; HEADLINE: TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, PSI; BYLINE: Jim
Schnabel
21. The Constantine Report No. 1, "Remote Viewing at Stanford
Research Institute or Illicit CIA Mind Control Experimentation?"
22. Article, "The Hubbard Intelligence Agency," by John Atack,
posted on the Internet
23. Massachusetts corporate records for the American Family Foundation
(AFF)
24. Public Relations information by AFF, published in print and on the
web
25. BOOK: "Remote Viewers; the Secret History of AmericaÕs Psychic
Spies," by Jim Schnabel. Chapter 15
26. AP, UPI, Washington Post, and New York Times articles of 8
October, 9 October, and 27 October 1979 re: Mary Sue Hubbard and the GO
defendants signing government's Stipulation of Evidence
27. Ruling in U.S. v. Heldt et al., Nos. 79-2442, 79-2447 to
79-2450, 79-2456, 79-2459 and 79-2462. United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit. 668 F.2d 1238 215 U.S.App.D.C. 206
28. Newspaper and wire service articles of 7 and 8 December 1979
regarding sentencing of Mary Sue Hubbard and GO defendants.
29. March 1994 Declaration of Scott Mayer [filed 4 April 1994] in
Church of Scientology International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz,
United States District Court Central Division of California, Case No. CV
91 6426 HLH (Tx).
30. California Court of Appeal, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, Defendant and
Respondent., Nos. B084686; B086063 Second Appellate District Division
Three Super. Ct. No. BC074815, Appeals from judgments of the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County; Cite as 96 C.D.O.S. 773
31. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Docket No. 3352-78, United States Tax
Court, Filed September 24, 1984.
32. AP, UPI, and New York Times articles of 26 and 27 November 1980,
regarding conviction of Jane Kember and Morrison "Mo" Budlong.
33. AP articles of 19 December 1980 regarding sentencing of Jane Kember
and Morrison "Mo" Budlong.
34. 24 September 1984 ruling in CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Docket No.
3352-78, United States Tax Court
35. Sherman Lenske's Declaration dated November 12, 1995
36. Book, "Religions Inc."
37. United States District Court Central District of California, No.
Cv 91-6426 Hlh (tx) Church of Scientology International, Plaintiff, Vs.
Steven Fishman And Uwe Geertz, Defendants, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran
38. David Miscavige's affidavit to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in the CSI, plaintiff vs. STEVEN FISHMAN And UWE
GEERTZ, Defendants, CASE No. cv 91-6426 HL
39. International conditions Order number 1, 5 August 81
40. Peter Greene Debrief of 23 June 1982, on the internet
41. AP story of 14 September 1981, "Shakeup in Top Office;" New York
Times story of same date, "Top Scientology Officials Removed from
Church."
42. California corporate records re Author Services, Inc. (ASI)
43. Gerry Armstrong, quoted in Bent Corydon's book, "Madman or
Messiah."
44. UPI story of May 11, 1984, Friday, BC cycle, SECTION: Regional News,
DISTRIBUTION: California, DATELINE: LOS ANGELES (Gerry Armstrong quote
re taking "about 2 percent of the accumulated [L. Ron Hubbard]
biographical documents."
45. 9 March 1994 Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young in Church of
Scientology International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, United
States District Court Central Division of California, Case No. CV 91
6426 HLH (Tx) (filed 4 April 1994).
46. United States District Court, Central District of California,
#CV-6426-HLH (Tx); Church of Scientology International v. Steven Fishman
and Uwe Geertz; Declaration of Stacy Brooks Young October 1994.
47. AP news stories of 19 and 20 April 1982 re Supreme Court ruling on
Mary Sue Hubbard conviction.
48. California corporate records re corporation known as "Church of
Spiritual Technology" (CST)
49. Bylaws of CST
50. CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES
Defendant. No. 581-88T, UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT, June 29, 1992
51. "Report to the Council for Spiritual Integrity (Corporate
Analysis of Scientology)"
52. AP story of 13 November 1982 re DeWolf trial, Armstrong.
53. UPI story of 14 November 1982 re DeWolf trial, Armstrong.
54. AP story of 15 November 1982 re DeWolf trial, Armstrong.
55. Newsweek story, 6 December 1982 re DeWolf trial, Armstrong.
56. Time magazine 24 January and 31 January 1983 re DeWolf trial,
Armstrong.
57. Time magazine 24 January and 31 January 1983 re DeWolf trial,
Armstrong.
58. Clearwater Sun, 28 January 1983 re DeWolf trial, Armstrong.
59. PR Newswire story of 10 February 1983 re "LRH" letter.
60. AP story of 14 February 1983, "Church Produces Purported Letter From
Hubbard."
61. Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young February 1997
62. Affidavit of Jesse Prince 27 July 1998
63. 8 October 1998 post to alt.religion.scientology by Larry Wollersheim
64. Database of Library of Congress/Copyright office records for all
Scientology-related registrations and renewals 1978-1998.
65. 17 July 1984 press release to PR Newswire from Kathleen Heard re
vaults and L. Ron Hubbard library.
66. California corporate records for The Way to Happiness International.
67. United States trademark records for "Way to Happiness" trademarks.
68. Paul H. Smith's biography material as found on his company's web
site at http://www.rviewer.com/main/phs.html
69. Copy of L. Ron Hubbard's 1986 Will.
70. Report, "Remote Viewing: View to Reality," Chris Finnegan
71. Copy of the purported Coordinate Remote Viewing "manual" as
published on the internet at "FireDocs" and elsewhere.
72. 3 November 1993 and 15 November 1993 Affidavits of Steven
Fishman as recorded in Wollersheim's own F.A.C.T.Net archives: "DOS
FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: E:\PCB\SCN\FILES\LEGAL\FISHAFF2.TXT;" "DOS
FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: E:\PCB\SCN\FILES\WOLLER\FISHAFF3.TXT"
73. Los Angeles Times, April 16, 1987, Thursday, Home Edition;
HEADLINE: L. RON HUBBARD ESTATE VALUED AT $26 MILLION; BYLINE: By AP
74. 1 June 1987 AGREEMENT as posted to alt.religion.scientology
by Keith Henson on 5 September 1997.
