8 minute clip from The Profit
Dave Touretzky
out of one of the tubes: an 8 minute clip from The Profit, the movie
Scientology doesn't want you to see. Watch it, and read the backstory
on this clip, here:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit
Don't know how long this video will remain up, so y'all might want to
save some private copies.
-- Dave Touretzky: Scientology's favorite computational neuroscientist.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
Michael Pattinson
wrote:
very interesting clip!
I hope some people mirror it somehow
dptei...@gmail.com
I've got it saved. I'm sure people will mirror it.
The Scientology comment in the SP Times was:
Ben Shaw [of OSA], a spokesman for Scientology, said he agrees with
Alexander that the movie is fiction and has nothing to do with
Scientology...
I've heard it's terrible," Shaw said of the film, and that "it looks
like some sort of home video."
Yeesh. It wasn't that bad. I'm surprised he didn't say the film was
about child molesting drug pushers. The acting was a bit amateurish
but the editing, dialogue and art direction were pretty good.
cultxpt
wrote:
Play my starring role, where I'm a psych patient!
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
Be real. You were in a supporting role. I guess you're still Oscar
eligible, but only as Best Supporting Actor.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Alexia Death
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:22:10 -0800 (PST), cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com>
i really wish somebody would have a whole copy an put it on torrent...
Tom Newton
> I was browsing teh Interweb when something quite unexpected dropped
> out of one of the tubes: an 8 minute clip from The Profit, the movie
> Scientology doesn't want you to see. Watch it, and read the backstory
> on this clip, here:
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit
>
> Don't know how long this video will remain up, so y'all might want to
> save some private copies.
Why don't you list the 10 wealthiest churches in the world?
They are all Christian. All of them are much wealthier than
than the Church of Scientology.
And tell us why you think that Scientologists are idiots?
If their primary interest was money, there are a lot better ways to
make it than what they are doing now.
Bill Gates has a lot more money than they do.....And I could fill
a hundred pages with the names of corporations and individuals
and foundations other organizations that are much wealthier than
the Scientologists.
If Scientology was good at making money compared to the other
options out there, it would be a lot bigger than it is now.
They'd be teaching it at Yale and Oxford and MIT.
If Scientologists are criminals with no morals who don't care
anything about the law, as you would have us believe, then
selling illegal drugs would be their obvious choice.
They'd be a hundred times as wealthy as they are now.
You'd profit by learning to think straight.
Tom
--
calhobbit (at) | Artificial Intelligence:
gmail [DOT] com | When the real thing just won't do.
roger gonnet
news:32e2f0b7-9654-41d2...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I liked the film when I saw it in Germany years ago; methinks it is great
for public (schools?) education, with some comments and debate after.
roger
anothers...@hotmail.com
I admire that people wanted to make (and did make) this film.
However, it does feel like a melodrama and moves rather slowly. But
then, this is a short clip, and lacks context with the rest of the
film. And it might play better with current and ex-adherents
(although without seeing the rest of the film, I could not say for
sure).
No matter what, I do believe that releasing the film in its entirety
would not be a bad thing.
And I am glad that someone has taken the first step with releasing it.
Another Surfer
JAFAW
<anothers...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7cafe3f-5190-4fed...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Another Surfer
==================
You see the bit in the clip where she fucks up on stage and there's loads of
cheesy reaction shots for what seems like an age? That's probably a good
indicator of how slow and literal the whole movie is.
Yeah, it needs to be leaked. It ain't gonna make dime and no judge could
stop a torrent.
Les Hemmings
>
> You see the bit in the clip where she fucks up on stage and there's
> loads of cheesy reaction shots for what seems like an age? That's
> probably a good indicator of how slow and literal the whole movie is.
>
> Yeah, it needs to be leaked. It ain't gonna make dime and no judge
> could stop a torrent.
It does seem very, very close to LRH's first unveiling of a Clear though.
I've seen documentaries with people that were actually there and it was the
tie thing that stuffed them up!
L
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA
Mark Bunker
"Dave Touretzky" <d...@ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:47b7...@news2.lightlink.com...
Someone told me about this clip while I was testing my live webcam. I'm
assuming that Peter and Patricia put it up themselves. They should put up
the entire film.
intergalactic...@hotmail.com
> Why don't you list the 10 wealthiest churches in the world?
>
> They are all Christian. All of them are much wealthier than
> than the Church of Scientology.
Well, this is true. However according to Flag there are only 65,000
IAS members. Compare the worth of of Co$ to sects of a similar size.
Guess what, it simply doesn't add up.
The Roman Catholic Church I believe is the wealthiest, and they
certainly are not immune to criticism. But if you protest a catholic
church, or at least when I did, I got coffee and donuts. Can you say
the same thing about the Co$?
The LDS are very wealthy per capita, and they too are not immune to
criticism. They are stickers about a 10% tithe, but if you are sick
or injured THEY WILL HELP YOU. If you are unable to pay, you are not
tossed away. You can be a Mormon without being a member of the LDS
church.
Co$ will sue you if you claim to be a Scientologist and not a member
of their church. It's their "trade mark".
Both, if not all Christian branches, will give you a free bible. If
you ask about their beliefs what they do, they will tell you. You ask
a IAS member, they say read a book which was $20 in 1999, and the book
won't cover many aspects of their faith. If they were a Christian
branch, you would have to spend $150,000 just to learn they believe in
this guy born of a virgin, who could walk on water, heal the sick, and
who was really, get this, the son of God. Critics who leave who
share their inner secret would be ridiculed, "We don't believe that,
that's nuts".
The King James bible has about 750,000 words in it, LDS might bring
that total up to 1 million words as they get an extra book. In
Scientology there are over 35 million words.
In other religions, many services ask for donations, even "suggested"
donations. In Scientology they are mandatory and the auditors get a
huge commission on their services.
http://www.lermanet2.com/scientologynews/ap-tax-trial-110904.htm
But this newsgroup is about Scientology. Critics of other religions
are welcome to address them in the appropriate news groups.
"Difference of opinion is advantageous in a religion. The several
sects perform the office of a sensor - over each other" --Thomas
Jefferson
> And tell us why you think that Scientologists are idiots?
They are not idiots, they were just scammed and brain washed into
believing in a scam. To anyone who believes in the Tech is invited to
check out FreeZone.
The amount you spend in Scientology to get to OT8, you could get a Ivy
League education.
If you elect to go Sea Org, and wish to leave, you get a bill for
thousands. There are no social security or health care benefits in
Sea Org.
> If their primary interest was money, there are a lot better ways to
> make it than what they are doing now.
"Nope, the quickest way to make a million dollars is to start a
religion." -LRH
> Bill Gates has a lot more money than they do.....And I could fill
> a hundred pages with the names of corporations and individuals
> and foundations other organizations that are much wealthier than
> the Scientologists.
I don't know how Bill Gates' Billions (50 the last time I checked)
compare to the total wealth of Scientology.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=950365
Bridge, Golden Era, and New Age together according to their internal
videos are these biggest factories of book and CDs in the world, all
worked by Sea org members making 50/day.
It's hard to establish their true net worth as the list of companies
owned by Scientology is massive, over 80 and even that required much
investigation. They are hardly up front about the details. However
this information is dated.
> If Scientology was good at making money compared to the other
> options out there, it would be a lot bigger than it is now.
> They'd be teaching it at Yale and Oxford and MIT.
Actually there is L. Ron Hubbard Management Technology. They demand
10% of your income after you finish learning their "tech". Wise Beard
Man went into their office in Chicago IIRC with two dentists to demand
a refund. They were assaulted by police and arrested for trespass on
a public sidewalk.
Shaggy Hat Man did a video on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfK7LDJExS4
> If Scientologists are criminals with no morals who don't care
> anything about the law, as you would have us believe, then
> selling illegal drugs would be their obvious choice.
The sale of illegal drugs isn't all that profitable actually, well,
unless you are at the top of the foot chain. But there certainly have
been cases were members of their drug rehab organization NarConon have
been arrested for possession of controlled substances. But I doubt
if a major source of income is from drug sales. NarConon in the US
costs a flat rate of $15,000 the last time I checked though at times
they got state or government funding for their ventures. This is
certainly more profitable. www.narconon-exposed.org
One part of the scam is to claim they are secular when really they are
using the same teachings they use in the Church which does include
shouting at ashtrays commanding them to get up. The treatment is
considered to be dangerous requiring subjects to overdose on vitamins,
sweat in saunas several hours a day, and consume veritable oil. They
claim 70% to 86.7% effective rate but that is a huge deception and are
banned from making such claims in countries like England. Of the few
church sponsored studies few share their raw data and when the data
was obtained through disclosure laws, the actual effectiveness rate
was closer 10% and in one case was worse than no drug intervention.
There are really no independent studies for their 25 year history. A
few people have written research papers, in fact 5 people wrote 62% of
them yet little else if at all.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/papers.htm
> They'd be a hundred times as wealthy as they are now.
They could be but with faux drug treatment programs they get money
from unwitting victims, and give the illusion they are doing something
good. But make not mistake, it's a scam.
> You'd profit by learning to think straight.
You would learn well by doing your own research rather than jumping to
baseless conclusions. In all fairness you have a couple of points
that should be looked into, but they have been looked into and
Scientology even in contrast to other big religions is still pretty
grim.
banchukita
Yes they should. The clip kinda felt like an AfterSchool Special.
But hey, that's where I saw "The Wave" for the first time.
The sequence in the clip seems very close to something that happened
to Hubbard in real life. I'm glad they made this movie, and I really
wish Peter and Patricia would not expect to make any money from this
film, but just stop trying to generate mystery around it and be up
front about things like the current legal issues if there are any.
Maybe it's easy for me to say, since I had nothign invested in the
film, but t's more important at this juncture to tell the story than
to make money off it.
-maggie, human being
Friendly Xenu
>On 2008-02-17, Dave Touretzky <d...@ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> I was browsing teh Interweb when something quite unexpected dropped
>> out of one of the tubes: an 8 minute clip from The Profit, the movie
>> Scientology doesn't want you to see. Watch it, and read the backstory
>> on this clip, here:
>> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit
>> Don't know how long this video will remain up, so y'all might want to
>> save some private copies.
>Why don't you list the 10 wealthiest churches in the world?
Let's focus on organized crime first and THEN we'll start looking at
the organized religious frauds.
---
"Every time Tory waves to OSA, David Miscaviage gets shorter."
Dave Touretzky
>
> The sequence in the clip seems very close to something that happened
> to Hubbard in real life.
"Seems"? I gave the details on the web page. Even gave citations.
It's drawn directly from Hubbard's fiasco at the Shrine.
> I'm glad they made this movie, and I really wish Peter and Patricia
> would not expect to make any money from this film
How easy it is to be generous with other people's property. Keep in
mind that Minton isn't the only person who put money into the film;
Peter has some of his own money invested too. If he's forced to
release it without recovering any of his investment, then "the
terrorists have won". There's also the little matter that if he
unilaterally dumped the entire 2 hour film on Google video or some
torrent site, Bob would sue him. Remember who Bob works for now?
> but just stop trying to generate mystery around it and be up
> front about things like the current legal issues if there are any.
There's no mystery. The injunction is moot now that the Lisa case is
settled. It's Minton who is blocking the release. One of the legal
papers assigning Bob's attorney power to act in Bob's name with regard
to The Profit was cosigned by Mike Rinder as the witness!
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
It is Scientology, through Minton's attorney McGowan, that is blocking
release of The Profit, as can be seen in this 2005 letter:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/mcgowan-2007-02-21-p1.jpg
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/mcgowan-2007-02-21-p2.jpg
Rinder has since blown. So, as henri recently pointed out, Bob Minton
is now more of an OSA tool than Rinder is.
Information about the Profit is available at the movie's web site.
Check the News section (last update April 7, 2007):
http://www.theprofit.org/latest-legal.htm
There's also a message board:
http://z6.invisionfree.com/theprofit/index.php?showtopic=7
> Maybe it's easy for me to say, since I had nothign invested in the
> film, but t's more important at this juncture to tell the story than
> to make money off it.
Bob Minton, in his present role as Scientology's bitch, doesn't want
the film released. Since money is not "important", feel free to pay
the legal bills with your own money to drag Bob's ass back into court
and overturn his objection. Then he can recover some of his
investment, Peter and Patricia can recover some of theirs, and you can
feel good about yourself for doing the right thing.
-- Dave
banchukita
wrote:
> banchukita <banchuk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The sequence in the clip seems very close to something that happened
> > to Hubbard in real life.
>
> "Seems"? I gave the details on the web page. Even gave citations.
> It's drawn directly from Hubbard's fiasco at the Shrine.
>
Okay. I didn't read it, just watched the clip. And I remembered the
story about the woman who couldn't describe Hubbard's tie.
> > I'm glad they made this movie, and I really wish Peter and Patricia
> > would not expect to make any money from this film
>
> How easy it is to be generous with other people's property. Keep in
> mind that Minton isn't the only person who put money into the film;
> Peter has some of his own money invested too. If he's forced to
> release it without recovering any of his investment, then "the
> terrorists have won". There's also the little matter that if he
> unilaterally dumped the entire 2 hour film on Google video or some
> torrent site, Bob would sue him. Remember who Bob works for now?
>
> > but just stop trying to generate mystery around it and be up
> > front about things like the current legal issues if there are any.
>
> There's no mystery. The injunction is moot now that the Lisa case is
> settled. It's Minton who is blocking the release. One of the legal
> papers assigning Bob's attorney power to act in Bob's name with regard
> to The Profit was cosigned by Mike Rinder as the witness!
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/power-of-attorney-2005-08-29.jpg
>
Okay. Yikes!
But to a casual observer [like me] who admittedly hasn't gone through
every detail, I see: a clip of a movie being released but no chance
of seeing the whole movie. I don't understand why this little clip
would be released. To me, that's a mystery.
