The Profit Court Documents
Mark Bunker
Profit.
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/the-profit-court-documents/
Lermanet.com
thanks for the webwork, this looks to be VERY interesting reading..
regards
Arnie
Lermanet.com
Highlights
"Four judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit --believed Minton has a
right to review his own company's records"
"Almost no primary documents were produced"
Omissions include A) Most of general ledge for the year 2000.
B) Invoices from vendors C) Cancelled checks D) Bank Statements for
each year Courage had been in business. D) Checkbook ledger E)
Underlying documents used to allow Peter Alexander reimbursement of
money. G) Invoices justifying the payment of 500,000 to TFC.. and
separate corpration owned by Alexander H) Invoices and receipts for
trips Alexander and perhaps Patricia took to Cannes France at company
expense. I) Tax returns of any kind J)W2, W9, 1099, 941, FUTA
K) Florida State Unemployment and Tangible Tax Forms L) Doc s showing
cmplainace with Stae and local occupational license requirments M)
Insurance policies N0 Telephone bills O) Rental agreements P) Spread
sheets and Account work product
-------------------
holy cat poo batman
This really needs to be read in full...
http://xenutv.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/profit-motion-books-121702.pdf
Thanks again Mr Bunker
let the screeching begin
cultxpt
What happened after 2002? Did Bob ever get to see the books? Was there
anything more discovered in them?
Lermanet.com
Not that I know of...and FWIW, I too, agree with Mr Bunker's Opinions
stated below
----------------------------
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/the-profit-court-documents
"These documents, I hope, might fill in some gaps. I couldn't afford
to copy everything but I wanted to get the actual transcripts and the
couple of filings which I found most interesting.
Professor Dave Touretzky has a nice site about the film which is
slanted toward Peter and Patricia's side of the fiasco which is fair
because he is their friend. I am Bob Minton's friend so it stands to
reason that my sympathies lie with Bob. I have enormous respect for
Dave. Less so for Peter and Patricia.
I've written about the movie before. Basically, Bob gave Peter and
Patricia $2.5 million to make a movie about L. Ron Hubbard and
Scientology, and gave them complete artistic control and no
interference in the making of the film. They made a crappy film and
threw away friendships in the process.
If they had simply made a crappy film, that would have been
understandable. Many films with good intentions turn out crappy. But
at the same time the film was being so hackily produced, Patricia was
becoming a thorn in Bob's side. So much so that by the time the film
was being shown at Cannes, Bob refused to go along because, "Patricia
had taken all the fun out of the movie."
I was there as Bob was led to the brink of suicide by both Scientology
and people such as Patricia who benefited from Bob's generosity but
added to his mounting pressure. Eventually, Bob had had enough and set
out to settle with Scientology.
The film got caught in the middle. Not surprising, because by this
time it was clear the film was a disaster and would not make back any
of Bob's money. In these documents, he is attempting to get an
accounting of the the $2.5 million he spent on the project.
Profit Court Transcript 11/21/02
In this first transcript, Peter Alexander's attorney, Luke Lirot,
argues that turning over the film's financial records to Bob will ruin
his "trade secrets."
Profit Court Transcript 11/21/02
In this next transcript, Judge Penick hears about the battle over the
books. He has been dealing with all of us in other Scientology matters
and is clearly fed up with it all. He orders the books be turned over.
Profit Books Filing - 12/17/02
After only a partial accounting of the books is offered, Bob's
attorney shares some interesting data from what few records they have
had a chance to see. He points to $500,000 being given by the
filmmaker's to Peter and Patricia's own company, The Totally Fun
Company (TFC), as overhead. That is a full 1/5 of the movie's budget,
siphoned off the top -- above their salaries as writer/director and
producer.
The sad thing is, for $500,000 they could have hired a top script
doctor to have rewritten the movie so it wouldn't suck. At that time,
you could have gotten Tarantino or William Goldman for that price.
They could have gotten a lesser name for the script and hired a top-
notch director, too. Hell, many great independent movies have been
produced for less than that.
Courage Lawsuit
The next document came from earlier in 2002. This is when Peter and
Patricia tried to sue me, Stacy and the guy at our ISP because Bob put
up five short clips of the movie on the LMT website. Bob's attorney
discovered the Courage contract said one party couldn't sue without
the other's permission so this suit against me was dropped.
At the time, Bob still had the LMT going as an active website. I
didn't think it was out of line for the film's Executive Producer,
full partner in the movie and the man who paid for the whole damn
thing to put up a few brief clips showing the LMT members' cameos but
Peter and Patricia went ballistic.
I've always felt it was because it gave the world a chance to see just
how horrible the movie was. It remains in limbo now. Bob gave up on it
years ago. It's unlikely to ever get an official re-release but I
still think it should be seen. Just so it doesn't build up a
reputation as a "great movie" you are never allowed to see."
Quaoar
Well done, as usual, Mark. Reading these docs explains why a certain
cabal spent so much time distracting readers of ARS and OCMB with their
chorus of "Minton is bad!" They were practicing for the time when these
documents, describing the criminal machinations of Patricia, et al,
might have come into play before Minton was overwhelmed by the jackals
in both the kult and Patricia's cabal.
Patie P., et al, are on record stating that Patricia "is the most
valuable Scientology critic of all time". When pressed on what Patricia
has actually accomplished, the answer from her cabal is "you have no
need to know..."
It is likely, in my opinion, that she was instrumental in pointing out
Minton's Achilles Heel to the kult in order to distract from her and
Peter's incompetence in producing The Profit and from their using
Minton's investment in the Profit as their private bank.
Q
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
Thanks for reminding me.. most valuable critic in the world?
ludicrous... at best, I'd estimate she would make an effective stage
hypnotist. Statements like that are proof hypnosis works.
http://www.Lermanet.com/exit/hypnosis-index.htm
Oh and check out the list of names on this page...
http://www.mancow.com/
It will move to archive pages in a couple hours...
cultxpt
The argument by Lirot is so stupid. We can't show our 50% partner who
put up almost 100% of the money the books to his own project because a
3rd party might benefit. Huh? Any way you look at it, that's a
stupid position to try to defend.
henri
>> http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/the-profit-court-documents/
Nobody ever made such an argument. The argument Lirot actually made
won and held up on appeal.
If it's such a stupid position Minton's attorneys must be incredibly incompetent
to have lost to it repeatedly.
cultxpt
the judge thought it was a stupid argument. Say... do you have those
documents where Lirot won? Can you post those? I'd like to see how
this came out.
Quaoar
Yes, Henri, post those document, if you dare. You will have to vet your
posting with You-Know-Who.
Q
Quaoar
So you are Patricia G's stooge of the day?
Q
Mark Bunker
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:25:56 -0800 (PST), cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 12, 4:30 am, "Mark Bunker" <markbun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>Profit.
> >>http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/the-profit-court-documents/
> >The argument by Lirot is so stupid. We can't show our 50% partner who
> >put up almost 100% of the money the books to his own project because a
> >3rd party might benefit. Huh? Any way you look at it, that's a
> >stupid position to try to defend.
>
> Nobody ever made such an argument. The argument Lirot actually made
> won and held up on appeal.
>
> If it's such a stupid position Minton's attorneys must be incredibly incompetent
> to have lost to it repeatedly.
It's hard to believe Peter and Patricia won when their actions
derailed the partnership at the expense of the film.
Patty Pieniadz
>
> Patie P., et al, are on record stating that Patricia "is the most
> valuable Scientology critic of all time". When pressed on what
> Patricia has actually accomplished, the answer from her cabal is "you
> have no need to know..."
I put your quote of "is the most valuable Scientology critic of
all time" into google and couldn't find anything. If you are
going to quote me, try quoting what I actually said, and
stop making up lies.
It's this type of deceit that makes you an asshole. Lying
and making up stuff with no evidence except your "knowingness"
On top of that you are an anon coward who accuses me and
others who are KNOWN of being double agents. I think you
should talk to your doctor and have him/her adjust your meds.
Patty Pieniadz
Double Agent
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
I'm not anon
and the thought has occurred to me - as an explanation of your
conduct,
but I found another explanation
When we spoke on the telephone once you seemed fine,
like ex scientologist with the normal problems of a body that was
aging and the pain of the reality that hubbard's hypnosis was not
going to make you immortal...I know... that does hurt.