75. California corporate records for Media Storage, Inc.
76. WIRED magazine archives, online, of a letter from Steven
Fishman
77. "American Lawyer" magazine, March 1996, "Making Law, Making
Enemies."
78. Copy of contract: "ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION (RTC)," 29 November
1993
79. Gannet News Service, 3 February 1993, "Scientologist's Estate
Battles Tax Collector."
80. Data on CST's New Mexico tunnel excerpted from IRS Form 1023s filed
in pursuit of tax exemption, as posted to the internet by Beverly Rice.
81. TIME magazine article, "Scientology: Cult of Greed," by Richard
Behar.
82. FREEDOM Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 1, October 1991. Article on CAN.
83. 7 February 1995 Ex parte Application for Temporary Restraining
Order, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, in RTC v. NetCom, Erlich,
Klemesrud, United States District Court Northern District of California,
No. C-95-20091-RMW.
84. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES in RTC v.
NetCom, Erlich, Klemesrud, United States District Court Northern
District of California, No. C-95-20091-RMW.
85. 15 October 1997 DENNIS ERLICH'S SECOND REVISED STATEMENT OF DISPUTED
ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT iin RTC v. NetCom, Erlich, Klemesrud, United
States District Court Northern District of California, No.
C-95-20091-RMW.
86. Federal Register, Issuance of Exchange Conveyance Document of
Public Land in San Miguel County; NM Vol. 57, No. 242 57 FR 59841
Wednesday, December 16, 1992
87. October 1994 Declaration of Mike Rinder
88. 28 November 1995 Memorandum Opinion in Civil Action No. 95-1107-A,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER V. ARNALDO PAGLIARINI LERMA, DIGITAL GATEWAY
SYSTEMS, THE WASHINGTON POST, MARC FISHER, and RICHARD LEIBY
89. 6 September 1995 Declaration of Arnaldo Lerma
90. February 1997 Declaration of Lawrence Dominic Wollersheim.
91. Articles of Incorporation for "Fight Against Coercive Tactics, Inc."
as filed 21 June 1993 with Colorado Secretary of State Corporations
Office.
92. 14 December 1994 Declaration of Stacy Brooks Young
93. Certificate of Assumed or Trade Name for "Fight Against Coercive
Tactics, Inc." as filed 26 July 1993 with Colorado Secretary of State
Corporations Office.
94. Copy of the formerly-secret IRS Closing Agreement of 1 October 1993
with CST et al., published by the Wall Street Journal
95. Booklet, "A Description of the Scientology Religion."
96. 25 October 1993 Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young in Church of
Scientology International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, United
States District Court Central Division of California, Case No. CV 91
6426 HLH (Tx).
97. February 1997 Declaration of Graham Berry
98. 8 February 1995 Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages
for Copyright Infringement and Trade Secrets Misappropriation, United
States District Court Northern District of California, No.
C-95-20091-RMW, RTC and BPI v. Net-Com, Ehrlich, and Klemesrud
99. United States Trademark Office records, Reel/Frame: 1096/0470
100. 7 May 1997 Ex Parte Petition by Graham Berry, representing
Petitioners F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. and Larry Wollersheim, for Stay in
Proceedings, etc., and Removal of Norman F. Starkey, etc., Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Luis Obispo, Case No.
20885.
101. 12 December 1993 Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation for the
501(c)(3) corporation Fight Against Coercive Tactics, Inc. as filed with
Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office
102. 3 January 1994 Affidavit of Stacy Brooks Young for Church of
Scientology International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, United
States District Court Central Division of California, Case No. CV 91
6426 HLH (Tx).
103. February 1994 Declaration of David Miscavige
104. 22 February 1994 Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation for the
501(c)(3) corporation Fight Against Coercive Tactics, Inc.as filed with
Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office.
105. California corporate records for LWR, Inc.
106. A "review" of an 18 June 1994 meeting in the F.A.C.T.Net archives
by an unknown author. The F.A.C.T.Net Card Catalog Entry has only: "DOS
FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: E:\PCB\GEN\FILES\GENUTIL\LA.TXT"
107. Information on LeSourd and Patton from their web site and from DoJ
Tax Division alumni rolls
108. Information on Marcello Di Mauro from FindLaw.com and web site for
the California Bar Association.
109. 8 August 1994 Amendment as for F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. as filed with
Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office.
110. 8 December 1995 Affidavit of Dennis Erlich
111. 28 December 1994 Letter from Thomas Small to Dennis Erlich
112. Ron Newman's web page, "The Church of Scientology vs. Dennis
Erlich, Tom Klemesrud and Netcom"
113. 25 October 1995 Declaration of Kim Baker
114. 2 August 1996 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to
Dissolve Preliminary Injunction, RTC v. Grady Ward, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, NO.96-20207 RMW.
115. 25 December 1994 article with the verbose title: "ENFORCING
'TRUTH' How the Scientologists try to impose their version of the truth
on members, defectors--and on journalists. Scientology Fiction, The
Church's War Against Its Critics--and Truth;" Front Page, Outlook
Section, Page C1, Christmas Day edition, The Washington Post 1994.
116. 28 December 1994 posting by Dennis Erlich.
117. 30 December 1994 letter from Helena Kobrin to Tom Klemesrud, as
posted to a.r.s. by Klemesrud
118. 30 December 1994 post by Tom Kemesrud to a.r.s.
119. Copy of the 11 January 1995 Helena Kobrin "rmgroup" message as
posted to the internet
120. 12 May 1996 posting by Tom Klemesrud to the internet, Message-ID:
<tomklemD...@netcom.com>
121. "SCIENTOLOGY v. the INTERNET Free Speech & Copyright Infringement
on the Information Super-Highway" By Jim Lippard and Jeff Jacobsen
122. "The Church of Scientology vs. anon.penet.fi," on the
web at http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/rnewman/anon/penet.html
123. Transcript of 9 May 1995 Deposition of Warren McShane
124. "A.R.S. Week in Review," week ending 22 July 1995
125. 21 November 1996 ruling in United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
CENTER, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net, INC., et al., Defendants.