> It is Scientology, through Minton's attorney McGowan, that is blocking
> release of The Profit, as can be seen in this 2005 letter:
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/mcgowan-2007-02-21-p1.jpg
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/mcgowan-2007-02-21-p2.jpg
>
> Rinder has since blown. So, as henri recently pointed out, Bob Minton
> is now more of an OSA tool than Rinder is.
>
> Information about the Profit is available at the movie's web site.
> Check the News section (last update April 7, 2007):
>
> http://www.theprofit.org/latest-legal.htm
>
> There's also a message board:
>
> http://z6.invisionfree.com/theprofit/index.php?showtopic=7
>
> > Maybe it's easy for me to say, since I had nothign invested in the
> > film, but t's more important at this juncture to tell the story than
> > to make money off it.
>
> Bob Minton, in his present role as Scientology's bitch, doesn't want
> the film released. Since money is not "important", feel free to pay
> the legal bills with your own money to drag Bob's ass back into court
> and overturn his objection. Then he can recover some of his
> investment, Peter and Patricia can recover some of theirs, and you can
> feel good about yourself for doing the right thing.
>
> -- Dave
I knew there was some baggage but I didn't realize just how much.
Thanks for explaining, Dave. It's important for people to
understand.
As I said, it's easy for me to talk about other people's money. I
also didn't realize that any of the investors, when they were making
the film, intended to make their money back.
-maggie, human being
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> On Feb 17, 3:41 pm, Dave Touretzky <d...@ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > banchukita <banchuk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The sequence in the clip seems very close to something that happened
> > > to Hubbard in real life.
>
> > "Seems"? I gave the details on the web page. Even gave citations.
> > It's drawn directly from Hubbard's fiasco at the Shrine.
>
> Okay. I didn't read it, just watched the clip. And I remembered the
> story about the woman who couldn't describe Hubbard's tie.
>
> I knew there was some baggage but I didn't realize just how much.
> Thanks for explaining, Dave. It's important for people to
> understand.
>
> As I said, it's easy for me to talk about other people's money. I
> also didn't realize that any of the investors, when they were making
> the film, intended to make their money back.
>
> -maggie, human being
If bob had moved against Greenway et al in court for his beleif that
he had been ripped off for the profit..and won, after spending more
money to win a judgment against courage productions, he would have
gained nothing because a civil judgment means nothing in Geneva
Switzerland. So faced with a crappy movie that he was convinced was
unmarketable and a rabid cult that admitted having spent 30 million on
account of Bob's efforts to "even the playing field', there was no
upside for him to pursue it. Faced with being driven to the edge, and
having been betrayed by his own attorney in clearwater, he was trying
to settle with scientology, and ended up achieving no more than a
mexican stand off.. He signed over something he believed was
worthless, in order to make scientology's litigation machine go away.
Chracterizing him as Xenu's bitch is scapegoatism, to move attention
from those who had been in my opinion, tricked into aiding scientology
and greensways efforts to force Mr Minton to suicide.. which is a
successful action in the past for scientology.. as in Jim Bostrum, the
first guy to get raided by scientology and in the spanish criminal
indictment, scientology was indicted for "inducemement to suicide"...
Friendly Xenu
>On Feb 17, 3:41=A0pm, Dave Touretzky <d...@ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> banchukita <banchuk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > The sequence in the clip seems very close to something that happened
>> > to Hubbard in real life.
>> It's drawn directly from Hubbard's fiasco at the Shrine.
>Okay. I didn't read it, just watched the clip. And I remembered the
>story about the woman who couldn't describe Hubbard's tie.
That embarrassing incident is well covered in "Bare-faced Messia." }:-}
Got to laugh. The poor woman was doubtlessly coached for weeks
before the insane conman dragged her on stage, and when he tried
to rook the crowd, she exposed the absurdity of the con. Brilliant!
henri
over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>upside for him to pursue it. Faced with being driven to the edge, and
>having been betrayed by his own attorney in clearwater, he was trying
This is an abject lie. Ken Dandar was NOT Bob Minton's attorney.
He was the attorney for the estate of a woman named Lisa McPherson,
whose family Bob Minton threw under a bus. His obligation, which he
upheld, was to Lisa McPherson. Not to Bob Minton.
You are either lying or too fucking dumb to know what the hell you're
talking about, even after all these years.
>to settle with scientology, and ended up achieving no more than a
>mexican stand off.. He signed over something he believed was
>worthless, in order to make scientology's litigation machine go away.
I see. So you think Lisa McPherson's family and their chance of justice
was worthlesss, something to be thrown away so Scientology could get
away with murder.
You despicable piece of shit.
Henri Ladd
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:04:52 -0800 (PST), "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for
> over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>upside for him to pursue it. Faced with being driven to the edge, and
>>having been betrayed by his own attorney in clearwater, he was trying
>
>
> This is an abject lie. Ken Dandar was NOT Bob Minton's attorney.
I think you're getting this wrong Rob. Maybe if you would have left
more of the post in you wouldn't start jumping to conclusions. My
understanding of it is that it's not Dandar he's talking about.
>
> He was the attorney for the estate of a woman named Lisa McPherson,
> whose family Bob Minton threw under a bus. His obligation, which he
> upheld, was to Lisa McPherson. Not to Bob Minton.
>
> You are either lying or too fucking dumb to know what the hell you're
> talking about, even after all these years.
>
>
>>to settle with scientology, and ended up achieving no more than a
>>mexican stand off.. He signed over something he believed was
>>worthless, in order to make scientology's litigation machine go away.
I know you got this wrong: he was talking about the worthlessness of the
movie, "the Profit". That would be a correct assumption. Judging by the
eight minutes I saw, it's little more than a student film. I've edited
the electronic press kits and trailers for "Beauty and the Beast,"
"Bugsy", "Medicine Man", and many others. If this is the best you can
get out of a film and condense it into eight minutes...well the rest
must be pretty bad. There is no financial opportunity there at all.
> I see. So you think Lisa McPherson's family and their chance of
justice
> was worthlesss, something to be thrown away so Scientology could get
> away with murder.
>
> You despicable piece of shit.
Here we go again with the liturgy from Erlich's Church of Proctology:
life is cheap, and so are we. People are to be cursed at, denigrated,
called names, bullied and intimidated, denied their human dignity; until
they just cannot continue. This is the law of the jungle, and the guy
who is the cheapest of them all, he's the Jungle King.
the Jungle King is the Reverend Dennis Erlich--the man who really wants
to be the next L. Ron Hubbard-- He will torch and flail at any one if it
suits his greedy needs. And you Rob Clark, have the dirtiest mouth, and
filthiest mind, of anyone I've ever seen on the Internet.
RevealerOfTruth
hatemonger henri, you are too hotheaded to handle facts.
no mention there of dandar & dandar was not minton's attorney.
john merritt was minton's attorney. i think he means mean merritt.
ROT
"Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."
~ Flannery O'Connor
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
sociopathic moron, I was referring to John Merrirtt
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >upside for him to pursue it. Faced with being driven to the edge, and
> >having been betrayed by his own attorney in clearwater, he was trying
>
> This is an abject lie. Ken Dandar was NOT Bob Minton's attorney.
idiot.. I was referring to Merritt but speaking of slimebags
Dandar was just a slimebag lawyer
his biggest previous case was 50 grand he was out of his league and
lost the case
LOST IT
Scientology litigates for a GAG agreement and to do as much psychic
damage to its adversaries money can buy,
They succeded in spades, they enter every litigation with one plan -
trick the parties into thinking they must lie, its all in Gerry
Amrstongs EVALS... but your same crew was denigrating Gerry so he
would not be trusted either...he held the keys to winning that case.
But I digress.
Scientology litigates for a GAGGED SEALED AGREEMENT
See proof here http://www.lermanet.com/silence.htm
The money is JUST the cost of doing business for the global
scientology scam
They wanted a GAGGED SEALED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
but only after they had exacted as much psychic damage from hours of
interrogations
and testimony on the stand and cross examinations. Just as Dr joost
Meerloo describes in his
descriptions of the techniques used by the Nazis. http://www.Lermanet.com/scientology/
Good job! "I helped the Lisa Case"
Scientology GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, it was a WIN for SCIENTOLOGY.
Mark Bunker
Seeing as how the clip continues to be on the web and on Dave's website in
particular, it appears that it was released by Peter and Patricia. Very
curious since when the other partner (Bob) ordered me to release a few
minutes of the film, Peter and Patricia tried to sue me, only to fail when
it was pointed out that both partners had to agree to sue.
Now, if the second partner is releasing video to the web then we shall see
how ready Bob is to sue over the film. My feeling is, he doesn't care.
Plus, Dave's site is essentially an authorized site for the film. I can't
imagine they'd allow him to keep the clip on his site if they hadn't
unleashed it.
Release the whole film. Let the world see it.
henri
John MERRETT was the Trust's attorney.
You also don't know what the fuck you're talking about, in addition to smearing
yet another person. Merrett was so far out of the loop by the time Minton
went traitor that he was not even aware that Minton had changed sides until
shortly before he was called to testify. In what way do you think that Lerma
thinks that Merrett betrayed Minton?
Perhaps you think Lerma meant that Bruce Howie betrayed Minton. Howie
and Anthony S. Battaglia were Minton's attorneys of record at the time. Or
Thomas McGowan. In either case, what would that betrayal consist of?
He was clearly referring to Dandar, yet again. For literally years, he has
repeated this lie about Dandar being Minton's attorney, and "betraying"
Minton, despite being corrected about it repeatedly. The facts are
absolutely of zero concern to that fraud.
Dave Touretzky
>
> Seeing as how the clip continues to be on the web and on Dave's website in
> particular
The film is not on my web site. It's on Google video. I simply linked
to the Google Video page.
> Now, if the second partner is releasing video to the web then we shall see
> how ready Bob is to sue over the film. My feeling is, he doesn't care.
My guess is that Bob's attorney Thomas McGowan will issue a legal
threat to try to get the video taken down, because Scientology never
passes up a chance to cause trouble for Peter and Patricia. Let me
remind you whose name is listed most prominently of all in the
acknowledgments for Andrew Morton's book: Patricia Greenway.
> Plus, Dave's site is essentially an authorized site for the film. I
> can't imagine they'd allow him to keep the clip on his site if they
> hadn't unleashed it.
Once again, the clip is not on my site, it's on Google video. And I
don't need anyone's authorization to make a web page about The Profit
or to link to material publicly available on the web.
> Release the whole film. Let the world see it.
Purchase the rights from Minton and distribute the film yourself.
If it's as worthless as you say, Bob should let it go cheap.
Oh, wait: Minton won't sell at any price -- because Scientology wants
the film suppressed. Minton is Scientology's bitch now. He hasn't
just "retired from the fray"; he's taking orders from the other side.
What a disappointing end for a man who used to brag that he was
Scientology's Enemy #1.
-- Dave
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:42:09 -0800 (PST), RevealerOfTruth
>
>
>
> <RevealerOfTr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 11:31 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:04:52 -0800 (PST), "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for
> >> over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >upside for him to pursue it. Faced with being driven to the edge, and
> >> >having been betrayed by his own attorney in clearwater, he was trying
Rob Clark's contentless hatefilled drivel deleted
It was their own attorney, John Merritt who sealed his fate as planned
by Greenway
After bob did his recant, bob and stacy grew more and more depressed
as the testimony choreographed by the "trial consulatant" failed to
back up his recant, but then
good old John went on the stand, and bob and stacy leaned forward in
their chairs, they knew good old john Hershy Bar Merritt
would set the record straight, and vindicate them, I mean he was their
lawyer. but he was also Patricia Greenways lawyer
and he was mine...
At one point Ken Dandar told Bob Minton, after Bob was appealing to
Ken to get him out of this mess facing two criminal perjury trials:
Whether or not you goto jail for criminal perjury will not affect
whether the Lisa case goes to trial!
A hell of statement from a guy you have given 2 million dollars
to....whome you thought was a fellow "warrior" in this grand quest for
justice.
But a Lawyer cannot admit under oath that he told a client to lie...
it means being immediate disbarment....and if he were disbarred he
wouldnt get all those big zeros at the end of the litigation rainbow..
When John Meritt, who was Bob's Lawyer, testified, Bob and Stacy felt
that as their lawyer John meritt would just tell the truth. Instead he
covered his ass.
After John testified he FIRST went over to Dandar's table, and to
Patricia Greenway and gave her a hug... a lady that hads been
attacking the LMT to anyone that would listen to her scociopathic
rants since weeks after its inception.
Then he went over towards Stacy, who was in complete shock....her
hands hung lump at her sides, she was standing in the courtroom
watching John merritt, arms turned forward with open palms hanging
down, limp. her countenance was one of "Why, john, why did you DO
it?"
And this man who was supposedly Bob and LMT's "lawyer" had the
hutzpah, to got up to stacy and give her a hug, with her limp arms
hanging, and whispered into her ear the following, recounted to me
right after it happenned:
He said this: "That's the great thing about being a son-of-bitch. You
are untouchable".
With friends like this as your lawyers and counsel who the hell needs
scientology as an enemy?
Arnie Lerma
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=268
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=268
Oh yeah and JUST to put things in perspective
BEFORE:
1) Ken Dandar - previous largest case settlement 50,000 working in a
two man law firm
2) Greenway and company... - Toadly Fun company was doing Carnival
Western theme park shows at Six Flags in Chicago
you know, Guys on horses chasing a jalopy around a soft wood chip
track with blanks in their pop guns while pyrotechnics and flame
effects dazzle the crowd the jalopy runs around in a circle and then
up a ramp and "crashes" smoke comes out sort of like Incident I in OT
III.
3) John Merritt...A Divorce lawyer with a 1 man office from
Jacksonville...on the first floor of a residential house.