It was Patricia's ability to change peoples minds with her lies and
repetitions
and appeals to emotion that caused me to start researching hypnosis.
Patti, I consider you to have just left one trance inducing cult,
and unwittingly entered another one shortly after we talked...
Regards
Out_Of_The_Dark
First off I really appreciate your getting those documents! They
really support what I have been contenting all along. Thanks for
posting the links :)
Re: Henri. He is partly correct in that Alexander did appeal one issue
and won but it was only one issue of the matter. The rest of the case
remains open based upon any past orders and issues that were not
appealed, along with the stipulations of the District court appeal
order.
There is a permanent injunction which Minton has on the assets and
records, meaning they are frozen. Assets include the movie.
The appeal part where Alexander asked and won RIGHT to use arbitration
according to the contract .
Alexander has had years to force Minton into Arbitration and has not
done so because I suspect it's either too costly or dragging Minton
back into court to resolve the issue would not be consistent with what
Alexander won on appeal and why. Going to court might give the court
jurisdiction again and it could enforce the contempt order or it could
nullify the appeal court order to produce the records. It could just
be a financial issue because it would require more litigation. I am
not a lawyer but this is what I suspect is the case. Alexander has had
the ball in his court since willing that appeal and it has been up to
him to finance and force arbitration since winning that appeal
All other mandates or issues that were not appealed will stand and
that includes the injunction to freeze all assets and records,
including The Profit movie.I suspect that, in lieu of not getting the
access to all the records so he could see where all the money went,
this injunction suits Minton just fine.
Here is a link to my previous post about all this.
Whatever happened to "The Profit"
'MANDATE REVERSING & REMANDING OR12878PG0554-006' comes from
Alexander's Appeal for compelling arbitration instead of the courts
regarding the records issue. You can see the complete Appeal ruling
after the case information on the Injunction case below.
> ALEXANDER PETER <==MINTON ROBERT COURT 0208684CI 12/2/2002
> 12383 1950 2002449878
> ALEXANDER PETER ==> MINTON ROBERT COURT 0208684CI 7/7/2003
> 12878 554 2003277542
> The first is Minton's Injunction, described below, and the separate
> order which was reversed on Appeals.
> The second case is Alexander's Appeal decision, copied & pasted out
> following the injunction record info.
http://tinyurl.com/3bxfxg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/66e729f618d012b4
Mary McConnell
Out_Of_The_Dark
Arnie, her reply was to Quaoar 's post. I don't think she meant you as
an anon.
cultxpt
>
> Mary McConnell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So Peter is actually the one keeping The Profit from being shown by
not artibtrating the dispute with Bob? Also, didn't Bob turn over all
his concerns regarding The Profit to some Tampa attorney? Then it
would actually be that attorney to decide whether to push Peter to get
the film to the public.
At least it's sounding to me like, despite their whining that it's
Scientology's fault, Peter and Patricia could open up negotiations
with Bob's attorney and get the movie out there, if they wanted.
jay random user
<7dac223d-d6c0-482f...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com> on
Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:28:33 -0800 (PST), "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
>> others who are KNOWN of being double agents. I think you
>> should talk to your doctor and have him/her adjust your meds.
>>
>> Patty Pieniadz
>> Double Agent
>
>I'm not anon and the thought has occurred to me - as an
>explanation of your conduct, but I found another explanation
Dumbass,
She was responding to "Quaoar", not you.
Jay Random User
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> > Mary McConnell- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So Peter is actually the one keeping The Profit from being shown by
> not artibtrating the dispute with Bob? Also, didn't Bob turn over all
> his concerns regarding The Profit to some Tampa attorney? Then it
> would actually be that attorney to decide whether to push Peter to get
> the film to the public.
> At least it's sounding to me like, despite their whining that it's
> Scientology's fault, Peter and Patricia could open up negotiations
> with Bob's attorney and get the movie out there, if they wanted. < < <
Yes, essentally that is correct. Minton gave the Power Of Attorney to
the attorney and wiped his hands of it because the case was stalled.
It's up to Minton. Still, he'd need a lawyer if Alexander pursued the
case but the POA could be cancelled at any time and another attorney
gotten to represent his interest in getting the books completely open
if Alexander brought the case to court again for enforcement of
arbitration.
The problem is, at the same time it would either open them up to
financial difficulties in financing the lawsuit to enforce the
arbitration and if the court decides that the enforcement suit gives
the courts jurisdiction, the court cpould possibly force Alexander
( and Greenway) to be willing to allow the court to settle the matter,
which includes showing ALL the records exactly as they are, without
redactions or omissions per the court order.
I don't think they are willing to do that, as they have not been
willing all along to do that.
Scientology is not in the way on this matter and probably never was.
Minton v Alexander is a matter of financial accountibility.
One for accountibility and the other against.
Mary
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
> In message
> <7dac223d-d6c0-482f-8ce0-c2ae8d8c1...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com> on
I already stated that. Did you not read that or are you trying to pour
salt in a wound? It was an honest mistake. Should I call you "Dumbass"
for being redundant? I think not.
Patty Pieniadz
> On Dec 13, 6:52 am, "Patty Pieniadz" <ppieni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Quaoar wrote:
>>
>> > Patie P., et al, are on record stating that Patricia "is the most
>> > valuable Scientology critic of all time". When pressed on what
>> > Patricia has actually accomplished, the answer from her cabal is
>> > "you have no need to know..."
>>
>> I put your quote of "is the most valuable Scientology critic of
>> all time" into google and couldn't find anything. If you are
>> going to quote me, try quoting what I actually said, and
>> stop making up lies.
>>
>> It's this type of deceit that makes you an asshole. Lying
>> and making up stuff with no evidence except your "knowingness"
>>
>> On top of that you are an anon coward who accuses me and
>> others who are KNOWN of being double agents. I think you
>> should talk to your doctor and have him/her adjust your meds.
>>
>> Patty Pieniadz
>> Double Agent
>
> I'm not anon
> and the thought has occurred to me - as an explanation of your
> conduct,
> but I found another explanation
>
Explains my conduct? Exactly what conduct is that? Is
that the conduct that doesn't sufficiently bow down to your
greatness and acknowledge you as some kind of Leader
of your "Warriors". Is that the conduct of someone who
refuses to be one of the sheep and afraid to speak out
and disagree?
> When we spoke on the telephone once you seemed fine,
> like ex scientologist with the normal problems of a body that was
> aging and the pain of the reality that hubbard's hypnosis was not
> going to make you immortal...I know... that does hurt.
>
> It was Patricia's ability to change peoples minds with her lies and
> repetitions
> and appeals to emotion that caused me to start researching hypnosis.
You are completely full of shit. You can't figure out why
someone like me, thinks poorly of you and doesn't join your
little ban of soldiers. I have failed to step in line with the rest
of your followers and I don't behave the way you want, therefore I
am either a double agent or someone that has been "brainwashed
by the gypsy queen". That has to be the explanation for my "conduct".
It never occurred to you that I don't like you because of YOUR conduct
and has nothing to do with what others think about or say about you.
You are so self centered that it never occurred to you that I think
poorly of YOU, all on my own. You just can't have that. Instead,
I must be brainwashed by Patricia.
Funny, that Hubbard and the cult thinks the same thing. They think
I have been brainwashed or pdh'd by an evil psych or evil critic.
It never occurs to the cult that I disagree with them because of their
actions-- oh no- the only way the cult can explain my conduct is
that I must be connected to an SP who makes me think this way.
Don't fucking lecture me about cult like behavior until you
take a good hard look at yourself.
I don't like you Arnie because I find you to be a manipulative
wanna-be cult guru, who wants everyone following your master
plan, and for those of us who don't want to be part of your
little group of "warriors" you slime us with innuendos of must
be hypnotized by gypsy queens or must be a double agent.
After all, who would disagree and speak out against the great
Arni Lerma. Obviously they have o/w's, they're a plant or
they've been hypnotized.
Patty Pieniadz
henri
If you're talking about the case about seeing the records, Minton has always
been able to see the records. He just can't haul them out in crates and turn
them over to Rinder. For some reason, he isn't interested in seeing the
records under any other conditions.
The precedent-setting case about this particular kind of partnership
arbitration agreement has been posted here repeatedly and is publicly
available.
Even though I've repeatedly posted it, I will again.
Minton may still be trying to get the records turned over to Scientology.