126. "A.R.S. Week in Review" 16 July 1995
127. "ARS Week In Review" 6 August 1995
128. 30 August 1995 post to a.r.s. by Arnie Lerma via Rob Clark (henri),
message ID <henriDE...@netcom.com>
129. Copy of the FAX from Melvin F. Jager to Arnie Lerma as posted on
the internet
130. 6 August 1995 letter from Arnie Lerma to Melvin F. Jager
131. 22 August 1995 Press Release from Leisa Goodman and Earle
Cooley.
132. 15 August 1995 "FACTNET'S statement on SCIENTOLOGY'S RAID ON
FACTNET DIRECTOR ARNIE LERMA," by Larry Wollersheim, posted to the
internet by Bob Penny
133. 15 September 1995 Order denying RTC motion for prelinary injunction
in RTC v. Wollersheim, et al., Civ. A. No. 95-B-2143. United States
District Court, District of Colorado.
134. 22 August 1995 Press Release from Karen Pouw and Gail Armstrong.
135. 23 August 1995 Biennial Report for F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. as filed with
Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office.
136. 8 September 1995 testimony of Warren McShane, Denver, Colorado
137. 12 September 1995 ruling in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 95-B-2143 RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net, INC., et al., Defendants.
138. 22 September 1995 Order in United States District Court Northern
District of California, No. C-95-20091-RMW, RTC and BPI v. Net-Com,
Ehrlich, and Klemesrud.
139. 29 September 1995 Press Release re CAN jury ruling.
140. 3 October ruling in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
CENTER, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net, INC., et al., Defendants.
141. 28 November 1995 "Nightline" interview with Robert Gates
142. 21 June 1996 press release issued by CAN
143. 21 November 1996 ruling in United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
CENTER, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net, INC., et al., Defendants.
144. 4 October 1996 Memorandum Opinion in RTC v. Lerma, CIV.A. No.
95-1107-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria
Division.
145. "In Retrospect: Cult Awareness Network" on the web at:
http://www.icon.fi/~marina/can/
146. Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed c. 15 August 1997 in
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action
No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Plaintiff, vs. F.A.C.T.Net,
INC., et al., Defendants.
147. February 1997 Declaration of Lawrence D. Wollersheim
148. Transcript of portions of the 3 March 1997 Art Bell radio interview
with Joseph McMoneagle and others.
149. Denver Westworld article about Larry Wollersheim and F.A.C.T.Net,
week of 6-12 March 1997
150. 4 April 1997 post of Robert Vaughn Young to a.r.s.
151. 18 April 1997 letter from Graham Berry to Samuel Rosen, posted
to a.r.s.
152. May 1997 Ex Parte Petition filed by Graham Berry for F.A.C.T.Net
and Larry Wollersheim in Probate Division, San Luis Obispo Superior
Court, California
153. 7 May 1993 Press Release on the hearing issued by Karin Pouw,
Church of Scientology International, posted to a.r.s.
154. 8 May 1997 letter from F.A.C.T.Net attorney Graham Berry to
attorney Monique Yingling and Charles Ogle
155. 6 June 1997 Amendment and Bienneal Report for F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. as
filed with Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office.
156. "Resignation of Officer or Director" form as filed for
F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.on 26 September 1997 with Colorado Secretary of State
Corporations Office.
157. 15 October 1997 filing in United States District Court Northern
District of California, No. C-95-20091-RMW (EAI), RTC & BPI v. Dennis
Erlich
158. 29 October 1997 ORDER issued by Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Lawrence Dominick [sic]
Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology, et al., Case No. C332027.
159. Copy of a 5 December 1997 post of the press release to a.r.s.:
"HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED"
160. Copy of Gerry Armstrong's 9 December 1997 post to a.r.s.
161. Copy of a 15 December 1997 post to a.r.s. from "FACTnet
Management <man...@factnet.org>"
162. 15 January 1998 post to a.r.s. by Joe Harrington, Message-ID:
<69lst3$8...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
163. Copy of 21 April 1998 message as posted by Dennis Erlich to
a.r.s.
164. "Psychic World" interview with Joseph McMoneagle, Summer issue,
1998
165. Copy of the 26 July 1998 post by Bob Minton, Message-ID:
<35cea9cf...@news.tiac.net>
166. Article: "CST and the CIA," on the internet at
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/cst-cia.htm
167. 8 October 1998 post to a.r.s. by Larry Wollersheim
168. Copy of 13 October 1998 "ace of clubs" post to a.r.s.: "A Belated
Welcome to the RVY Replacement," Message-ID:
<1998101222...@replay.com>
169. 4 November 1998 order in RTC/BPI v. F.A.C.T.Net/Wollersheim et al.
170. 10 March 1999 Bienneal Report for F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. as filed with
Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office.
171. FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION in RTC/BPI v. F.A.C.T.Net
et al., posted 28 March 1999 to the internet by b...@minton.org (Bob
Minton), Message <370286e7...@news.tiac.net>
172. STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION in RTC/BPI v.
Dennis Erlich.
173. Post to a.r.s. of 1 May 1999 by Rob Clark re Erlich settlement and
re Bob Minton and Stacy Young resigning from F.A.C.T.Net.
174. 8 December 2000 "Periodic Report" for F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. as filed
with Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office
175. 17 January 2001 "Application for Reinstatement" for F.A.C.T.Net,
Inc. as filed with Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office
176. 3 August 2000 "RESIGNATION OF REGISTERED AGENT" for F.A.C.T.Net,
Inc. as filed with Colorado Secretary of State Corporations Office
Michael Reuss
>> Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote in message
>You are busy trying to shift the focus off the documented facts and onto
>personalities.
No, not exactly. I was shifting the focus to a particular theory I
think he's advancing, not his personality. And being that the
"Librarian" persona is a false personality to begin with, there really
is no personal affront or ad hominem.
>You resort to ad hominem and to try and discredit the
>source of documented facts.
I don't believe I did that. I was not trying to discredit individual
facts in the timeline. I was merely stating that, IMO, there is an
editorial position intrinsic to the time line, as evidenced by some of
the facts chosen for inclusion/exclusion, as well as the actual
editorial statements made in some of the entries.
>This is the tool of the spin doctor.
I might add that to my nick. How does Dr. Honorary Kid sound?