Oh and I owe an apology to MS greenway, you see I always thought it
was Greenway who told osa about the UBS Checks.. so they could get a
copy.. well, Im sorry, I made a grave error, it was not you, it was
John Merritt..that tipped off OSA, you just choreographed the
testimony..
DRUM ROLL
THUSLY and HITHERTO WE HAVE just PRIOR to the events described above
1) Ken Dandar - Big time anti cult lawyer - having received 2.5
million from BOB MINTON!
(In RTC vs Lerma we kept a dozen attorneys working full time for a
year for under 1 million)
2) Patricia and company - MOVIE PRODUCERS - having received 2.5
Million form BOB MINTON for THE PROFIT, great name huh?
(The Bridge looks damn good for less than a grand eh?) Greenway
refused to even take the stand, even in the Lisa case she conned
others into doing her dirty work, like I am dealing with right NOW on
this newsgroup, terrified of testifying she begged ken dandar to take
her off the witness list.
and then there is... you gracious host of hosts:
3) John Merritt, who received one million in cash in a counting room
in a bank in Geneva, and a UBS Check. Now I may have it wrong It might
have been a UBS check for 1 million and 500,000 in cash in the
counting room... Im not good with details, sorry about that john, Ill
ask the gnome in Zurich to check on it, again... bought himself an
election to a Judgeship in Jacksonville that good old bible thumper
did,, the son of a bitch even called me after he won and before he
took his oath of office, to threaten me, saying, "You know arnie, I
won an electiion to circuit court in Jacksonville, I'll have the power
of life and death" I don't recall what I said, I believe I said, he
would likely need it.
Money changes people.
It brings out the worst in people.
Bob was such a trusting man... the game became, after fleecing him,.
now lets discredit him and run him out of town...the ex-members who
testified in that case, were conned, they were told, We have to do
this to SAVE THE LISA CASE! SAVE the CASE, Halleleuha! Halleleuha BOB
SOLD OUT! BOB SOLD OUT! a bunch of fools who had never been in
litigation to see how weird it really gets bought it, NOT ONE EX
LITIGANT BOUGHT IT.
and John Merritt, said he used to teach bible classes
Its damned easy to bring a case with scientology to the EXACT same
conclusion scientology wanted it brought..A SEALED, SILENCED GAG
AGREEMENT.
And immediately after the Lisa case settled, nobody including rob know
is all clark mentioned that bob was still being sued by scientology
for the Breach of Contract Case! They announced the Lisa case had
settled! yeah, in whimper.. A BIG WIN FOR SCIENTOLOGY like all of
these cases - and I do not know of all the cases, these are just what
I do know about http://www.lermanet.com/silence.htm
The truth is stranger than any fiction I could EVER make up..
warmest regards
Arnie Lerma
These words written so that someday history might not repeat itself
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
>
> The truth is stranger than any fiction I could EVER make up..
>
> warmest regards
> Arnie Lerma
>
> These words written so that someday history might not repeat itself
one more thing
Yah bob gave me 100,000 11or 12 years ago, and I spent in on a fast
printer, and
wore it out sending out mailings to EVERYONE, and fighting
scientology.
The only money I know these guys above used for fighting scientology
was when Patricia
gave a 100 bill to shawn lonsdale in a public place, which got him
deposed under that injunction
she is named in..
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
A wise man posted this to Somthingawful forums today, the forum name
and these words rang true:
Something that Narcissists do is to try and break down the
personalities of the people around them and build them to one more
subservient and acceptable. They want to be immune to criticism. They
break up people's friendships and connections for their own purposes.
Leading a cult is a Narcissist's wet dream. Hitler, Stalin and Hussein
were diagnosed with this. Try and make sure you don't have one as a
boss and be wary of the people you know having this disorder because
they can have a knack of spreading shit into people's lives when they
have they have the right characteristics. There is evidence to support
that it can be brought on by ritual humiliation/abuse in formative
years.
I dont recall any ritual humiliation/abuse in my formative years, do
you patricia?
Leiberman was in RTC vs Lerma, AND they used him when they used a
grady
ward case to try to depose me again for information/data gathering,
here is how I made them go away
They started the depo:
Leiberman: Mr. Lerma, why do you continue to say bad things about the
church of scientology?
Lerma: Are you referring to the international psychopolitical
terrorist
organization doing a shrinking but still brisk business in fraud
worldwide dba Scientology and associated entities?
Leiberman: You cant talk about the church of scientology that way!
Lerma: Are you trying to trick me into committing perjury?
END OF DEPOSITION
- J - posted:
Arnie, you rule. Have we ever told you you rule? Because you do.
Seriously, that's a brilliant response! Were you always that
fluent and articulate, was it some beneficious side effect of the
"communication" training, or did you train specifically for the legal
fencing?
No..heres the deal
My legal name is Arnaldo Pagliarini Lerma. In elementary school I
started young so my mother, divorced... could work.. for some reason
she gave me the name Naldi...at the beginning of the school year
teachers would assign seating.. Id always find myself on the girls
side of the class, and every bully there would see me with a goofy
name "Naldi" and they would go,, Thats the guy we are gonna mess with
this year"
Sort of a Boy named Sue story
I learned my rhetorical skills talking bullys out of beating me up on
the schoolyard. Those skills have come in handy over the years...Even
in elementary school I aced everything (science math art) and was
detested for making people look bad...actually spoken and written
english was my weakest suit...
Let me put things in perspective, yeah, Ive always been a sort of wise
guy..in physics and chemistry Id always get the highest test scores on
the standardized exams, beating the geeky korean kin named "kim" by 2
or 3 points. and we would be 15-20 points above anyone else in the
class.
That me and Kim sat at the back of the room and shot spitwads at the
ceiling fan and then bet on how many seconds it would take before they
dried out enough to fall on Mr Allbright (yes that was his
name...funny how ironic reality is..)
But I did not get a good grade in physics, cause I used to mouth
off...I'd correct my physics professor, in front of the class.. by
reading from his own assigned materials when he would make an
error...he would turn red with rage...
In algebra there was an abusive teacher, I'd ask a question she'd make
me wrong for asking, I'd launch into a tirade about her job
description and get sent to the asst principal whod say,
Whadyoudonowlerma? Id explain, he would roll HIS eyes and send me to
the principal.. Id explain, and the teacher got upbraidd. So now Id be
treated with respect, but she would still attack OTHER students, so Id
stand up, and read her my take of her job description and get sent to
the asst principal..who would send me to the principal, who would
listen to me, and then discplined that same teacher. After a while
none of the teachers would mess with me...
I did a project for the christmas show and got an A for the year...but
I had to promise Leon Berkowitz that Id keep doing my art.. I sold
that same artwork while in the sea org so I wouldn't starve..
I'm used to being right in the end..but I tend to be detested by those
who arn't quite bright.. look almost everyone detests the kid that
makes them look bad.. It has always been this way for me.
In scientology, I did the same thing, if I thought something was
bullpoo I'd stand up and say so...independent thought in the Sea org
gets rewarded with the RPF brainwashing routine..
The biggest difference between me and, say Chuck Beatty, and I've told
him this..so its okay to mention, is when he was ordered to the RPF he
went for 7 years! When I was ordered to the RPF I said, in essense..
Blow **! and left for another Sea org outfit who were glad to have
some help..and where I met Suzette Hubbard.
After i got out and was working as a bartender at a rock n' roll honky
tonk in Georgetown called 'The Bayou', I saved up enough to buy a
cheap car so I could get to school. and attended NVCC..(early 80's)
there my English professors told me I needed to goto a better school..
My Electronics professor... I'd be the last one to show up for the
labs and the first one out the door, he would beg me to stay and help
him get the kids through the class, Id point out that HE was being
paid to be there and I was taking time off from making money to be
there, g'day...
And for the last 15 years Ive been fighting scientology the best I
can...the nice thing is, I'm in character, I'm being the same person I
was as a child.. doing the same things... tilting at the same
windmills, telling abusive pricks they are abusive pricks and to stop
hurting people.
I believe life itself contains enough unavoidable hurt and pain, ever
watched a child being squeezed out during birth, or watched your own
pet die - There is no room left on this planet for uncaring sociopaths
that would intentionally inflict pain upon another human being.
Life itself is tough enough.
(c) Arnie Lerma
got a question, call 703-241-1498
RolandRB
wrote:
> I was browsing teh Interweb when something quite unexpected dropped
> out of one of the tubes: an 8 minute clip from The Profit, the movie
> Scientology doesn't want you to see. Watch it, and read the backstory
> on this clip, here:
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit
>
> Don't know how long this video will remain up, so y'all might want to
> save some private copies.
>
> -- Dave Touretzky: Scientology's favorite computational neuroscientist.
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
I actually liked the clip.
Eldon
So did I, so at least we have agreed on something that will inure to
our mutual tolerance credit.
It's sort of an "Eating Raul" cult pic flavo(u)r of presentation, or
something equally campy, but it has a certain superficial charm.
Somehow.
Alexia Death
I'm your fan now, Arnie! SRSLY :)
Mark Bunker
> Mark Bunker <markb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Seeing as how the clip continues to be on the web and on Dave's website
>> in
>> particular
>
> The film is not on my web site. It's on Google video. I simply linked
> to the Google Video page.
If Patricia was upset about an unauthorized clip I would imagine she would
have it taken down by Google as quickly as she could. I recall the midnight
screaming phone call from them as they shouted obscenities at my for do as
Bob asked when I put a few minutes of clips up on the site.
In the close knit butterscotch chatroom, if Patricia didn't want the clip
being seen, I would imagine she'd ask you to not link to it.
Also the graphics at the opening of the clip seem like official graphics
which would have been used by Courage. If the clip is down in 24 hours,
I'll know I was wrong and apologize.
>> Now, if the second partner is releasing video to the web then we shall
>> see
>> how ready Bob is to sue over the film. My feeling is, he doesn't care.
>
> My guess is that Bob's attorney Thomas McGowan will issue a legal
> threat to try to get the video taken down, because Scientology never
> passes up a chance to cause trouble for Peter and Patricia. Let me
> remind you whose name is listed most prominently of all in the
> acknowledgments for Andrew Morton's book: Patricia Greenway.
>
>> Plus, Dave's site is essentially an authorized site for the film. I
>> can't imagine they'd allow him to keep the clip on his site if they
>> hadn't unleashed it.
>
> Once again, the clip is not on my site, it's on Google video. And I
> don't need anyone's authorization to make a web page about The Profit
> or to link to material publicly available on the web.
>
>> Release the whole film. Let the world see it.
>
> Purchase the rights from Minton and distribute the film yourself.
> If it's as worthless as you say, Bob should let it go cheap.
It's not Bob who wrote the film down to zero for the tax write-off. As far
as investments go, I don't see anyone else buying the rights off either
partner.
> Oh, wait: Minton won't sell at any price -- because Scientology wants
> the film suppressed. Minton is Scientology's bitch now. He hasn't
> just "retired from the fray"; he's taking orders from the other side.
> What a disappointing end for a man who used to brag that he was
> Scientology's Enemy #1.
Yeah, sock it to him. Put the whole film on the web. That'll show Bob and
the evil Scientologists he settled with.
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Speaking of Patricia and the injunction:
Cultxpt wrote a briefing about the injunction and apparently it was
read and understood. Apparently she and Peter drove by and Patricia
went out to talk with protestors at the Feb 10 protest but were booed
away because no one wanted to be dragged into the injunction by
association.
re:Note to Anonymous re: Clearwater picket
"So, my suggestion to Anonymous is to just disassociate yourselves
with any of us, and if we happen to show up, tell us to our face that
you're not "in concert" with us.
The only ones named that I know of anywhere near you are Peter
Alexander, Patricia Greenway, and Jesse Prince. Jesse seems to have
bowed out of the fray, so I don't think you need worry about him. I'm
sure Peter and Patricia understand the need to keep their distance.
I'll be 2200 miles away minding my own business.
At any rate, if some Scientologist comes out and slaps you with this
injunction, you'll be forewarned about it and know that it doesn't
have anything to do with you and is just a scare tactic. IANAL but
that's how I read it. "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/bba0faed43d611bd
One time, one can excuse it away and say that it was an error in
judgement on her part, but doing the obvious wrong thing again, is
evidence that it was intentional. I'm glad Jeff warned them in
advance.
I just hope Shawn is ok.
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
> I was browsing teh Interweb when something quite unexpected dropped
> out of one of the tubes: an 8 minute clip from The Profit, the movie
> Scientology doesn't want you to see. Watch it, and read the backstory
> on this clip, here:
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit
>
> Don't know how long this video will remain up, so y'all might want to
> save some private copies.
>
> -- Dave Touretzky: Scientology's favorite computational neuroscientist.
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
It was good to get a sense of the theme and some of some
characters.This clip is in alot better shape than the trailer.
I guess Peter and Patricia's war with Minton has been taken out of the
mothballs. Should be interesting to see what happens next.
Alert
Here is the document that Minton reliquishes all voice now and forever
and any say-so/input/dealings/ things in regard of Courage
Procductions and The Profit. Note the very last lines of the P.O.A
document stating that such P.O.A will apply to nothing forever except
the aforementioned 'entity' and affiliated Movie no matter who steps
in to fill McGowans shoes.
Once someone has P.O.A, they can say/do whatever they/anyone directing
them from afar likes and attribute it to the person who relinguished
the P.O.A.
Read these words again:
" full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof".
If you cannot decipher what the P.O.A document says, it basically says
Minton has no say by way of relinguishment (whether forced or coerced
or willingly) , and McGowan can say or do whatever he/anyone directing
him wants to say and attribute it to Minton himself.
Define the words "might" and "could" and "if". Where in the P.O.A
document is it stated that Minton IS or WILL have any input with
McGowan acting on his behalf?