I don't know or care. The argument certainly isn't "a third party might
benefit." I don't know what orifice you pulled that out of. The argument
is that Minton intends activities inimical to the partnership. He does.
Just as he intended activities inimical to real victims of Scientology like
the family of Lisa McPherson, who he betrayed and shafted and left high
and dry, forced into a settlement they haven't received a penny of,
Scientology allowed to get away with murdering their relative thanks to
Minton. You expect us to believe that the reason Minton's unfettered
access to the files is completely innocent and could only "benefit a
third party" incidentally. In actuality, as you probably know, as Lirot's
actual argument is and always has been, as noted by the appeals court YEARS
ago, that ". . .Minton's actions are inimical to the LLC's best interests and to
his duty and loyalty to the company required by section 608.4225, Florida
Statutes (2002), because he has now aligned himself with the adversary."
That is a fact. It remains a fact. Minton can't be trusted. You can't trust a
traitor. And while you may not care about the family of Lisa McPherson, or the
people who worked on The Profit, whose names Minton wants to turn over to
Scientology, and whose despicable actions Bunker cheerleads for, helping OSA
as he has for years, there are some of us who have some idea what's actually
going on here.
I wonder why Bunker suddenly brings all this up. Short on cash, is he?
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2013,%202003/2D02-5544.pdf
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALOF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
PETER ALEXANDER, )
Petitioner, )
v. ) Case No. 2D02-5544
ROBERT MINTON, ))
Respondent. )
__________________________________)
Opinion filed June 13, 2003.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Thomas
E. Penick, Jr., Judge.
Luke Lirot of Luke Charles Lirot, P.A.,Tampa, for Petitioner.
Thomas H. McGowan of Thomas H.
McGowan, P.A., St. Petersburg, and
Anthony S. Battaglia of Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for
Respondent.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Petitioner Peter Alexander seeks a writ of certiorari to compel arbitration with
Respondent Robert Minton based on a contract, the operating agreement under
which they formed a company to develop a feature-length motion picture.
Because the trial court's nonfinal order denies a claim of entitlement to
arbitration, we deem this a 1 Section 608.4101(2), Florida Statutes (2002), also
provides this right:
A limited liability company shall provide members and their agents and attorneys
access to its records at the limited liability company's principal office or
other reasonable locations specified in the operating agreement. . . . The right
of access provides the opportunity to inspect and copy records during ordinary
business hours. . . .
- 2 -
nonfinal appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), rather than a petition for certiorari. Finding merit in Mr.
Alexander's arguments, we reverse.
In February 2000, Mr. Alexander and Mr. Minton formed a company called Courage
Productions, LLC, to develop, produce, market, and distribute a motion picture
tentatively titled "The Profit." Based on his experience in the motion picture
industry, Mr. Alexander was generally to provide the "know-how" for the limited
liability company (the LLC) and Mr. Minton was to provide the financing,
although during the life of the company Mr. Alexander apparently invested
substantial sums of money in the project, too.
The motion picture was to be part of Mr. Minton's continuing efforts to
discredit the Church of Scientology. To the surprise of many, in April 2002, Mr.
Minton announced his intention to resolve all his differences with the Church.
Soon thereafter, invoking his rights under the operating agreement, he
petitioned for an injunction and other equitable relief against Mr. Alexander
and sought to restrain him from alienating, assigning, or hiding the assets of
the company, directly or indirectly, until an accounting could be conducted and
the assets of the LLC equitably divided. Section 8.2 of the agreement provides
that each party has the right, upon reasonable request, "for purposes reasonably
related to the interest of that [party]," to inspect and copy any of the
company's books and records, and any party may require a review and or audit.1
- 3 -
Concluding that Mr. Minton's new-found friendly attitude toward the Church
provided an ulterior motive for the litigation, Mr. Alexander feared the motion
picture would never see the light of day, or of a film projector, thereby
destroying his substantial personal investment of time, effort, and money in the
project. As soon as practicable after being served with suit, Mr. Alexander
moved to compel arbitration, but his motion was ultimately denied. Mr. Minton
advances a variety of arguments to support the circuit court's denial of
arbitration, none of which has merit.
When a court is presented with a motion to compel arbitration, three questions
must be answered: Is there in existence a valid, written agreement containing an
arbitration clause? Does an arbitrable issue exist? Has the right to arbitration
been waived? Pulte Home Corp. v. Smith, 823 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
The LLC's operating agreement is the contract between these parties and has a
broad and clearly stated arbitration clause, which affirmatively answers the
first question. Section 11.5 provides: "Any controversy or dispute arising out
of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be settled by
binding arbitration in Hillsborough County, Florida, conducted in accordance
with the rules existing at the date thereof of the AFMA [American Film Marketing
Association]." Neither party disputes that the contract to form and operate the
LLC was validly entered into and is currently in effect. As to whether there is
an arbitrable issue, the operating agreement gives each party to the agreement
the right to inspect the books and records of the company, but Mr. Alexander has
raised numerous defenses to Mr. Minton's unfettered access.
Primarily, Mr. Alexander claims that Mr. Minton's actions are inimical to the
LLC's best interests and to his duty and loyalty to the company required by
section 608.4225, Florida Statutes (2002), because he has now aligned himself
with the adversary. We
- 4 -
conclude that an arbitrable issue exists in the unfettered access to the LLC's
records and sole asset, the motion picture itself, and therefore is "related to"
the operating agreement. See § 682.02, Fla. Stat. (2002) (providing that
agreement or provision to arbitrate shall be valid, enforceable, and irrevocable
without regard to the justiciable character of the controversy).
Mr. Minton counters that his statutory right to such access in an LLC, provided
him by section 608.423, trumps the contract and, in effect, nullifies the
existence of the arbitrable issue. We cannot agree. Section 608.423 merely
states that no operating agreement of any LLC may "unreasonably restrict the
right to information or access to records" of the LLC. The operating agreement
at issue here does not unreasonably restrict such access.
Moreover, Florida favors arbitration to settle disputes outside the courtroom.
Healthcomp Evaluation Servs. Corp. v. O'Donnell, 817 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA
2002). To accede to Mr. Minton's argument would abrogate this public policy in
the context of LLCs, which are wholly creatures of statute.
Finally, we hold that Mr. Alexander's actions do not constitute a waiver of
arbitration. He moved to compel arbitration at his earliest opportunity, and his
other involvement in the proceedings has been defensive in nature, all the while
claiming entitlement to arbitration. See Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc.
v. Brennan's Glass Co., 824 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that because
the first substantive filing made by the appellants was a motion to stay
invoking the contractual arbitration clause, the trial court erred in finding
that the appellants waived their right to arbitration).
Accordingly, we reverse the nonfinal order and remand with directions to grant
Mr. Alexander's motion to compel arbitration and to stay all other pending
matters
- 5 -
in the circuit court until the arbitration process is complete.
VILLANTI, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
henri
>So Peter is actually the one keeping The Profit from being shown by
>not artibtrating the dispute with Bob?
ROTFL!
You really think that Minton wants the film shown? How fucking dumb are you
anyway?
Mark Bunker
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:57u2m3pqg35pkfv1p...@4ax.com...
You're re-titling of the thread shows clearly how you leap to conclusions
unsupported by any facts and smear me for the audacious act of posting court
documents Peter and Patricia didn't want seen.
I'm not interested in any names or turning over any names to Scientology. I
did not get these documents from Bob, speak with Bob or anyone else to get
these documents. I got these documents while in Clearwater at my expense
because I was interested in seeing them and posted them because I thought
others might be interested in seeing them, too.
I was aware of these allegations of a half million dollars going to overhead
and such since the time these things were being argued in court in 2002 but
had never seen the documents. I've always been interested and decided that
I would have to make some time on my trip to stop at the courthouse and see
what I could dig up.
Why? Just as my interest in Scientology comes from the odd confluence of
interests in cults, science fiction and show biz, my interest in the movie
comes from the strange mixture of Scientology, movies and having witnessed
the tortured production of this turkey from script to screen and watched the
slow disintegration of friendships in the process.
> I wonder why Bunker suddenly brings all this up. Short on cash, is he?
Your suggestion that I posted these documents for money is nothing but
slanted a accusation and lie worthy of Religious Freedom Watch. Did I just
call you a Scientologist or suggest that you or Patty P are under the
control of gypsies? Absolutely not. Yet, you assign spurious motives to me
to discredit me.