Certainly I'm as qualified as Dr. Palooka (er, I mean Paloma).
>I don't care what you call "Librarian" or why. I did not ask you for
>pages and pages of your interpretation of "theories" you create.
Well then here's a little hint for you. The next time you don't care
about something I write, please don't ask me to explain why I wrote
it.
My theory of what constitutes Ace's theory is exactly and solely what
I was talking about. I don't care if you don't care about that. I care
about it.
Some others might care about it too. But I was not writing my original
reply to the time line to anyone specific, and certainly not to you
personally.
Now, for Ace himself, there is a clear message of disdain for what I
think he is implying.
If you don't care about my theories, or you don't wish to discuss
them, stop replying to them.
>You told me what you think someone's mind processes are.
That's exactly right. That was the whole point of my reply to
Librarian. There was no other point to be made.
That's no big crime, is it? After all, you're doing the same exact
thing, saying what you think MY mind processes are (albeit, without
much success).
>I am not interested in your ad hominem guesses about
>these people or that person or whatever you believe.
Then the solution is simple. Don't read my posts and don't ask me to
explain myself.
>That has nothing to do with what I asked you. I asked you to address the
>facts in the timeline.
I wasn't concerned with the individual time line entries. I care more
about what implications Ace is trying to build with the whole.
>I asked you to honor your claims about the poster of this timeline
My claims about this poster are in my response. I claim that Ace has a
conspiracy theory about the U.S. intelligence community running the
cult of Scientology, which I've outlined.
He has stated this conclusion in past messages.
>and you have now said
>>I hope you forgive me for confusing you. I am arguing against the
>>beliefs listed above.
>No, I do not forgive you for attempting to confuse me,
Fuck this transparent sophistry. I wasn't trying to confuse you. I was
being flippant toward Ace's theory, which I ridiculed when he posted
the first segment of his most recent time line. I granted that my
flippancy was did not have the proper context, and as such, it might
have been confusing to some. Now I've added that context.
You're welcome.
>because that seems to be your purpose.
You're wrong. But then you're probably used to it.
My purpose was to poke fun at Ace's mindset, of course with the
presumption that I'm correct about it.
>You are trying to change the subject.
No I'm not. Poking fun at Ace's unspoken conspiracy theory has always
been the subject of this thread for me.
Speaking of which, do you think the U.S. government intelligence
community is running Scientology?
>I did not ask you about anyone's beliefs, or about your beliefs about
>anyone's beliefs.
I told you anyway. Now I'm going to really get medieval on your ass,
by asking you the following question. Do you think David Miscavige is
a puppet of the CIA?
>You made very specific claim that she did not include evidence
>from certain people, and now you won't answer who.
I did answer. I said Ace discounts certain positions and statements
now being made by Hal Puthoff, Chris Owen, Gerry Armstrong, U.S. Naval
records, Vaughn Young and Russell Miller, among others. Just ask him,
er her, it.
>I think you are being dishonest.
I'm telling you what I really think.
>>>What evidence? If you have evidence that actually negates or refutes
>>>any facts in her timeline, post it please. I'd really like to see it.
I never tried to generally refute evidence in the time line. I just
said some of it is worthless, and is included solely to editorially
promote a false notion, that remote viewing is possible, and being
routinely done within the CIA. That's critical to Ace, because that's
the government's entire motive for taking over the cult of
Scientology.
>I don't need you to tell me what facts are worthless.
You obviously don't need me to tell you anything. And I won't hold a
gun to your head to coerce some temporary feigned agreement with my
theory. I'm no terrorist.
>That is your editorial vehicle.
Very good! Now you're getting the picture. I am making an editorial
statement. I am stating my opinion about what I think Ace is really
trying to imply. That's all I'm doing.
>I can make those decisions for myself without your guidance.
Knock yourself out... Please.
>That is nothing but more ad hominem and spin from you.
Spot some spinnin'
>You continue to use the tools of the spin doctor.
Recall a time when you've spun.
>Yes, you did try to explain away facts. It is recorded in your post. You
>cannot escape it.
I stand behind my theory of Ace's mindset.
>You won't do my thinking for me.
Oh baby, throw done the gauntlets.
I'm going to spin your frog brain till you can't take it anymore. Spin
baby spin.
>I wonder why you have appointed yourself to try.
This is a stupid thing to presume. I certainly don't want the
responsibility of thinking for you. I just want to be able to mention
my opinions here, like everyone else. I just want to be able to poke
fun at ideas that I think deserve it.
Is that okay with you?
>I did not ask you for your interpretation of any "unspoken conspiracy
>theory."
Nevertheless, that's what I gave you.
Why are you demanding something from me that I have no interest in
providing?
>Your "interpretation" is nothing but spin and ad hominem.
Your interpretation of my interpretation is obviously based on a
strict refusal to deal rationally with my editorializing.
>If
>your alleged "conspiracy theory" is "unspoken," then it doesn't exist.
>It is only spoken by you.
It does exist, in Ace's mind. Much of it has been written down and
posted.
It's just never been written down fully and completely and openly.
>Therefore it is your own conspiracy theory for
>you to spin about and a platform for ad hominem.
There is no conspiracy in my theory, (er, unless you wish to believe
that CL, Nigel, Ace, Kase and the Librarian all get to count as
individual people). There is only the various positions taken by Ace,
and my interpretation of those words.
As for ad hominem, I don't think that label fits. Ace is just an
anonymous posting pseudonym. Aside from his conspiracy theories, I
know nothing personally about the man behind these posts, nor does
anyone else here. Of course, I presume he has been a Scientologist in
the past.
>Do you realize how obvious you are in your spin?
Do you realize how many times you've used the word "spin" in your
post?
>Where are actual facts from you that negate or refute
>the facts in her timeline?
What "facts" have I negated?
>That is what I asked you for. You have
>provided not a single documented and sourced fact.
I ordered and paid for copies of the Author Services, Inc.
incorporation papers from the California Sec. of State, at CL's
request. Do you want me to repost those?
> You changed the subject.
I never changed the subject. My subject was Ace's conspiracy theory,
right from the start of my participation in this thread.