Maybe Minton loved his family more than he liked taking on the concult
of scientology. Its said *everyone* has a price, well maybe the price
for Minton far outweighed the cost if he proceeded.
A POA allows a person to do whatever they like with said POA and can
claim that it is on behalf of the party who surrendered POA. The
Minton POA is cleverly constructed with ambiguous language, except the
last lines that outline the POA will now and forever preclude any and
all other interests of Mintons regardless of who replaces McGowan.
I doubt that some B grade movie will bring about the final implosion
of scientology, it would take a huge budget and known actors to make a
movie that would impact scientology in such a way. Im sure that the
profit wont make it to youtube or Google video because that /sarcasm
evil Bob Minton who has signed a document wavering all rights/voice/
imput to the movie and its affiliates/all things related will fight to
the death for scientology. After all, Bob Minton sucked everyone in
from the beginning right?
He didnt go from a staunch activist and critic to an arse kissing
subserviant at all. Scientology didnt get what it needed to shudder
him into silence through threats, intimidation etc etc toward him or
his family /end sarcasm.
What would it take to shut anyone up? Everyone has a 'price' when
cornered.
I guess it may never be known what actually happened with Bob Minton
from Bob Minton, since he doesnt post on the Internet/discuss anything
in relation to his 'fair gaming' or have any input on the profit since
giving (or being coerced/placed under duress to give) McGowen/any
successor/replacement by way of 'virtue thereof' in regard to
'substitution and revocation' in all 'things' related to Courage and
the Profit.
But dont let the flogging of the dead horse cease because input can
only ever come from a singular side of a 2 sided account of the
situation.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
>
> One time, one can excuse it away and say that it was an error in
> judgement on her part, but doing the obvious wrong thing again, is
> evidence that it was intentional. I'm glad Jeff warned them in
> advance.
>
> I just hope Shawn is ok.
I also took steps that the kids in CW on feb10th, would avoid stepping
in what sean had stepped in
see thread on shawn:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/2d55526a4583cc9c/3d9e3f7b83d788a7#3d9e3f7b83d788a7
henri
wrote:
>Here is the document that Minton reliquishes all voice now and forever
>and any say-so/input/dealings/ things in regard of Courage
>Procductions and The Profit. Note the very last lines of the P.O.A
>document stating that such P.O.A will apply to nothing forever except
>the aforementioned 'entity' and affiliated Movie no matter who steps
>in to fill McGowans shoes.
No, it does not. McGowan can't sell, devise, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
the property. It's just a boilerplate power of attorney form. Even
a POA which states that it is irrevocable can generally be revoked at the
election of the principal.
Virtually any POA in Florida has language like that. There's nothing
special about the content of that document at all.
henri
over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 2:08 am, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:42:09 -0800 (PST), RevealerOfTruth
>> <RevealerOfTr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 11:31 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:04:52 -0800 (PST), "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for
>> >> over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >upside for him to pursue it. Faced with being driven to the edge, and
>> >> >having been betrayed by his own attorney in clearwater, he was trying
>Rob Clark's contentless hatefilled drivel deleted
>It was their own attorney, John Merritt who sealed his fate as planned
>by Greenway
What a crock of shit.
Anyone can read the actual facts, as found by the court, and realize instantly
they don't have anything to do with your twisted garbage.
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/legal/oddomtsor030112.html
>After bob did his recant, bob and stacy grew more and more depressed
You mean after Bob and Stacy agreed to commit perjury, as Schaeffer found
in her ruling.
"I think Mr. Minton is in all manner of trouble, Mr. Minton has perjury
problems. Mr. Minton has contempt problems. . . . I think Mr. Minton has IRS
problems."
憂udge Susan Schaeffer
Schaeffer caught Minton committing perjury in his testimony before her
repeatedly. Minton's pathetic lies were obvious to anyone paying attention.
While you desperately attempt to cover for the man who gave you upwards
of $100,000, in the hopes that newbies might be fooled, only a true fool
would believe your lies, the lies of a bought whore.
It is pathetic that you expect us to believe that Bob Minton was lying when
he was opposing Scientology, but that when he met with Mike Rinder to
decide what he was going to testify to, that after this, his testimony was
completely truthful.
It doesn't even pass the giggle test. You must really think you're
talking to a bunch of fucking morons.
>as the testimony choreographed by the "trial consulatant" failed to
>back up his recant, but then
Not a single witness corroborated Bob's version of events. Not one.
Nor did the ruling agree with Bob's version of events. The ruling concluded
Bob had perjured himself in his desperate, failed attempt to get Ken Dandar
removed as the attorney for The Estate of Lisa McPherson, and to have
Ken replaced with a shill for the cult.
The motion failed. Nobody believed Bob and Stacy's lies. Not even
Judge Baird, who was notoriously friendly with the cult.
Anyone who wants to can read everyone's testimony themselves and see
that Bob and Stacy's lies were not corroborated by one person.
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
>good old John went on the stand, and bob and stacy leaned forward in
>their chairs, they knew good old john Hershy Bar Merritt
>would set the record straight, and vindicate them, I mean he was their
>lawyer. but he was also Patricia Greenways lawyer
>and he was mine...
His testimony was in complete agreement with that of every other witness,
and contradicted only the lies of Bob Minton, which Bob only propounded
after a meeting with Mike Rinder of OSA, without attorneys, after which
Bob ran out of the room and threw up in the bushes.
He did not corroborate Bob's perjury.
He did not commit perjury.
That is your gripe with him. He did not commit perjury in agreement with
Bob's perjury, in order to help Scientology get away with murdering Lisa
McPherson. That's what you think he should have done.
>At one point Ken Dandar told Bob Minton, after Bob was appealing to
>Ken to get him out of this mess facing two criminal perjury trials:
>Whether or not you goto jail for criminal perjury will not affect
>whether the Lisa case goes to trial!
>A hell of statement from a guy you have given 2 million dollars
>to....whome you thought was a fellow "warrior" in this grand quest for
>justice.
Ken Dandar's loyalty was with his CLIENT. That was LISA MCPHERSON.
Not Bob Minton! It would be ILLEGAL for Ken to put Bob's interests in
helping Scientology get away with murder. That doesn't seem to trouble
you in the least, but that's just the kind of despicable shitheel you are.
Bob's desperate desire to destroy Lisa McPherson's chances of justice
in order to save his own skin was not something Ken Dandar could
satisfy without committing crimes.
Your desperate historical revisionism does not hide Minton's perjury
and lies.
>But a Lawyer cannot admit under oath that he told a client to lie...
>it means being immediate disbarment....and if he were disbarred he
>wouldnt get all those big zeros at the end of the litigation rainbow..
>When John Meritt, who was Bob's Lawyer, testified, Bob and Stacy felt
>that as their lawyer John meritt would just tell the truth. Instead he
>covered his ass.
Instead, he testified in agreement with every other witness, including
hostile witnesses. The only people to back up Bob and Stacy's lies
were Bob and Stacy.
>After John testified he FIRST went over to Dandar's table, and to
>Patricia Greenway and gave her a hug... a lady that hads been
>attacking the LMT to anyone that would listen to her scociopathic
>rants since weeks after its inception.
>Then he went over towards Stacy, who was in complete shock....her
>hands hung lump at her sides, she was standing in the courtroom
>watching John merritt, arms turned forward with open palms hanging
>down, limp. her countenance was one of "Why, john, why did you DO
>it?"
And you know what her countenance looked like how?
Quit making shit up. These fantastic tales don't hide Bob's perjury or his
pathetic attempts to help Scientology get away with murder.
You could tell us some fantasy version of events where Stacy showered
tears like Buckingham fucking Fountain, and it wouldn't make your
horseshit any truer.
>And this man who was supposedly Bob and LMT's "lawyer" had the
>hutzpah, to got up to stacy and give her a hug, with her limp arms
>hanging, and whispered into her ear the following, recounted to me
>right after it happenned:
>He said this: "That's the great thing about being a son-of-bitch. You
>are untouchable".
>With friends like this as your lawyers and counsel who the hell needs
>scientology as an enemy?
Considering that everything else you've said in this post is an utter lie
completely contradicted by the record, I have no reason at all to believe
this deranged fantasy.
Contrary to your flights of fancy, Merrett was completely unaware that
Minton had gone traitor and that, as in your hallucination, he was expected
to commit perjury to help Minton help Scientology bury Lisa McPherson
without a trace.
Judge Schaeffer, in her Solomonic wisdom, had forbidden the parties from
contacting Merrett prior to his testimony. He was bewildered by Minton's
change of heart. Your portrayal of him as some cold, calculating villain in
this just shows your diseased mind, or the diseased mind of whatever
scumbag fed this garbage to you.
Your insubstantial fantasies do not erase the testimony of dozens of
people who were there and who stated unequivocally that Minton's version
of events was a pack of lies.
henri
over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Money changes people.
>It brings out the worst in people.
The $100,000 or so you got from Minton sure bought a lot of lies out of you.
Alert
>
> No, it does not. McGowan can't sell, devise, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
> the property. It's just a boilerplate power of attorney form.
McGowan (or anyone who may or may not be directing him) can do what he
likes and claim it is on behalf of Minton. Its all there in the
ambiguos wording.
> Even a POA which states that it is irrevocable can generally be revoked at the
> election of the principal.
It says what it says, Henri.
Im not going to argue the point. The language and intent is emphatic.
> Virtually any POA in Florida has language like that. There's nothing
> special about the content of that document at all.
Again, it says what it says and it gives McGowan power over "all
things" related to Courage and The Profit.
henri
wrote:
>On Feb 19, 9:21 am, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> No, it does not. McGowan can't sell, devise, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
>> the property. It's just a boilerplate power of attorney form.
>McGowan (or anyone who may or may not be directing him) can do what he
>likes and claim it is on behalf of Minton. Its all there in the
>ambiguos wording.
>> Even a POA which states that it is irrevocable can generally be revoked at the
>> election of the principal.
>It says what it says, Henri.
>Im not going to argue the point. The language and intent is emphatic.
That's good, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about,
as usual.
Alert
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:23:34 -0800 (PST), Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com>
Spew all you like Henri, it wont change the POA or what it means in
legalese.
henri
over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 11:31 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:04:52 -0800 (PST), "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for
>> over 10 years!" <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >upside for him to pursue it. Faced with being driven to the edge, and
>> >having been betrayed by his own attorney in clearwater, he was trying
>> This is an abject lie. Ken Dandar was NOT Bob Minton's attorney.
>ou despicable piece of shit.
> idiot.. I was referring to Merritt but speaking of slimebags
It's Merrett, you fucking moron. You can't even keep track of the
people's names, much less facts.
Mirele
I find it highly ironic that Arnie Lerma, the guy who claims that he's
been exposing the CON of Scientology for the past decade, would
snuggle up close to a guy (Bob Minton) who is basically taking his
marching orders from that same Scientology that Arnie calls a CON.
Someone's being CONned here, but Arnie's too deluded to admit that
he's been taken for a very long ride by Bob and his mistress Stacy.
Never forget, people, that it was Bob Minton, along with his
girlfriend, who sold themselves out to $cientology. You'll also note
that Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks are gone from RFW, while even people
who are deceased, such as Margaret Singer, still remain.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Feisty
"Mirele" <mir...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7f47cb7-1013-4a00...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
---------
It is essential for a group like $cientology, who has ties to Stormfront to
keep the fervor and associations to hate right in front of everyone.
Same reason $cientology has Valkyrie in Germany. $cioentology uses flashing
those bright and colorful pictures flowing to stir its own feelings. They
use it to crush opponents in the U.S.
As it is a big investment and in its acquisition for control here, that
reflection must be projected onto the critics. This goes way up beyond the
pecking on individuals. But then $cientology only needs to keep on the same
stories, because the tech does not change.
Maureen
http://lermanet.com/scientology-and-occult/valkyrie-and-scientology.htm
Mirele
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlgjDWip0dE
A video from someone associated with Religious Freedom Watch--it's a
montage of all of us religious haters. *With* the notable exception of
Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks, while including Margaret Singer and Dave
Bird, both of whom are deceased.
Now, please, I want someone to tell me that Bob and Stacy didn't sell
out to Scientology.
Deana Holmes
Feisty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlgjDWip0dE
Deana Holmes
-----
It is unfair to choose people whose situation offers no explanation, if only
implication, and replace yourself as proud to be in that same position.
It only heightens propaganda as a source for legitimacy, if not similar
intentions of the propaganda. They believe it is true. Because it causes
people to hate others. And they need something to hate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arnaldo_Lerma#RFW_Page
Removed the ext link to the RFW website, (Religious Freedom Watch -
Anti-religious Extremist: Arnie Lerma) as it applies to no referenced text
in the article. The problem with the link being added originally is that the
information that was being referenced in added text was undated, therefore
unwarranted for addition.
One of the other problems with referencing the RFW website link is that the
text often referenced does not match the text on the page. The edits in this
article compared to the text on the RFW website were misleading. (Besides
undated information.) eg., after AI added the RFW weblink, the first
paragraph in the Arnie Lerma Wiki article was changed to say, "Lerma
organizes and participates in demonstrations against the Church of
Scientology." However, one of the first things that RFW link quotes is,
"Arnie Lerma at a hate march.." The addition of text from the page verbatim
would certainly be extreme in its own sense, and that brings the question of
having to even soften the information to put it on Wikipedia. A supportive
reference would back up what the article text says, not say something else
when you looked to the link for more information. The language on the RFW
page is extreme on the other hand, and if it cannot be quoted directly, or
if the source of the page is not actually named on the page itself, it has
no merit. The softening of the added language from the RFW page vs what is
actually quoted in the text of the article may almost seem intentional, as
if knowing that a certain level of extremism on the weblink already existed.