I'm interested in the movie. Bob never provided my with documents. Peter
and Patricia dribbled out a few. I wanted to see more and hunted them down
and paid for them myself. Because I was interested. Is this the complete
record? No. I welcome anyone else to complete the picture from all the
court appearances and filings.
That Peter and Patricia don't seem to feel they share any responsibility in
the debacle that is this movie constantly amazes me. I'm not surprised,
however, that you surface to attack me for posting documents they may not
want seen.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:25:42 -0800 (PST), cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >So Peter is actually the one keeping The Profit from being shown by
> >not artibtrating the dispute with Bob?
>
> ROTFL!
>
> You really think that Minton wants the film shown? How fucking dumb are you
> anyway? < <
How freaking dumb are you to presume he thinks that? Do you always
make presumptions like that? Try READING what he wrote. It's obvious
he's asking me to clarify my post. No one said Minton wants the film
shown and your comment shows not only your hostility, but that you are
still unable to read facts that differ from the propaganda you were
sold on the legal situation.
Read MY replies and go look at the records for yourself and you will
see the facts and understand what Jeff was asking me to clqarify.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
Re-reading one of the filings, this jumped out at me..
from http://xenutv.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/profit-motion-books-121702.pdf
"The Second argument for redaction is unsupported by any evidence.
Here, Alexander makes several leaps of logic. His argument goes that
Minton has set out to destroy the possibility that this film will see
the light of day because he is acting at the behest of the Church of
Scientlogy. After obtaining the records without redactions,
Alexander's counsel says, Minton will give them to "the
Scientologists", who in turn will take retalitory action against any
and all persons and firms who did business with Courage Productions.
Aside from the lack of evidence to support this conculsion, there
aspects to this argument that are so hideous that their sanction would
constitute a fundamental error in First Amendment Grounds (1)
(1) While there is no dispute that the judicial system of this country
is probobly the best on earth, there is a dark underbelly of bigotry
and prejudice which permeates it that is by no means of ancient
vintage. See Huggins v State of Florida, 176 So 339 (Flaq. "A" 1937)
(Conviction of an African American was allowed to stand
notwithstanding prosecutor's closinga rgument that "niggars" do not
pay the expense of government Sharp vs Bussey, 187 So 779 (Fla. 1939)
(Allegation that a white man was seen dancing with a woman of color
was declared defamatory as a matter of law);.......Harris v Sunset
Islands Property Owners Inc 116 So 2nd 622(Fla 1959) (Florida Supreme
Court had to reverse a trial court whcih, in defiance of a US SUpreme
Court decision, upheld a deed restriction keeping Jews out of Real
Estate Development. Sadly, this blemish is not removed from the court
system even today........ (More see link) Source: Anti-defamation
League Separation of Church and State: A first Amendment Primer.
-------------------------------END of excerpt of
http://xenutv.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/profit-motion-books-121702.pdf
The is the same disgusting, deceitful technique that was used in the
BOB SOLD OUT premptive flood of this newsgroup...back in 2002 - and
the reason those perpetrators cannot admit any possibility of their
doing evil is because the magnitude of the evil done, does not
permit contemplation of error - to have helped scientology try to
force a good man to suicide.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
title changed in error
cultxpt
cultxpt
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:19:19 -0800 (PST), cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 12, 8:11 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:25:56 -0800 (PST), cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 12, 4:30 am, "Mark Bunker" <markbun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On a recent trip to Clearwater, I dug up a few more court records on The
> >> >> Profit.
> >> >>http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/the-profit-court-documents/
> >> >The argument by Lirot is so stupid. We can't show our 50% partner who
> >> >put up almost 100% of the money the books to his own project because a
> >> >3rd party might benefit. Huh? Any way you look at it, that's a
> >> >stupid position to try to defend.
> >> Nobody ever made such an argument. The argument Lirot actually made
> >> won and held up on appeal.
> >> If it's such a stupid position Minton's attorneys must be incredibly incompetent
> >> to have lost to it repeatedly.
> >the judge thought it was a stupid argument. Say... do you have those
> >documents where Lirot won? Can you post those? I'd like to see how
> >this came out.
>
> If you're talking about the case about seeing the records, Minton has always
> been able to see the records. He just can't haul them out in crates and turn
> them over to Rinder. For some reason, he isn't interested in seeing the
> records under any other conditions.
It's HIS MONEY! Why can't he have copies of the records of where HIS
MONEY went?
>
> The precedent-setting case about this particular kind of partnership
> arbitration agreement has been posted here repeatedly and is publicly
> available.
>
> Even though I've repeatedly posted it, I will again.
thanks.
>
> Minton may still be trying to get the records turned over to Scientology.
> I don't know or care. The argument certainly isn't "a third party might
> benefit." I don't know what orifice you pulled that out of. The argument
> is that Minton intends activities inimical to the partnership. He does.
Like what? And how do you know?
>
> Just as he intended activities inimical to real victims of Scientology like
> the family of Lisa McPherson, who he betrayed and shafted and left high
> and dry, forced into a settlement they haven't received a penny of,
> Scientology allowed to get away with murdering their relative thanks to
> Minton. You expect us to believe that the reason Minton's unfettered
> access to the files is completely innocent and could only "benefit a
> third party" incidentally. In actuality, as you probably know, as Lirot's
> actual argument is and always has been, as noted by the appeals court YEARS
> ago, that ". . .Minton's actions are inimical to the LLC's best interests and to
> his duty and loyalty to the company required by section 608.4225, Florida
> Statutes (2002), because he has now aligned himself with the adversary."
Just how would a movie have an adversary? You mean Scientology? So
again, Lirot's argument is that Bob will turn over the records of what
happened to HIS MONEY over to Scientology? I wouldn't like that but
it's not my money!
>
> That is a fact. It remains a fact. Minton can't be trusted. You can't trust a
> traitor. And while you may not care about the family of Lisa McPherson, or the
> people who worked on The Profit, whose names Minton wants to turn over to
> Scientology, and whose despicable actions Bunker cheerleads for, helping OSA
> as he has for years, there are some of us who have some idea what's actually
> going on here.
You say you know what's actually going on, yet it was Bunker who
posted actual court documents. This flipped you out for some reason.
Why not just post the documents you have that show "what's actually
going on here" and leave the sniping to Scientology?
>
> I wonder why Bunker suddenly brings all this up. Short on cash, is he?
You are a creep. A slimey creep at that.
>
> http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2013,%202003/2D02-5544.pdf
Mark Bunker
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:25:42 -0800 (PST), cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >So Peter is actually the one keeping TheProfitfrom being shown by
> >not artibtrating the dispute with Bob?
>
> ROTFL!
>
> You really think that Minton wants the film shown? How fucking dumb are you
> anyway?
I think Bob stopped caring years ago and knows he won't see a penny
from the film no matter what happens.
Peter managed to keep the film from being distributed by making an
unmarketable mess of a movie and then pissing off his financial
backer. So, good going there.
jay random user
<177f453c-94d1-4b98...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com> on
Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:50:54 -0800 (PST), Out_Of_The_Dark
<xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I already stated that. Did you not read that or are you trying to pour
>salt in a wound? It was an honest mistake. Should I call you "Dumbass"
>for being redundant? I think not.
Try option #3, which you did not list:
Your post had not propagated to my news server.
You posted on Google Groups - which I do not use - one hour before I
posted using SuperNews, which is what my ISP provides for me.
Newsgroup post propagation across the entire Internet is far from
instantaneous, amigo.
I won't call you "dumbass" for not knowing that.
Jay Random User.
jay random user
13:37:41 -0500, "Patty Pieniadz" <ppie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years! wrote:
>> I'm not anon
>> and the thought has occurred to me - as an explanation of your
>> conduct,
>> but I found another explanation
>>
> don't like you Arnie because I find you to be a manipulative
>wanna-be cult guru, who wants everyone following your master
>plan, and for those of us who don't want to be part of your
>little group of "warriors" you slime us with innuendos of must
>be hypnotized by gypsy queens or must be a double agent.
>After all, who would disagree and speak out against the great
>Arni Lerma. Obviously they have o/w's, they're a plant or
>they've been hypnotized.
Patty,
You have very succinctly put to words exactly how *I* feel about
Mr. Arnaldo Lerma.
In my book, he's trying to run his own personal 'anti-cult' cult.