>And so I predict that you will not answer the facts in the timeline with
>any facts. I predict that you cannot.
That's because I don't disagree with most of the facts in the time
line.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Gerry Armstrong
<FrogRe...@NoReply.Invalid.com> wrote:
>
>Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote in message
><b13aqtgu2doosf7t1...@4ax.com>:
>
>>and then you refuse to add evidence or even consider evidence from
>>people you don't like,
>
>Who specifically are you referring to? I see plenty evidence from all
>sides, a great deal of it from government and court sources. I see
>evidence from Gerry Armstrong, Robert Vaugn Young, the Copyright Office,
>Associated Press, UPI, the United States Trademark Office, federal
>courts, the Congressional Record... Who are your sources? What's
>stopping you from presenting the alleged "evidence" you create in the
>air with words but don't produce?
>
>>evidence which quarrels with your foregone conclusions.
>
>What evidence? If you have evidence that actually negates or refutes any
>facts in her timeline, post it please. I'd really like to see it.
>
>What "foregone conclusions"? State them.
>
>>And mostly you never state your entire theory.
>
>Oh. That answers that question. She said she wasn't presenting a theory
>but a timeline of events. Do you have a reading problem?
Well, all you CLameleons, that is the problem. A timeline of events
without a theory.
Here check this out:
1. 1947 Hubbard writes in his "Admissions" that men are his slaves and
that the lot of women is to be fornicated.
2. 1951 Hubbard kidnaps an infant girl and flees with her to Cuba.
3. 197_ Hubbard denies that the infant girl he kept in Cuba was his
daughter. Why does he do this? To lessen his guilt?
4. 1986 Hubbard apparently dies, still in hiding, and without ever
acknowledging what insane acts he was perpetrating on the infant girl.
Now what of these facts are untrue? This is a perfectly accurate
timeline for Hubbard, right?
Go ahead add in more facts.
> When enough
>facts are gathered, I'm sure the people whose job it is to construct
>theories will construct an "entire theory." But then it won't be called
>a "theory": it'll be called an "indictment."
Yes, but right now, the "facts" are selected to omit the relevant.
You'd like it be be an idictment, but of whom? Vaughn Young, Gerry
Armstrong, Henry Kissinger and Pol Pot? All four of us are after all
contemporaries? It is not a terribly hard task to find that all four
of us were doing something on the same day. We breathed the same air.
But then you breathed the same air as Osama Bin Laden. In fact you
were obviously alive at the exact time of the latest terrorist attacks
in the US.
The innuendo in the "timeline" is profound. But the whole op is
terribly stupid. It is a busted cult op, still struggling along for
any whiff of agreement from anyone.
>
>Why don't you present some constructive facts as well-researched and
>sourced as hers instead of finding nitpicking fault with others who
>have?
Why don't you CLameleons state what your theory is? Then facts can be
added.
You like it of course that you can plug any facts into the timeline
just because there is no theory stated.
Look, the cult has spent a ton on the Veritas op. They can't just fold
up their tents as the op's being an op would be obvious. They're
committed. But it isn't hard for anyone with half a clue to laugh at
the op, even someone like me that the op is designed for.
I mean really, out of 8 million crime cultists, or maybe 100 million
since the vast majority iof crime cultists leave your crime cult, this
op spends a lot of time and space on Gerry Armstrong.
And, not coincidentally, on other credible witneses who have provided
their testimony in affidavits. The CLameleon crowd cannot even
identify themselves and have provided no testimony whatsoever. That
makes sense because it is, after all, a crime cult op.
>You'd be a lot more credible then. All I see from you is an
>extreme effort to "explain away" all her sourced facts, without any
>specific facts from you. In the industry, they call that "spin."
So what. The whole "timeline" is a spin. Did you realize that at the
very minute I was assigned to the RPF in Clearwater, Henry Kissinger
was coming up the back stairs?
And precisely 17 days afterward something else happened. Now that's
real research. And you challenge thinking people to add specific facts
to that? Watch this: Precisely 4 days later something else happened.
And Henry Kissinger was in the U$ at precisely the same time Armstrong
was supposedly on the RPF.
>
>Are you a spin doctor?
Are you a cime cultist? Yes you are.
>
>>How convenient to your unspoken conspiracy theories, Ace.
>
>An unspoken conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory. Therefore you
>have no conspiracy theory to argue against and so create one? Why don't
>you address the facts and disprove them with facts instead of try to
>discredit them with spin?
There are trillions upon trillions of facts in the world. Disproving
the ones unattached to any theory or matter of any importance
whatsoever is a waste of time. So tell us, one of you cult ops, what's
the importance of this set of "facts?"
Oh, you say they're so important by themselves they don't require a
theory or importance?
>
>Are you a spin doctor?
You are a cult op.
>
>>Now there's a great fact. A report exists. Great.
>
>Right. And I see zero facts from you: only spin and lots of it.
You are a cult op.
>
>Are you a spin doctor?
You are a cult op.
And all cult ops work for DM. That's a fact.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>
>
>
Gerry Armstrong
<michae...@home.com> wrote:
>> Frog2 <FrogRe...@NoReply.Invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote in message
>
>>You are busy trying to shift the focus off the documented facts and onto
>>personalities.
>
>No, not exactly. I was shifting the focus to a particular theory I
>think he's advancing, not his personality. And being that the
>"Librarian" persona is a false personality to begin with, there really
>is no personal affront or ad hominem.
>
>
>>You resort to ad hominem and to try and discredit the
>>source of documented facts.
>
>I don't believe I did that. I was not trying to discredit individual
>facts in the timeline. I was merely stating that, IMO, there is an
>editorial position intrinsic to the time line, as evidenced by some of
>the facts chosen for inclusion/exclusion, as well as the actual
>editorial statements made in some of the entries.