It has been assumed that RFW is a Scientology page, but without any
quotation that is directly related, along with its being the only source of
information that quotes this information - it would not appear to be a
substantial, credible reference to be used for an encyclopedia. 25 August
2005 User:Maureen D
Experienced Scientology critics are convinced that it is a Scientology
page - there are numerous factors contributing to this view: similarity of
language, lists only people seen as "enemies" by Scientology, site is
registered by "Scientology Parishioners Committee". I've seen at different
times some Scientologists mentioned who run it. Even if it is not finally
proved, the site qualifies definitely as Partisan website, probably as
extremist partisan website. Here two examples of comments by persons who
have been described there: http://www.xenu.net/news/20010726-ars.txt
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/cartoihr.html.
Wikipedia is clear on this subject: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan
websites - so it could be used as (first hand) source in Fair Game
(Scientology) ot Scientology controversy, but else only if corroborated by
independent sources. --Irmgard 20:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RTC vs. Lerma: Judge Brinkema
Maureen
Out_Of_The_Dark
You are correct, Alert. As it stands, McGowan is legally and
essentially the co-manager of Courage Productions LCC on Minton's
behalf as Minton 'might or could do if personally present". He has
been so since 2005.
tikk
You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. This is
boilerplate power of attorney language and comparatively speaking,
limited. For example, you seem to be hung up on the following phrase
from the agreement: "as I might or could do if personally present with
full power"--but run it through Google in quotes and you'll get 12,000+
returns, nearly all of them power of attorney forms. The language is not
clever or ambiguous--it's boilerplate, and attorneys (and hopefully
their clients) understand its meaning.
The most likely and benign reason it was signed was so that McGowan
could execute legal documents in the future without requiring Minton's
presence. A POA grants some degree of discretion to the agent/attorney
but not nearly as much as you imagine (what you're imagining is an
'assignment'). The discretion exercised by the agent/attorney must
always be in keeping with the principal's (Minton's) stated goals (which
are usually not made clear in a POA, as they aren't here). If his
attorney acted autonomously and against Minton's stated goals, Minton
could revoke the POA and the attorney could possibly find himself in
trouble with the state bar ethics committee.
The more interesting question that I've yet to see anyone of Minton's
defenders tackle is why Mike Rinder just happened to be handily
available to witness the signing of this document in August 2005, three
years after Minton was in court testifying against Dandar. If you take
Minton at his word in those hearings (and Lerma's word these days), he
struck no deal with Scientology. Yet how can that possibly square with
the fact that one of Scientology's top officials at the time was present
while Minton signed a POA dealing with the administration of a film
critical of Scientology which Scientology has fought (and continues to
fight) to keep from being shown? Do the math.
~ tikk
Alert
> You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
It says what it says, its not open to interpretation
" full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof".
What part of " do and perform all and every act and thing" dont you
fathom?
>This is
> boilerplate power of attorney language and comparatively speaking,
> limited.
Its not "limited" by way of it stating "do and perform all and every
act and thing"
> For example, you seem to be hung up on the following phrase
> from the agreement: "as I might or could do if personally present with
> full power"--but run it through Google in quotes and you'll get 12,000+
> returns, nearly all of them power of attorney forms. The language is not
> clever or ambiguous--it's boilerplate, and attorneys (and hopefully
> their clients) understand its meaning.
" do and perform all and every act and thing" is undeniably an
umbrella that covers "all and every thing"
> The most likely and benign reason it was signed was so that McGowan
> could execute legal documents in the future without requiring Minton's
> presence.
Youre 'supposing' here. You are trying to dictate contrary to the
wording and intent of the wording.
> A POA grants some degree of discretion to the agent/attorney
> but not nearly as much as you imagine (what you're imagining is an
> 'assignment').
What part of "Power of Attorney" dont you understand?
Minton has waived his voice in its totality for all "things" related
to courage and the profit and has gien it to someone else as if it was
HIM speaking/acting.
> The discretion exercised by the agent/attorney must
> always be in keeping with the principal's (Minton's) stated goals (which
> are usually not made clear in a POA, as they aren't here)
Mintons waived everything in the POA. The only thing "made clear" is
that the POA will now and forever *never* extend beyond courage and
the profit, no matter who fills McGowans shoes with relation to the
POA.
In fact, anyone can use the POA in the future that is the successor
of McGowan.
>. If his
> attorney acted autonomously and against Minton's stated goals, Minton
> could revoke the POA and the attorney could possibly find himself in
> trouble with the state bar ethics committee.
OH! So if Minton was shuddered into capitulating, then he's going to
do an about face, even if he capitulated through threats against him
or his loved ones, and retract the POA?
Gimme a break. Pattern of behaviour by the cult cannot be denied
> The more interesting question that I've yet to see anyone of Minton's
> defenders tackle is
So I have to be a defender of Minton because I can read and understand
that McGowan or anyone directing him can say/do *anything* in relation
to the surrendered POA and have it attributed as though it was Minton
himself?
> why Mike Rinder just happened to be handily
> available to witness the signing of this document in August 2005, three
> years after Minton was in court testifying against Dandar.
Yes, crazy coincidence that, *not*.
I guess when Rinder comes out, then the conjecture on your part may
well end as to why he was there for the witnessing of the POA.
What was Rinder the C.O of again?<sarcsm>
> If you take
> Minton at his word in those hearings (and Lerma's word these days), he
> struck no deal with Scientology. Yet how can that possibly square with
> the fact that one of Scientology's top officials at the time was present
> while Minton signed a POA dealing with the administration of a film
> critical of Scientology which Scientology has fought (and continues to
> fight) to keep from being shown? Do the math.
Of course he struck a deal. What was the cost if he didnt?
His freedom?
His life?
His loved ones physical health?
Why is it that when someone questions the whole Minton purile, that
they MUST be a defender of Minton or a minion of Lerma?
I owe no allegiance to Minton, Lerma, nor anyone else involved for
that matter.
You can Google whatever you like with regard to "boilerplate POA", it
doesnt change what this POA says/implies/means in actuality.
Come to think of it, only 12,000 results. Not very many when you
factor in the millions that would be floating around. Let alone that
the Google results didnt return 12,000 seperate POA's
I get 1,340,000 returns for "full power to do and perform all and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done".
It still doesnt change anything when you factor in Minton, the movie,
the cult, LMT and the cults pattern of behaviour.
" full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
PRODUCTIONS LLC"
It's very simple, really.
But don't let it stop you from calling me names because I dont bow
down to *anyone* and I have an understanding of "full power to do and
perform all and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be
done".
Henri Ladd
Thanks for the information Scott Pilutik. If you don't mind I like to
ask you a question. How did a New York person like you end up being Ken
Dandar's legal assistant in Clearwater, Florida and the opinion leader
in the Buttersquash IRC channel?
Was it before that, or after that, that you decided to concentrate on
intellectual property law?
Thanks,
Tom K.
tikk
> On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, tikk <tr...@tikk.net> wrote:
>
>> You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
>
> It says what it says, its not open to interpretation
Yes, and it's and I'm telling you how it's interpreted by lawyers.
You're interpreting it incorrectly.
> " full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
> and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
> PRODUCTIONS LLC, as I might or could do if personally present, with
> full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying THOMAS H
> McGOWAN, ESQ said attorney or substitute shall do or cause to be done
> by virtue thereof".
>
> What part of " do and perform all and every act and thing" dont you
> fathom?
>
>
>> This is
>> boilerplate power of attorney language and comparatively speaking,
>> limited.
>
>
> Its not "limited" by way of it stating "do and perform all and every
> act and thing"
>
It's limited because it's revocable and an agent/lawyer's discretion
under a POA does not extend beyond the principal's stated goal. It's
also limited as to subject matter, covering only the "management of
COURAGE PRODUCTIONS LLC".
>
>> For example, you seem to be hung up on the following phrase
>> from the agreement: "as I might or could do if personally present with
>> full power"--but run it through Google in quotes and you'll get 12,000+
>> returns, nearly all of them power of attorney forms. The language is not
>> clever or ambiguous--it's boilerplate, and attorneys (and hopefully
>> their clients) understand its meaning.
>
>
> " do and perform all and every act and thing" is undeniably an
> umbrella that covers "all and every thing"
>
>
>> The most likely and benign reason it was signed was so that McGowan
>> could execute legal documents in the future without requiring Minton's
>> presence.
>
> Youre 'supposing' here. You are trying to dictate contrary to the
> wording and intent of the wording.
I'm telling you how POAs such as this one are ordinarily used and that
there is no reason to think otherwise with regard to this POA.
>
>> A POA grants some degree of discretion to the agent/attorney
>> but not nearly as much as you imagine (what you're imagining is an
>> 'assignment').
>
> What part of "Power of Attorney" dont you understand?
> Minton has waived his voice in its totality for all "things" related
> to courage and the profit and has gien it to someone else as if it was
> HIM speaking/acting.
I understand how all the different types of power of attorney work. What
you don't understand is the client-attorney relationship. Minton's
"voice" never goes away because he has the power to revoke the POA at
any time, and further that, can complain to the state bar ethics
committee about McGowan should he exercise discretion contrary to
Minton's stated goals.
>
>> The discretion exercised by the agent/attorney must
>> always be in keeping with the principal's (Minton's) stated goals (which
>> are usually not made clear in a POA, as they aren't here)
>
> Mintons waived everything in the POA. The only thing "made clear" is
> that the POA will now and forever *never* extend beyond courage and
> the profit, no matter who fills McGowans shoes with relation to the
> POA.
> In fact, anyone can use the POA in the future that is the successor
> of McGowan.
And that person would be similarly bound to Minton's stated goals.
>> . If his
>> attorney acted autonomously and against Minton's stated goals, Minton
>> could revoke the POA and the attorney could possibly find himself in
>> trouble with the state bar ethics committee.
>
> OH! So if Minton was shuddered into capitulating, then he's going to
> do an about face, even if he capitulated through threats against him
> or his loved ones, and retract the POA?
That's not an event his lawyer would risk his license over.
Arnie Lerma and Mark Bunker say there was no deal. They and
others--indeed, it seems to be the majority opinion on ars--portray him
as a valiant whistleblower who had no choice to do what he did.
But Minton's behavior is not excusable merely because he risked so much.
Because he helped fund the Lisa McPherson civil suit did not give him
the right to try and destroy it and others on Scientology's behalf in
order to save himself from whatever he believed Scientology to have on
him. Minton did not exist in a vacuum; his actions had consequences. So
when people talk about the supposed Hobson's Choice Minton faced,
realize first that no one elected him--he boldly and idiotically put
himself in a position where he was doomed to fail because of his own
character flaws and closet-skeletons. And secondly, realize that his
choices adversely affected others--just because Minton had/has a lot of
money and spread it generously throughout criticdom doesn't make him
more important than the lawyer whose career he put at stake with his
perjury.
> Why is it that when someone questions the whole Minton purile, that
> they MUST be a defender of Minton or a minion of Lerma?
Apologies if I put you in that camp. I don't recall read anything else
you've written so I apologize if I've lumped you in.
> I owe no allegiance to Minton, Lerma, nor anyone else involved for
> that matter.
>
> You can Google whatever you like with regard to "boilerplate POA", it
> doesnt change what this POA says/implies/means in actuality.
>
> Come to think of it, only 12,000 results. Not very many when you
> factor in the millions that would be floating around. Let alone that
> the Google results didnt return 12,000 seperate POA's
>
> I get 1,340,000 returns for "full power to do and perform all and
> every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done".
> It still doesnt change anything when you factor in Minton, the movie,
> the cult, LMT and the cults pattern of behaviour.
>
> " full power to do and perform all and every act and thing requisite
> and necessary to be done with respect to the management of COURAGE
> PRODUCTIONS LLC"
>
> It's very simple, really.
>
> But don't let it stop you from calling me names because I dont bow
> down to *anyone* and I have an understanding of "full power to do and
> perform all and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be
> done".
I didn't call you names. But I will reiterate that don't know what
you're talking about with regard to what this POA actually means. You
can repeat the boilerplate language all day long but the language does
not mean what you think it means.
McGowan is Minton's lawyer and as such has no interest in Courage
Productions. He's bound by his ethical duty to his client/principal and
the court to carry out his client/principal's stated goals. If he were
to either take it upon himself to make decisions contrary to Minton's
stated goals, or took direction from another party that was contrary to
Minton's stated goals, he could find himself disbarred.
~ tikk
Dave Touretzky
Google video that my page links to. You can see their link in the
upper right hand corner of this page:
http://theprofit.org/index2.html
And for those just joining us, the link points here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7558691838112011438
One difference between Mark Bunker posting clips from an early, raw
version of the footage, and the posting of this more polished 8 minute
clip, is that Mark made his postings while the injunction was in
effect, and thereby risked subjecting Peter and Patricia to further
Scientology retaliation through the courts.
This Google video clip was posted after the injunction became moot.
So the only people who are going to be offended are Scientologists.
They will express their displeasure through their puppet, the
unfortunate Mr. Minton. And Mr. McGowan will rack up another
billable hour.
Now I don't think at this point Bob Minton actually cares whether The
Profit is released or not. But he is allowing Scientology to use him
as a straw man to block the release.
-- Dave
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
The CoS injunction may be moot but the court ordered injunction from
Minton v Alexander is not. There is still an injunction on the movie.
If Minton is Scientology, then someone ought to be pulling that clip
off just like Bunker was forced to do.
Henri Ladd
However David there's another explanation. Perhaps Bob Minton is so
angry about how your crew has behaved towards him--the Buttersquash
cabal, that he simply wants to get his digs in. You know, I don't blame
him for it. After all, doesn't he have the right to control the film
after contributing two and half-million dollars for it, and then
betrayed, as he now feels?
It really is a moot point now anyway. It's simply silly to think that
that movie is worth anything. It's laughable to think otherwise. I
guess that's what you get when roller coaster carneys tries to make some
sort of work of art.