Not only that, he uses the exact same negative propaganda tactics
he loudly denouces Cof$/OSA for using, against anyone who disagrees
with him or refuses to salute whenever he posts his rambling
non-sequitar gibberish.
Jay Random User.
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
> In message
> <177f453c-94d1-4b98-9081-d3c656c05...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com> on
> Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:50:54 -0800 (PST), Out_Of_The_Dark
>
>
> >I already stated that. Did you not read that or are you trying to pour
> >salt in a wound? It was an honest mistake. Should I call you "Dumbass"
> >for being redundant? I think not.
>
> Try option #3, which you did not list:
>
> Your post had not propagated to my news server.
>
> You posted on Google Groups - which I do not use - one hour before I
> posted using SuperNews, which is what my ISP provides for me.
>
> Newsgroup post propagation across the entire Internet is far from
> instantaneous, amigo.
>
> I won't call you "dumbass" for not knowing that.
>
> Jay Random User. < <
No use in you trying to feign kindness now when you've already shown
yourself deficient. You completely missed the point of my comment.
Publicly calling someone a dumbass for a mistake is something I would
not expect to see from an adult, delayed post or otherwise.
Your comment reminds me of LaserClam when he's in that hostile posting
mode. You may want to rethink this kind of posting approach if you
want people to recognize that you're not a scientologist.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Patty,
I think Arnie, like some others here. would just like for you to think
for yourself on this Alexander, Minton and Greenway matter, because
you usually do think for yourself and you have not been wiulling to
take the blinders off and read the documents.
The logical step is to read these case documents and stop relying on
what others are telling you about them. The docs speak for themselves.
You ansd Arnie can argue and call each other names all day long but I
am not going that way bacause it's a waste of time.
All Mark did here was post more from the case files that I wrote about
in the Profit thread a little while back. What Arnie is saying, and I
agree, is that your loyalties are preventing you from seeing factual
proof. I offered for you to see what I had but you called me a coward
when I didn't fall for the "dare-you to call-Lirot" bit. All your
comment did was raise further the question of YOUR intentions, not
mine. My reasoning was ' Why should I call Lirot when it was you who
has the misunderstanding and it is I who has the proof he does not
want you to read? ' Now Mark has posted further proof and you decide
to divert the focus of this thread off of the facts and onto an
arguement. I don't agree with Arnie all the time and he certainly can
be deficient in tact sometimes ( happens to Aspies all the time) but
you have an opportunity here on this thread to show that you can be a
fair and intelligent person. I hope you reconsider and read the
documents from here and email me so I can send you the docs I
mentioned in the earlier thread. You can also get them from Dave T,
who was one of numerous people who emailed me asking for them.
Patty Pieniadz
"Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96434a01-ab28-4666...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
Go ahead, send me what you have. But I hope what you have
is the Judge's findings and not more of the cult spew.
Posting one side's court filings does not reflect the outcome
of the case, i.e. the order rendered by the court. Scientology
spinners do that all the time, they post their one-sided filings ,
but never post the Judge's finding--which, btw is all that matters.
A lawyer can and will make all the wild claims he wants, but it
doesn't make it true. It's what the JUDGE finds to be the facts,
not what the desperate cult attorneys allege in a filing.
Maybe, if you could stop spinning what you know nothing about,
you'd ask yourself the most obvious question: if Minton is acting
in good faith and on his own accord and not at the behest of the
cult, you'd notice WHO witnessed the Power of Attorney Minton
signed over to his puppet attorney, McGowen.
Since when does Mike RINDER have anything to do with the movie?
Stop wasting time on the spin when you ignore the obvious.
Patty
Mark Bunker
"Patty Pieniadz" <ppie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5spi49F...@mid.individual.net...
Are you saying that I posted "one side's court filings?" I was trying to
fill in the blanks left out when Peter and Patricia "posted one side's court
filings." I'd be happy if people would post all the filings. I also posted
both the court transcripts which were in the filings.
I don't dispute the judge's finding nor did I try to hide them. I was
filling in some blanks left open since 2002.
> A lawyer can and will make all the wild claims he wants, but it
> doesn't make it true. It's what the JUDGE finds to be the facts,
> not what the desperate cult attorneys allege in a filing.
A judge never ruled on the film's expenses, including $500,000 going into
the TFC for overhead or the film being written down to zero in the books. I
would think, however, that if an attorney alleges that, they would have to
be prepared to back it up.
> Maybe, if you could stop spinning what you know nothing about,
> you'd ask yourself the most obvious question: if Minton is acting
> in good faith and on his own accord and not at the behest of the
> cult, you'd notice WHO witnessed the Power of Attorney Minton
> signed over to his puppet attorney, McGowen.
>
> http://www.theprofit.org/PROFIT-McGowen%20letter%20to%20stop%20release/PROFIT-Minton%20to%20McGowan%20Power%20of%20Attny.JPG
>
> Since when does Mike RINDER have anything to do with the movie?
>
> Stop wasting time on the spin when you ignore the obvious.
But isn't it also obvious that Peter and Patricia were working against the
film's best interests in the way they treated Bob, both as a friend and as
partner and sole financier of the project?
Have you seen the film? What is your honest take on it?
barb
Are you accusing Arnie of being a victim of Assburgers syndrome? Could
you not call them "Aspies" like they're some kind of fucking pet we
fondly tolerate? Or some ski award in Colorado?
>>
>>
>
> Go ahead, send me what you have. But I hope what you have
> is the Judge's findings and not more of the cult spew.
>
> Posting one side's court filings does not reflect the outcome
> of the case, i.e. the order rendered by the court. Scientology
> spinners do that all the time, they post their one-sided filings ,
> but never post the Judge's finding--which, btw is all that matters.
>
> A lawyer can and will make all the wild claims he wants, but it
> doesn't make it true. It's what the JUDGE finds to be the facts,
> not what the desperate cult attorneys allege in a filing.
>
> Maybe, if you could stop spinning what you know nothing about,
> you'd ask yourself the most obvious question: if Minton is acting
> in good faith and on his own accord and not at the behest of the
> cult, you'd notice WHO witnessed the Power of Attorney Minton
> signed over to his puppet attorney, McGowen.
>
> http://www.theprofit.org/PROFIT-McGowen%20letter%20to%20stop%20release/PROFIT-Minton%20to%20McGowan%20Power%20of%20Attny.JPG
>
> Since when does Mike RINDER have anything to do with the movie?
>
> Stop wasting time on the spin when you ignore the obvious.
>
> Patty
>
>
>
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
buy my book!
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812
read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html
visit my store!
http://www.cafepress.com/birdville
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
see
It is helpful if the facts one chooses to ignore are not thrown into
ones face too often
To continue to do so will move the person ever so slighty toward
being deprogrammed and
again thinking for himself instead of for the person who invoked their
trance state...
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
wrote:
> In message <5sdcfhF18b2f...@mid.individual.net> on Thu, 13 Dec 2007
Courts have held that anonymous nicks can not be libeled or slandered
and have no recourse.
Thats the price of anonimity
With Bill Yaude's help, keep your eye on the prize, imagine getting
your 'book' onto the Ny best sellers list like Dianetics:
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/sandiego-books031590.htm
with Bill Yaude's help of course...
http://www.lermanet.com/osa/osawhoiswho.htm
also see
http://www.Lermanet.com/idacamburn/ops.htm
Warmest regards
Arnie Lerma
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK
for our freinds and family
to get them out of scientology
while they are still alive
PS: Sabrina Zimmer has left the Sea Org at Flag and left scientology
and told her story on Lermanet.com - she does not need anonymity and
wants to help right the wrongs of scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/sabrina-zimmer/
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> Patty Pieniadz wrote:
> > "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
bzee:
Albert Einstein had Aspergers Syndrome
I dont consider it an insult.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Albert Einstein
http://www.lermanet.com/communion/
Arnie
>
> --
> barb
> Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
>
> buy my book!http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812
>
> read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html
>
> visit my store!http://www.cafepress.com/birdville
repost from
Antidepressants would make scientologists live longer - New Scientist
Nov 30,2007
On page 20 is an article that I took the liberty of renaming
in order to entertain on the newsgroup
The article headline from the Nov 30th issue of UK's New Scientist:
Compared to the ages of dead scientologists on this page
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
we wont have to worry about Bill Yaude and david miscavige's little
cult of horrors much longer... but there is hope...