Like, e.g., this sort of thing:
[Quote]
What is striking is the regimented similarity of the stories: they
question whether Hubbard is alive--and if so, competent--and give the
same droning slant, quoting sensationalistic derogatory blurbs about
Hubbard from Armstrong and DeWolf, and Kima Douglas, all asserting or
implying that Hubbard is insane, a "Howard Hughes-like" recluse,
incapable of managing his own affairs, etc. But as will soon be seen,
there is tremendous purpose behind this synchronous media campaign,
because all of this publicity just happens to lead DIRECTLY to a
sensational climax: the presentation by Sherman and Stephen Lenske, in
early Februay 1983, of TWO DIFFERENT fingerprinted letters--one
presented in EACH lawsuit--both purported to be from L. Ron Hubbard,
"proving" that Hubbard is alive, well, and in control of his affairs,
and "proving" that his "estate is in good hands" (the estate is being
handled by attorney Sherman Lenske), and "proving" that he, Hubbard,
endorses Norman F. Starkey and the current management of Scientology
organizations.
[End Quote]
Read that and laugh.
Here's another beauty:
[Quote]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: It was truly accomodating of Armstrong and DeWolf--who
just so happened to have met together a year before, while Armstrong
was still in charge of the vast library of documents making up a large
portion of the Lenske-managed Hubbard estate (see entry for 20 c.
November 1981)--to not only have concurrently-running lawsuits being
litigated by the same lawyer, but also to have filled the national
press for three months with the *exact* sorts of allegations that
Lenske could then "disprove" through the expediency of letters
arriving via FedEx. When the criminal warrants and subpoenas are
finally issued, I hope someone remembers to subpoena the FedEx records
for February 1983. Astounding. --Ed.]
[End Quote]
It's worse than that. It was truly accomodating of God that America
was here, that the wog (R) justice system existed, and that there were
at that precise time lawyers actually practising law. Look at the
staggering coincidences. And every one of them involving an
omnipresent God.
>
>
>>This is the tool of the spin doctor.
>
>I might add that to my nick. How does Dr. Honorary Kid sound?
>Certainly I'm as qualified as Dr. Palooka (er, I mean Paloma).
>
>
>>I don't care what you call "Librarian" or why. I did not ask you for
>>pages and pages of your interpretation of "theories" you create.
>
>Well then here's a little hint for you. The next time you don't care
>about something I write, please don't ask me to explain why I wrote
>it.
Yes, our bearded clam librarian's slip does slip a little.
>
>My theory of what constitutes Ace's theory is exactly and solely what
>I was talking about. I don't care if you don't care about that. I care
>about it.
It's a clam cult op. The "theory" of no theory is part of the op. The
crime cult intel idiots have invested heavily in this op and it has
gone nowhere. The focus of the opposition is still on DM. The
testimony of credible witnesses is still credible. They can't just
shut Veritas down because its crime cult op status would be admitted
to.
>
>Some others might care about it too. But I was not writing my original
>reply to the time line to anyone specific, and certainly not to you
>personally.
I care about it. I care that DM is behind it. I'm glad that it has
consumed such resources, and I'm glad it's a complete laughable bust.
Just read the timeline. It's a howler.
>
>Now, for Ace himself, there is a clear message of disdain for what I
>think he is implying.
The crime cult invested heavily in the Ace entity; as if some clam
writer could get them out the chowder.
>
>If you don't care about my theories, or you don't wish to discuss
>them, stop replying to them.
What can they do? What they should do is tell DM to stick the whole
smarmy mess of $cientology in his ear. But they keep soldiering on.
>
>
>>You told me what you think someone's mind processes are.
>
>That's exactly right. That was the whole point of my reply to
>Librarian. There was no other point to be made.
>
>That's no big crime, is it? After all, you're doing the same exact
>thing, saying what you think MY mind processes are (albeit, without
>much success).
They cannot succeed because they aren't real people. They're a crime
cult op with the lid blown off.
>
>
>>I am not interested in your ad hominem guesses about
>>these people or that person or whatever you believe.
>
>Then the solution is simple. Don't read my posts and don't ask me to
>explain myself.
And this clam op *is* interested in ad hominem innuendo about
knowledgeable wogs (R).
[Quote]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: It was truly accomodating of Armstrong and DeWolf--who
just so happened to have met together a year before, while Armstrong
was still in charge of the vast library of documents making up a large
portion of the Lenske-managed Hubbard estate (see entry for 20 c.
November 1981)--to not only have concurrently-running lawsuits being
litigated by the same lawyer, but also to have filled the national
press for three months with the *exact* sorts of allegations that
Lenske could then "disprove" through the expediency of letters
arriving via FedEx. When the criminal warrants and subpoenas are
finally issued, I hope someone remembers to subpoena the FedEx records
for February 1983. Astounding. --Ed.]
[End Quote]
>
>
>>That has nothing to do with what I asked you. I asked you to address the
>>facts in the timeline.
Yes. They are irrelevant. You folks have chosen irrelevant "facts" to
concoct a phony base from which to attack good wogs (R) who are
credible witnesses and defend your nut cult boss Miscavige.
Actually I think you have something diabolical like assassination in
mind.
>
>I wasn't concerned with the individual time line entries. I care more
>about what implications Ace is trying to build with the whole.
Yes, a completely fair, logical approach.
>
>
>>I asked you to honor your claims about the poster of this timeline
>
>My claims about this poster are in my response. I claim that Ace has a
>conspiracy theory about the U.S. intelligence community running the
>cult of Scientology, which I've outlined.
And I claim that this bullshit "theory" is just that, and further that
it is concocted by the crime cult for its intel war.
>
>He has stated this conclusion in past messages.
>
>>and you have now said
>
>>>I hope you forgive me for confusing you. I am arguing against the
>>>beliefs listed above.
>
>>No, I do not forgive you for attempting to confuse me,
>
>Fuck this transparent sophistry. I wasn't trying to confuse you. I was
>being flippant toward Ace's theory, which I ridiculed when he posted
>the first segment of his most recent time line. I granted that my
>flippancy was did not have the proper context, and as such, it might
>have been confusing to some. Now I've added that context.
>
>You're welcome.
>
>
>>because that seems to be your purpose.
>
>You're wrong. But then you're probably used to it.
>
>My purpose was to poke fun at Ace's mindset, of course with the
>presumption that I'm correct about it.
Try approaching this thing as an O$A op. Then it all makes sense. Ace
knows his mindset is bullshit.
>
>
>>You are trying to change the subject.
>
>No I'm not. Poking fun at Ace's unspoken conspiracy theory has always
>been the subject of this thread for me.