Your friends should've stuck to the white knucklers.... unless of
course, they were actually trying to rip off Bob Minton for the money...?
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
that was bob's intent to be able to wash his hands of the whole affair
and get a life again..
Scientology's use of litigation - I mean, 25 hurs on the stand
testifying, maybe it was 50
endless depositions.. grilling...
He took the route of life...
and walked away, minimizing his losses... knowing he'd been had..
A recap...
The " irc cabal " same players in this thread includng greenway in the
background choreographing has engaged in the following acts
1)1st Target Gerry Armstrong
Discrediting Gerry Armstrong... Gerry's "Armstrong Follies" page was a
response to these attacks in delf defense.
They were intended to make gerry look unreliable and unworthy of being
used to give advice in litigation despite the
fact he has been in more litigation than anyone, besides Lawrence
Wolleshiem and perhaps more than Bob Minton.
He also held the documents that describe the tactics used in
litigation, including the key successful action later used to
destroy Bob Minton and the Lisa case.. that is Bring sufficient
pressure to bear to TRICK the enemy into thinking they had to lie.
2) 2nd Target David Cecere the first head of the LMT.. and every
subsequent head of th LMT, you PG wanted to run the LMT and felt she
was somehow entitled to do this because she deserved it for some reson
known only to her.
3) Target Bob and Stacy - Bob was under constant attack on this
newsgroup, every slightest misstep was turned into a broken arm.
And Stacy... vicious attacks... unspeakable hate pages were circulated
behind the scenes, even sent to me. This grew to massive intensity
after MS Greenway was ejected form the board of the LMT due to her
circulation of thes hate attacks behind the scenes.
4) Dandar becomes convinced that he must hide the money bob is paying
him? why? because scientology " Brought sufficient pressure to bear to
TRICK the enemy into thinking they had to lie." Danard told bob to lie
during depostion -a but the money. Why lie about the money? Nobody
ever figured that out, even the judge finally remarked, so what?.. but
Dandar and Bob fell for it. Why? They did not have the advice of gerry
Armstrong. See #1.
5) Bob lies and scientologys attorney bust him for it and bring
criminal charges of perjury. Moxon let the attack as prosecutor in
Judge Shaffers court. Bob had determined by this time he had been
screwed by PG - The Profit, Dandar AND Merritt.. he brings in Jonas
one of his expensive Boston attorneys.. At the end of the criminal
case Moxn rests his case, and Jonas wins on a technicality. Bob sees
GOD... and calls me.
6) He tells me he must recant, explains all prior data, and fears he
will mess up the lisa case.. he is in anguish over this. He explains
if he recants his testimony, he would not be able to be convicted of
criminal perjury, under florida law, I tell him ok, you got no choice,
you have to chart a course from where you are to where you want to
me.. I give him my blessing , as long as he tells Gods truth in his
recant, he will survive. So he does, adnd opened a channel to OSA's
Mike RInder, so he can go over with them all the possible perjuries
they have evidence of.. so he can do the recant... thats all..
7) The irc crew initiates a preemptive massive attack led my henri's
"BOB SOLD OUT' campaign, tigger adds her efforts at this time... to
tell the public and you guys what you are about to see (magic show
technique)..also suggestion, and projection techniques, and trick the
court into believing due to the uproar in the newsgroup that people
believe BOB SOLD OUT.. because Bob was tricked again by osa into
accepting a not-discuss these meetings clause.. so he was unable to
respond to these outrageous preemptive coordinated conspiracy to slime
him.. I couldn't say much cause I wanted to be able to act as his
priest, so he'd have someone to talk to and not go crazy... I did not
understand how this worked until i read Dr joost Meerloo's musings on
the tactics used in interrogations by his captors, the nazis..
Litigation can be effectively abused in such a way as to break down
the litigant.. completely is the goal... However even Joost Meerloo
states that the victim must be isolated from all his support.. all his
freinds... The preemptive attack turned the crowd against bob, it was
ugly. A small few stood by him, myself, Mark Bunker and small few
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/
I described what ws going on to my lawyer re dont talk about the
money for less than 5 minutes and David Masselli mllaw.com quipped "Oh
thats the oldest CONfidence game n the book, like the Spanish
Prisoner" and he explained it to me. And I wrote a sloppy parable to
explain it to thee. http://www.lermanet.com/reference/greedwaysgoldrush.htm
more here http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=268
Complexity is often used to hide evidence of fraud, it certainly is in
scientology..
Now if i stated this line above at the BEGINNING of this it would be
an example of Magician Pre-set, Suggestion and projection, got the
idea?
Alert
> Alert wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 3:06 pm, tikk <tr...@tikk.net> wrote:
>
> >> You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
>
> > It says what it says, its not open to interpretation
> Yes, and it's and I'm telling you how it's interpreted by lawyers.
> You're interpreting it incorrectly.
Gee, well I guess silks downunder dont know much then.
The wording is concise and exact.
No matter how it's "interpreted", the intent and wording is succinct
in meaning.
> It's limited because it's revocable and an agent/lawyer's discretion
> under a POA does not extend beyond the principal's stated goal.
It is only revocable by Minton himself. So if Minton signed the POA
under duress to begin with, there wont be any revocation, no matter
what.
The fact that Minton laid out that forever shall the POA only
encompass Courage says something.
> It's
> also limited as to subject matter, covering only the "management of
> COURAGE PRODUCTIONS LLC".
And "all things" attached to it therein
>
> I'm telling you how POAs such as this one are ordinarily used and that
> there is no reason to think otherwise with regard to this POA.
You would have to concede, that what surrounds the POA isnt ordinary.
Factor in the whose and the whats, it just isnt ordinary. Not by a
longshot.
> I understand how all the different types of power of attorney work. What
> you don't understand is the client-attorney relationship. Minton's
> "voice" never goes away because he has the power to revoke the POA at
> any time, and further that, can complain to the state bar ethics
> committee about McGowan should he exercise discretion contrary to
> Minton's stated goals.
And the revocation power lays within Mintons desire to maybe *not*
suffer from what had him possibly capitulate in the first instance.
Please dont tell me I dont understand lawyer ethics and the bar. I may
be across the pond, but there arent *that* many variations as to
responsabilities they are suppose to adhere to with clients or the
law.
> And that person would be similarly bound to Minton's stated goals.
Which are that McGowan shall operate "all things" on his behalf per
the POA.
Regardless of whether Minton signed the POA under duress or not.
Rinder being there to witness, injects doubt into it just being an
'ordinary' POA
>
> That's not an event his lawyer would risk his license over.
How can you even say that?
Really.
Lawyers have many MANY times risked disbarment for less.
Even the highest 'wigs' and 'beaks' have done the most scurrilous
things for money or for threat of blackmail.
Money can do wonderous things.
So can intimidation when it comes from something like Cof$
> Arnie Lerma and Mark Bunker say there was no deal. They and
> others--indeed, it seems to be the majority opinion on ars--portray him
> as a valiant whistleblower who had no choice to do what he did.
Thats Arnie's and Mark's argument, not mine.
Im focussing on this one document that has an 'apparency' because it
'appears' and 'seems' to be one thing, but in actuality, it says far
more than just a piddly POA.
>
> But Minton's behavior is not excusable merely because he risked so much.
> Because he helped fund the Lisa McPherson civil suit did not give him
> the right to try and destroy it and others on Scientology's behalf in
> order to save himself from whatever he believed Scientology to have on
> him. Minton did not exist in a vacuum; his actions had consequences. So
> when people talk about the supposed Hobson's Choice Minton faced,
> realize first that no one elected him--he boldly and idiotically put
> himself in a position where he was doomed to fail because of his own
> character flaws and closet-skeletons. And secondly, realize that his
> choices adversely affected others--just because Minton had/has a lot of
> money and spread it generously throughout criticdom doesn't make him
> more important than the lawyer whose career he put at stake with his
> perjury.
What would you have done in Mintons position?
What would you have done in Minton's lawyers position?
Its not an easy task to put ones self into, is it?
I make no apologies on behalf of Minton. He underestimated the cult,
and they kicked his head in on all levels.
But that's not to say he deserved what he got.
Litigation is a dirty DIRTY business. People have thrown those to the
wolves that they think will save themselves from being eaten.
> > Why is it that when someone questions the whole Minton purile, that
> > they MUST be a defender of Minton or a minion of Lerma?
>
> Apologies if I put you in that camp. I don't recall read anything else
> you've written so I apologize if I've lumped you in.
Im the one confused, I thought you were Henri
> I didn't call you names. But I will reiterate that don't know what
> you're talking about with regard to what this POA actually means. You
> can repeat the boilerplate language all day long but the language does
> not mean what you think it means.
Again, it is written in black and white. It's not open to
interpretation.
> McGowan is Minton's lawyer and as such has no interest in Courage
> Productions. He's bound by his ethical duty to his client/principal and
> the court to carry out his client/principal's stated goals.
Which is to act on Minton's behalf (whether or not it *is* on Minton's
behalf) with "all things" related to Courage.
> If he were
> to either take it upon himself to make decisions contrary to Minton's
> stated goals, or took direction from another party that was contrary to
> Minton's stated goals, he could find himself disbarred.
All *that* would be on the proviso that Minton would object in the
first place.
Let alone him complaining to the requisite association about his
lawyer
Without Minton himself, it will always just be speculative (as to
Minton and what he supposedly has McGowan doing on his behalf) on all
parts by all parties. You and I included.
The wording is clear in the POA, asis the final words about a
successor of McGowan in the future.
Not everying is always is it 'appears'.
Especially when Cof$ are involved
Ive sucked up enough on my limited posts in this one thread.
We will just remain in the revolving door syndrome on this issue.
Thanks for the civility.
>
> ~ tikk
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
If the facts and the law are on your side, you argue the facts
If the facts are not on your side, you argue the law
If neither are on your side, baffle them with bullshit..
The favorite tactic of CONfidence artists per Detective Dennis M.
Marlock
is to omit key data... while repeating nonsequiturs and lies as if
they mean something
Omit the criminal perjury case moxon almost won against bob the day
before he decided to recant
Omit when announcing the lisa case ending that bob was still being
sued. in the breach case
Omit the agreement Dandar signed with scientology at the start of the
case to not sue Miscavige
and the fact Bob was never informed by Dandar about it
These would be described as "inconvenient truths"
Here is an awesome collection of tips on avoiding being scammed by
Detective Dennis Marlock http://www.fraudtech.org
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=268
Henri Ladd
That was very unfortunate that they didn't use Gerry Armstrong. Not
only had Gerry Armstrong been through all of his litigation personally,
he also helped Michael Flynn with a myriad of cases he had. Gerry
Armstrong would have been the best for the job.
however Ken Dandar did have the help of "tikk", Scott Pilutik. He's the
one advising about the legal matters in the messages above on the same
thread. I wonder how he would've advised about being caught in a lie?
He too is a strong opinion later in the Buttersquash cabal. He's a
New Yorker through and through, however he finds his way to sleepy
Clearwater Florida to be a legal assistant for Ken Dandar.
I wonder now since Mr. Pilutik has gotten his law license about a year
ago, is used as the general counsel for the Buttersquash cabal?
Don't upset this legal eagle, for fear of being accosted by the infamous
"henri" Robert W. Clark, with his extremely profane words and name
calling. I believe one word from Esquire Pilutik, would bring Rob Clark
screaming in. In fact earlier, in this very thread, Rob Clark tried to
handle all this, to no avail. The Esquire had to them stepping in with
his unseemingly endless legal wisdom.
efish
wrote:
> Don't upset this legal eagle, for fear of being accosted by the infamous
> "henri" Robert W. Clark, with his extremely profane words and name
> calling. I believe one word from Esquire Pilutik, would bring Rob Clark
> screaming in. In fact earlier, in this very thread, Rob Clark tried to
> handle all this, to no avail. The Esquire had to them stepping in with
> his unseemingly endless legal wisdom.
man... you truly floor me with your ah, astute observations. that have
absolutely no relation to reality.
i believe both tikk and henri to be intelligent people. and as they are both
educated in law (i will also include ms. holmes), well able to interpret legal
records. i trust their version of events implicitly. *implicitly*.
so go ahead, you fucking idiot. stick me in with your fantasy cabal.
*your* mr. minton, that intrepid hero, only exists in your imagination (and i
will include mr. lerma's imagination).
as far as i could tell, mr. minton was a perfect example of a wealthy, vain and
arrogant person who believed himself to be inviolable. and who when threatened
of losing his money and thus his power, turned tail and betrayed everyone.
and you know what? i don't judge him for doing it. he was under unrelenting
pressure from a cult who deemed him their enemy and who knew how to fight dirty.
he really did get hurt. i actually feel somewhat sorry for him. (it's an old
story, a tragedy in a way, perhaps cerberus could educate us with an appropriate
shakespearean quote).
but then for some of you to glamourize and excuse his consequent (despicable and
cowardly) teeming up with the cult in trying to destroy lisa m.'s family's civil
case... well, that's disheartening. and blind.
and by the way, your rants about the fantastical influence of ms. greenaway on
the fictive cabal are just that, more fantasy. rational people are quite able to
think for themselves. personally, i don't give a flying fuck about the film the
profit. i think it's kinda silly. ironically, i think it serves the ah, cause
better as the myth it has become, then if it were able to be shown.
but really, my opinion of that does not matter as far as telling the truth of
the events that transpired in court. indisputable truth... one only needs to
peruse the court records.
that when under serious threat, mr. minton teemed up with the cult of
scientology and proceeded to attempt to destroy everyone of his former allies
and friends.
and no matter how you try to excuse his behaviour, that is exactly what he did.
regards
-ef
Henri Ladd
Your post reminds me of a time when I was living in the East Village of
New York City. I was 19 years old and didn't have a lot of money to
live on. I would go to the deli and buy a can of hash. I would put it
in hotplate in my small one room apartment. When the steam would rise
from the hash, the cockroaches living inside the walls would come out of
their holes and go nuts climbing the walls.