Perhaps the following article's scientific findings would even apply
to clams:
"HAPPY" Worms live longer on Antidepressants
IT Seems antidepressants don't just help humans. Round worms given a
particular antidepressant lived longer ---
See http://www.newscientist.com
Regards
Arnie Lerma
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK
for our friends and family
Patty Pieniadz
> "Patty Pieniadz" <ppie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5spi49F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> Go ahead, send me what you have. But I hope what you have
>> is the Judge's findings and not more of the cult spew.
>>
>> Posting one side's court filings does not reflect the outcome
>> of the case, i.e. the order rendered by the court. Scientology
>> spinners do that all the time, they post their one-sided filings ,
>> but never post the Judge's finding--which, btw is all that matters.
>
> Are you saying that I posted "one side's court filings?" I was
> trying to fill in the blanks left out when Peter and Patricia "posted
> one
> side's court filings." I'd be happy if people would post all the
> filings. I also
> posted both the court transcripts which were in the filings.
Mark, I think it's more than apparent what you're doing. You have
obsessed over this film for 7 years now---a film that hasn't been
released and that was produced by people who don't even post
here who you are more than antagonist towards. It seems to me
that you have made it your mission in life to trash both the film
and its producers. It's obvious to everyone but you that you
have a very obsessive need to continue this far beyond anybody
else's interest. Why is that?
>
> I don't dispute the judge's finding nor did I try to hide them. I was
> filling in some blanks left open since 2002.
>
>> A lawyer can and will make all the wild claims he wants, but it
>> doesn't make it true. It's what the JUDGE finds to be the facts,
>> not what the desperate cult attorneys allege in a filing.
>
> A judge never ruled on the film's expenses, including $500,000 going
> into the TFC for overhead or the film being written down to zero in
> the
> books. I would think, however, that if an attorney alleges that, they
> would
> have to be prepared to back it up.
It's been made abundantly clear over the years that Minton
was given a line item budget and schedule prior to producing
the movie, which he approved. Are you trying to claim that
Peter Alexander STOLE the money? If so, come out and
say it so his lawyers can deal with your allegations in a
more direct fashion, rather than these slimey innuendoes
which conveniently leave you free of legal accountability.
>
>> Maybe, if you could stop spinning what you know nothing about,
>> you'd ask yourself the most obvious question: if Minton is acting
>> in good faith and on his own accord and not at the behest of the
>> cult, you'd notice WHO witnessed the Power of Attorney Minton
>> signed over to his puppet attorney, McGowen.
>>
>> http://www.theprofit.org/PROFIT-McGowen%20letter%20to%20stop%20release/PROFIT-Minton%20to%20McGowan%20Power%20of%20Attny.JPG
>>
>> Since when does Mike RINDER have anything to do with the movie?
>>
>> Stop wasting time on the spin when you ignore the obvious.
>
> But isn't it also obvious that Peter and Patricia were working
> against the film's best interests in the way they treated Bob, both as
> a friend
> and as partner and sole financier of the project?
The only thing obvious here is your rabid obsession with this
film and its producers. You can spin this anyway you want, Mark,
but it was Minton who rolled into bed with Mike Rinder et al.
I truly appreciate all the work you do on Xenu TV, but sometimes
I get that you and a few others are being used as Tools of OSA
via your friend Bob, to float these items out to see what kind of
reaction you might get.
>
> Have you seen the film? What is your honest take on it?
No, I haven't seen the film. If and when I do get to see it,
I will give you my honest take on it. If the film sucks, I'll
say so, and if I like the film, I'll let you know.
One sure thing is that your friend, Bob Minton gave his honest
take on the film and gave it a RAVE review. This was before
OSA got their claws into him. Minton only had a problem with
the film AFTER he hooked up with Mike Rinder and the evil
cult. I wonder why?
See below.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Bob Minton <b...@minton.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:07:18 -0400
Local: Sun, Aug 26 2001 10:07 pm
Subject: REPOST: Why The Profit ROCKS!
Peter Alexander. That's the long and the short of it.
Peter is a professional and I had and have complete
confidence in him to put together a movie that
would portray the cult experience in a way that would
help others understand the evil and ruthlessness of cults.
No doubt that Peter borrowed from his own experience of
twenty years in Scientology but the thing about cults is that
they are all the same -- evil, ruthless and out to take your money.
I think The Profit tells this story in a way that people can connect
with. Sure, there are a lot of unbelievable things in The Profit
but I think you can ask any former cult member and they will
tell you that a lot of absurd and unbelievable things that happened
to them on their own roads to total freedom.
Eric Rath, who played L. Conrad Powers, is a great actor.
He portrayed his character as a charming conman with an
evil streak that won't quit. That's what makes a cult leader.
Peter captured Eric's insanity in a most mezmerizing way
throughout the film and I am pleased to say that in a minor
way I was the recipent of Power's insanity in a cameo role
as the VA Doctor. Who knows, I could get some award for
my level headed performance :-) But, an Oscar was not
my objective -- I was merely another character in the film
about an important subject in our country.
In 1860, Lincoln said the question was whether the nation
could be half slave or half free and in President Kennedy's
debate with Nixox in 1960, Kennedy wanted to know if the
world would be half free or half slave. The world has
moved in the direction of freedom since that time, not
slavery. However, there are groups like the Moonies,
the Children of God, the International Chuch of Christ and
Scientology who continue to seduce people into the most
coercive form of slavery. Peter Alexander is trying to warn
people about the slave trade in human minds that cults
engage in, not in the nineteenth century but today in
the twenty-first century. It is a timely topic that many
of our governments ignore, but for all of us who care
about freedom it is a matter to be concerned
about now.
The Profit is clearly not to everyone's liking and that's
one aspect of freedom -- to be able to think freely, to talk
freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter
or utter or write upon the opinions of others to quote
my favorite cult. But, The Profit is important. It is important
because it touches on a subject most ignore. It is important
because it is reality, no matter how unbelievable it may seem.
It is important because a lot of people have been abandoned
and sucked into the type of slavery that masquerades as
love but is in reality a hell on earth.
I like The Profit! I hope a lot of people get a chance to see it.
The people on ARS will all like it but there are not enough people
on ARS to make the movie a success. Let everybody know about it
when it comes to a theatre near you.
Peter told his dad he wanted to do this type of movie and
his dad told him to follow his dream. Peter did just that and
I am proud to be with him. I wish The Profit and Courage
Productions all the success in the world.
Bob Minton
Patty
cultxpt
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark just posted some court documents that he's always wanted to
see and finally was in Clearwater, so he took the time and got them. I
hardly call that obsessing. It took him 6 years to see them, so
that's a real slow-burning obsession if you ask me.
I'm not on Peter's side. I'm not on Bob's side. I just think that
for any person to put up millions of dollars toward a venture, he
should be able to see where his millions went. Peter decided that he
couldn't show Bob the records, either because he didn't want Bob to
see them or because he thought Bob would turn over the information to
Scientology. But to my mind, it doesn't matter if one of those is
true, both of them, or none of them. It's Bob's money. He's an equal
partner. He should be able to see the books.
That's what the new documents Mark posted are about. As far as I
know Bob has never seen the complete records of where his money went.
I don't think Peter has any good excuse, Scientology or otherwise, for
that.
Patty Pieniadz
>
>>
>> Have you seen the film? What is your honest take on it?
>
>
> http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=22567&start=30
> Subject description: Fear and loathing in FLA Reply with quote
>:
>
> Sponge wrote:
> No update on the specifc topic but Mark Bunker has been to Clearwater
> and dropped into the courts to have a look at some interesting old
> documents.....
>
>
>
> Report at Mark's "WogBlog", with some PDF files:-
> http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/the-profit-court-documents/
>
> Gumbythetruth wrote
> Greetings.
>
> I,m told by a very informed source ,that it will never see the light
> of day! reason has nothing to do with $cientology. Fact of the matter
> is, the film makers did not have the foggiest idea how to make a
> watchable movie. Bob Minton let 2 people run the show. The film is
> unwatchable.
>
> Bob trusted two individual with a lot of money to tell a good story.
> Sadly these two individual's took Bob's money and cranked out a real
> stinker. IMHO
> Just because someone make's a film does not mean it will be any good.
> Case in point TC last two!
>
> Peace, Gumby
>
Who's his informed source? You, Bunker or OSA?
Patty
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
Go Ask him, I felt no need interrogate him.