And for me, identifying this crime cult intel op for the crime cult
intel op it is is always the subject of the thread.
>
>Speaking of which, do you think the U.S. government intelligence
>community is running Scientology?
No. But I believe there's an illegal and immoral relationship between
$cientology and U$ intel. I just believe it's a completely different
relationship from the one the CLameleon op wants us to see. I think
that court decisions involving $cientology have been influenced by U$
intel. And I believe $cientology is trying to hide its actual
connections to and conspiracy with U$ intel by concocting bullshit
connections and a bullshit conspiracy. That is Veritas's op.
>
>
>>I did not ask you about anyone's beliefs, or about your beliefs about
>>anyone's beliefs.
>
>I told you anyway. Now I'm going to really get medieval on your ass,
>by asking you the following question. Do you think David Miscavige is
>a puppet of the CIA?
Is the mafia a puppet of the CIA. They have had an illegal and immoral
relationship, but the mafia is not the CIA's puppet. Nor is the CIA
the mafia's puppet.
>
>
>>You made very specific claim that she did not include evidence
>>from certain people, and now you won't answer who.
>
>I did answer. I said Ace discounts certain positions and statements
>now being made by Hal Puthoff, Chris Owen, Gerry Armstrong, U.S. Naval
>records, Vaughn Young and Russell Miller, among others. Just ask him,
>er her, it.
Yes, what is your position on Gerry Armstrong? You lie with the clams.
>
>
>>I think you are being dishonest.
>
>I'm telling you what I really think.
>
>
>>>>What evidence? If you have evidence that actually negates or refutes
>>>>any facts in her timeline, post it please. I'd really like to see it.
>
>I never tried to generally refute evidence in the time line. I just
>said some of it is worthless, and is included solely to editorially
>promote a false notion, that remote viewing is possible, and being
>routinely done within the CIA. That's critical to Ace, because that's
>the government's entire motive for taking over the cult of
>Scientology.
That's actually only critical as an illusory base from which to
operate, from which to attack credible wog (R) witnesses and from
which to shield Miscavige.
>
>
>>I don't need you to tell me what facts are worthless.
But we certainly can learn from reading you which facts are indeed
worthless.
>
>You obviously don't need me to tell you anything. And I won't hold a
>gun to your head to coerce some temporary feigned agreement with my
>theory. I'm no terrorist.
>
>
>>That is your editorial vehicle.
>
>Very good! Now you're getting the picture. I am making an editorial
>statement. I am stating my opinion about what I think Ace is really
>trying to imply. That's all I'm doing.
And so am I. And my opinion is based on the facts and pure evidence
available, provided by the op. The "timeline" and the communications
by the operative(s) lead me to the conclusion that this is an O$A op.
>
>
>>I can make those decisions for myself without your guidance.
>
>Knock yourself out... Please.
>
>
>>That is nothing but more ad hominem and spin from you.
>
>Spot some spinnin'
Good. Spot some more spinnin'. Thank you.
>
>
>>You continue to use the tools of the spin doctor.
>
>Recall a time when you've spun.
Yes, and spin us another one, just like the other one.
>
>
>>Yes, you did try to explain away facts. It is recorded in your post. You
>>cannot escape it.
>
>I stand behind my theory of Ace's mindset.
And I stand behind mine.
>
>
>>You won't do my thinking for me.
>
>Oh baby, throw done the gauntlets.
>
>I'm going to spin your frog brain till you can't take it anymore. Spin
>baby spin.
>
>
>>I wonder why you have appointed yourself to try.
>
>This is a stupid thing to presume. I certainly don't want the
>responsibility of thinking for you. I just want to be able to mention
>my opinions here, like everyone else. I just want to be able to poke
>fun at ideas that I think deserve it.
>
>Is that okay with you?
And more to the point, is it okay with you CLameleons that I poke fun
at your busted intel op, and the little man who runs it? You have to
admit it's funny your being operated by DM of all people.
>
>
>>I did not ask you for your interpretation of any "unspoken conspiracy
>>theory."
>
>Nevertheless, that's what I gave you.
Yes, and don't ask me either.
>
>Why are you demanding something from me that I have no interest in
>providing?
>
>
>>Your "interpretation" is nothing but spin and ad hominem.
How about this piece of stupidity?
[Quote]
[NOTE: Given Young's usual horseshoes-and-handgrenades approach to
dates, this entry is put at the end of year because other data in the
Timeline indicates that Young gained access to the personal Hubbard
files by succeeding Gerry Armstrong on the biography project.]
[End Quote]
Woo, woo! That is some research DM.
Don't forget too that I left your crime cult precisely 13 days before
Christmas that year.
Also please explain why in that whole "timeline" post there's no entry
for Henry Kissinger. Where was he when I was blowing? And Ingo Swann?
How come he didn't know I was blowing. Is that because I'm more OT
than Swann? Or Kissinger?
What is really amazing is that on the precise day I blew from the cult
Ronald Reagan was president. That isn't in your stupid "timeline." Nor
is the fact that the day I blew Alexander M. Haig was attending a
meeting of the OAS. You also didn't get that on the precise day I blew
Kentucky played Kansas, and in the Independence Bowl Texas A&M beat
Oklahoma State 33-16.
Those are facts, just as relevant as your "timeline's" facts, and
there's not a mention about them.
>
>Your interpretation of my interpretation is obviously based on a
>strict refusal to deal rationally with my editorializing.
That is essential in keeping this $cientology op "working:" a strict
refusal to deal rationally.
>
>
>>If
>>your alleged "conspiracy theory" is "unspoken," then it doesn't exist.
>>It is only spoken by you.
>
>It does exist, in Ace's mind. Much of it has been written down and
>posted.
It exists in DM's mind. The conspiracy theory is bullshit, sure, but
it has to "exist" for the op to continue.
>
>It's just never been written down fully and completely and openly.
It can't be. That will only happen when $cientology sues for peace and
Scientologists disgorge their dirty ops against wogs (R).
>
>
>>Therefore it is your own conspiracy theory for
>>you to spin about and a platform for ad hominem.