Your defense of the pompous Buttersquash opinion leader, reminds me of
those cockroaches.
Don't respond to me, foulmouthed young lady. Take on Arnie's points one
by one. And be complete.
Mark Bunker
"Mirele" <mir...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7f47cb7-1013-4a00...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
efish
wrote:
well, *that* was witty!
what a pompous ass you are, mr. klemesrud
oh, lest you think "ass" too vulgar, it also means "donkey"... thus, in the
interest of your delicate sensibilities, allow me to rephrase:
what a pompous donkey you are, mr. klemesrud
regards
-ef
Mark Bunker
"Dave Touretzky" <d...@ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:47ba...@news2.lightlink.com...
> The official web site for "The Profit" includes a link to the same
> Google video that my page links to. You can see their link in the
> upper right hand corner of this page:
>
> http://theprofit.org/index2.html
>
> And for those just joining us, the link points here:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7558691838112011438
>
> One difference between Mark Bunker posting clips from an early, raw
> version of the footage, and the posting of this more polished 8 minute
> clip, is that Mark made his postings while the injunction was in
> effect, and thereby risked subjecting Peter and Patricia to further
> Scientology retaliation through the courts.
Are you sure you got your timeline right there? I don't remember the
injunction being in place when Bob asked for the clips to go on the web.
> This Google video clip was posted after the injunction became moot.
> So the only people who are going to be offended are Scientologists.
> They will express their displeasure through their puppet, the
> unfortunate Mr. Minton. And Mr. McGowan will rack up another
> billable hour.
>
> Now I don't think at this point Bob Minton actually cares whether The
> Profit is released or not. But he is allowing Scientology to use him
> as a straw man to block the release.
I have seen no one attempt to have the clip removed. Bob, Scientology or
Patricia and Peter. The block to the release is really the film itself.
Has anyone stepped forward over the years to say they want to distribute the
film?
henri
>"Dave Touretzky" <d...@ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
>news:47ba...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> The official web site for "The Profit" includes a link to the same
>> Google video that my page links to. You can see their link in the
>> upper right hand corner of this page:
>> http://theprofit.org/index2.html
>> And for those just joining us, the link points here:
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7558691838112011438
>> One difference between Mark Bunker posting clips from an early, raw
>> version of the footage, and the posting of this more polished 8 minute
>> clip, is that Mark made his postings while the injunction was in
>> effect, and thereby risked subjecting Peter and Patricia to further
>> Scientology retaliation through the courts.
>Are you sure you got your timeline right there? I don't remember the
>injunction being in place when Bob asked for the clips to go on the web.
Your grasp of chronology and fact is as razor sharp as ever, which is to
say I wouldn't want to try to cut hot butter with it.
As you could see by actually going to Dave Touretzky's site, which he so
kindly linked, not that reading is your big thing, the injunction was issued
in April of 2002.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/TheProfit/injunction.pdf
You might remember that date because you were sued in May of 2002,
the month afterward. You'd think that would have focused your memory.
Even though it was dismissed for not having been brought by both
members of the LLC, it was moot as you, knowing you were in the
wrong, immediately took down the clips, but only after being sued,
after playing cutesy little games up until then.
By the way, are you ADMITTING that Bob asked
for the clips to go on the web? That's pretty fascinating, seeing as it
would have been a willful violation of the injunction, and since Minton
was Scientology's bitch by that point, the only possible reason he'd have
for doing that would be to get Peter Alexander sued.
Were you part of Scientology's plan to do that, or is your memory
just a Swiss cheese-like melange of stupidity and falseshood, as
usual?
>> This Google video clip was posted after the injunction became moot.
>> So the only people who are going to be offended are Scientologists.
>> They will express their displeasure through their puppet, the
>> unfortunate Mr. Minton. And Mr. McGowan will rack up another
>> billable hour.
>> Now I don't think at this point Bob Minton actually cares whether The
>> Profit is released or not. But he is allowing Scientology to use him
>> as a straw man to block the release.
>I have seen no one attempt to have the clip removed. Bob, Scientology or
>Patricia and Peter. The block to the release is really the film itself.
Quit lying, Bunker. Why do you think Minton sent a threat letter because
he merely thought the film MIGHT be released, including a POA witnessed
by Mike Rinder? What's YOUR interpretation of why Mike Rinder signed
that?
http://www.theprofit.org/feb2207.htm
What do you think "Bob's" lawyer might have meant by:
"You are hereby placed on notice that it is Mr. Minton's position that "The
Profit" not be distributed, shown, or otherwise exhibited to the public."
Do you see any particular ambiguity in this?
>Has anyone stepped forward over the years to say they want to distribute the
>film?
Seems pretty unlikely anyone would want to get involved with Scientology's
pawn threatening to sue the LLC if they do.
barb
Well, way to go, you fucking drunken asshole. You just showed you aren't
to be trusted by outing Tikk. You are as despicable as any OSA piece of
shit that walks on legs like man. Perhaps moreso, because apparently you
were once a critic of Scientology and people trusted you.
Now, you can crawl out of your bottle long enough to sing your own
virtues as some sort of warrior against the cult or whatever it is you
see yourself as, but I'm looking at a big, puckered disc of ringmeat.
Believe it, I will NEVER want anything to do with you, not that I ever
did on channel in the first place. You're an embarrassment, a fuckup, a
luzer of the first order.
You never did have the common sense god gave seafood. A critic would
have to be a complete, gormless moron to invite a stranger over he met
in a bar.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
I can haz Legion?
Out_Of_The_Dark
Barb, Outing Scott Pilutik???!! Where ever do you get your
misinformation? Scott has always been known as Tikk here and on the
internet. His web site is called http://tikk.net/ . He's listed on
xenu-directory as a critic often fund on the IRC chat , that he is aka
'tikk'
Scott Pilutik Post under the nick 'tikk' on alt.religion.scientology.
Often found on the IRC Undernet channel # ... Scott Pilutik is a law
student at Brooklyn Law School. ... www.xenu-directory.net/critics/pilutik1.html
Youb are a mean bitch. When people post crap about you drinking, I
cringe and disregard it as an attempt to degrade you. meanwhile, here
you go doing the same crap to another person for your misguided idea
that Scott is anonymous when he isn't and has not been for years.
Your post here about Tom is a rant you should be ashamed of. Delete it
while you have the chance.
Mary
Feisty
<xscilen...@yahoo.com
"Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6a798ceb-ec29-4776...@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Out_Of_The_Dark
> Alert wrote:
> >http://www.theprofit.org/PROFIT-McGowen%20letter%20to%20stop%20releas...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please, don't try to confuse the readers. This document gives McGowen
full authority & rights to co-manage Courage productions, LCC AS
Minton would or COULD, in his stead.
Scott, you are a lawyer. Did you advise for or against the posting of
the 8 min clip? Without the co-manager agreeing? Against the
injunction Minton obtained freezing all the assets of Courage
Productions, LCC ? Surely you know about that injunction, even though
some keep denying it exists. It's on record. I've posted about it and
Patty P read it and agreed that that is what it appears to be.
R. Hill
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:31 am, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Barb, Outing Scott Pilutik???!! Where ever do you get your
> misinformation? Scott has always been known as Tikk here and on the
> xenu-directory as a critic often fund on the IRC chat , that he is aka
> 'tikk'
> Scott Pilutik Post under the nick 'tikk' on alt.religion.scientology.
> Often found on the IRC Undernet channel # ... Scott Pilutik is a law
> student at Brooklyn Law School. ...www.xenu-directory.net/critics/pilutik1.html
>
And I will take the opportunity to add my humble opinion, the sites he
worked on, alone or in coop, are *models* on how to thoroughly
research a topic, *and* how to present information in a clear and well
structured manner.
Ray.
<snip>
Feisty
"R. Hill" <rh...@xenu-directory.net> wrote in message
news:33363b80-8355-4ee1...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Ray,
Your website on Narconon eg., has been accurate based on the ambiguity
ambiguities, as $cientologys terms in reporting anything fluently lack
reporting structure. Most intentionally.
Like the Narconon max number of students I found was found to estimate some
figures for reporting periods.
Would anyone have acccess to different figures, as re the Slatkin website?
I'm not making any accusations, but in circles where information is unknown,
much like the wonderful information you've supplied, can any reporting be
exact based on not knowing the structure?
And can other documentation found be held against the estimates?
I assume there is no inside line to know what any of their structures are,
or for any reason not disclosed to the public.
Don't know that it came out right, but much character assassination ensues
and the compartmentalization of critics and documents eludes often to
withholding info.
If someone knew the actual equation, they would surely use it, or we
wouldn't be having this conversation?
Maureen
>
> Ray.
>
> <snip>
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
This man who held scientology's attention for 7 years as their #1
enemy, snatched from scientology huge win from right under
scientology's noses. They spent 1,740,000 to silence me, and I fought
back with every dime I could beg or borrow and went nearly 60,000 in
debt on credit cards, and Bob bailed me out.. Bless him. If he had not
of bailed me out, I wouldn't be here doing what I do, that irritates
you so. continuing to describe the truth as I see it..
You are arguing fallaciously. I dont care about tikk, he's one of
greenways minions like you,
What I say is merely what I see.
Bob knew he was caught in a lie by OSA in that case.. and he
recanted, and then
dandar with patricia's help did the only thing they could do, try to
allege bob was lying in his recant.
You say he was, I say he was not.
I'd let it lay like that, because adults can disagree, only children
kick sand
Unfortunately for you, the judge did not agree, and the cult did not
agree, and I did not agree
as bob was never convicted of criminal perjury. He can still work as
an investment banker. he was very good at that.
What pray tell are you good at?
blather deleted
henri, when I last stopped by to visit you guys, and engaged Ms
greenway, on that hate channel of yours, telling her I believed the
profit was a scam, and that they may have pocketed 2 million of bobs
money... I quote this gal's opinion, who said to bob after seeing it
at Cannes ( as did many at Cannes) that she could have made that film
for a few hundred grand... and Ms Greenway then called HER a liar..
you got that irc log handy.
I'd prefer being in her gracious company, the #1 ex-member against
scientology in Italy, to back biting, tubby, keyboard weasels, any
day
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zenit.org%2Farticle-13488%3Fl%3Ditalian&langpair=it%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Tht article just came out, Amazing how motivates some of us are to try
and do something about scientology. Its too bad some have to waste so
much time with the likes of you.
> > more herehttp://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=268
>
> > Complexity is often used to hide evidence of fraud, it certainly is in
> > scientology..
> > Now if i stated this line above at the BEGINNING of this it would be
> > an example of Magician Pre-set, Suggestion and projection, got the
> > idea?
Arnie Lerma
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
http://www.Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK
for our friends and family
to get them out of scientology
before they end up here:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
barb
> On Feb 19, 10:31 am, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Barb, Outing Scott Pilutik???!! Where ever do you get your
> misinformation? Scott has always been known as Tikk here and on the
> internet. His web site is called http://tikk.net/ . He's listed on
> xenu-directory as a critic often fund on the IRC chat , that he is aka
> 'tikk'
> Scott Pilutik Post under the nick 'tikk' on alt.religion.scientology.
> Often found on the IRC Undernet channel # ... Scott Pilutik is a law
> student at Brooklyn Law School. ... www.xenu-directory.net/critics/pilutik1.html
>
do you have to be to totally miss the point that Tom K pulled a
completely OSA-style outing of tikk on this newsgroup?
> Youb are a mean bitch. When people post crap about you drinking, I
> cringe and disregard it as an attempt to degrade you. meanwhile, here
> you go doing the same crap to another person for your misguided idea
> that Scott is anonymous when he isn't and has not been for years.
> Your post here about Tom is a rant you should be ashamed of. Delete it
> while you have the chance.
You always seem to bumble in to play the fool in issues that don't
concern you. You know nothing about the bullshit I've had to put up with
on channel with Tom K's drunken pursuits and rambling attempts to sing a
duet of how very cool we are to stand up to Scientology. You don't know
how many times I've had to leave channel to avoid him. You know NOTHING.
Get it? So fuck off and mind your own business.
I have been *accused* by Scientologists of being an alcoholic, simply
because of a couple DUIs more than a decade ago and a decade apart.
Tom, on the other hand, is constantly fucked up and hasn't got the sense
to turn off his computer while in that condition.
Delete the post? Fuck you, go delete yourself, you intrusive busybody.
Srsly, GTFO.
>
> Mary
Henri Ladd
>
> Your grasp of chronology and fact is as razor sharp as ever, which is to
> say I wouldn't want to try to cut hot butter with it.
>
> As you could see by actually going to Dave Touretzky's site, which he so
> kindly linked, not that reading is your big thing, the injunction was issued
> in April of 2002.
[...]
I see the lawyerly way didn't accomplish much Rob Clark. But let me ask
a question, is this you and Scott Pilutik, Esq., playing the "good
cop-bad cop"?
Henri Ladd
You know Barb you are being very unfair here. You won't find one DUI on
my record, and if I was constantly f'ed up, how could I even drive to
the store for food?
I have to admit one thing, I do occasionally tie on, I start using
profane words, and use some ad hominem attacks.
Barb, are you drunk now?
Judging by this criteria, it seems Reverend Erlich and Rob Clark are
drunk all the time.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> Out_Of_The_Dark wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 10:31 am, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Barb, Outing Scott Pilutik???!! Where ever do you get your
> > misinformation? Scott has always been known as Tikk here and on the
When was the lst time you has a conversation with Tom to even know he
was drinking? Probably NEVER. What a hypocrite you are. Obviously my
opinion of you was much too high and I have lowered it accordingly.
Forgive me for being ignorant of your true nature.
Patty Pieniadz
Mary sez:
"When was the lst time you has a conversation with Tom to even know he
was drinking? Probably NEVER. What a hypocrite you are. Obviously my
opinion of you was much too high and I have lowered it accordingly.
Forgive me for being ignorant of your true nature."
End of what Mary sez
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patty sez:
You're in for it now Barbz!!!!!! and if you don't behave and perform
to Mary's standards, then you will be investigated and exposed!
So there!
Patty
barb
Dearie, if he wasn't drunk, he is just naturally incomprehensible and
can't spell worth a fuck. Again, GTFO. You're glib. You don't know what
you're talking about. He seems capable of stringing words together on
occasion. One might suspect that those occasions might be termed
'sobriety.' As John Sweeney so eloquently put it, "YOU WEREN'T THERE!
YOU WERE NOT THERE!"
So, STFU. If you are even capable of it. Has there ever been any crevice
you've managed to avoid sticking your snout into? Let me guess,
Neighborhood Watch Captain?
LOL...
R. Hill
<snip>
> Your website on Narconon eg., has been accurate based on the ambiguity
> ambiguities, as $cientologys terms in reporting anything fluently lack
> reporting structure. Most intentionally.
>
> Like the Narconon max number of students I found was found to estimate some
> figures for reporting periods.
>
> Would anyone have acccess to different figures, as re the Slatkin website?
> I'm not making any accusations, but in circles where information is unknown,
> much like the wonderful information you've supplied, can any reporting be
> exact based on not knowing the structure?
>
> And can other documentation found be held against the estimates?
> I assume there is no inside line to know what any of their structures are,
> or for any reason not disclosed to the public.
>
> Don't know that it came out right, but much character assassination ensues
> and the compartmentalization of critics and documents eludes often to
> withholding info.
>
> If someone knew the actual equation, they would surely use it, or we
> wouldn't be having this conversation?
>
> Maureen
I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I think you are asking me
if I take the statements about the number of students from the 990
filings of the Narconon centers as reflecting the reality, my answer
depends of which Narconon centers we are talking about. Narconon
Arrowhead: Might be. Narconon Southern California: Made up. Narconon
Stone Hawk: Made up. But at this point, I am less trying to find the
real figures (because ultimately, only the Narconon centers know for
sure), and more focusing on documenting proven contradictions,
outright false statements, etc. within the 990 filings. It's their
statements in there, it can be held against them. I don't know if it's
going to be of any use, but I would hope so.
As for character assassination, as a lurker, I have observed it from
different directions here, it's not a one way thing.
Ray.
Henri Ladd
> Out_Of_The_Dark wrote:
>>
>> When was the lst time you has a conversation with Tom to even know he
>> was drinking? Probably NEVER. What a hypocrite you are. Obviously my
>> opinion of you was much too high and I have lowered it accordingly.
>> Forgive me for being ignorant of your true nature.
>
>
> Dearie, if he wasn't drunk, he is just naturally incomprehensible and
> can't spell worth a fuck. Again, GTFO. You're glib. You don't know what
> you're talking about. He seems capable of stringing words together on
> occasion. One might suspect that those occasions might be termed
> 'sobriety.' As John Sweeney so eloquently put it, "YOU WEREN'T THERE!
> YOU WERE NOT THERE!"
>
> So, STFU. If you are even capable of it. Has there ever been any crevice
> you've managed to avoid sticking your snout into? Let me guess,
> Neighborhood Watch Captain?
>
> LOL...
Mary, don't let your feelings be hurt by her now. She is probably
drunk: she's cursing and putting people down.
By the way, I think that Barb thinks that you are Maureen. I believe
she was a neighborhood watch Captain.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:95562073-7fac-4e25...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 1:21 pm, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Out_Of_The_Dark wrote:
> > > On Feb 19, 10:31 am, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > Barb, Outing Scott Pilutik???!! Where ever do you get your
> > > misinformation? Scott has always been known as Tikk here and on the
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's what you say but you know nothing about me, Patty P, or should
I say, Patricia Greenway?
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> Release the whole film. Let the world see it.
It seems to have more value as a 'mystery sandwich'. Which is
understandable, since it's the last nugget left in the happy meal of the
Minton Wars. The Lisa Case is settled. Bob's gone (but obviously not
forgotten.) The only fulminating coal left to warm the cockles of the
old warriors' hearts is a movie that's still 'unrealeased', except as
they see fit. Bit by bit by increasingly irrelevant bit.
But wait! The news is that it's *Bob* preventing the release! Surely
there's some evidence?
That Bob! whadda witzbold. (insert clip of Jerry Seinfeld hissing
'Newman!')
Zinj
--
Scientology may be the first 'religion' best comprehended by forensic
accountants.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> Out_Of_The_Dark wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 1:21 pm, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Out_Of_The_Dark wrote:
> >>> On Feb 19, 10:31 am, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>> Barb, Outing Scott Pilutik???!! Where ever do you get your
> >>> misinformation? Scott has always been known as Tikk here and on the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like I told you before, I dont know where you get your false
information about me but your trashmouth is as bad as PattyP and
Patricia Greenway's so perhaps thaat explains it. You have me confused
with someone else. And you can't shut me up, so don't waste your time
keyboarding the demand.
Gregg Hagglund
wrote:
>Did Patricia write this post for you, Deanna?
Hmm.
It was sad to see the disintegration of BoB Mintons intentions and
early successes into a debacle of a retreat, much out of his control.
It was even more disturbing to see that wave of disintegration carry
over on to IRC and ARS. SO many emotional responses to the heartfelt
disappointment of Mintons defeat and humiliation.
I stopped reading ARS and trying to chat on IRC with other critics
because of the schism the Minton Episode caused. He never hurt me
directly. I respected his early efforts and pity the wreckage of his
life and friendships.
I am certain the schism then and now gives comfort to OSA.
But ARS is now just one focal point of criticism and action.
The amount of entheta on the net now is, well, Legion.
They took down the hate page about me, but I made no deal.
What I did do was file a complaint of Criminal Harassment naming
several Toronto OT Committee cult members and the corporations
directors as responsible. The precedent of the Ontario Court of
Appeals previous rulings on the C0$ ripped apart DSA Al Buttnors oft
voiced excuse "We don't control what our members do." A police
investigation of my complaint , I was informed by Detective Stephen
Bone of 52 Division (now retired), resulted in Criminal Charges being
prepared and the cult warned they could get slapped with them.
In my complaint was cited, as harassment, the defaming hatred website
the C0$ controls.
I believe the take down of the page attacking me was motivated by
caution on the part of the C0$ after legal advice. (The success of the
previous prosecution in Ontario and the recent, at that time, Bonnie
Woods Suit taught them a lesson I guess.)
However I would not put in past them to resurrect that garbage out of
sheer stupidity.
GH SP7
>
>Deana Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net
>
>
Patty Pieniadz
That's true, I don't know anything about you Mary, because you are
anonymous
and you slime people that stand up under their own names,
Now let me ask you oh anonymous one. Is that you Mary, or is that
Arnie Lerma.
Patty
barb
around in that Japanese car instead of teh cool Boxter, eh?
(no wonder I've never seen you and her together in the same room...)
henri
[Wetbrain snipped]
>Well, way to go, you fucking drunken asshole. You just showed you aren't
>to be trusted by outing Tikk. You are as despicable as any OSA piece of
>shit that walks on legs like man. Perhaps moreso, because apparently you
>were once a critic of Scientology and people trusted you.
If he actually thought he was outing Tikk, he was despicable in doing so.
Perhaps in his degenerate state, which appears similar to Korsakoff's
psychosis, he did in fact think that.
However, there's no real "outing" here. Tikk's actual name is well known
and really no secret. It's just rude and stupid, but not out of line for a
creepy stalker who steals the nicks of people he claims to hate, for what
brain-charred reason, nobody knows.
Henri Ladd
Henri Ladd
I appreciate you sticking up for me like this Henri. In fact Scott
Pilutik is all over the Internet, mainly for his outstanding website
designs. Not so much for his legal work, but he only got his doctorate
of jurisprudence degree lately.
If Barb were just to do a little google searching she would have found
his name all over the place, and associated with the nickname Tikk.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=scott+pilutik&qt_s=Search
For the last month or two I've been constantly outed by the Buttersquash
folks... the Reverend Dennis Erlich going so far as to even identify a
nickname I had 15 years ago. You know the one--it's the one that Miss
BloodyButt asked me about before she smeared blood all over my apartment
in retaliation for Erlich's Internet behavior using my BBS, in 1995. He
was going make hay with this nickname recently. It wasn't enough for me
to be attacked by Miss BloodyButt, he also had to get me sued as well,
three weeks later.
But I'm glad it worked out for Dennis. Rumor has it he financially
gained $2.5 million in a secret settlement with the Church of
Scientology, by way of putting me through all that pain.
Now, he constantly outs me calls me names, swears at me, and says I have
a physical illness; referring to me as a "lemming." That's a little
furry rat--not unlike the baby rats his daughter had for pets, that he
allegedly flushed down the toilet. I can't help to think that what
Dennis is trying to tell me in his subconscious,sadistic mind, is that
he wants to flush me down the toilet too, along with my friends on this
very newsgroup. I just get the feeling if the opinion leaders in the
Buttersquash IRC channel where to ask Dennis to knock it off, Dennis
would obey courteously. I believe so would you Rob.
One good turn deserves another wouldn't you agree?
Of course I wish Scott Pilutik all the success he can muster in his new
legal career; the people that he socially networks with won't hold him
back.
Just look at Elliot Abelson--he's managed to make a good living as a
lawyer working for somewhat seamier business endeavors, and there's a
lot of those in New York City.
Rob, or Dennis, tell me more about the degenerative illness that I have?
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> In article <cW9uj.355$ZY5....@fe08.usenetserver.com>, markbun...@cox.net
No evidence at all Zinj,
IF
what I believe is true and if what Maria Pia Gardini
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zenit.org%2Farticle-13488%3Fl%3Ditalian&langpair=it%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(the #1 ex-member critic of scientology in Italy who has been in the
movie and film business her whole life and was described as a LIAR by
Patricia Greenway, despite multiple witnesses knowing that in Leipzig
Maria characterized it far far worst than I do, the way only Italians
do) believes is true and that the Profit could have been produced for
under 100K.. and 100K is a generous opinion.
THEN
Patricia would be blowing a royal head gasket right now that even the
'best' 8 minutes of this charade had been webbed, because people might
start to wonder.... where did the other 2.4 million go? It is
admitted that 500K went to what is now her company for "overhead"
She received 500,000 in cash from Lawyer J, M. Pesente for the film
in Cannes. Later on, on her way to Leipzig she walked into a bank in
Switzerland and gave her name and showed her identification and was
handed a fat envelope containing 2,000,000 in cash.
So 2.5 million went to the profit, there is no contesting the how much
she recieived, There is much opinion about how much was spent on the
movie.
AND
What a great plan, we take 2.5 million we make a cheap thing.. and
then we say the man is OSA and use THAT excuse saying we cant show him
(The Producer and 50% owner) financial records of his own film because
he is working for OSA, to coverup the the fact of how much we really
made..on the profit.. .. If I had ripped off bob for 2.4 million and
ruined his life to hide my crime, I would would be mighty concerned
that the key evidence of that crime, even 8 minutes of it, would ever
see the light of day. Lucky only 8 minutes can been seen, so far.
AND
Readers should always get a 2nd opinion, go to scientology's own hate
pages religiousfreedomwatch.org and go to Patricia's page, what does
HER page on RFW really say about her....hmm she works behind the
scenes... hmmm she is overweight.. IT DOESNT SAY MUCH AT ALL...90% of
her page is her ranting about me and my friends, those who are kicking
the hell out of scientology. Odd isn't it, Go look.. if you look at
what's right in front of you it might make you think that she wrote
the content for the whole damn site... much of the content of the
other pages are HER quotes about the person being targeted.
SO..
Where did the 2.4 million go?
But then everyone had opinions, you can read Patricia Greenways
opinions on religiousfreedomwatch.org about many very fine and
honorable people. The fact that MOST insults me, about my page on RFW,
is that it is on a site with the likes of Patricia Greenway and Rob
Clark.
antimidas
e54f07...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 18, 1:26 pm, "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!"
> <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I believe life itself contains enough unavoidable hurt and pain, ever
>> watched a child being squeezed out during birth, or watched your own
>> pet die - There is no room left on this planet for uncaring sociopaths
>> that would intentionally inflict pain upon another human being.
>>
>> Life itself is tough enough.
>>
>> (c) Arnie Lerma
>> got a question, call 703-241-1498
>
> I'm your fan now, Arnie! SRSLY :)
>
And that in a nutshell folks is why Arnie is my personal hero. :)
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> Alexia Death <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote in news:f2fcec0a-0430-4fa1-92fb-
> e54f07079...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Feb 18, 1:26 pm, "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!"
> > <ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> I believe life itself contains enough unavoidable hurt and pain, ever
> >> watched a child being squeezed out during birth, or watched your own
> >> pet die - There is no room left on this planet for uncaring sociopaths
> >> that would intentionally inflict pain upon another human being.
>
> >> Life itself is tough enough.
>
> >> (c) Arnie Lerma
> >> got a question, call 703-241-1498
>
> > I'm your fan now, Arnie! SRSLY :)
>
> And that in a nutshell folks is why Arnie is my personal hero. :)
thanks, I try to do the best I can, if each us involved in this
effort just did the best we could, scientology and so many other evils
in this world would be lessened..and I also escaped the MSWin cult,
I'm typing on Kubuntu flavor of Ubuntu version of Debian Linux with
Wine for complete freedom from Gates.
LERMANET.COM Exposing the CON of Scientology since 1996
Arnie Lerma
703-241-1498
realpch
I think all three of you are drunk!
: D
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com