Repost:
Deprogramming Tips
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewforum.php?f=8
What scientology's corporate structure has to do with crime
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=436
Sociopathic conduct primer:
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=39
How to determine what is true and what is BS
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=448
Patty Pieniadz
> Mark just posted some court documents that he's always wanted to
> see and finally was in Clearwater, so he took the time and got them. I
> hardly call that obsessing. It took him 6 years to see them, so
> that's a real slow-burning obsession if you ask me.
> I'm not on Peter's side. I'm not on Bob's side. I just think that
> for any person to put up millions of dollars toward a venture, he
> should be able to see where his millions went. Peter decided that he
> couldn't show Bob the records, either because he didn't want Bob to
> see them or because he thought Bob would turn over the information to
> Scientology. But to my mind, it doesn't matter if one of those is
> true, both of them, or none of them. It's Bob's money. He's an equal
> partner. He should be able to see the books.
> That's what the new documents Mark posted are about. As far as I
> know Bob has never seen the complete records of where his money went.
> I don't think Peter has any good excuse, Scientology or otherwise, for
> that.
If your read the documents that Mark posted you will see that
Atty Lirot explained that they had no problem with Bob Minton looking at
the books. No problem at all. They just didn't want him making copies
of everything because they felt that Bob would turn this data over to
OSA.
All one has to do is look at both Peter Alexander's and Patricia
Greenway's
RFW pages to know that they are targets of OSA's wrath. OSA would love
all the info especially the names of anyone and everyone connected to
the
film so they can further investigate and harass Peter and Patricia.
That's
how things work with OSA. You should be familiar enough with OSA's
harassment tech to know that OSA wants Bob to get this data and turn it
over to THEM so they can continue on "finding comm lines" and
investigating Peter and Patricia until they knuckle under to OSA.
This is what OSA did to Minton. How do I know this? I was fucking
part of it!
They harassed him 24/7. Why do you think they steal critics trash?
They
are looking for "comm lines" they are looking to find out who you are
connected to so they can call those people as part of their noisy
investigation of you and looking for any little piece of dirt that they
can use against you.
Why in God's name would Peter and Patricia want to help OSA by
giving them details about their business and their contacts? Luke
Lirot explained all this, and of course the Judge is not going to "get
it" because most non critics don't get it and can't believe that
a creepy organization like Scn even exists.
This is what I don't get about you, Mark and Arnie and a few others
that are supposed to be so knowledgeable about Scn yet this
kind of OSA trap that is as plain as the nose on your face is just
completely unseen by you guys.
OSA wants Bob to get those records so they can use them against
people they want to silence, just like they silenced Bob and Stacy.
That is how the OSA tech works. Why don't you fucking guys get it?
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
>
> Mark just posted some court documents that he's always wanted to
> see and finally was in Clearwater, so he took the time and got them. I
> hardly call that obsessing. It took him 6 years to see them, so
> that's a real slow-burning obsession if you ask me.
> I'm not on Peter's side. I'm not on Bob's side. I just think that
> for any person to put up millions of dollars toward a venture, he
> should be able to see where his millions went. Peter decided that he
> couldn't show Bob the records, either because he didn't want Bob to
> see them or because he thought Bob would turn over the information to
> Scientology. But to my mind, it doesn't matter if one of those is
> true, both of them, or none of them. It's Bob's money. He's an equal
> partner. He should be able to see the books.
> That's what the new documents Mark posted are about. As far as I
> know Bob has never seen the complete records of where his money went.
> I don't think Peter has any good excuse, Scientology or otherwise, for
> that.
Very politely stated.
You are a hell of a gentleman Mr. Jacobsen
and the Cult Expert Moniker is deserved
Mark Bunker
> Mark Bunker wrote:
>> "Patty Pieniadz" <ppie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5spi49F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Go ahead, send me what you have. But I hope what you have
>>> is the Judge's findings and not more of the cult spew.
>>>
>>> Posting one side's court filings does not reflect the outcome
>>> of the case, i.e. the order rendered by the court. Scientology
>>> spinners do that all the time, they post their one-sided filings ,
>>> but never post the Judge's finding--which, btw is all that matters.
>>
>> Are you saying that I posted "one side's court filings?" I was
>> trying to fill in the blanks left out when Peter and Patricia "posted
>> one
>> side's court filings." I'd be happy if people would post all the
>> filings. I also
>> posted both the court transcripts which were in the filings.
>
> Mark, I think it's more than apparent what you're doing. You have
> obsessed over this film for 7 years now---a film that hasn't been
> released and that was produced by people who don't even post
> here who you are more than antagonist towards.
How dare I be interested in a movie about Scientology and post about it on a
newsgroup about Scientology. By your standards I shouldn't be posting here
at all because I've been "obsessed" with Scientology for almost ten years
now and speak out about the abuses of a group run by people who doesn't even
post here. Except of course for the followers of the group who post on
their behalf.
>It seems to me
> that you have made it your mission in life to trash both the film
> and its producers. It's obvious to everyone but you that you
> have a very obsessive need to continue this far beyond anybody
> else's interest. Why is that?
I'm sorry to hear that no one else is interested in the film. That does not
bode well for it's re-release if no one on a Scientology newsgroup wants to
hear about a film on Scientology.
As for why I am interested, I get asked that all the time about why I speak
out about Scientology. It just happens to bring together this weird
blending of my interests in cults, Science Fiction and Hollywood in a very
special way. In the same way, this movie touches on my interests in
Scientology and movies.
>>
>> I don't dispute the judge's finding nor did I try to hide them. I was
>> filling in some blanks left open since 2002.
>>
>>> A lawyer can and will make all the wild claims he wants, but it
>>> doesn't make it true. It's what the JUDGE finds to be the facts,
>>> not what the desperate cult attorneys allege in a filing.
>>
>> A judge never ruled on the film's expenses, including $500,000 going
>> into the TFC for overhead or the film being written down to zero in
>> the
>> books. I would think, however, that if an attorney alleges that, they
>> would
>> have to be prepared to back it up.
>
>
> It's been made abundantly clear over the years that Minton
> was given a line item budget and schedule prior to producing
> the movie, which he approved. Are you trying to claim that
> Peter Alexander STOLE the money? If so, come out and
> say it so his lawyers can deal with your allegations in a
> more direct fashion, rather than these slimey innuendoes
> which conveniently leave you free of legal accountability.
I don't know if anyone "stole" any money but it's always good to know they
are prepared to sue me again at the drop of a hat.
>>
>>> Maybe, if you could stop spinning what you know nothing about,
>>> you'd ask yourself the most obvious question: if Minton is acting
>>> in good faith and on his own accord and not at the behest of the
>>> cult, you'd notice WHO witnessed the Power of Attorney Minton
>>> signed over to his puppet attorney, McGowen.
>>>
>>> http://www.theprofit.org/PROFIT-McGowen%20letter%20to%20stop%20release/PROFIT-Minton%20to%20McGowan%20Power%20of%20Attny.JPG
>>>
>>> Since when does Mike RINDER have anything to do with the movie?
>>>
>>> Stop wasting time on the spin when you ignore the obvious.
>>
>> But isn't it also obvious that Peter and Patricia were working
>> against the film's best interests in the way they treated Bob, both as
>> a friend
>> and as partner and sole financier of the project?
>
>
> The only thing obvious here is your rabid obsession with this
> film and its producers. You can spin this anyway you want, Mark,
> but it was Minton who rolled into bed with Mike Rinder et al.
Yes, Bob did wind up settling with Scientology and working with Rinder. I
watched as he became more and more isolated and attacked on all sides. I
saw the truly global assault on Bob from Scientology and how he was treated
by those he had supported. I also saw the mistakes he and others made which
were exploited to put extra pressure on him and understood why he ultimately
felt abandoned.
> I truly appreciate all the work you do on Xenu TV, but sometimes
> I get that you and a few others are being used as Tools of OSA
> via your friend Bob, to float these items out to see what kind of
> reaction you might get.
Yes, I've been called an OSA tool for years now by friend's of Patricia's
who have been worked into a lather by her. Deana was perhaps the first one
to say it. Shirley jumped in big time. However, Bob didn't give me any
documents. I had to dig them up myself and never mentioned I was doing so
to Bob who doesn't want to hear about Scientology or the movie any more and
would probably wish I keep my mouth shut as much as Patricia does.
>>
>> Have you seen the film? What is your honest take on it?
>
> No, I haven't seen the film. If and when I do get to see it,
> I will give you my honest take on it. If the film sucks, I'll
> say so, and if I like the film, I'll let you know.
>
> One sure thing is that your friend, Bob Minton gave his honest
> take on the film and gave it a RAVE review. This was before
> OSA got their claws into him. Minton only had a problem with
> the film AFTER he hooked up with Mike Rinder and the evil
> cult. I wonder why?
How do you know this was his HONEST take on the movie and not just an
attempt to calm the seas after I posted my truly honest review of the film
the day before?
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/the-profit-a-review/
Ask to see the film and tell me you agree that Eric Rath is a great actor.
I agree with Bob's assessment below that everyone should be able to see the
film and freely discuss the film and it's subject.
Patty Pieniadz
> Patty,
> I think Arnie, like some others here. would just like for you to think
> for yourself on this Alexander, Minton and Greenway matter, because
> you usually do think for yourself and you have not been wiulling to
> take the blinders off and read the documents.
Oh is that what's this is about? Great. Please explain to me
(please be as detailed as possible) exactly what I should think
for myself so that you and Arnie can approve of my conduct and
thought process. Tell me exactly how YOU want me to think.
See, because all this time, I thought I was thinking for myself.
I had no idea that others were making me think a certain way, and
that was contrary to the way I SHOULD BE THINKING.
>
> The logical step is to read these case documents and stop relying on
> what others are telling you about them. The docs speak for themselves.
> You ansd Arnie can argue and call each other names all day long but I
> am not going that way bacause it's a waste of time.
I read the docs, and unlike you, Mark, Arni, and Jeff, I actually
called and talked to the people involved and asked pointed
questions so I could understand. I even wrote to Bob Minton
to see if he would talk to me about it, but he never answered
my email so I guess he's not interested in telling me what he
knows or what his intentions are. So all I have is information
from the producers of the film and the docs and yet, I am
told I am brainwashed, hypnotized and lied to, yet nobody
else has called the producers and talked to them or gotten
a direct statement from their good friend and buddy, Bob
Minton on the matter.
Bob Minton who does OSA work, is of course the Good Guy
and Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway, critics of Scn
who have their own nasty little OSA RFW page and are still
victims of OSA's attempts to harm and silence them are
of course the Bad Guys.
Therefore, my talking to them, and getting their side of
the story is nothing more than lies, and hypnotic commands
to bring me under their gypsy control.
Give me a fucking break. Pull you head out of your ass
and look at what you guys are telling me.
Bob Minton, who is under OSA's thumb and has been
silenced by OSA is to be believed and trusted.
Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway, critics and victims
of Scn's War to silence critics, are liars, thieves and
evil people.
You've got to be kidding me.
>
> All Mark did here was post more from the case files that I wrote about
> in the Profit thread a little while back. What Arnie is saying, and I
> agree, is that your loyalties are preventing you from seeing factual
> proof.
My loyalties? My LOYALTIES?
What about Mark and Arni's Loyalties to a guy who is controlled
by OSA and who funded both of them handsomely for some time.
What about them being blinded by THEIR LOYALTIES?
I offered for you to see what I had but you called me a coward
> when I didn't fall for the "dare-you to call-Lirot" bit. All your
> comment did was raise further the question of YOUR intentions, not
> mine.
Bullshit. My intentions are right where you can see them. Yours are
hidden and completely incomprehensible to me.
My reasoning was ' Why should I call Lirot when it was you who
> has the misunderstanding and it is I who has the proof he does not
> want you to read? '
LOL!!! Ok Mary, send me the proof.
Now Mark has posted further proof and you decide
> to divert the focus of this thread off of the facts and onto an
> arguement.
Let me quote what I just wrote to Jeff Jacobsen. Let me see
if you can GET THIS.
---- My reply to Jeff J.
end of reply.
I don't agree with Arnie all the time and he certainly can
> be deficient in tact sometimes ( happens to Aspies all the time) but
> you have an opportunity here on this thread to show that you can be a
> fair and intelligent person. I hope you reconsider and read the
> documents from here and email me so I can send you the docs I
> mentioned in the earlier thread. You can also get them from Dave T,
> who was one of numerous people who emailed me asking for them.
Again, please send me the docs so as I can be enlightened to the
correct point of view.
Patty
Mark Bunker
> cultxpt wrote:
>> Mark just posted some court documents that he's always wanted to
>> see and finally was in Clearwater, so he took the time and got them. I
>> hardly call that obsessing. It took him 6 years to see them, so
>> that's a real slow-burning obsession if you ask me.
>> I'm not on Peter's side. I'm not on Bob's side. I just think that
>> for any person to put up millions of dollars toward a venture, he
>> should be able to see where his millions went. Peter decided that he
>> couldn't show Bob the records, either because he didn't want Bob to
>> see them or because he thought Bob would turn over the information to
>> Scientology. But to my mind, it doesn't matter if one of those is
>> true, both of them, or none of them. It's Bob's money. He's an equal
>> partner. He should be able to see the books.
>> That's what the new documents Mark posted are about. As far as I
>> know Bob has never seen the complete records of where his money went.
>> I don't think Peter has any good excuse, Scientology or otherwise, for
>> that.
>
> If your read the documents that Mark posted you will see that
> Atty Lirot explained that they had no problem with Bob Minton looking at
> the books. No problem at all. They just didn't want him making copies
> of everything because they felt that Bob would turn this data over to
> OSA.
Is anyone still trying to see the books? This is all from 2002. Bob got
tired of all this back then and decided to stop spending money on making or
litigating the movie years ago.
It's certainly not unseen by me. I saw first hand what they did to Bob. I
also saw how unsupportative Peter and Patricia were at the time. I don't
think they've faced a fraction of what Bob faced.
> OSA wants Bob to get those records so they can use them against
> people they want to silence, just like they silenced Bob and Stacy.
Is anyone actively trying to get the books?
> That is how the OSA tech works. Why don't you fucking guys get it?
I do get it. I guess I'm as sympathetic to them as they were to Bob.
Zinj
historical perspective, it's just not particularly relevant nowdays (or
even entertaining.) But, why isn't it being released? (I don't mean in
the theaters; that's just not gonna happen.) Isn't the restraining
order defunct? What's keeping it from being seen nowdays? Couldn't it
be put on Youtube for the generally curious? Who's stopping it? It
can't be financial considerations; there are none.
More relevant would be the court documents in the Lisa McPherson case.
Oh; that's right; it was settled; and *gagged*. Tch tch. Back when
Minton's Fall led to cries of 'We're doomed! This is the end of
Scientology Criticism! Traitor! Cocksucker!!' the same people whining
about Bob were claiming to do so because the Lisa Case was the sine qua
non of Scientology Criticism. Where are they now? Where is the 'Lisa
Case'? Settled and gagged.
Gag.
All that's left to argue about is 'The Profit'. It wasn't good then;
it's even less good now. Years back I commented that *nobody* seemed to
want 'The Profit' shown. Not Peter and Patty; not Bob; not The
'Church'. Still seems to be the case.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Hephaestus
wrote:
> In message <5sdcfhF18b2f...@mid.individual.net> on Thu, 13 Dec 2007
go to high, you melt the wax on your wings, go to low, and you shall
fall into the sea.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:96434a01-ab28-4666...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Patty,
> > I think Arnie, like some others here. would just like for you to think
> > for yourself on this Alexander, Minton and Greenway matter, because
> > you usually do think for yourself and you have not been wiulling to
> > take the blinders off and read the documents.
>
> > The logical step is to read these case documents and stop relying on
> > what others are telling you about them. The docs speak for themselves.
> > You ansd Arnie can argue and call each other names all day long but I
> > am not going that way bacause it's a waste of time.
>
> > All Mark did here was post more from the case files that I wrote about
>
> Since when does Mike RINDER have anything to do with the movie?
>
> Stop wasting time on the spin when you ignore the obvious.
>
> Patty < <
Patty, you've got mail........
Mary
Out_Of_The_Dark
I just saw you that you posted this and I am surprised at your
impatience and barrage of comments here.
I replied to your earlier statement by email, with documents and
acknowledged that I emailed it to you earlier on in the thread.Until
you do read them, I am not interested in answering or replying to you
on anything else you wrote on the posts here
First things first. Read what I sent you and then comment on what you
were provided with.
Thank you,
Mary McConnell