>
>There is no conspiracy in my theory, (er, unless you wish to believe
>that CL, Nigel, Ace, Kase and the Librarian all get to count as
>individual people). There is only the various positions taken by Ace,
>and my interpretation of those words.
>
>As for ad hominem, I don't think that label fits. Ace is just an
>anonymous posting pseudonym. Aside from his conspiracy theories, I
>know nothing personally about the man behind these posts, nor does
>anyone else here. Of course, I presume he has been a Scientologist in
>the past.
I assume he's a Scientologist in the present, in fact working directly
for O$A in this op.
>
>
>>Do you realize how obvious you are in your spin?
>
>Do you realize how many times you've used the word "spin" in your
>post?
Makes you spin doesn't it?
>
>
>>Where are actual facts from you that negate or refute
>>the facts in her timeline?
The ones you omitted in your pathetically whimpy "timeline" are right
here. http://www.google.com/search?q=facts&btnG=Google+Search
And your own "facts" are negated because of their irrelevance, other
than as proof that you're a cult op.
>
>What "facts" have I negated?
>
>
>>That is what I asked you for. You have
>>provided not a single documented and sourced fact.
Look, admittedly this doesn't include every fact, but if you run down
every lead here, and check every link and every source you can link
to, you'll have enough facts to know just how factless your "timeline"
is. http://www.google.com/search?q=facts&btnG=Google+Search
>
>I ordered and paid for copies of the Author Services, Inc.
>incorporation papers from the California Sec. of State, at CL's
>request. Do you want me to repost those?
>
>
>> You changed the subject.
Pathetic. That's all that's left for this busted op. Waaaaaaaa, you
changed the subject.
>
>I never changed the subject. My subject was Ace's conspiracy theory,
>right from the start of my participation in this thread.
And I say this conspiracy theory is bullshit which Ace, et al. do not
believe for one second.
>
>
>>And so I predict that you will not answer the facts in the timeline with
>>any facts. I predict that you cannot.
And I say you're full of it. Look, I give you here 9,400,000 "facts"
in answer to the "facts' of your bullshit "timeline."
http://www.google.com/search?q=facts&btnG=Google+Search
Check them all out, and quit lying about us wogs (R).
>
>That's because I don't disagree with most of the facts in the time
>line.
They're utterly irrelevant so why waste time disagreeing with them.
I mean, besides Meade Emory, how many other U$ government employees'
tenures "parallel" the "Snow White" thefts of government documents
from Internal Revenue and other federal agencies? There is a
"conspiracy" involving hundreds of thousands. President Ford was
clearly involved, although he may not have been aware of it. And where
was Ford, by the way, the day I blew your cult? That's another glaring
omission from your "timeline."
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>
>
>
>Michael Reuss
>Honorary Kid
Keith Henson
<arms...@dowco.com> wrote:
>On 16 Sep 2001 01:39:34 -0000, Frog2
><FrogRe...@NoReply.Invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote in message
>><b13aqtgu2doosf7t1...@4ax.com>:
snip
>>>Now there's a great fact. A report exists. Great.
>>
>>Right. And I see zero facts from you: only spin and lots of it.
>
>You are a cult op.
>
>>
>>Are you a spin doctor?
>
>You are a cult op.
>
>And all cult ops work for DM. That's a fact.
The idea that this entire Veratas business is a cult op makes about as
much sense as anything else. It is a cinch that the legal moves they
made were designed to fail and it is hard to imagine people so hung up
about nonsense that they did not realize that attacking the court they
brought the suit in was not going to work. The alternative is that
there is more than one group of squirrlly people out there.
Keith Henson
ptsc
>The idea that this entire Veratas business is a cult op makes about as
>much sense as anything else. It is a cinch that the legal moves they
>made were designed to fail and it is hard to imagine people so hung up
>about nonsense that they did not realize that attacking the court they
>brought the suit in was not going to work. The alternative is that
>there is more than one group of squirrlly people out there.
Really? Why don't you get some of the motions Benjamin Franklin Cook III is
filing in his defense in his Ponzi scheme prosecution. That's far crazier than
anything anyone Veritas-related ever filed in court.
ptsc
Magoo
I agree....the "Librarian" is a guy, and thank you for posting all of this.
It explains a few things.
Good collections and observations.
Tory/Magoo~strolling in the light, and wishing for world PEACE!
"Michael Reuss" <michae...@home.com> wrote in message
news:9ptaqtot1lrl0qv3i...@4ax.com...
Roland
>
> Well said...Micheal!
> I agree....the "Librarian" is a guy, and thank you for posting all of this.
> It explains a few things.
>
> Good collections and observations.
>
> Tory/Magoo~strolling in the light, and wishing for world PEACE!
Me too. A lasting peace.
--
The Clear Cognition - "I am mocking up my own reactive mind".
(if you have genuinely cognited this then write a note to
your C/S to that effect so you can be routed to ethics).
Perry Scott
<michae...@home.com> wrote:
>> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (The Librarian) wrote:
>
>Ah, we get another great timeline debate from our beloved Librarian,
>(AKA Ace of Clubs, Kase Ossifer, CL, Nigel).
[snip]
OK, Mike. Stop playing with the Librarian and get back to work. The
Travis PNP Unit just went on the fritz, and the 12 bankers are all
over me to get it back up by stats time.
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
Michael Reuss
>> Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote:
>>> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (The Librarian) wrote:
>>Ah, we get another great timeline debate from our beloved Librarian,
>>(AKA Ace of Clubs, Kase Ossifer, CL, Nigel).
>[snip]
>OK, Mike. Stop playing with the Librarian and get back to work.
Hey, I am at work. The Librarian is just a little test AI persona I
introduced into the Travis unit as a final systems check.
Obviously the check didn't go so well...
>The Travis PNP Unit just went on the fritz,
Boy, you said a mouthful there...
> and the 12 bankers are all
>over me to get it back up by stats time.
Oh geez, don't you hate it when the 12 bankers start getting medieval?
What sick planet dreamed up those battery-powered, portable,
high-voltage lobotomy probes those guys carry, anyway?
After the 12Bs come through the lab and screw with our guys brains in
the name of "efficiency," it takes weeks to get them all back to
normal again...
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid