Monica's Response to Diane Re Operation Freakout (was Bast Tapes)
GEMMAMP1
I have further response to Diane's post that Operation Freakout was just a
plan on paper since this is false. Operation Freakout, in the eyes of the
FBI was alot more than a plan.
If anyone wants to read court transcripts about this, the Clearwater
Hearings are an excellent source of information on what happened in
Operation Freakout and other activities of the GO.
Monica:
>>Paulette could not prove that it was called Operation
>>Freakout but the deeds were done. The FBI was convinced enough to drop
>>all the charges against her after the documents were seized.
Diane:
>That's not the case, Monica. The Federal prosecutor agreed to
>drop the charges after Paulette Cooper agreed to undergo one
>year of psychiatric counseling.
>The charges were dropped only
>after she completed the year of counseling.
>This all occurred *before* the FBI raided CoS headquarters and
>seized the documents. That event had nothing to do with the charges
>being dropped against Cooper.
Monica:
Diane, you are missing some major information here. Paulette Cooper's
case was not fully dismissed in 1974 because there was still no evidence
that Scientology had in fact framed Paulette until 1977.
A deal was worked out that the case would not go to trial on the condition
that she complete one year of therapy and that there were no further bomb
threats during that year. Paulette lived in terror that entire year that
Scientology would send more bomb threats and the case would go to trial
and she would have to undergo public humiliation.
The U.S. Attorney's office reserved the right to bring charges up again at
any time if they thought there was evidence to do so. When someone is
fully acquitted you cannot bring up charges again, but this was not the
case with Paulette because she was not fully acquitted.
On October 12, 1977, the FBI contacted Paulette and told her that
documents had been seized by the FBI in the CofS headquarters raid that
indicated that she was, indeed, framed by the CofS. The documents found
called Operation Freakout were dated 1976, that much you do have correct,
and a few other documents were found directly relating to the 1973
frameup. The FBI considered this evidence (because of the obvious
similarity they bore to the frameup that actually did occur) that Paulette
did not write the bomb threats.
Prior to this (the documents found in the 1977 raid), they were not
convinced that she was innocent and the case could have been reopened at
any time, had there been any more bomb threats. This is why they ordered
her to go for psychotherapy -- because they thought she might be guilty at
the time and held this view until the raid. I hope this clears up the
confusion.
So, to get back to my original point, if the evidence was good enough for
the FBI that these 1976 documents were proof of the earlier frameup that
actually occured, it's good enough to satisfy me. Operation Freakout was
a lot more than just a plan on paper and is in no way comparable to the
conversation Paulette had with Bast about planting drugs at CofS
headquarters which was all talk, no specific plan and definitely no
action.
Monica Pignotti
************************************************
"My cult can lick your cult any day of the week"
--------the late Robert Kaufman, Ex-Scientologist,
Author of Inside Scientology and the first to reveal OT III
Ron Newman
In article <55m50t$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com says...
>On October 12, 1977, the FBI contacted Paulette and told her that
>documents had been seized by the FBI in the CofS headquarters raid that
>indicated that she was, indeed, framed by the CofS. The documents found
>called Operation Freakout were dated 1976, that much you do have correct,
>and a few other documents were found directly relating to the 1973
>frameup.
We've seen the Operation Freakout documents posted to a.r.s. any number
of times, and they're on many web pages. But I've never seen the 1973
documents. Could you, or Paulette, or someone else post them? I think
they would be a *very* useful addition to our web archives.
Thanks for your post, Monica. I hope this stops some of the yammering
about Operation Freakout being just an unexecuted plan.
Ron Newman
In article <55m50t$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
GEMMAMP1 <gemm...@aol.com> wrote:
>If anyone wants to read court transcripts about this, the Clearwater
>Hearings are an excellent source of information on what happened in
>Operation Freakout and other activities of the GO.
I agree. Are these available on any web site? If not, is there
anyone who can obtain them in hardcopy form and begin posting them to the Net?
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Bernie
Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>In article <55m50t$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com says...
>>On October 12, 1977, the FBI contacted Paulette and told her that
>>documents had been seized by the FBI in the CofS headquarters raid that
>>indicated that she was, indeed, framed by the CofS. The documents found
>>called Operation Freakout were dated 1976, that much you do have correct,
>>and a few other documents were found directly relating to the 1973
>>frameup.
[snip]
>Thanks for your post, Monica. I hope this stops some of the yammering
>about Operation Freakout being just an unexecuted plan.
Seems that you are a better man then I am, Ron. How in the world
do you conclude that Monica's argument indicates in the least
that Operation Freakout wasn't an unexecuted plan? Please
explain this to me. How does the finding of the operation
Freakout documents, indicating that previous harassment existed,
in any way proves the point that operation Freakout has been
carried out?
---------
Bernie
As everybody over the age of 100 knows
(Cerberus)
Monica Pignotti
Bernie, you are playing word games here to obscure my original point. My
original point was that your analogy of Paulette's talk about planting drugs was
in any way comparable to operation Freakout was a very poor one. The
key difference here is that the deeds in the written plans in Operation
Freakout were very similar to the deeds done to Paulette earlier. Your
analogy would have been a good one had Paulette actually been guilty of
planting drugs at an org earlier, but she never did such a thing.
Scientology did, however send fake bomb threats that framed Paulette
Cooper and the FBI recognized this because they recovered documents
that showed a direct link between Operation Freakout and the earlier
bomb threats. I am currently in the process of obtaining this
document, so stay tuned. Whether or not the earlier operation was
called Operation Freakout is not important unless you enjoy nitpicking
over words. What is relevant is the fake bomb threats occurred and the
significance the FBI placed on them, not what the slimey scieno
operation was named.
Monica Pignotti
Diane Richardson
pign...@ix.netcom.com(Monica Pignotti) wrote:
>In <327ff210...@news.ping.be> be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
>>
>>Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <55m50t$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com says...
>>
>>>>On October 12, 1977, the FBI contacted Paulette and told her that
>>>>documents had been seized by the FBI in the CofS headquarters raid that
>>>>indicated that she was, indeed, framed by the CofS. The documents found
>>>>called Operation Freakout were dated 1976, that much you do have correct,
>>>>and a few other documents were found directly relating to the 1973
>>>>frameup.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Thanks for your post, Monica. I hope this stops some of the yammering
>>>about Operation Freakout being just an unexecuted plan.
[snip]
>Paulette
>Cooper and the FBI recognized this because they recovered documents
>that showed a direct link between Operation Freakout and the earlier
>bomb threats. I am currently in the process of obtaining this
>document, so stay tuned.
Monica, you earlier stated:
>>The U.S. Attorney's office reserved the right to bring charges up again at
>>any time if they thought there was evidence to do so. When someone is
>>fully acquitted you cannot bring up charges again, but this was not the
>>case with Paulette because she was not fully acquitted.
Does the document you are currently in the process of getting address
the assertion you make that the charges against Paulette Cooper were
not dismissed in 1975? Or does it address the assertion that you are
making above -- that the FBI saw a direct link between the earlier
forged bomb threats and the Operation Freakout plan seized in the July
1977 raid on CoS headquarters?
These are not the same assertions. The fact that the FBI saw
similarities between the 1972 forged bomb threat incident and the
Operation Freakout plan does not prove that charges against
Cooper were not dismissed in 1975.
Diane Richardson
bway.net
GEMMAMP1
Diane Richardson wrote:
>Monica, you earlier stated:
>>The U.S. Attorney's office reserved the right to bring charges up again
at
>>any time if they thought there was evidence to do so. When someone is
>>fully acquitted you cannot bring up charges again, but this was not the
>>case with Paulette because she was not fully acquitted.
>Does the document you are currently in the process of getting address
>the assertion you make that the charges against Paulette Cooper were
>not dismissed in 1975? Or does it address the assertion that you are
>making above -- that the FBI saw a direct link between the earlier
>forged bomb threats and the Operation Freakout plan seized in the July
>1977 raid on CoS headquarters?
The document, which was seized in the FBI raid, provides the link between
the earlier bomb threats and the Operation Freakout plan.
>These are not the same assertions. The fact that the FBI saw
>similarities between the 1972 forged bomb threat incident and the
>Operation Freakout plan does not prove that charges against
>Cooper were not dismissed in 1975.
I am not a legal expert here, but I do know that in 1977, for the first
time the FBI offered to completely expunge the whole case from Paulette's
records. It would seem to me that this would imply that prior to this
time, the case was not expunged and so she was not fully cleared of the
charges. She had a record. It is my understanding that when charges are
fully dropped against a person, that they would not have such a record and
there would be no need to expunge it. This was the basis on which I made
the statement that the charges were not fully dropped. Please, if anyone
here is a legal expert and think I am mistaken about this, please correct
me. Can charges be fully dropped and the person still have a record that
needs to be expunged?
The following definition was given for Nolle prosequi in another thread:
>Nolle prosequi
> A formal entry upon the record, by the plantiff in a civil suit,
> or, more commonly, by the procescuting officer in a criminal
> action, by which he declares that he "will no further prosecute"
> the case, either as to some of the defendants, or altogether.
> A nolle prosequi is a formal entry on the record by the
prosecuting
> officer by which he declares that he will not prosecute the case
> futher. Commonly called "nol pros".
I find it interesting that it says not prosecute ~further~ rather than
saying that the prosecuter simply will not prosecute, period. Does this
mean that the prosecution will proceed no further but that they reserve
the right to do so at a later date? Are there any lawyers out there who
can answer this question? This is what would make sense to me, given that
the FBI had to offer to expunge her records, implying that she still had a
"record".
To summarize where this has gone so far:
Diane's original assertion was:
>I saw no concrete times and dates in Operation Freakout either,
>Monica. Does that mean that you agree that it was not a concrete
>plan?
And my response is that the evidence for Operation Freakout being a
concrete plan is that the FBI discovered in the seizure of the documents
that it was linked to the earlier events of the CofS GO actually
committing the act of framing PC with bomb threats, even though the
document known as Operation Freakout had no concrete times & dates. To
counter Bernie's assertion that Paulette's discussion with Bast about the
drugs was comparable to what the CofS did to her, my response is that this
is very different from the conversation between Paulette & Bast where
planting drugs was only talked about and that, unlike with Operation
Freakout, there is no evidence whatsoever that Paulette ever committed the
act of planting drugs in an org (either before or after the discussion
took place).
jackf...@aol.com
Could there be a misunderstanding here?
Diane's thesis (if I am correct) is:
1. There was a plan, executed in 1973 that resulted in Paulette's
indictment for mailing a bomb threat to CoS.
2. There was a second plan, drawn up in 1976 that was called Operation
Freakout, which described more bomb threats, this time to henry K.
3. The second plan was not executed.
Confusion arises because the 1973 plan is also commonly refered to as
Operation Freakout.
Diane, it's not enough to just declare the 1976 date of the freakout plan
and claim there were therefore two plans. The one plan theory is too
firmly entrenched in people's minds to be dislodged so easily. You've got
to sell the two plan theory first, and then people will naturally accept
the statement that "Operation Freakout was never executed"
Truth & logic are insufficient motivators of public opinion.
My advice:
Take credit for noticing the 1976 date on the Operation Freakout document.
It is a fine point and a notable tribute to your attention for details.
You won't be able to reverse the widespread notion that there were two
plans without expending considerable effort. The one plan theory has been
propagated way outside the boundaries of ars via the numerous books and
articles appearing in the press.
ahhhh Diane, Diane, Diane.
Diane, it feels funny to be talking to you after so long. Do you remember
the time we entertained sinister conspiracy theories together? I remember
telling you about a Scientology symbol, a circle inside a triangle, that
looks just like the AOL trademark.
I had seen it in the library on the spine of a Scientology book. I
remember telling you about it and you had some reference book that you
pulled out and tried to find out the significance of the symbol. If I
recall, an ex-scieno (i can't remember who...No, it wasn't Neil!!! he's
wasn't an ex-scieno!!!) came in and explained the ARC triangle.
We were all friends back then and there was no idea that was too wild for
our consideration. We wanted to figure out Jerry White (the
delete-o-maniac, as tash used to call him) and what his arbitrary policies
were. "Why did you delete the "Little Molly" story" "You said cult. You
can't say cult".
Perhaps my sentimentality is unappealing to you. Apologies are too cheap
and easy. You deserve better than that from me.
More to come I hope. I do have one complaint however. This business of
you sitting on top of all the Bast data, and not releasing it until you
are prepared to discuss it. I don't like following you throught the
newsgroup and then straightening out the messes you get yourself into. It
isn't fair to me. But i will try to help you out when I can.
Maybe there's a compromise that you would feel comfortable with?
Maybe Paulette has a compromise that she would feel comfortable with?
I missed the begginning of the "Loose Ends Thread", but I believe when
Judith Bradford realized things were getting out of control, she wisely
proposed a moratorium. Could we have another moratorium for a short
while.
Rebecca Hartong
>I am not a legal expert here, but I do know that in 1977, for the first
>time the FBI offered to completely expunge the whole case from Paulette's
>records.
Is that something the FBI could even do? Wouldn't it be up to a judge to do
that? (I'm no legal expert either!)
Rebecca Hartong
************************************************************
"One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining
any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is
built upon will warrant." --John Locke
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 6 Nov 1996 04:18:48 GMT, pign...@ix.netcom.com(Monica Pignotti)
wrote:
[snip]
>Your
> analogy would have been a good one had Paulette actually been guilty of
> planting drugs at an org earlier, but she never did such a thing.
> Scientology did, however send fake bomb threats that framed Paulette
> Cooper and the FBI recognized this because they recovered documents
> that showed a direct link between Operation Freakout and the earlier
> bomb threats.
[snip]
It would have been a better analogy, as well, if Paulette had
hired a PI to entrap CoS into plotting against her.
She didn't have to. She was Fair Game.
Fair Game -- you familiar with that term, Bernie?
Ric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMoFJ9SnhWc34xW2VAQEtkAf/VNYlQ4nTe5pEEF0e6dWcOWwV2SRbt6io
QCo3Vh8qb/PMtmZv7OgtXcwk+YhG6yv8WrH5MUYzdWonf6Rw0MxSVFLP3m3Q8dX4
Ac+AgcpldFjD0PCYQodjRzViEqEWqs6ZzDo3YmbcwG7mIIr+R5DrA+mUC+pCbfd8
CJJ4/y2E84idPPwMDlw3csOtI8b5730IGiTF96mSweffRoPKkrJx2WJuVvkFtB9G
0oNPaj6sxi41ZNinbDidzz/2dLAAi1S45lLs03IwPAmDZunbNR9chxKMt3q1HKUR
A8tyAQGOL+mkW0czDmSQ0lHcCgYKFiZ2/5/uWXFopSA1pp/Lb7SpuA==
=7/vv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernie
jackf...@aol.com wrote:
>Could there be a misunderstanding here?
>Diane's thesis (if I am correct) is:
> 1. There was a plan, executed in 1973 that resulted in Paulette's
>indictment for mailing a bomb threat to CoS.
> 2. There was a second plan, drawn up in 1976 that was called Operation
>Freakout, which described more bomb threats, this time to henry K.
> 3. The second plan was not executed.
>Confusion arises because the 1973 plan is also commonly refered to as
>Operation Freakout.
Yes, it is just as simple as that. I don't know why people keep
on moaning on this rather straightforward thing. Harassment
happened, period. Operation Freakout was not implemented,
period.
>Diane, it's not enough to just declare the 1976 date of the freakout plan
>and claim there were therefore two plans. The one plan theory is too
>firmly entrenched in people's minds to be dislodged so easily. You've got
>to sell the two plan theory first, and then people will naturally accept
>the statement that "Operation Freakout was never executed"
Huh?
>Truth & logic are insufficient motivators of public opinion.
Unfortunately.
>My advice:
>Take credit for noticing the 1976 date on the Operation Freakout document.
> It is a fine point and a notable tribute to your attention for details.
Actually, it was quite an acute and remarkable observation. Most
of us, me included, assumed PC endured operation Freakout. (For
those who insist to mix up everything: no I didn't say that PC
didn't go through harassment).
>You won't be able to reverse the widespread notion that there were two
>plans without expending considerable effort. The one plan theory has been
>propagated way outside the boundaries of ars via the numerous books and
>articles appearing in the press.
That's true, but doesn't make it true ;-)
[entertaining sentimentalism snipped]
>More to come I hope. I do have one complaint however. This business of
>you sitting on top of all the Bast data, and not releasing it until you
>are prepared to discuss it.
That's only one of the many possible versions.
---------
Bernie
The past is a work of art, free of irrelevancies and loose ends.
(Max Beerbohm)
Diane Richardson
har...@netins.net (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
>In article <55r80r$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>>I am not a legal expert here, but I do know that in 1977, for the first
>>time the FBI offered to completely expunge the whole case from Paulette's
>>records.
>Is that something the FBI could even do? Wouldn't it be up to a judge to do
>that? (I'm no legal expert either!)
Of course the FBI couldn't do that. It would be the prosecution (in
this case the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Justice Department) that
would have the authority to withdraw charges that they had filed
against Cooper.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
gemm...@aol.com
Rebecca Hartong wrote:
>>Is that something the FBI could even do? Wouldn't it be up to a judge
to do
>>that? (I'm no legal expert either!)
>Of course the FBI couldn't do that. It would be the prosecution (in
>this case the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Justice Department) that
>would have the authority to withdraw charges that they had filed
>against Cooper.
Woops. My error here. I meant to say the U.S. Attorney's office.
I have posted the document I mentioned here on the thread entitled
"Operation Freakout and the Smoking Gun".
gemm...@aol.com
Jack wrote:
>Diane's thesis (if I am correct) is:
> 1. There was a plan, executed in 1973 that resulted in Paulette's
>indictment for mailing a bomb threat to CoS.
> 2. There was a second plan, drawn up in 1976 that was called Operation
>Freakout, which described more bomb threats, this time to henry K.
> 3. The second plan was not executed
So far, correct, but incomplete. Very important fourth and fifth points:
4. The second plan bore remarkable similarities to the plan that was
actually executed in 1973 and there is a smoking gun document that
actually links the two.
5. This resulted in the U.S. Attorney's office offering to expunge
Paulette Cooper's records.
I have posted this document on the thread "Operation Freakout and the
Smoking Gun" for anyone who wishes to read it.
Margaret Huffstickler
Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
: jackf...@aol.com wrote:
: >Could there be a misunderstanding here?
: >Diane's thesis (if I am correct) is:
: > 1. There was a plan, executed in 1973 that resulted in Paulette's
: >indictment for mailing a bomb threat to CoS.
: > 2. There was a second plan, drawn up in 1976 that was called Operation
: >Freakout, which described more bomb threats, this time to henry K.
: > 3. The second plan was not executed.
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>Monica, you earlier stated:
>>>The U.S. Attorney's office reserved the right to bring charges up again
>at
>>>any time if they thought there was evidence to do so. When someone is
>>>fully acquitted you cannot bring up charges again, but this was not the
>>>case with Paulette because she was not fully acquitted.
>>Does the document you are currently in the process of getting address
>>the assertion you make that the charges against Paulette Cooper were
>>not dismissed in 1975? Or does it address the assertion that you are
>>making above -- that the FBI saw a direct link between the earlier
>>forged bomb threats and the Operation Freakout plan seized in the July
>>1977 raid on CoS headquarters?
>The document, which was seized in the FBI raid, provides the link between
>the earlier bomb threats and the Operation Freakout plan.
Which document is that? Have you located it yet?
>>These are not the same assertions. The fact that the FBI saw
>>similarities between the 1972 forged bomb threat incident and the
>>Operation Freakout plan does not prove that charges against
>>Cooper were not dismissed in 1975.
>I am not a legal expert here, but I do know that in 1977, for the first
>time the FBI offered to completely expunge the whole case from Paulette's
>records.
What is your source for this statement? How do you "know" this?
>>Nolle prosequi
[snip]
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
jackf...@aol.com
Rich Burrough's wrote:
> It would have been a better analogy, as well, if Paulette had
> hired a PI to entrap CoS into plotting against her.
> She didn't have to. She was Fair Game.
> Fair Game -- you familiar with that term, Bernie?
Come on Rich. That's not fair. Bernie walked away from the GO. It's
history.
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <55pd72$2...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>Paulette
>>Cooper and the FBI recognized this because they recovered documents
>>that showed a direct link between Operation Freakout and the earlier
>>bomb threats. I am currently in the process of obtaining this
>>document, so stay tuned.
>Monica, you earlier stated:
>>>The U.S. Attorney's office reserved the right to bring charges up again at
>>>any time if they thought there was evidence to do so. When someone is
>>>fully acquitted you cannot bring up charges again, but this was not the
>>>case with Paulette because she was not fully acquitted.
>Does the document you are currently in the process of getting address
>the assertion you make that the charges against Paulette Cooper were
>not dismissed in 1975? Or does it address the assertion that you are
>making above -- that the FBI saw a direct link between the earlier
>forged bomb threats and the Operation Freakout plan seized in the July
>1977 raid on CoS headquarters?
>These are not the same assertions. The fact that the FBI saw
>similarities between the 1972 forged bomb threat incident and the
>Operation Freakout plan does not prove that charges against
>Cooper were not dismissed in 1975.
you know damn well that there are different kinds of dismissals.
in an ARD plea, the charges are also dismissed. would you
say the person had been exonerated in such a case?
would you say john gotti was exonerated when RICO charges
against him were dismissed?
your bullshit on this subject and your continued
equivocation and redefinition of terms is increasingly
loathesome.
>Diane Richardson
>bway.net
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMoNi3HZ/m2/Pgo35AQGuWQIAyuqmqOCdqNHrRbTKrl7K4L40bgc9g1iK
NvRjviWUTvNp/rcxg9eN+NJcO2xmqZQ23zU51EV8tcyI3SySorPb7Q==
=1zQ0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>>Diane's thesis (if I am correct) is:
>> 1. There was a plan, executed in 1973 that resulted in Paulette's
>>indictment for mailing a bomb threat to CoS.
>> 2. There was a second plan, drawn up in 1976 that was called Operation
>>Freakout, which described more bomb threats, this time to henry K.
>> 3. The second plan was not executed
>So far, correct, but incomplete. Very important fourth and fifth points:
>4. The second plan bore remarkable similarities to the plan that was
>actually executed in 1973 and there is a smoking gun document that
>actually links the two.
>5. This resulted in the U.S. Attorney's office offering to expunge
>Paulette Cooper's records.
>I have posted this document on the thread "Operation Freakout and the
>Smoking Gun" for anyone who wishes to read it.
The document you posted does not prove that the U.S. Attorney's office
expunged Cooper's records *after* seeing the Operation Freakout
documents. In fact, the U.S. Attorney isn't mentioned at all in the
document you posted.
I maintain that all charges filed against Paulette Cooper as a result
of her indictment in May 1973 were dismissed in September 1975, after
Cooper completed the stipulated one year of psychotherapy. I have
documents to support my contention.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Monica Pignotti
In <55v200$6...@clark.zippo.com> ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) writes:
>
>gemm...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Jack wrote:
>
>>>Diane's thesis (if I am correct) is:
>>> 1. There was a plan, executed in 1973 that resulted in Paulette's
>>>indictment for mailing a bomb threat to CoS.
>>> 2. There was a second plan, drawn up in 1976 that was called Operation
>>>Freakout, which described more bomb threats, this time to henry K.
>>> 3. The second plan was not executed
>
>>So far, correct, but incomplete. Very important fourth and fifth points:
>
>>4. The second plan bore remarkable similarities to the plan that was
>>actually executed in 1973 and there is a smoking gun document that
>>actually links the two.
>
>>5. This resulted in the U.S. Attorney's office offering to expunge
>>Paulette Cooper's records.
>
>>I have posted this document on the thread "Operation Freakout and the
>>Smoking Gun" for anyone who wishes to read it.
>
>The document you posted does not prove that the U.S. Attorney's office
>expunged Cooper's records *after* seeing the Operation Freakout
>documents. In fact, the U.S. Attorney isn't mentioned at all in the
>document you posted.
I said that they offered to expunge her records, not that they did so.
Actually, now that you mention it, her records still have not been expunged to
this day. The U.S. Attorney's office offered to expunge her records, but this
would have meant that PC would have to spend $1000 and hire a lawyer and go
through a big legal hassle that she was not prepared to go through at that
time, so to this day its still on her records. IMO, I think its outrageous
that she should have to pay $1000 to have her records expunged when she was
completely innocent in the first place, but that's our system. The CofS should
have been ordered to pay for this since they were the ones responsible. When
charges are dropped, they do not remain on a person's record. This is why I
don't agree that those charges could have been completely dropped.
I posted the smoking gun document to show that Operation Freakout was not just
a plan on a piece of paper because it was linked to the earlier actions
committed by the CofS of framing PC with fake bomb threats. The smoking gun
document says, in essence, that it worked for them in 1973 and it will work
again in 1976.
>I maintain that all charges filed against Paulette Cooper as a result
>of her indictment in May 1973 were dismissed in September 1975, after
>Cooper completed the stipulated one year of psychotherapy. I have
>documents to support my contention.
Your documentation is incomplete. Paulette's ordeal with the CofS was
not over in 1975. Far from it. You have maintained that the CofS's
harrassment and fair gaming ceased in the mid-70s. Now ~that~ is what
I would call the ars myth. What PC went through was very real. The
Bast operation is but one example of the CofS continuing to target her
as fair game by tricking and lying to her. There will be more to come.
Stay tuned.
Monica Pignotti
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
>
>
>
Sister Clara
In article <55pd72$2...@clark.zippo.com>
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
> pign...@ix.netcom.com(Monica Pignotti) wrote:
>
> >In <327ff210...@news.ping.be> be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
> >>
> >>Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <55m50t$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com says...
> >>
> >>>>On October 12, 1977, the FBI contacted Paulette and told her that
> >>>>documents had been seized by the FBI in the CofS headquarters raid that
> >>>>indicated that she was, indeed, framed by the CofS. The documents found
> >>>>called Operation Freakout were dated 1976, that much you do have correct,
> >>>>and a few other documents were found directly relating to the 1973
> >>>>frameup.
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>Thanks for your post, Monica. I hope this stops some of the yammering
> >>>about Operation Freakout being just an unexecuted plan.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Paulette
> >Cooper and the FBI recognized this because they recovered documents
> >that showed a direct link between Operation Freakout and the earlier
> >bomb threats. I am currently in the process of obtaining this
> >document, so stay tuned.
>
> Monica, you earlier stated:
>
> >>The U.S. Attorney's office reserved the right to bring charges up again at
> >>any time if they thought there was evidence to do so. When someone is
> >>fully acquitted you cannot bring up charges again, but this was not the
> >>case with Paulette because she was not fully acquitted.
>
> Does the document you are currently in the process of getting address
> the assertion you make that the charges against Paulette Cooper were
> not dismissed in 1975? Or does it address the assertion that you are
> making above -- that the FBI saw a direct link between the earlier
> forged bomb threats and the Operation Freakout plan seized in the July
> 1977 raid on CoS headquarters?
>
> These are not the same assertions. The fact that the FBI saw
> similarities between the 1972 forged bomb threat incident and the
> Operation Freakout plan does not prove that charges against
> Cooper were not dismissed in 1975.
Hold on just a second here.
Surely the onus is upon *you* to provide evidence and proof that the charges
were, indeed, dismissed in 1975.
--
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - potential DA subject
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
http://www.magpie.co.uk/
alt.religion.scientology - Open for all the usual business
Tashback
In article <19961107085...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jackf...@aol.com wrote:
> ahhhh Diane, Diane, Diane.
Ah, Jack, Jack, Jack.
<snuggling up between Jack and Diane; feels like old times ...>
<snip>
> We were all friends back then and there was no idea that was too wild for
> our consideration.
One of the wonderful things about Diane is that she would research
anything under consideration, not simply accept/dismiss it based on her
own bias.
> We wanted to figure out Jerry White (the
> delete-o-maniac, as tash used to call him)
I think I stole that from Tilman.
> and what his arbitrary policies
> were. "Why did you delete the "Little Molly" story" "You said cult. You
> can't say cult".
I miss you, Jack. Hope you come back soon.
<Going to listen to "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" from *Les Miz* for a
brief wallow now>
Tashback
Diane Richardson
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> These are not the same assertions. The fact that the FBI saw
>> similarities between the 1972 forged bomb threat incident and the
>> Operation Freakout plan does not prove that charges against
>> Cooper were not dismissed in 1975.
>Hold on just a second here.
>Surely the onus is upon *you* to provide evidence and proof that the charges
>were, indeed, dismissed in 1975.
Here is evidence and proof, Clara.
From the verified complaint filed by Paulette Cooper on 9 August 1978
in her lawsuit Paulette Cooper v. Church of Scientology of New York,
Inc., file in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, Index No. 13728:
14. On May 17, 1973, based upon the complaint of defendant,
a federal grand jury indicted plantiff on three charges; two
counts of sending a bomb threat letter through the mail and
one count of perjury for denying the said acts; and on May 27,
she was accordingly arrested and arraigned.
15. Thereafter plaintiff who was wholly innocent of the charges
was forced to spend great time and monies and to retain
the services of legal counsel to seek to avoid the conviction
on the above charges, which carried with them individually
a maximum punishment of a five year prison sentence and a
$5,000 fine.
16. As a result of her efforts and those of her counsel, plaintiff
was able sufficiently to demonstrate her innocence so that charges
against plaintiff were dismissed finally in 1975.
Since this is Cooper's complaint, written by her attorney and signed
by Cooper herself, I would guess that this would be proof enough for
anyone.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Martin Hunt
In article <55md15$q...@lex.zippo.com>, Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
}In article <55m50t$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com says...
}
}>On October 12, 1977, the FBI contacted Paulette and told her that
}>documents had been seized by the FBI in the CofS headquarters raid that
}>indicated that she was, indeed, framed by the CofS. The documents found
}>called Operation Freakout were dated 1976, that much you do have correct,
}>and a few other documents were found directly relating to the 1973
}>frameup.
}
}of times, and they're on many web pages. But I've never seen the 1973
}documents. Could you, or Paulette, or someone else post them? I think
}they would be a *very* useful addition to our web archives.
}
}about Operation Freakout being just an unexecuted plan.
Certainly should; every step of that plan was actually done, whether
the op was based on that document or another, long since shredded
or burned; the fact remains, Paulette was the target of a cult op,
and that op was written up in targetted steps as per policy on writing
plans with vital targets and all the rest. Maybe we'll never see the
actual plan that was enacted on Paulette, but we have one that's damn
close that was taken in an FBI raid on the cult: Operation Freakout.
This whole affair is beginning to sound like a debate about how many
angels can fit on the head of a pin; PC was horribly harassed and
attacked by the cult for her brave actions, and nothing whiners and
arm-chair assholes on this newsgroup say about it will change that,
although I expect they'll try their best for their slavemasters at
OSA.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
" HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967
Issue IV
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS
(Applies both Orgs and Sea Org)
LIABILITY Suspension of pay and a dirty grey rag on left arm and
day and night confinement to org premises.
TREASON Suspension of pay and deprivation of all uniforms and
insignia, a black mark on left cheek and confinement on
org premises or dismissal from post and debarment from
premises.
DOUBT Debarment from premises. Not to be employed. Payment of
fine amounting to any sum may have cost org. Not to be
trained or processed. Not to be communicated or argued
with.
ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or
injured by any means by any Scientologist without any
discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued
or lied to or destroyed.
LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD
Founder"
Martin Hunt
In article <55p3j8$j...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
pign...@ix.netcom.com(Monica Pignotti) wrote:
}In <327ff210...@news.ping.be> be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
[bullshit, as per usuail]
}Bernie, you are playing word games here to obscure my original point.
Well, that's what it always does, isn't it? Dennis was right; Bernie,
you're FOS, and hey, I have a killfile now, so......................
<PLONK>
Ah, that felt good! :-)
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"In 1982, after David Miscavige had become a notary public, I saw
him forge L. Ron Hubbard's signature and falsely sign entries in
his notary log that he had witnessed Hubbard signing documents
that he had not witnessed (as Hubbard was not present)." - David Mayo
Martin Hunt
In article <55snk1$k...@clark.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
}har...@netins.net (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
}
}>In article <55r80r$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
}
}>>time the FBI offered to completely expunge the whole case from Paulette's
}>>records.
}
}>Is that something the FBI could even do? Wouldn't it be up to a judge to do
}>that? (I'm no legal expert either!)
}
}Of course the FBI couldn't do that. It would be the prosecution (in
}this case the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Justice Department) that
}would have the authority to withdraw charges that they had filed
}against Cooper.
Errrrr... what's wrong with this picture?
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"I write, therefore I am" - Karin Spaink
Bernie
uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>}Thanks for your post, Monica. I hope this stops some of the yammering
>}about Operation Freakout being just an unexecuted plan.
>Certainly should;
Certainly wouldn't, for everyone who can read and think, which
doesn't seem to be your case, Martin.
>every step of that plan was actually done,
It never even got to the starting point. You are speaking from
the top of your head. Is this what you call "criticism", Martin?
I call it stupidity and blindness.
>whether
>the op was based on that document or another,
First you say that every step of the plan was executed, then you
say that the op was based on another document.
>long since shredded
>or burned;
So tell me how the operation Freakout was executed based on
another document long since burned?
>the fact remains, Paulette was the target of a cult op,
Nobody said the contrary, but you insist on mixing everything up
even though they were corrected untold time.
>and that op was written up in targetted steps as per policy on writing
>plans with vital targets and all the rest.
So, does this means it was executed?
>Maybe we'll never see the
>actual plan that was enacted on Paulette, but we have one that's damn
>close that was taken in an FBI raid on the cult: Operation Freakout.
Does this means it was executed?
>This whole affair is beginning to sound like a debate about how many
>angels can fit on the head of a pin;
I was just about to say that.
>PC was horribly harassed and
>attacked by the cult for her brave actions,
Brave actions such as lying, cheating, entrapment, and all the
rest. Yea, I can see why you don't have problem with such
actions, Martin.
>and nothing whiners and
>arm-chair assholes on this newsgroup say about it will change that,
That's true.
>although I expect they'll try their best for their slavemasters at
>OSA.
One does not even have to think half a second to counter your
idiotic arguments, Martin. Since your return you have only
managed to spew senseless blather and make a fool of yourself.
Go back to your sanatorium.
---------
Bernie
This man is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
(Rebecca Hartong)
Bernie
uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <55p3j8$j...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>pign...@ix.netcom.com(Monica Pignotti) wrote:
>}In <327ff210...@news.ping.be> be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
>[bullshit, as per usuail]
>}Bernie, you are playing word games here to obscure my original point.
>Well, that's what it always does, isn't it? Dennis was right; Bernie,
>you're FOS, and hey, I have a killfile now, so......................
><PLONK>
>Ah, that felt good! :-)
Yea, to me2. At least I won't have to argue with someone who
can't put A and B together and who can do little else than
suffocate in his own restless hate.
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <562s8n$d...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
[dismissal of bomb threat charges]
you initially brought up this dismissal as evidence
that the famous incident where paulette cooper goes
through the freakout documents with tremendous
relief was nothing more than a fabrication--your
sad implication seemingly being that dismissal
equals exoneration. the simple fact is that
there are different types of dismissal, and the
one by which the charges against cooper were
dismissed was hardly an exoneration, and didn't
it require psychological counselling.
that's hardly a "not guilty."
of course, you know this. you choose, however,
to continue misrepresenting it.
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMopJYXZ/m2/Pgo35AQE/vwH+KfH2ph8iWaX7whEP12ODdm6SmukqtMhe
itZTyGHKykCRRl4VOKEi94n6CFAnbbYy/I1gmGkYpRbG4uwr4tzd7A==
=qzv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diane Richardson
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <562s8n$d...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>[dismissal of bomb threat charges]
>you initially brought up this dismissal as evidence
>that the famous incident where paulette cooper goes
>through the freakout documents with tremendous
>relief was nothing more than a fabrication--your
>sad implication seemingly being that dismissal
>equals exoneration.
It was a fabrication, Rob. Cooper knew about the documents
*years* before they were made public. She was informed about
the document in October 1977, just months after they had been
seized by the FBI in July 1977.
The documents were not unsealed by the court until November
1979. That was *two years* after Cooper had been told that the
documents existed.
You would know this if you bothered reading what is posted,
rather than wasting all your energies writing pointless rants.
>the simple fact is that
>there are different types of dismissal, and the
>one by which the charges against cooper were
>dismissed was hardly an exoneration, and didn't
>it require psychological counselling.
I know of no legal process of "exoneration," Rob. Perhaps
you could elucidate the process for me.
>that's hardly a "not guilty."
Of course not. There cannot be a verdict without a trial. There was
no trial because the U.S. Attorney dismissed all charges against
Cooper long before her case ever went to trial.
>of course, you know this. you choose, however,
>to continue misrepresenting it.
I am not misrepresenting anything, Rob.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
gemm...@aol.com
Diane Richardson wrote:
>>the simple fact is that
>>there are different types of dismissal, and the
>>one by which the charges against cooper were
>>dismissed was hardly an exoneration, and didn't
>>it require psychological counselling.
>I know of no legal process of "exoneration," Rob. Perhaps
>you could elucidate the process for me.
There is a legal process of expunging a person's records, which would be
considered exoneration. Maybe Maureen Garde could jump in here and
explain this further if she hasn't killfiled this thread since, as I said,
I am not a legal expert. This is what the US Attorney's office offered to
do in 1977 when they discovered the documents after the CofS raid. No, I
don't have written documents saying that they offered to expunge her
records (I don't even know if this exists in writing), but there were
other people who were around at the time, such as Nan McLean who I am sure
would agree that this is what happened. I don't know if this offer even
exists in written form, especially since Paulette did not go through the
formality of having her records expunged but this is what happened, and it
has been reported this way by very credible and knowledgeable people, such
as Jon Atack in his book *A Piece of Blue Sky*, a book that had to go
through very close scrutiny for anything that was less than factual before
it ever came out. The CofS has a saying that if something isn't written
it isn't true but I don't happen to buy that one and I certainly don't buy
that just because something doesn't exist in a legal document it is not
true.
************************************************
Monica Pignotti
"As you go through life you are going to have many opportunities
to keep your big mouth shut. Take advantage of all of them."
- -James Dent
William Barwell
In article <AwehyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
Martin Hunt <uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
>In article <55md15$q...@lex.zippo.com>, Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>}In article <55m50t$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com says...
>}
>}>On October 12, 1977, the FBI contacted Paulette and told her that
>}>documents had been seized by the FBI in the CofS headquarters raid that
>}>indicated that she was, indeed, framed by the CofS. The documents found
>}>called Operation Freakout were dated 1976, that much you do have correct,
>}>and a few other documents were found directly relating to the 1973
>}>frameup.
>}
>}We've seen the Operation Freakout documents posted to a.r.s. any number
>}of times, and they're on many web pages. But I've never seen the 1973
>}documents. Could you, or Paulette, or someone else post them? I think
>}they would be a *very* useful addition to our web archives.
>}
>}about Operation Freakout being just an unexecuted plan.
>
>the op was based on that document or another, long since shredded
>or burned; the fact remains, Paulette was the target of a cult op,
>and that op was written up in targetted steps as per policy on writing
>actual plan that was enacted on Paulette, but we have one that's damn
>close that was taken in an FBI raid on the cult: Operation Freakout.
>
>attacked by the cult for her brave actions, and nothing whiners and
>arm-chair assholes on this newsgroup say about it will change that,
>OSA.
that Operation Freakout was some other operation and that PC's harrasment
was not Operation Freakout, therefore they are right and everybody else is
wrong, and they get to do teh superiority dance as if any of this
hairsplitting is meaningful in any way.
The sheer mindlessness of this crap is amazing.
but some people have this pathological Need To Always Be Right.
To the end they are neither quite right and lose sight
of the meaning of all of this which is as wrong as you can get.
It's just bizarre. PC was indeed harrassed by this hate cult to an
amazing degree and they had written materials that proved this that the
FBI seized.
Amazing that some people seem to be trying to downplay this fact that PC
was harrassed about as hard and long as the cult could get away with.
Some people simply lack judgement.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <32989b0e...@news.ping.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>
>>In article <55p3j8$j...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>pign...@ix.netcom.com(Monica Pignotti) wrote:
>>}In <327ff210...@news.ping.be> be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
>
>>[bullshit, as per usuail]
>
>>}Bernie, you are playing word games here to obscure my original point.
>
>>Well, that's what it always does, isn't it? Dennis was right; Bernie,
>>you're FOS, and hey, I have a killfile now, so......................
>
>><PLONK>
>
>>Ah, that felt good! :-)
>
>Yea, to me2. At least I won't have to argue with someone who
>can't put A and B together and who can do little else than
>suffocate in his own restless hate.
single one that was worth the effort.
You add nothing.
I can see why Martin KF'd you. I might have to do the same if I can
remember how to do so under TRN.
Bernie
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>Bernie, I have read many posts here from you, and cannot remember a
>single one that was worth the effort.
>You add nothing.
I am speaking about notions that are obviously foreign to you,
William.
>I can see why Martin KF'd you.
No wonder.
>I might have to do the same if I can
>remember how to do so under TRN.
I am sure Martin will be delighted with the company of someone
who one day applauds at Diane's brilliance against the COS and
the other day, when the same brilliance is used to expose sleazy
behavior perpetrated by someone else, impugns at low level
strikes of the worst kind.
---------
Bernie
Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will
take care not to understand anything else whereby it might be
explained.
(David Lewis)
Martin Hunt
In article <56jcvs$a...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
I think they are blind; they can see some tiny detail and nag at
it for weeks or months, but they can't see that the cult is running
roughshod over their free-speech rights and the constitution of
their country.
They blather on endlessly like the stupid little short-sighted
twits they are enraptured by the sound of their own voices and
oblivious to the massive opposition to their bullshit PR lies
in a most robotic manner.
Ah, well; it's easy to trash fools.
How do you like my new vanity .sig? Did I forget anything? ;-)
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Email: uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
Ex-Scn and proud to be a Wog, FAQ maintainer, Member - ars moderation
team, Black Hat #4 (AS, CAN), The Jester, J&D #1, Fearless Leader, KoX,
Sally's lover, Enturbulator, the Royal We, holder of the sacred C word,
Original ARS Bigot, in the front of the bus, Studmuffin of ars, Basher,
Homo Sap, Meatball, Merchant of Chaos, OSA INT ARS Project I/C, Critic,
Hate Monger, DB, Cancelled from ARS, OSA File# 700167r, Two-Faced Liar,
FO-SP, KoH, KL 24, GGBC, Founder-ARSCC, Alpha Male, master troller, KBM,
leading suppressive, SP 5, a dozen more forgotten - 5,000+ posts to ars.
Kobringram recipient, before the great awakening, 3rd partying scientology
to the internet since '94, copyright terrorist, ARSCC books project I/C.
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
Monica, I still don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Earlier, you wrote:
>>Okay, you are referring to the initial agreement but the charges were
>>not fully dropped until after the Operation Freakout documents were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>seized by the FBI, which showed plans to frame someone by writing fake
>>bomb threats.
I've shown that Cooper herself readily agreed that charges against her
were "fully dropped" after she completed one year of psychiatric
counseling. I can provide many other examples of her stating this in
addition to the one I've already posted.
You wrote:
>>She was not completely exonerated of the charges until
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>these documents were discovered.
But you yourself admit that the only thing remaining to be done was
for Cooper to have her records expunged, which *she* never
bothered to do. The fact that Cooper was not willing to pay a lawyer
to go through the procedure can hardly be blamed on the
U.S. Attorney's Office.
You have shown us *nothing* to prove that Cooper was unable to
have the record expunged immediately after she completed her
one year of psychiatric counseling. I assume that you are relying
upon Cooper herself for your information. I assume the John
Atack also relied on the same source for *his* information as well.
If I am correct and you are depending upon Paulette Cooper as
your source of information, why are you willing to believe what
she tells you now -- so many years after the fact -- rather than what
she was saying under oath when she was suing the CoS for
harassment? It is inconceivable that she would lie to *lessen*
the extent of the indictment during the time she was suing the cult
for harassment. Here is what she stated under oath in deposition
during her Boston lawsuit against the CoS:
"The obviously **eight months** [emphasis added] in
which you are under indictment or in fear of indictment
with 15 years in jail over your head, your career being
ruined, is going to be a more intense experience than
anything else that would happen in your life."
Why in the world would she say that she was under indictment or in
fear of being indicted for eight months if she was actually under
indictment or in fear of being indicted for years?
Your argument is supported by *nothing* which appears in the
record. You are unable to support your claim with anything beyond
the fact that you "know" this to be true. I would suggest that it is
not the official record, but your source of information, that errs in
this matter.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
[snip]
>Oh so true. Some people in mad dog attack mode are claimimg
>that Operation Freakout was some other operation and that PC's harrasment
>was not Operation Freakout, therefore they are right and everybody else is
>wrong, and they get to do teh superiority dance as if any of this
>hairsplitting is meaningful in any way.
Ummm, Barwell, what evidence do you base your statement on?
None, right? What you know, you know. Period.
Are these the words of a skeptic? Hardly.
Next thing we know, you'll be stating flat out that Uri Geller
actuallly *does* bend spoons with his mental powerz. Because
you *know* that it does. Evidence to the contrary is just
hairsplitting, after all.
I think it's time to turn in your Church of the Subgenius membership
card, Barwell.
>The sheer mindlessness of this crap is amazing.
>but some people have this pathological Need To Always Be Right.
>To the end they are neither quite right and lose sight
>of the meaning of all of this which is as wrong as you can get.
>It's just bizarre. PC was indeed harrassed by this hate cult to an
>amazing degree and they had written materials that proved this that the
>FBI seized.
Stop ranting long enough to read a little, Barwell. But then again,
I guess we've all learned by now that no amount of reading is going
to educate you. You *know* when you're right, dammit, and no
amount of factual material is going to swerve you from your deeply
held religious beliefs.
>Amazing that some people seem to be trying to downplay this fact that PC
>was harrassed about as hard and long as the cult could get away with.
>Some people simply lack judgement.
Those people most definitely include you, Barwell.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <56kt5e$m...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>Oh so true. Some people in mad dog attack mode are claimimg
>>that Operation Freakout was some other operation and that PC's harrasment
>>was not Operation Freakout, therefore they are right and everybody else is
>>wrong, and they get to do teh superiority dance as if any of this
>>hairsplitting is meaningful in any way.
>Ummm, Barwell, what evidence do you base your statement on?
>None, right? What you know, you know. Period.
no, what is obvious on its face. i defy you to refute
the evidence obvious in the slightest extracts from the
files seized by the FBI. you have so far failed
to do so, like the coward you are.
>Are these the words of a skeptic? Hardly.
>Next thing we know, you'll be stating flat out that Uri Geller
>actuallly *does* bend spoons with his mental powerz. Because
>you *know* that it does. Evidence to the contrary is just
>hairsplitting, after all.
what does uri geller's absurd spoon-bending have to do
with anything?
let me guess. . .you've resorted to random insults.
i thought only pathetic little creatures like *me*
resorted to such things.
>I think it's time to turn in your Church of the Subgenius membership
>card, Barwell.
>>The sheer mindlessness of this crap is amazing.
>>but some people have this pathological Need To Always Be Right.
>>To the end they are neither quite right and lose sight
>>of the meaning of all of this which is as wrong as you can get.
>>It's just bizarre. PC was indeed harrassed by this hate cult to an
>>amazing degree and they had written materials that proved this that the
>>FBI seized.
>Stop ranting long enough to read a little, Barwell. But then again,
>I guess we've all learned by now that no amount of reading is going
>to educate you. You *know* when you're right, dammit, and no
>amount of factual material is going to swerve you from your deeply
>held religious beliefs.
wow! i seem to recall you arguing endlessly about
the meaning of the word 'harassment' despite the fact
that you are DEAD WRONG.
but don't let all the dictionaries in the world deter
you, diane. *you* on the other hand, know you're
ALWAYS right and i defy you to admit a single time
you were wrong that you admitted to it on ars.
i'm happy to report a list of where you were wrong
and didn't admit it again, for the sheer joy of
exposing you as a liar yet again. but i'd settle
for the slightest minimal scrap of decency or
honesty out of you.
>>Amazing that some people seem to be trying to downplay this fact that PC
>>was harrassed about as hard and long as the cult could get away with.
>>Some people simply lack judgement.
>Those people most definitely include you, Barwell.
you are reckless and vicious. you expose people
to OSA harassment and then accuse them of being
liars, despite the three eyewitnesses who know
what happened.
you don't wait for the truth to come out, you
just decide that the people you don't like are
evil criminals and set about manufacturing consent
to post dirt on them.
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMo6VJHZ/m2/Pgo35AQEU+wH+LnPvoWqAyyueKAsEpTyFp0w1ccmhwmN+
+9//IlMvoXalUrBTW7FJm1TNr8uOXcCTWV3GtFLvl/MuOaXIYdKEQQ==
=OI79
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diane Richardson
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <56kt5e$m...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>Oh so true. Some people in mad dog attack mode are claimimg
>>>that Operation Freakout was some other operation and that PC's harrasment
>>>was not Operation Freakout, therefore they are right and everybody else is
>>>wrong, and they get to do teh superiority dance as if any of this
>>>hairsplitting is meaningful in any way.
>>Ummm, Barwell, what evidence do you base your statement on?
>>None, right? What you know, you know. Period.
>no, what is obvious on its face. i defy you to refute
>the evidence obvious in the slightest extracts from the
>files seized by the FBI. you have so far failed
>to do so, like the coward you are.
I quote Paulette Cooper verbatim: "We can't prove that they ever
did actually do anything about Operation Freakout."
Cooper herself readily admitted the fact that the Operation Freakout
plan was never carried out. It's only those who choose to delude
themselves about this who continue to forward this fantasy.
>>Are these the words of a skeptic? Hardly.
>>Next thing we know, you'll be stating flat out that Uri Geller
>>actuallly *does* bend spoons with his mental powerz. Because
>>you *know* that it does. Evidence to the contrary is just
>>hairsplitting, after all.
>what does uri geller's absurd spoon-bending have to do
>with anything?
Barwell has abandoned his widely-touted skepticism, Rob.
He refuses to examine the facts, preferring instead to believe
that what's true for him is true.
That's exactly what Geller's followers believe, too, Rob.
>let me guess. . .you've resorted to random insults.
>i thought only pathetic little creatures like *me*
>resorted to such things.
I've reached the limits of trying to be rational with the likes of
you and Barwell, Rob. I've done my best to keep my posts
focused on the issues I'm addressing.
But both you and Barwell crossed the line. I'm no longer ignoring
your personal insults and libelous accusations. I'll regain my focus
shortly and concentrate on the issues again shortly, but I want
you both to realize that you've posted things here I won't soon
forget or forgive.
>>I think it's time to turn in your Church of the Subgenius membership
>>card, Barwell.
>>>The sheer mindlessness of this crap is amazing.
>>>but some people have this pathological Need To Always Be Right.
>>>To the end they are neither quite right and lose sight
>>>of the meaning of all of this which is as wrong as you can get.
>>>It's just bizarre. PC was indeed harrassed by this hate cult to an
>>>amazing degree and they had written materials that proved this that the
>>>FBI seized.
>>Stop ranting long enough to read a little, Barwell. But then again,
>>I guess we've all learned by now that no amount of reading is going
>>to educate you. You *know* when you're right, dammit, and no
>>amount of factual material is going to swerve you from your deeply
>>held religious beliefs.
>wow! i seem to recall you arguing endlessly about
>the meaning of the word 'harassment' despite the fact
>that you are DEAD WRONG.
That's your opinion, Rob. It's not an opinion that's universally
held.
>but don't let all the dictionaries in the world deter
>you, diane. *you* on the other hand, know you're
>ALWAYS right and i defy you to admit a single time
>you were wrong that you admitted to it on ars.
Rob, I've been through this before. I have both admitted
I've been wrong on a.r.s. and I've apologized for it. I once even
apologized to Andrew Milne for a misstatement I made
regarding an incident in Dennis Erlich's June 1995 hearing.
If you don't believe me, ask Dennis Erlich. He'll probably
remember the incident. You're starting to believe in the net.
myths about me that you yourself had a hand in creating,
Rob. That's pretty dangerous.
>i'm happy to report a list of where you were wrong
>and didn't admit it again, for the sheer joy of
>exposing you as a liar yet again. but i'd settle
>for the slightest minimal scrap of decency or
>honesty out of you.
Do you mean the same sort of honesty that led you to claim
a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
>>>Amazing that some people seem to be trying to downplay this fact that PC
>>>was harrassed about as hard and long as the cult could get away with.
>>>Some people simply lack judgement.
>>Those people most definitely include you, Barwell.
>you are reckless and vicious. you expose people
>to OSA harassment and then accuse them of being
>liars, despite the three eyewitnesses who know
>what happened.
Oh, come on, Rob. Your efforts to accuse me of heinous
acts have reached the point of total absurdity.
>you don't wait for the truth to come out, you
>just decide that the people you don't like are
>evil criminals and set about manufacturing consent
>to post dirt on them.
Really, Rob? Perhaps you should look at your own
manufactured statements before you start accusing
others of such activity.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Martin Hunt
In article <efischer-171...@news.wimsey.com>,
efis...@portal.ca wrote:
}In article <56mdj4$b...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
}Richardson) wrote:
}
}> Do you mean the same sort of honesty that led you to claim
}> a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
}> on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
}
}
}say... diane... like, do you have a shred of decency left? is this what
}you have been alluding to for the past several days?
}
}i don't know about this one... and i can't say i care to know
}
}however, seeing as some people may have actually told you things in
}confidence, are they now to fear you? being possessed by righteous rage
}as you are...
}
}<oh sigh oh sigh>
}
}ef
}
}--
}NWHQ
}http://www.knosso.com/NWHQ/
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Email: uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
"Freedom of Speech is a *good* thing, Scientology."
- [Idea for a picket sign from Stephen Jones]
Sister Clara
In article <56mdj4$b...@clark.zippo.com>
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
> Do you mean the same sort of honesty that led you to claim
> a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
> on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
>
Right, now it is henry who is being targetted.....
I said a while ago (check DejaNews) that it was only a matter of time before
Diane started to target those who dared to oppose her in her ruthless
campaign against Paulette.
My, my. What a *nice* person you are, Diane. So calm, so rational.
Look at what happens when the mask slips.......
Karin Spaink
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
> anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
> Do you mean the same sort of honesty that led you to claim
> a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
> on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
All I can quote is:
> I'm no longer ignoring
> your personal insults and libelous accusations. I'll regain my focus
> shortly and concentrate on the issues again shortly, but I want
> you (..) to realize that you've posted things here I won't soon
> forget or forgive.
...and say pot, kettle, black. Diane, your behaviour here is hardly
impeccable, is it? In fact, it would seem that you are the one making
libelous statements here.
I've seen numerous postings of yours in which you said rather nasty
things about Paulette Cooper - no, I am not referring to the Bast
Tapes themselves, but to the comments with which you accompany your
explanations of the material and your discussions with others of PC's
attitude and character. I've also seen quite a few postings of yours
in which you use material-to-be-posted as a sort of threat.
And now you accuse Henry, without providing any basis for your
statement whatsoever.
Diane, _proove_ it or apologize.
groet,
Karin Spaink
- I write, therefore I am: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink
Steunfonds rechtszaak Scientology v. Spaink et. al.:
- Vrienden van K., giro 450 9627, Amsterdam
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <56mdj4$b...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>no, what is obvious on its face. i defy you to refute
>>the evidence obvious in the slightest extracts from the
>>files seized by the FBI. you have so far failed
>>to do so, like the coward you are.
>I quote Paulette Cooper verbatim: "We can't prove that they ever
>did actually do anything about Operation Freakout."
i was discussing whether cooper was exonerated by a mere
dismissal with conditions attached. the charges were
dismissed. cooper was exonerated. quibbling over what
document was called what is a pathetic tactic.
>Cooper herself readily admitted the fact that the Operation Freakout
>plan was never carried out. It's only those who choose to delude
>themselves about this who continue to forward this fantasy.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU JABBERING ABOUT? AM I SAYING
THAT THE DOCUMENT CALLED "OPERATION FREAKOUT" WAS
CARRIED OUT, YOU DUMB CUNT???
i am attacking your fucking disgusting evasion.
>>what does uri geller's absurd spoon-bending have to do
>>with anything?
>Barwell has abandoned his widely-touted skepticism, Rob.
>He refuses to examine the facts, preferring instead to believe
what facts? the facts that you are a carping harridan and
a vicious vengeance-driven scumbag?
>that what's true for him is true.
is this like your "it's only harassment if you call it that"
bullshit?
>That's exactly what Geller's followers believe, too, Rob.
you're right. i ought to go bend a spoon.. what-ever.
>>let me guess. . .you've resorted to random insults.
>>i thought only pathetic little creatures like *me*
>>resorted to such things.
>I've reached the limits of trying to be rational with the likes of
>you and Barwell, Rob. I've done my best to keep my posts
>focused on the issues I'm addressing.
oh, yeah, like answering my correction of your timeline
by trying to frame me for a crime. REAL FOCUSSED, bitch.
>But both you and Barwell crossed the line. I'm no longer ignoring
>your personal insults and libelous accusations. I'll regain my focus
>shortly and concentrate on the issues again shortly, but I want
>you both to realize that you've posted things here I won't soon
>forget or forgive.
do you think i want YOUR FORGIVENESS? no. i'd sooner
accept forgiveness from vera wallace.
>>wow! i seem to recall you arguing endlessly about
>>the meaning of the word 'harassment' despite the fact
>>that you are DEAD WRONG.
>That's your opinion, Rob. It's not an opinion that's universally
>held.
merriam-webster holds it, dumbass. you can pretend that
harassment means something other than the word as it is
defined and used, but humpty dumpty bullshit like that
doesn't fly.
>>but don't let all the dictionaries in the world deter
>>you, diane. *you* on the other hand, know you're
>>ALWAYS right and i defy you to admit a single time
>>you were wrong that you admitted to it on ars.
>Rob, I've been through this before. I have both admitted
>I've been wrong on a.r.s. and I've apologized for it. I once even
>apologized to Andrew Milne for a misstatement I made
HAHAHAHA! i KNEW you'd drag that up--that's the ONLY
time you've apologized for a mistake--though you DID
apologize for lying in mediation about a post you'd made
not three days earlier.
>regarding an incident in Dennis Erlich's June 1995 hearing.
>If you don't believe me, ask Dennis Erlich. He'll probably
>remember the incident. You're starting to believe in the net.
I remember that incident--the *only* time you ever
corrected one of your mistakes--and then, only because
it was so blatantly wrong.
>myths about me that you yourself had a hand in creating,
>Rob. That's pretty dangerous.
WTF are you going on about?
>>i'm happy to report a list of where you were wrong
>>and didn't admit it again, for the sheer joy of
>>exposing you as a liar yet again. but i'd settle
>>for the slightest minimal scrap of decency or
>>honesty out of you.
>Do you mean the same sort of honesty that led you to claim
>a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
>on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
so call them and tell them--you haven't yet "destroyed
me utterly." that's what you want, right? cunt.
oh, btw, any evidence yet?
>>you are reckless and vicious. you expose people
>>to OSA harassment and then accuse them of being
>>liars, despite the three eyewitnesses who know
>>what happened.
>Oh, come on, Rob. Your efforts to accuse me of heinous
>acts have reached the point of total absurdity.
bullshit. i suppose the OSA following had *utterly
nothing* to do with you dragging paulette cooper through
every kind of OSA filth you can dig up.
and of course you were wrong calling lance a liar,
too, but when can we expect honesty from a self-proclaimed
paragon like you?
>>you don't wait for the truth to come out, you
>>just decide that the people you don't like are
>>evil criminals and set about manufacturing consent
>>to post dirt on them.
>Really, Rob? Perhaps you should look at your own
>manufactured statements before you start accusing
>others of such activity.
totally irrelevant, diane. what i may have done
a year ago has fuck-all to do with what you're
doing now.
as is obvious to anyone reading.
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMpM3YHZ/m2/Pgo35AQGDgwIAub4bsIZjccozm0a1VmXyTTn09ZS8DZhf
D1V0x027VgGsZ65y+NuihaluDTyKMw+7cJwNinkZGMB4gIHN+zQ7+w==
=IDm3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernie
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>>the coward you are.
>a pathetic tactic.
>WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU JABBERING ABOUT? AM I SAYING
>THAT THE DOCUMENT CALLED "OPERATION FREAKOUT" WAS
>CARRIED OUT, YOU DUMB CUNT???
I doubt anyone knows exactly what you are talking about between
insults, outrages and repeated misrepresentations, henry.
>your fucking disgusting evasion.
>you are a carping harridan and a vicious vengeance-driven scumbag
>bullshit
>what-ever.
>REAL FOCUSSED, bitch.
>>>you are DEAD WRONG.
>dumbass humpty dumpty bullshit
About Diane's apology for the Andrew Milne accident:
>ONLY time you've apologized for a mistake
regarding an incident in Dennis Erlich's June 1995 hearing:
>I remember that incident--the *only* time you ever
>corrected one of your mistakes
>WTF are you going on about?
>>>the sheer joy of exposing you as a liar yet again.
>cunt.
>>>you are reckless and vicious.
>bullshit.
>a self-proclaimed paragon like you?
>as is obvious to anyone reading.
>h
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6
>Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
>
>iQBVAwUBMpM3YHZ/m2/Pgo35AQGDgwIAub4bsIZjccozm0a1VmXyTTn09ZS8DZhf
>D1V0x027VgGsZ65y+NuihaluDTyKMw+7cJwNinkZGMB4gIHN+zQ7+w==
>=IDm3
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------
Bernie
The only difference I can see is in the vehemence of the
response against me. The scienos were a lot less vicious in
their public attacks.
(Diane Richardson)
Keith A. Schauer
In article <bb3e...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <56mdj4$b...@clark.zippo.com>
> ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>> a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
>> on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
>>
>
diane's had a big bullseye on her back for how long from henry?
there won't be any tears from me for henry.
>
>I said a while ago (check DejaNews) that it was only a matter of time before
>Diane started to target those who dared to oppose her in her ruthless
>campaign against Paulette.
since when are open court records ruthless? or did she dare
post information on someone other than the cos?
>
>My, my. What a *nice* person you are, Diane. So calm, so rational.
for all the shit diane's gotten from henry, i would consider
the vast majority of her respones to both calm and rational.
>
>Look at what happens when the mask slips.......
>
everyone should look at them selves in the mirror
>Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - potential DA subject
--
keith schauer 87 K100LT, 80 CB900C
plain o, texas El Fiero - AHRA Arabian
dod ama ibmwr dof my company disavows any knowledge of my actions
2.5 %er
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:33:40 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
[snip]
> I am sure Martin will be delighted with the company of someone
> who one day applauds at Diane's brilliance against the COS and
> the other day, when the same brilliance is used to expose sleazy
> behavior perpetrated by someone else, impugns at low level
> strikes of the worst kind.
[snip]
Please explain to me how Diane has demonstrated "brilliance"
by her behavior in this episode.
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMpJrbCnhWc34xW2VAQEJ3Qf/QQLUuachPpctZRX4UtvD37Y0+2ty4v3z
TqOF/3wwKhe+Z/so1hMbH2GoMr+zm4fAKfYI1obMyqe+aaTbZuFOGyEw4poihtuA
srgiUbOvFGU/0DV+D1Lsf/rd29fyhlUwc6bYK9ZCDOCVo54g9+AIbsuK0ltVVrAA
VMWqE5fJCzCSfwHgnwi/kMKYiYc6l91XNaKL729UmeVV16AK9Qn4df2KotlnndJp
Fc4yxDmOyLG3a3O0HAxtvuWf9lEwZ2guidpai+UW4F7zLLZJmT6jjh74JPRPfWiT
avb5t+rxVnvE+EfahlF92J3Z+U5XC9FvcbDok5rarqoakkHD+sWR/A==
=kH3J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gemm...@aol.com
Karin Spaink wrote:
>Diane, _proove_ it or apologize.
I fully second that. This is a very serious charge that could have very
serious consequences. Second-hand heresay is just not enough basis to
make this sort of accusation.
Monica Pignotti
Diane Richardson
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <56mdj4$b...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>>no, what is obvious on its face. i defy you to refute
>>>the evidence obvious in the slightest extracts from the
>>>files seized by the FBI. you have so far failed
>>>to do so, like the coward you are.
>>I quote Paulette Cooper verbatim: "We can't prove that they ever
>>did actually do anything about Operation Freakout."
>i was discussing whether cooper was exonerated by a mere
>dismissal with conditions attached. the charges were
>dismissed. cooper was exonerated. quibbling over what
>document was called what is a pathetic tactic.
The indictment against Cooper was dropped after she completed
the agreed upon year of psychiatric therapy. The Nolle Prosequi
disposing of the pending indictment was filed 16 Sepember 1975.
The Nolle Presequi states:
3. In October, 1973 the government agreed that if PAULETTE
MARCIA COOPER would undergo continuous medical treatment
for a year, the government would file a Nolle Prosequi after
completion of the year.
4. The government has been notified that PAULETTE MARCIA
COOPER has been receiving regular medical treatment for the
year agreed upon.
5. Under the circumstances, the government does not believe
that further prosecution of PAULETTE MARCIA COOPER is necessary
or in the public interest.
It is this document, filed in 1975, that dropped the charges against
Cooper for the faked bomb threats against the CoS.
The Operation Freakout document was not written until 1976, nearly one
year after Cooper's indictment was dismissed. The FBI did not obtain
that document until they raided CoS headquarters in July 1977. Cooper
was not informed of the existence of that document until October 1977,
more than two years after the Nolle Prosequi was filed by the U.S.
Attorney's Office, ending prosecution of her case.
The Operation Freakout document had nothing to do with the dismissal
of the bomb threat charges against Cooper by the U.S. Attorney's
Office.
>>Cooper herself readily admitted the fact that the Operation Freakout
>>plan was never carried out. It's only those who choose to delude
>>themselves about this who continue to forward this fantasy.
>WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU JABBERING ABOUT? AM I SAYING
>THAT THE DOCUMENT CALLED "OPERATION FREAKOUT" WAS
>CARRIED OUT, YOU DUMB CUNT???
>i am attacking your fucking disgusting evasion.
I am not evading anything. Operation Freakout had nothing to do with
the dismissal of the bomb threat charges, for which I believe she was
framed by the CoS.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <570b0i$4...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>i was discussing whether cooper was exonerated by a mere
>>dismissal with conditions attached. the charges were
>>dismissed. cooper was [sic: not] exonerated. quibbling over what
>>document was called what is a pathetic tactic.
>The indictment against Cooper was dropped after she completed
>the agreed upon year of psychiatric therapy. The Nolle Prosequi
>disposing of the pending indictment was filed 16 Sepember 1975.
PRECISELY, you NIMROD! a "dismissal" with humiliating
conditions that almost amount to an admission of guilt
is NOT A FUCKING EXONERATION!
she was not EXONERATED until the FBI found the fucking
freakout documents!
sheesh! how goddamn dense are you? have you read
so many court documents your ability to understand
english has been damaged?
you read like a senile barrister.
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMpXzVXZ/m2/Pgo35AQGCDgIAml/iASYHZiC5WzSexT/M/io8TrYsnfTK
j1queP2/SGfFcoiu7KF0psZjy6M9+ygd1G/jEfdAqxJ/wslXvU2T5A==
=JH9Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diane Richardson
ksp...@xs4all.nl (Karin Spaink) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>> anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>> Do you mean the same sort of honesty that led you to claim
>> a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
>> on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
>All I can quote is:
>> I'm no longer ignoring
>> your personal insults and libelous accusations. I'll regain my focus
>> shortly and concentrate on the issues again shortly, but I want
>> you (..) to realize that you've posted things here I won't soon
>> forget or forgive.
>...and say pot, kettle, black. Diane, your behaviour here is hardly
>impeccable, is it? In fact, it would seem that you are the one making
>libelous statements here.
> I've seen numerous postings of yours in which you said rather nasty
>things about Paulette Cooper - no, I am not referring to the Bast
>Tapes themselves, but to the comments with which you accompany your
>explanations of the material and your discussions with others of PC's
>attitude and character. I've also seen quite a few postings of yours
>in which you use material-to-be-posted as a sort of threat.
> And now you accuse Henry, without providing any basis for your
>statement whatsoever.
>Diane, _proove_ it or apologize.
Karin, I note that you did not demand that Rob Clark prove the
accusations that he was flinging against Keith Spurgeon and me.
Rob was accusing us of committing fraud against the court,
of lying to federal records personnel, and not being "up front"
with government officials when we gathered the documents at
the Federal Records Center in Waltham, MA. He hounded us
relentlessly about this, bringing it up in post after post.
Did you demand that Rob Clark "prove" those charges against me?
Of course you didn't. No one did. Most people here were more
than willing to believe whatever Rob Clark said about us without
demanding anything approaching "proof". If it hadn't been for Ron
Newman picking up the telephone and talking with Federal Records
Center personnel about the matter, Rob would most likely be
demanding our immediate arrest and conviction at this point.
Rob Clark himself knows the truth of what I've stated about him.
He knows the source of my information. He knows the integrity of
the people involved. Others on this newsgroup know this as well.
If Rob Clark wants me to retract my statement, he can take me to
court and sue me for libel. I am fully prepared to prove my
accusation against him there.
Unlike Rob, I do not intend to hound him mercilessly about this.
I will not post and repost messages demanding that he admit
he posted that spurious "bomb threat." Those are Rob Clark's
tactics.
All I ask is that you examine your own reaction to this matter,
Karin. Why didn't you (and others) demand that Rob Clark prove
the charges he was making against me? Is it because you are
willing to believe anything he chooses to say without further
substantiation? Or is it because you don't hold Rob Clark to the
same standards of ethical behavior to which you hold me and others?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <573s95$g...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>ksp...@xs4all.nl (Karin Spaink) wrote:
[diane said]
>>> I'm no longer ignoring
>>> your personal insults and libelous accusations. I'll regain my focus
>>> shortly and concentrate on the issues again shortly, but I want
>>> you (..) to realize that you've posted things here I won't soon
>>> forget or forgive.
>>...and say pot, kettle, black. Diane, your behaviour here is hardly
>>impeccable, is it? In fact, it would seem that you are the one making
>>libelous statements here.
>> I've seen numerous postings of yours in which you said rather nasty
>>things about Paulette Cooper - no, I am not referring to the Bast
>>Tapes themselves, but to the comments with which you accompany your
>>explanations of the material and your discussions with others of PC's
>>attitude and character. I've also seen quite a few postings of yours
>>in which you use material-to-be-posted as a sort of threat.
precisely. i'll note that whether or not i'm an evil
sleazeball, or a "criminal liar" or whatever new title
diane wishes to hang about my neck, it's utterly irrelevant
to the truth or falsehood of her timeline.
i'll note that she responded to the questioning of her
timeline with this irrelevant bullshit. rather than
prove or retract her bullshit about cooper's lawyers,
and the fact that she is apparently ignorant of the
fact that michael flynn took over paulette cooper's
new york suit in august 1981, she notes that one
affidavit of a later date is signed by cooper's
original attorney--and the letter is signed after
the judge motioned for summary judgment after michael
flynn's choice of lawyers bungled the suit and lost
the case by filing a pathetic three page motion for
summary judgment in response to the cult's three
hundred page motion. the summary judgment motion
*and* the motion for appeal are signed by flynn's
team. diane seized on the *one* document, signed
by paul rheingold when he was evidently rushed back
into the case in a desperate attempt to wreck the
damage flynn caused with his bungling of the new
york suit and the severe miscalculation of filing
the boston suit.
if one needs evidence that the boston suit backfired
badly, look at all the discrediting material that
diane was able to get out of it--the cult used that
suit well to damage cooper's other cases.
>> And now you accuse Henry, without providing any basis for your
>>statement whatsoever.
>>Diane, _proove_ it or apologize.
she can't prove it. there are very few
people who might be able to say *anything
at all* about the issue--and of the ones
i can guess, they would not have given
permission to be put on the firing line
like this--in short, they are threatening
to violate yet another confidence, and have
said different things each time as to
what was supposedly said--nothing even
remotely like a direct quote.
it's bullshit hearsay at best.
i might discuss this issue at some other date,
but fuck it for now. it is not my obligation
to prove myself innocent. it is their obligation
to prove their charges.
let them do it if they can.
>Karin, I note that you did not demand that Rob Clark prove the
>accusations that he was flinging against Keith Spurgeon and me.
i have given my evidence. paul at the records center said
spurgeon was "not up front." this is an accurate quotation,
verbatim, and it has a name attached, unlike the
anonymous third-party hearsay you try to smear *me* with.
>Rob was accusing us of committing fraud against the court,
no i wan't. i never said you did anything illegal--and
if i did (i may have gotten intemperate) i apologize and
retract it, and clarify that i *should* have said, if i
didn't say it at some other time, that you were "not up
front" and nothing more. deceptive. lying by omission.
but i believe i've said at least once that i am not
aware that there is any law against this particular
deception.
anyway, if it's a record center, not a court, as you
quibbled earlier, what i accused you of doing could hardly
be a "fraud on a court."
>of lying to federal records personnel, and not being "up front"
sorry. i stick by that one. that's what paul said.
>with government officials when we gathered the documents at
>the Federal Records Center in Waltham, MA. He hounded us
>relentlessly about this, bringing it up in post after post.
yes, you deserved to be hounded relentlessly about it.
and still haven't come clean on it. what *did* you tell
the records center? or what did keith tell them?
you seem to have questions for everyone who disagrees with
you--why can't you answer a simple question like this?
did you say you were copying those tapes, or just listening
to them?
>Did you demand that Rob Clark "prove" those charges against me?
i quoted the specific person in such a way that they
could not be misidentified, and quoted the exact words.
this is what paul said on this occasion. you chose to
either call me a liar or call paul a liar.
>Of course you didn't. No one did. Most people here were more
>than willing to believe whatever Rob Clark said about us without
hey, you're the non-confront one. you have questions
for everyone--but if someone *dares* question your holy
writ, it's time for you to "defend free speech" by
threats and blackmail.
i have given my reasons. and at least *my* sources
aren't anonymous, and i didn't violate my sources'
confidence and try to drag them into the middle of
this horrible flamewar that nobody wants.
>demanding anything approaching "proof". If it hadn't been for Ron
>Newman picking up the telephone and talking with Federal Records
>Center personnel about the matter, Rob would most likely be
>demanding our immediate arrest and conviction at this point.
what? are you out of your mind? when did i threaten
any such thing--i have done nothing more than expose you
as "not up front." ron newman's report does not contradict
that paul said you were "not up front."
>Rob Clark himself knows the truth of what I've stated about him.
>He knows the source of my information.
if the source is who i think it is, i think people would
be amused by the name, as the person is hardly a neutral
non-participant.
>He knows the integrity of
>the people involved. Others on this newsgroup know this as well.
true. i would not, if it is who i think it is, question
the integrity of the person involved. however, i would
tend to question their precise recollection and how
closely they remember what i said--and whether subsequent
events after i met them may have altered their subjective
memory.
>If Rob Clark wants me to retract my statement, he can take me to
>court and sue me for libel. I am fully prepared to prove my
>accusation against him there.
fuck you--i'm not suing you for libel and never will.
>Unlike Rob, I do not intend to hound him mercilessly about this.
so what are you doing?
>I will not post and repost messages demanding that he admit
>he posted that spurious "bomb threat." Those are Rob Clark's
>tactics.
right. . .and you're just *oh* so much more morally superior
to me. . .you wouldn't dream of being "not up front."
and you're right--the "bomb threat" is nothing of the
sort and certainly not a bomb threat.
>All I ask is that you examine your own reaction to this matter,
>Karin. Why didn't you (and others) demand that Rob Clark prove
>the charges he was making against me? Is it because you are
i have given my reasons for believing my charges.
the readers can make up their own minds--or do you
think they're too stupid? if i'm full of shit, they
will decide accordingly. . .oh, wait, they're a bunch
of "henry cultists" suffering from "groupthink" and
"delusions."
i may discuss this subject further--but *not* to
you. i'm not going to answer your bullshit leading
questions and your demands, when you don't live
up to the standards you demand everyone else adhere
to. the questions are as to the accuracy of your
timeline, and other issues relating to your posts.
you responded to the questioning of this with
utterly irrelevant bullshit. if i had sent
fifty bomb threats and molested a whole hospital
wing full of war orphans while shooting smack
into my eyeballs it wouldn't make my comments
any less accurate.
it's irrelevant, it's bullshit. i'm ignoring it.
maybe i'll answer these questions for someone else
at some point, but frankly fuck that with a harpy
like you publicly keel-hauling me.
>willing to believe anything he chooses to say without further
>substantiation? Or is it because you don't hold Rob Clark to the
>same standards of ethical behavior to which you hold me and others?
hey, *you're* the one who traipses about as if you have
a fucking halo, not me. you and your quest for the
truth bullshit, and your "objective research" bullshit
and your "calm, cool and unsympathetic" intellect. . .
you're the one proposing some sort of hyper-honesty
and then not living up to it.
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMpZF9HZ/m2/Pgo35AQEyzAIAtYiTBl1pNu/3aK93ecLqrHTmXUo+iZTu
At05HjMQaVuQv+vpM0nSKAsqehRFBaV82j+oXsbJBbw1L+P+b53hIg==
=guU6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernie
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>All I ask is that you examine your own reaction to this matter,
>Karin. Why didn't you (and others) demand that Rob Clark prove
>the charges he was making against me? Is it because you are
>willing to believe anything he chooses to say without further
>substantiation? Or is it because you don't hold Rob Clark to the
>same standards of ethical behavior to which you hold me and others?
I suspect that it's because there are probably very few people
left reading henry's spew, and those who do, have probably a
real hard time to understand what he is talking about.
---------
Bernie
Although the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, the
friend of my friend's perceived enemy is almost always an
obsequious, fawning acolyte.
(Tashback)
Ron Newman
In article <575gls$9...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) says...
>i'll note that she responded to the questioning of her
>timeline with this irrelevant bullshit. rather than
>prove or retract her bullshit about cooper's lawyers,
>and the fact that she is apparently ignorant of the
>fact that michael flynn took over paulette cooper's
>new york suit in august 1981, she notes that one
>affidavit of a later date is signed by cooper's
>original attorney--and the letter is signed after
>the judge motioned for summary judgment after michael
>flynn's choice of lawyers bungled the suit and lost
>the case by filing a pathetic three page motion for
>summary judgment in response to the cult's three
>hundred page motion. the summary judgment motion
>*and* the motion for appeal are signed by flynn's
>team. diane seized on the *one* document, signed
>by paul rheingold when he was evidently rushed back
>into the case in a desperate attempt to wreck the
>damage flynn caused with his bungling of the new
>york suit and the severe miscalculation of filing
>the boston suit.
We appear to have here a dispute over facts. Two possibilities arise:
- Either henry or Diane (or both!) has misread or misinterpreted the public
records of these cases. If so, this is no great shame to either party;
after all, neither of them are lawyers. I'd like both of you to
cite evidence for your respective statements, and then maybe some
other person (Maureen, are you listening?) can attempt to determine
which (if either) is correct.
- The public records contain contradictory statements; henry and
Diane have each cited valid records, but the records don't
agree with each other.
In *either* case, this is the kind of dispute that should be settled
calmly and rationally, without the need for either party to use terms
such as "bullshit" and "liar".
I think that if henry and Diane simply sat for an hour together in a
library with copies of the documents in question, this could easily
be put to rest.
Diane Richardson
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <570b0i$4...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>>i was discussing whether cooper was exonerated by a mere
>>>dismissal with conditions attached. the charges were
>>>dismissed. cooper was [sic: not] exonerated. quibbling over what
>>>document was called what is a pathetic tactic.
>>The indictment against Cooper was dropped after she completed
>>the agreed upon year of psychiatric therapy. The Nolle Prosequi
>>disposing of the pending indictment was filed 16 Sepember 1975.
>PRECISELY, you NIMROD! a "dismissal" with humiliating
>conditions that almost amount to an admission of guilt
>is NOT A FUCKING EXONERATION!
There were no humiliating conditions. Cooper agreed to undergo
one year of psychiatric counseling. When she completed that
counseling, the Nolle Prosequi was filed and the indictment was
disposed of.
>she was not EXONERATED until the FBI found the fucking
>freakout documents!
Exonerated for what, Rob? Exonerated by whom? There was
no longer an indictment filed against Cooper when those
documents were seized by the FBI.
>sheesh! how goddamn dense are you? have you read
>so many court documents your ability to understand
>english has been damaged?
>you read like a senile barrister.
If you would like to provide me with a court document entitled
"Exoneration of Paulette Cooper," I'll be glad to read it. There
is no such document. The Operation Freakout documents
seized by the FBI during their raid of CoS headquarters in
July 1977 had nothing to do with the dismissal of the indictment
against Paulette Cooper.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
efis...@portal.ca
> I think that if henry and Diane simply sat for an hour together in a
> library with copies of the documents in question, this could easily
> be put to rest.
ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha
hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahah ha ha ha ha ha ha
heh
ooops... sorry, got carried aways there for a minute
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <576pb0$5...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>>The indictment against Cooper was dropped after she completed
>>>the agreed upon year of psychiatric therapy. The Nolle Prosequi
>>>disposing of the pending indictment was filed 16 Sepember 1975.
>>PRECISELY, you NIMROD! a "dismissal" with humiliating
>>conditions that almost amount to an admission of guilt
>>is NOT A FUCKING EXONERATION!
>There were no humiliating conditions. Cooper agreed to undergo
what do you CALL a YEAR OF PSYCHIATRIC THERAPY?
why psychiatric therapy if she was totally innocent??
WHAT FOR? are you deliberately trying to piss me off
by faking incredible, moronic, gibbering stupidity?
what the fuck is wrong with you?
>one year of psychiatric counseling. When she completed that
>counseling, the Nolle Prosequi was filed and the indictment was
>disposed of.
DID IT SAY SHE WAS NOT FUCKING GULITY ? WAS IT AN
EXONERATION?
would you NOT FUCKING SAY that a FUCKING SMOKING GUN
DOCUMENT proving PLANS TO HARASS AND FRAME, would constitute
an EXONERATION, while a settlement requiring
PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT IS NOT A FUCKING EXONERATION?
how fucking dumb do you think we are?
>>she was not EXONERATED until the FBI found the fucking
>>freakout documents!
>Exonerated for what, Rob? Exonerated by whom? There was
EXONERATED FOR THE "BOMB THREAT!!!" what do you think?
>no longer an indictment filed against Cooper when those
>documents were seized by the FBI.
exonerated by WHOM? by ANY FUCKING PERSON WHO
READS THE DOCUMENT, that's by whom. and i doubt
there would have been any question of PSYCHIATRIC
TREATMENT with factual proof of her innocence.
>>sheesh! how goddamn dense are you? have you read
>>so many court documents your ability to understand
>>english has been damaged?
>>you read like a senile barrister.
>If you would like to provide me with a court document entitled
>"Exoneration of Paulette Cooper," I'll be glad to read it. There
>is no such document. The Operation Freakout documents
i am using a fucking english word, dumb cunt.
"exonerate." look it up.
>seized by the FBI during their raid of CoS headquarters in
>July 1977 had nothing to do with the dismissal of the indictment
>against Paulette Cooper.
if it doesn't happen in a court, it isn't true, is that
it, diane?
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMpdyH3Z/m2/Pgo35AQH03gIAgBfrj7golGUYVjDTgfR1oaTjekybveTn
SFpjL/wSnD1V3Woo4WyJ7OjUWZOOLkBztgxXjvoU8gLRWKwFWW5QSg==
=t/dl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diane Richardson
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <576pb0$5...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>>>The indictment against Cooper was dropped after she completed
>>>>the agreed upon year of psychiatric therapy. The Nolle Prosequi
>>>>disposing of the pending indictment was filed 16 Sepember 1975.
>>>PRECISELY, you NIMROD! a "dismissal" with humiliating
>>>conditions that almost amount to an admission of guilt
>>>is NOT A FUCKING EXONERATION!
>>There were no humiliating conditions. Cooper agreed to undergo
>what do you CALL a YEAR OF PSYCHIATRIC THERAPY?
I don't consider that a "humiliating condition," Rob. Neither,
apparently, did Paulette Cooper.
>why psychiatric therapy if she was totally innocent??
Because at the time she wasn't even sure that she had not sent
the bomb threats herself.. Nan McLean makes that quite clear in her
deposition.
Paulette Cooper undertook the sodium pentothal test on her own
initiative and at her own expense to assure herself that she had
not sent the bomb threats.
I quote from the deposition of Nan McLean, taken 18 May 1982,
in which she is discussing Paulette Cooper's first visit with Nan
McLean early in 1973, before Cooper was indicted:
Q And Paulette, when she talked to you and John, told you
that she suspected that she had been framed by
individuals from the Church; right?
A No. She named quite a few people that she thought,
among them herself --
Q But also among them were people from the Church of
Scientology of New York, weren't they?
A. Yes. But they -- not just New York. Nibbs, even. Bernie
Green, even.
Q The FBI, even; right?
A Exactly. There was no evidence to Paulette as to who
framed her, and she kept naming different people.
Q And even herself; right?
A And even herself.
Q She obviously didn't frame herself?
A She knows that.
Q So she either said, "I did it myself or somebody framed me;"
is that right?
A No. She didn't say, "I did it myself or somebody framed me."
No. That's not correct.
Q What did she say?
A She, after some of her tests, was even wondering herself
whether
she did it, and she knows she didn't do it.
Q You're talking about Sodium Pentothal tests?
A Yes.
Q But that didn't happen for a year after your visit.
A Well, at that point in time, she wasn't claiming herself.
Q After the Sodium Pentathol, you mean, when she first came to
see you?
A Right.
Q I see. But after the Soidum Pentathol test, she thought she
might
have done it?
A No. She knew she hadn't done it after the Sodium Pentathol
test.
Q I see. So prior to the Sodium Pentathol test, you're saying
that
Paulette considered the possibility that she had done it herself
and just didn't realize it?
A That was one of the things that was concerning her, that she
had
total memory lapses as to -- as to that possibility.
>WHAT FOR? are you deliberately trying to piss me off
>by faking incredible, moronic, gibbering stupidity?
No. I am stating that Paulette Cooper herself wasn't sure of her own
mental stability at the time. She underwent the sodium pentathol test
at her own initiative and at her own expense to find out whether or
not she had sent the bomb threats and didn't remember doing so.
>what the fuck is wrong with you?
>>one year of psychiatric counseling. When she completed that
>>counseling, the Nolle Prosequi was filed and the indictment was
>>disposed of.
>DID IT SAY SHE WAS NOT FUCKING GULITY ? WAS IT AN
>EXONERATION?
Paulette Cooper was not charged with anything at the time the
Operation Freakout documents were discovered. It's not very
logical to find someone Not Guilty of a crime they are no longer
accused of having committed.
>would you NOT FUCKING SAY that a FUCKING SMOKING GUN
>DOCUMENT proving PLANS TO HARASS AND FRAME, would constitute
>an EXONERATION, while a settlement requiring
>PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT IS NOT A FUCKING EXONERATION?
In 1977, when the Operation Freakout documents were obtained by the
FBI, there were no outstanding indictments against Paulette Cooper.
There was nothing she could be exonerated for in 1977. The charges
against her had been dropped years before.
>how fucking dumb do you think we are?
>>>she was not EXONERATED until the FBI found the fucking
>>>freakout documents!
>>Exonerated for what, Rob? Exonerated by whom? There was
>EXONERATED FOR THE "BOMB THREAT!!!" what do you think?
The indictment against her for the forged bomb threat was dropped
long before the Operation Freakout documents were discovered, Rob.
By the time those documents were found, all charges against Cooper
had been dismissed. She was not being prosecuted for any crime.
>>no longer an indictment filed against Cooper when those
>>documents were seized by the FBI.
>exonerated by WHOM? by ANY FUCKING PERSON WHO
>READS THE DOCUMENT, that's by whom. and i doubt
>there would have been any question of PSYCHIATRIC
>TREATMENT with factual proof of her innocence.
All charges against Paulette Cooper were dismissed when the
Nolle Prosequi was filed with the court on 16 September 1975.
>>>sheesh! how goddamn dense are you? have you read
>>>so many court documents your ability to understand
>>>english has been damaged?
>>>you read like a senile barrister.
>>If you would like to provide me with a court document entitled
>>"Exoneration of Paulette Cooper," I'll be glad to read it. There
>>is no such document. The Operation Freakout documents
>i am using a fucking english word, dumb cunt.
>"exonerate." look it up.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "exoneration" as "The removal of
a burden, charge, responsibility, or duty." It is primarily a term
used in contract law rather than criminal law.
The charge against Paulette Cooper was removed when the
Nolle Prosequi was filed with the court on 16 September 1975.
Paulette Cooper was "exonerated" on 16 September 1975, two
years before the FBI seized the Operation Freakout documents
during the CoS raid in 1977.
>>seized by the FBI during their raid of CoS headquarters in
>>July 1977 had nothing to do with the dismissal of the indictment
>>against Paulette Cooper.
>if it doesn't happen in a court, it isn't true, is that
>it, diane?
You are claiming that the U.S. Attorney's Office "exonerated"
Paulette Cooper when they located the Operation Freakout
documents. That is not correct.
All charges against Paulette Cooper were disposed of two
years previously, when the U.S. Attorney's Office filed the
Nolle Prosequi and ended prosecution of the case against
her.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
William Barwell
In article <61WjyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
Martin Hunt <Reply.to.m...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
>In article <56jcvs$a...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>}In article <AwehyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
>
>How do you like my new vanity .sig? Did I forget anything? ;-)
A bit long.
> Ex-Scn and proud to be a Wog, FAQ maintainer, Member - ars moderation
>team, Black Hat #4 (AS, CAN), The Jester, J&D #1, Fearless Leader, KoX,
>Sally's lover, Enturbulator, the Royal We, holder of the sacred C word,
>Original ARS Bigot, in the front of the bus, Studmuffin of ars, Basher,
>Homo Sap, Meatball, Merchant of Chaos, OSA INT ARS Project I/C, Critic,
>Hate Monger, DB, Cancelled from ARS, OSA File# 700167r, Two-Faced Liar,
>FO-SP, KoH, KL 24, GGBC, Founder-ARSCC, Alpha Male, master troller, KBM,
^^^^^^^
>leading suppressive, SP 5, a dozen more forgotten - 5,000+ posts to ars.
>
>Kobringram recipient, before the great awakening, 3rd partying scientology
>to the internet since '94, copyright terrorist, ARSCC books project I/C.
I once had a plan to have a T-shirt made up. A Screaming Gorilla's head
and the words ALPHA MALE printed above it.
William Barwell
In article <56kt5e$m...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>that Operation Freakout was some other operation and that PC's harrasment
>>was not Operation Freakout, therefore they are right and everybody else is
>>wrong, and they get to do teh superiority dance as if any of this
>>hairsplitting is meaningful in any way.
>
>Ummm, Barwell, what evidence do you base your statement on?
>None, right? What you know, you know. Period.
>
>
Uhmmmm. What side of the PC wars is making the claim that Operation
Freakout had nothing to do with the bomb threats the cult forged?
>Next thing we know, you'll be stating flat out that Uri Geller
>actuallly *does* bend spoons with his mental powerz.
No, cause I know he doesn't. I don't paint PC as an
eviiillllll person either as has done been here, and I don't wheeze about
posting this harrassing shit to help others in their lawsuits and other
failed fig leaves of rationalization, either.
Because
>you *know* that it does. Evidence to the contrary is just
>hairsplitting, after all.
>
You sound like you are having fun with this Diane. Did
it all work out like you dreamed and planned and plotted. Did you
achieve your goals of destroying the big bad PC?
What did you actually achieve?
Where do you think you are going with this?
>I think it's time to turn in your Church of the Subgenius membership
>card, Barwell.
>
Sorry, it's a genetic thing. It doesn't rely on a card.
My false elitism is the real thing, in contrast to yours.
>>The sheer mindlessness of this crap is amazing.
>>but some people have this pathological Need To Always Be Right.
>>To the end they are neither quite right and lose sight
>>of the meaning of all of this which is as wrong as you can get.
>
>>It's just bizarre. PC was indeed harrassed by this hate cult to an
>>amazing degree and they had written materials that proved this that the
>>FBI seized.
>
>Stop ranting long enough to read a little, Barwell. But then again,
>I guess we've all learned by now that no amount of reading is going
>to educate you. You *know* when you're right, dammit, and no
>amount of factual material is going to swerve you from your deeply
>held religious beliefs.
So tell us about the 1973 materials, Diane.
Hmmm?
>
>>Amazing that some people seem to be trying to downplay this fact that PC
>>was harrassed about as hard and long as the cult could get away with.
>>Some people simply lack judgement.
>
>Those people most definitely include you, Barwell.
Are you intimating PC was NOT harrassed by the cult? That they did NOT
forge bomb threats? Launch a lot of harrassing lawsuits?
Are you claiming this is al a fraud, a fake, a lie?
What ARE you claiming? Spit it out. No weaseling, insinuations, hints,
snotty cracks that imply things.
Be specific. No glittering generalities, no games, no
rhetorical questions as answers to blunt, bold questions.
What the fuck are you on about?
Are you REALLY believing PC was not harrassed as your post above seems to
suggest in it's vaporous, incoherent, vague, rhetorically loaded by
insubstantial language?
You so rarely come right out and say these things in teh open, hoping to
keep an eternally moving, shifting, slithering target.
I am calling your bluff here.
Spit out your case and show evidence to support it.
People have asked NUMEROUS times, "what is this all about, what are D & K
really trying to prove"? Well!?
Was PC harrassed or not? What has Operation Freakout have to do with
this? What the hell are you trying to say here?
Come on, Diane! Put up or shut up!
No more snotty cracks and insinuations.
State your case openly, completely, and in the open.
No more shifting and dodging and rhetoric.
William Barwell
In article <Qi+jyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
Martin Hunt <Reply.to.m...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
>In article <efischer-171...@news.wimsey.com>,
>efis...@portal.ca wrote:
>}In article <56mdj4$b...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
>}Richardson) wrote:
>}
>}> a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
>}> on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
>}
>}
>}say... diane... like, do you have a shred of decency left? is this what
>}you have been alluding to for the past several days?
>}
>}i don't know about this one... and i can't say i care to know
>}
info. Of Course Keith has refused to tell who his alledged source was so
we cannot judge that persons, honesty, intelligence, ability to actualy
know anything about what henry did or did not do, it is hearsay rumor
mongering by Diane and nothing more.
Note the double standards. Mere hearsay and rumor from
an anonymous source, which Diane dares not openly admit
here in ARS is OK to claim positively that henry lied to the police.
But better information is not good enough when it is a case of
CoS vs PC. You have to take everything in a manner that puts
PC in the worst light.
Pfaw!
Diane and her little rumors. Tell us the little creep that feeds you
and Keith this crap, Diane. Show us how he would know anything. Show us
why we should take his word on this, or yours.
Come on now.
Or is any whispered, anonymous rumor now good enough to accuse people of
lying to the police? As long as it is somebody not in you clique?
You have set some low standards here, Diane.
Did you get this from the source direct or through Keith, third hand
rumors?
Shame on you for passing rumors in this manner and intimating they are
fact when they are just anonymous rumors, and not something you have any
real evidnece about. Shame on you for not being upfront to ARS about this
situation.
Shame!
William Barwell
In article <573s95$g...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>ksp...@xs4all.nl (Karin Spaink) wrote:
>
>>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>> anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>
>>> a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
>>> on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
>
>
>>> your personal insults and libelous accusations. I'll regain my focus
>>> shortly and concentrate on the issues again shortly, but I want
>>> forget or forgive.
>
>>...and say pot, kettle, black. Diane, your behaviour here is hardly
>>impeccable, is it? In fact, it would seem that you are the one making
>>libelous statements here.
>> I've seen numerous postings of yours in which you said rather nasty
>>things about Paulette Cooper - no, I am not referring to the Bast
>>Tapes themselves, but to the comments with which you accompany your
>>explanations of the material and your discussions with others of PC's
>>attitude and character. I've also seen quite a few postings of yours
>>in which you use material-to-be-posted as a sort of threat.
>>statement whatsoever.
>
>>Diane, _proove_ it or apologize.
>
>
>accusations that he was flinging against Keith Spurgeon and me.
>the Federal Records Center in Waltham, MA. He hounded us
>relentlessly about this, bringing it up in post after post.
You copied the tapes and that activity was not written
up as a reason for why you wanted access to these materials
on teh forms you and K signed.
Whether or not henry's characterizations of whether it was a lie to a
court is another question entirely. It seems to have been true you taped
a lot of tape and that is not reflected in signed forms.
>
>Did you demand that Rob Clark "prove" those charges against me?
>
He seems to be spot on about the basic charge, but we can all discount the
heated rhetoric.
>Of course you didn't. No one did. Most people here were more
>than willing to believe whatever Rob Clark said about us without
>demanding anything approaching "proof". If it hadn't been for Ron
>Newman picking up the telephone and talking with Federal Records
>Center personnel about the matter, Rob would most likely be
>demanding our immediate arrest and conviction at this point.
>
Nobody really took the rhetoriclly overboard part of it seriously
any more than we take YOUR rhetoric about PC seriously.
>Rob Clark himself knows the truth of what I've stated about him.
>He knows the source of my information.
No, he does not. He has stated he does not know who
the rumor mongerer is. I don't either, Neither does anybody else.
So it is a matter of us taking the word of some anonymous source on teh
sayso of somebody whose judgment in such matters, frankly, I do not
trust any further than I could throw the Washinton Monument.
You admit you copied the tapes and yet no mention of tapes being copied
is atthe court in question. The rest is rhetoric and bluntly, not much of
interest, but the basic charge, uesless as it is, is true.
Now henry's case is different. You have no hard evidence,
we don't know who the hell is saying exactly what, and not many people
here trust you or your judgement in such things.
Henry's charges are meaningless.
But he is right, no mention of the tapes being copied is on record, though
you obviously did so. So what beyond that truth.
But if YOU are going to claim henry lied to the police, no double standars
here, YOU show some good evidence.
Waving your arms and roling your euyes and claiming somebody we don't know
says it's true is baloney.
And I do not believe your emotionally charged rhetoric either.
But henry had more on you hard evidence wise than you can show us you have
on him.
All you have is anonymous alledge sources.
Well, who are they? It's just heresay if you won't say.
And because of the rancor you have displayed no less than henry, you are
not trustworthy in this matter on your word alone.
He knows the integrity of
>the people involved. Others on this newsgroup know this as well.
Since we do not know who is passing on these rumors about Henry, no we
don't.
If you won't say, it is hearsay from a hostile source.
>If Rob Clark wants me to retract my statement, he can take me to
>court and sue me for libel. I am fully prepared to prove my
>accusation against him there.
>
Bluff.
Now, who is passing on these rumors, that is what is important on ARS to
settle this. If you cannot say, it is erely hearsay from an anonymous
source, passed on to the net from a hostile party in a rancorous
argument and should be taken as no more and of little credibility.
You and Keith made a charge you can't back up.
Will not back up. And you must be judged from that perspective.
>Unlike Rob, I do not intend to hound him mercilessly about this.
>I will not post and repost messages demanding that he admit
>he posted that spurious "bomb threat." Those are Rob Clark's
>tactics.
You plan to run away from this like a fatman from a bad fart
he wiped the office out with, heh? Just leave it hanging there?
I will have to personally judge it not much more than character
assassination using rumors passd on from anonymous rumormongers.
I consider it a dead issue and false until harder evidence is
shown to give me any reason to believe there might possibly be some truth
in it.
I doubt there is, which is why you are trying to put the best face on
fleeing this particularly ineffectual and ugly smear.
>
>All I ask is that you examine your own reaction to this matter,
>Karin. Why didn't you (and others) demand that Rob Clark prove
>the charges he was making against me?
Because they were ridiculous, even if based on a germ of proof.
If a court isn't going to crack down on the tricks the clams play, why
would they care much if you failed to note you were copying tapes even
when you did so? Nobody cared much, cause it was nonsense.
Even if he was correct about your copying tapes which the records show you
failed to tell ws your business there.
Is it because you are
>willing to believe anything he chooses to say without further
>substantiation? Or is it because you don't hold Rob Clark to the
>same standards of ethical behavior to which you hold me and others?
>
Nobody cared because it was a typhoon in a teacup.
Bernie
ric...@teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:33:40 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> I am sure Martin will be delighted with the company of someone
>> who one day applauds at Diane's brilliance against the COS and
>> the other day, when the same brilliance is used to expose sleazy
>> behavior perpetrated by someone else, impugns at low level
>> strikes of the worst kind.
>Please explain to me how Diane has demonstrated "brilliance"
>by her behavior in this episode.
My subjective opinion only: First Diane primarily proceeds by
posting documents. One needs to research those, select what to
post, transcribe and post. Diane's work on all these compartment
has been outstanding, IMO. Second, I am always impressed by
Diane's clarity of writing and perceptions, again IMHO of
course.
All in all I think that you are right in that "brilliance" is a
bit too glamorous a word, though. What I meant to say mainly was
to point out to the discrepancies between the reactions of
arsers when Diane was aiming at the COS and when she is aimed at
an ars icon. I don't think that this discrepancy is justified, I
think it is mainly due to the biases of the average arser. Their
criticisms are mostly like criticism from COS members if Diane
were to counter them in their own forum.
---------
Bernie
>6. My mind is divided in 2 parts. They sometimes fight for control.
Uh, three. But I am not schizophrenic. And neither am I. He
might be.
(Cerberus)
William Barwell
>>timeline with this irrelevant bullshit. rather than
>>prove or retract her bullshit about cooper's lawyers,
>>and the fact that she is apparently ignorant of the
>>fact that michael flynn took over paulette cooper's
>>new york suit in august 1981, she notes that one
>>affidavit of a later date is signed by cooper's
>>original attorney--and the letter is signed after
>>the judge motioned for summary judgment after michael
>>flynn's choice of lawyers bungled the suit and lost
>>the case by filing a pathetic three page motion for
>>summary judgment in response to the cult's three
>>hundred page motion. the summary judgment motion
>>*and* the motion for appeal are signed by flynn's
>>team. diane seized on the *one* document, signed
>>by paul rheingold when he was evidently rushed back
>>into the case in a desperate attempt to wreck the
>>damage flynn caused with his bungling of the new
>>york suit and the severe miscalculation of filing
>>the boston suit.
>
>
> - Either henry or Diane (or both!) has misread or misinterpreted the public
> records of these cases. If so, this is no great shame to either party;
> after all, neither of them are lawyers. I'd like both of you to
> cite evidence for your respective statements, and then maybe some
> other person (Maureen, are you listening?) can attempt to determine
> which (if either) is correct.
>
Henry seems to have taken issue with her and shown she did not
understand it. If Diane was an honest and careful researcher just
interested in the truth, now that it is an issue, and since she brought
all of this up, she should be the one to simply look at the correct papers
Henry has pointed to and check to see whose signature is on the papers.
If Henry is right and she is wrong, she should admit it.
If she cannot quickly and firmly do this, and we have to get somebody like
Maureen to have to settle this by checking this out, and Diane is indeed
wrong, it is Diane who loses credibility and good will. Which there is
precious little to lose. She should be thus, very interested in
handling this quickly, without quibbles or hairsplitting.
I am sure one could ask PC to tell us who is right and wrong here also.
I will CC this to her as a matter of fact.
Either Flynn took over PC's 1981 New York suit or he did not.
It should not be a giant problem to find out.
But anybody posting materials in pursuit of a campaign on ARS has a duty
to get it right and to check themselves quickly when challenged on such
things.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Cheerful Charley
Martin Hunt
In article <579uqd$2...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
}In article <61WjyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
}Martin Hunt <Reply.to.m...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
}>In article <56jcvs$a...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
}>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
}>}In article <AwehyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
}****************** Deleted ******************
}
}
}>
}>How do you like my new vanity .sig? Did I forget anything? ;-)
}
}A bit long.
I was trying to be inclusive in my self-spoof of vanity .sigs;
due to bad memory and incomplete archives, I wasn't able to
include everything, though, so I just put in "and a dozen more".
}> Ex-Scn and proud to be a Wog, FAQ maintainer, Member - ars moderation
}>team, Black Hat #4 (AS, CAN), The Jester, J&D #1, Fearless Leader, KoX,
}>Sally's lover, Enturbulator, the Royal We, holder of the sacred C word,
}>Original ARS Bigot, in the front of the bus, Studmuffin of ars, Basher,
}>Homo Sap, Meatball, Merchant of Chaos, OSA INT ARS Project I/C, Critic,
}>Hate Monger, DB, Cancelled from ARS, OSA File# 700167r, Two-Faced Liar,
}>FO-SP, KoH, KL 24, GGBC, Founder-ARSCC, Alpha Male, master troller, KBM,
} ^^^^^^^
}
}>leading suppressive, SP 5, a dozen more forgotten - 5,000+ posts to ars.
}>
}>Kobringram recipient, before the great awakening, 3rd partying scientology
}>to the internet since '94, copyright terrorist, ARSCC books project I/C.
}
}I once had a plan to have a T-shirt made up. A Screaming Gorilla's head
}and the words ALPHA MALE printed above it.
That would work.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Email: uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
Ex-Scn and proud to be a Wog, FAQ maintainer, Member - ars moderation
team, Black Hat #4 (AS, CAN), The Jester, J&D #1, Fearless Leader, KoX,
Sally's loverboy, Enturbulator, the Royal We, holder of the sacred C
word, read OT III and didn't get pneumonia, mulitple Kobringram recipient,
Merchant of Chaos, OSA INT ARS Project I/C, Critic, Hate Monger, DB,
copyright terrorist, Original ARS Bigot, in the front of the bus (with
an ARS babe on my lap), Studmuffin of ars, Basher, Homo Sap, Meatball,
Cancelled from ARS, OSA File# 700167r, Two-Faced Liar, FO-SP, KoH, KL 24,
GGBC, Founder-ARSCC, lead balloon PMS winner, iten j on cult's search-
term hit list in Grady case, Alpha Male, master troller, ARSCC books
project I/C, KBM, leading suppressive, SP 5, PC minion, another OSA
plant, a dozen more forgotten - 5,000+ posts to ars.
William Barwell
In article <32bffcc8....@news.xs4all.nl>,
Karin Spaink <ksp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>> anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>
>> Do you mean the same sort of honesty that led you to claim
>> a certain bomb threat was forged, Rob? You didn't just lie
>> on a.r.s. about that one. You also lied to the police.
>
>All I can quote is:
>
>> I'm no longer ignoring
>> your personal insults and libelous accusations. I'll regain my focus
>> shortly and concentrate on the issues again shortly, but I want
>> you (..) to realize that you've posted things here I won't soon
>> forget or forgive.
>
>...and say pot, kettle, black. Diane, your behaviour here is hardly
>impeccable, is it? In fact, it would seem that you are the one making
>libelous statements here.
> I've seen numerous postings of yours in which you said rather nasty
>things about Paulette Cooper - no, I am not referring to the Bast
>Tapes themselves, but to the comments with which you accompany your
>explanations of the material and your discussions with others of PC's
>attitude and character. I've also seen quite a few postings of yours
>in which you use material-to-be-posted as a sort of threat.
> And now you accuse Henry, without providing any basis for your
>statement whatsoever.
>
>Diane, _proove_ it or apologize.
>
on to Keith and Diane by an unknown third party who clams to know.
Whether this third party is mistaken, lying or just what is hard to tell
as we are not told who is isaying this. We have no way of thus, knowing
how trustworthy this person is.
It in the end, is the opinion of an unknown rumor mongerer.
We have no idea of how seriously Diane and Keith really take this person,
or how hard they looked at the rumor, or how much effort D & K took to
check this rumor's validity or lack of validity.
I doubt we will get a straight answer from Diane or Keith about any of
this smear which they so gleefully passed on without the courtesy of
explaining any of the circumstances here so we could judge this
in a meaningful and fair manner.
Which tells you a lot about their manner and methods.
Which is why I am so furious at the two of these clowns.
They keep doing crap like this.
Ask her who passed this rumor on to her and Keith so we can
consider if this person is credible or not. Don't hold your breathe.
I trust henry more than a third party rumor passed along in this sleazy
manner.
Diane Richardson
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
[snip]
>>Karin, I note that you did not demand that Rob Clark prove the
>>accusations that he was flinging against Keith Spurgeon and me.
>>Rob was accusing us of committing fraud against the court,
>>of lying to federal records personnel, and not being "up front"
>>with government officials when we gathered the documents at
>>the Federal Records Center in Waltham, MA. He hounded us
>>relentlessly about this, bringing it up in post after post.
>You copied the tapes and that activity was not written
>up as a reason for why you wanted access to these materials
>on teh forms you and K signed.
Barwell, neither Keith nor I signed *any* forms listing what we
did while we were at the Federal Records Center.
I fear you've accepted the lies put forth here by Rob Clark without
question. Rob Clark is a liar. If you choose to base your
accusations against me on the word of Rob Clark, you, too, are
lying.
>Whether or not henry's characterizations of whether it was a lie to a
>court is another question entirely. It seems to have been true you taped
>a lot of tape and that is not reflected in signed forms.
There are NO signed forms, Barwell. They do not exist. They
are a figment of Rob Clark's imagination.
>>Did you demand that Rob Clark "prove" those charges against me?
>>
>He seems to be spot on about the basic charge, but we can all discount the
>heated rhetoric.
There was nothing to Rob Clark's charge *except* for heated rhetoric.
He had no basis whatever upon which to make such accusations.
>>Of course you didn't. No one did. Most people here were more
>>than willing to believe whatever Rob Clark said about us without
>>demanding anything approaching "proof". If it hadn't been for Ron
>>Newman picking up the telephone and talking with Federal Records
>>Center personnel about the matter, Rob would most likely be
>>demanding our immediate arrest and conviction at this point.
>>
>Nobody really took the rhetoriclly overboard part of it seriously
>any more than we take YOUR rhetoric about PC seriously.
You, evidently, took it seriously, since you haven't compared the
accusations Rob Clark posted with the statements posted here
by Ron Newman.
Rob Clark claims his "source" of information was someone named
Paul. As far as I know, there is only one Paul employed at the
Waltham Federal Records Center. He is Paul Palermo, director
of the Records Center, and the source of Ron Newman's information.
Do you choose to believe Rob Clark's representation of Paul Palermo's
opinion over Ron Newman's in this matter. If so, you are choosing to
accept lies over truth.
>>Rob Clark himself knows the truth of what I've stated about him.
>>He knows the source of my information.
>No, he does not. He has stated he does not know who
>the rumor mongerer is.
Rob Clark, in a message of his I read this morning, mentions the
fact that he has communicated with that very source about this matter.
I find it more than strange that Rob Clark can communicate with
someone when he claims he doesn't even know that person's identity.
>I don't either, Neither does anybody else.
>So it is a matter of us taking the word of some anonymous source on teh
>sayso of somebody whose judgment in such matters, frankly, I do not
>trust any further than I could throw the Washinton Monument.
Ask Ron Newman, Barwell. The source of my information discussed
this matter with Ron Newman by telephone weeks before any mention
of it was made here by either Keith Spurgeon or myself.
Ron Newman can confirm this. All you need do is ask him.
[Barwell's interminable repitition of his flawed arguments snipped."
>>If Rob Clark wants me to retract my statement, he can take me to
>>court and sue me for libel. I am fully prepared to prove my
>>accusation against him there.
>>
>Bluff.
This is no bluff. I am perfectly willing to appear in a court of law
and prove that the statements I have made are not libel.
[snip]
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
[snip unintelligible gibberish]
>>Stop ranting long enough to read a little, Barwell. But then again,
>>I guess we've all learned by now that no amount of reading is going
>>to educate you. You *know* when you're right, dammit, and no
>>amount of factual material is going to swerve you from your deeply
>>held religious beliefs.
>So tell us about the 1973 materials, Diane.
>Hmmm?
What are you talking about, Barwell? I have no idea what you mean
by "1973 materials". I certainly can't tell you about them unless you
can find the words to express yourself in an intelligible manner.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>In article <5778pb$g...@lana.zippo.com>,
>Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>>In article <575gls$9...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) says...
>>
>>>i'll note that she responded to the questioning of her
>>>timeline with this irrelevant bullshit. rather than
>>>prove or retract her bullshit about cooper's lawyers,
>>>and the fact that she is apparently ignorant of the
>>>fact that michael flynn took over paulette cooper's
>>>new york suit in august 1981, she notes that one
>>>affidavit of a later date is signed by cooper's
>>>original attorney--and the letter is signed after
>>>the judge motioned for summary judgment after michael
>>>flynn's choice of lawyers bungled the suit and lost
>>>the case by filing a pathetic three page motion for
>>>summary judgment in response to the cult's three
>>>hundred page motion. the summary judgment motion
>>>*and* the motion for appeal are signed by flynn's
>>>team. diane seized on the *one* document, signed
>>>by paul rheingold when he was evidently rushed back
>>>into the case in a desperate attempt to wreck the
>>>damage flynn caused with his bungling of the new
>>>york suit and the severe miscalculation of filing
>>>the boston suit.
>>
>>We appear to have here a dispute over facts. Two possibilities arise:
>>
>> - Either henry or Diane (or both!) has misread or misinterpreted the public
>> records of these cases. If so, this is no great shame to either party;
>> after all, neither of them are lawyers. I'd like both of you to
>> cite evidence for your respective statements, and then maybe some
>> other person (Maureen, are you listening?) can attempt to determine
>> which (if either) is correct.
>>
>
>It was Diane who dragged this nonsense out here and made it an issue.
Dragged out what nonsense, Barwell?
I never made a statement one way or the other as to who was
representing Paulette Cooper when the final summary judgment disposed
of the remainder of her original New York lawsuit.
Rob Clark is the one who brought up the point that Paulette Cooper
changed attorneys in 1981. Rob Clark is the person who made this
statement. Rob Clark has chosen to rant about this minor matter,
refusing all the while to produce any documentation to support his
contention.
We are being asked to accept Rob Clark's word as an honest and
trustworthy researcher. Rob Clark has shown no evidence that he
has ever researched any of this. I believe he is merely parroting
words provided to him by Paulette Cooper, who prefers to tell others
what to say on this newsgroup rather than make such statements
herself.
>Henry seems to have taken issue with her and shown she did not
>understand it. If Diane was an honest and careful researcher just
>interested in the truth, now that it is an issue, and since she brought
>all of this up, she should be the one to simply look at the correct papers
There is no way "to simply look at the correct papers." The Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, has archived this
material in a remote location. The procedure for obtaining the
document is submission of a request form to the clerk, which they add
to their pile of requests. The current average waiting time between
filing such a request and obtaining a copy of the document is two
months. I will gladly post the contents of any document I receive
about this change of attorneys as soon as I have it.
I have never claimed that Rob Clark is incorrect about this matter.
He may very well be right. I will glad to change our timeline to
reflect a change in attorneys as soon as I am provided with a document
that documents such a change occurred.
I sincerely doubt, however, that any document either I or Rob Clark
could produce would prove that Paulette Cooper's new counsel was
incompetent. That is a charge Rob Clark has made repeatedly, but I
have seen him provide no evidence to support such a claim.
>Henry has pointed to and check to see whose signature is on the papers.
>If Henry is right and she is wrong, she should admit it.
I sincerely doubt that Rob Clark has seen *any* signature on *any*
piece of paper, Barwell. If he has, he was provided this piece of
paper by Paulette Cooper, not by the Supreme Court of the State of New
York.
>If she cannot quickly and firmly do this, and we have to get somebody like
>Maureen to have to settle this by checking this out, and Diane is indeed
>wrong, it is Diane who loses credibility and good will. Which there is
>precious little to lose. She should be thus, very interested in
>handling this quickly, without quibbles or hairsplitting.
I doubt if Maureen Garde is any more willing to take orders from you
than I am, Barwell. You have a propensity for issuing such orders,
although I've never yet witnessed even a single one of those orders
being obeyed.
I remember once, quite awhile back, when you were ordering me about in
the same way you are now ordering Maureen Garde. I politely offered
directions to Rice University's Fondren Library to you, making the
point that there was absolutely nothing holding you back from doing
your own research, rather than demanding that others provide such
services to you on an uncompensated basis.
I remember your reply to me -- that you were too busy, but that you
just might do so in the future. I have seen no indication that you
have done anything of the sort in the past year. It's so much easier
to order other people about than to do the work yourself!
>I am sure one could ask PC to tell us who is right and wrong here also.
>I will CC this to her as a matter of fact.
>Either Flynn took over PC's 1981 New York suit or he did not.
>It should not be a giant problem to find out.
Paulette Cooper claims that she has no documentation remaining
from these long-forgotten lawsuits, and that she has rid herself
of any memories of those horrid times. I will find it more than
entertaining to learn that she has such specifics available to her,
and literally *delighted* to learn that she has access to the
documents she's been demanding that I provide to her free of charge.
>But anybody posting materials in pursuit of a campaign on ARS has a duty
>to get it right and to check themselves quickly when challenged on such
>things.
Because you say so, Barwell? Heh!
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In art<32a4f649...@news.ping.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>All I ask is that you examine your own reaction to this matter,
>>Karin. Why didn't you (and others) demand that Rob Clark prove
>>willing to believe anything he chooses to say without further
>>substantiation? Or is it because you don't hold Rob Clark to the
>>same standards of ethical behavior to which you hold me and others?
>
>left reading henry's spew, and those who do, have probably a
>real hard time to understand what he is talking about.
Actually he's one of the few people on this threads whose
posts make any sense.
####_ @@@@@@@ (!)
-- /__/ \ DON'T GET SCREWED by R-S-A-Ci @@/__/ _ \ /
|__| ((((((((() @@@ |__|{_}|
\__\__/ \__\___/
/ \ Da...@xemu.demon.co.uk / \
+--+ : .---' :
' L :.
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/censor/index.html#StrawPoll
Have *Y*O*U* voted yet on whether we want ratings ???
~~~~~~~
John Anonymous MacDonald
In article <578hmc$e...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
|
|>what do you CALL a YEAR OF PSYCHIATRIC THERAPY?
|
|I don't consider that a "humiliating condition," Rob. Neither,
|apparently, did Paulette Cooper.
how do you know what paulette considered humiliating, richardson?
do you have a letter, deposition or statement from her saying "i didn't
think the psychiatric treatment was a humiliating condition"? are you
psychic? enlighten us.
|>why psychiatric therapy if she was totally innocent??
|
|Because at the time she wasn't even sure that she had not sent
|the bomb threats herself.. Nan McLean makes that quite clear in her
|deposition.
so even though the us attorney's office was convinced paulette
didn't make the bomb threats, they forced her to undergo a year's
psychiatric treatment anyway, just so she could know that for herself?
they didn't just suggest it, they *forced* her to take it.
sorry, that just doesn't hold water. the us government doesn't
*force* people to take a year of psychiatric treatment for something they
know the person didn't do.
they do force them to do it for things they suspect but can't
prove the person did, however. which is clearly what happened here.
paulette was not exonerated before the op. freakout documents were
discovered, there can be no other conclusion.
[...]
|>"exonerate." look it up.
|
|Black's Law Dictionary defines "exoneration" as "The removal of
|a burden, charge, responsibility, or duty." It is primarily a term
|used in contract law rather than criminal law.
|
|The charge against Paulette Cooper was removed when the
|Nolle Prosequi was filed with the court on 16 September 1975.
|Paulette Cooper was "exonerated" on 16 September 1975, two
|years before the FBI seized the Operation Freakout documents
|during the CoS raid in 1977.
if she was exonerated and had no further duty to discharge, then
she had no duty to undergo a year of psychiatric treatment. but she had
exactly such a duty, therefore she was not exonerated. your own
definition hangs you, richardson.
shuddered but not silenced
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In art<32999b8...@news.ping.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>All in all I think that you are right in that "brilliance" is a
>bit too glamorous a word, though. What I meant to say mainly was
>to point out to the discrepancies between the reactions of
>arsers when Diane was aiming at the COS and when she is aimed at
>an ars icon. I don't think that this discrepancy is justified, I
>think it is mainly due to the biases of the average arser.
Biases such as...criticising an evil organisation like Co$ is worthwhile
criticising each other is a waste of time. A clever person who makes
life easier and more productive for all is praised. A clever person
who spends their talents teaching bumblebess to knit socks is regarded
as a worse pain in the ass than a stupid person who has no talent
to waste in the first place.
Stephen Taylor
gemm...@aol.com wrote:
(snips)
> from *The Art of Reasoning* by David Kelley, 1988, W.W. Norton
> The book has an excellent chapter on fallacies that we could really have
> fun with on this newsgroup. I've been hearing so much tu quoque on this
> ng lately I just had to point it out.
I would like to see discussion on this, it would not only be good
for the ng (I'm not saying to tone it down or a't like that, just
to facilitate the understanding), and also help everyone, involved
as well as looking on, to realise that none of this barratry,
clamour, in-fighting, challenge and counter-challenge, you name it,
is WASTED. It's like a Greek play, a combined education and catharsis;
it advances the cause (free speech, a better world...), brings the
truth to light (however painfully).
To cut some slack to your adversary, even if that adversary be 'the'
enemy, to be involved and in your very involvement, aware that you're
just helping to tread out the steps of history, in the making.
> Monica Pignotti
> *************************************************
--
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Stephen W.Taylor, MbChB. (c) copyright. Redistribution rights
granted on text of my own creation for non-commercial purposes.
Imported text, if any, may have its own copyright conditions.
David Gerard
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:19:38 +0000, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:In art<32999b8...@news.ping.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
:> I don't think that this discrepancy is justified, I
:>think it is mainly due to the biases of the average arser.
:Biases such as...criticising an evil organisation like Co$ is worthwhile
:criticising each other is a waste of time. A clever person who makes
:life easier and more productive for all is praised. A clever person
:who spends their talents teaching bumblebess to knit socks is regarded
:as a worse pain in the ass than a stupid person who has no talent
:to waste in the first place.
*applause*
--
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn -- email me if it doesn't work for you
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/ (European mirror)
mailto: f...@suburbia.net f...@athene.tertius.net.au
Anti-Scientology Picket Dec 7-8 1996 http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
gemm...@aol.com
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>All I ask is that you examine your own reaction to this matter,
>Karin. Why didn't you (and others) demand that Rob Clark prove
>the charges he was making against me? Is it because you are
>willing to believe anything he chooses to say without further
>substantiation? Or is it because you don't hold Rob Clark to the
>same standards of ethical behavior to which you hold me and others?
Ever hear of a fallacy called tu quoque (translated "you're another")? It
is a fallacy that is related to ad hominem. Here is a quote from a
textbook I have on logic & reason:
"Suppose that someone criticizes you for telling a white lie. If your
critic is himself a notorious liar, you would probably be tempted to say,
'Look who's talking!' This response is certainly understandable -- no one
enjoys being censured by a moral inferior -- but it is fallacious. It is
a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another")
argument. The fact that someone else is guilty of an accusation doesn't
prove that you are innocent. It may be unseemly for the pot to call the
kettle black, but the kettle is black nonetheless."
from *The Art of Reasoning* by David Kelley, 1988, W.W. Norton
The book has an excellent chapter on fallacies that we could really have
fun with on this newsgroup. I've been hearing so much tu quoque on this
ng lately I just had to point it out.
Monica Pignotti
************************************************
Monica Pignotti
"As you go through life you are going to have many opportunities
to keep your big mouth shut. Take advantage of all of them."
- -James Dent
Martin Hunt
In article <19961126013...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
gemm...@aol.com wrote:
}
}Ever hear of a fallacy called tu quoque (translated "you're another")? It
}is a fallacy that is related to ad hominem. Here is a quote from a
}textbook I have on logic & reason:
}
}"Suppose that someone criticizes you for telling a white lie. If your
}critic is himself a notorious liar, you would probably be tempted to say,
}'Look who's talking!' This response is certainly understandable -- no one
To which I say: "It takes one to know one," if there's going to be an
arguement with trite phrases. ;-)
}enjoys being censured by a moral inferior -- but it is fallacious. It is
}a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another")
}argument. The fact that someone else is guilty of an accusation doesn't
}prove that you are innocent. It may be unseemly for the pot to call the
}kettle black, but the kettle is black nonetheless."
}
}from *The Art of Reasoning* by David Kelley, 1988, W.W. Norton
}
}The book has an excellent chapter on fallacies that we could really have
}fun with on this newsgroup. I've been hearing so much tu quoque on this
}ng lately I just had to point it out.
Excellent point. Of course, the "look who's talking" argument may
not be saying so much that "the fact that someone else is guilty of
an accusation doesn't prove that you are innocent" as much as it
speaks to the reliability or trustworthiness of source; a subtle,
yet worthwhile, distinction I believe.
Diane Richardson
nob...@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald) wrote:
>In article <578hmc$e...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>|anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>|>In article <576pb0$5...@clark.zippo.com>, Diane Richardson
>|><ref...@bway.net> wrote
>|>>There were no humiliating conditions. Cooper agreed to undergo
>|
>|>what do you CALL a YEAR OF PSYCHIATRIC THERAPY?
>|
>|I don't consider that a "humiliating condition," Rob. Neither,
>|apparently, did Paulette Cooper.
> how do you know what paulette considered humiliating, richardson?
>do you have a letter, deposition or statement from her saying "i didn't
>think the psychiatric treatment was a humiliating condition"? are you
>psychic? enlighten us.
If you had read my post rather than snipped it, you would have read
Nan McLean's testimony that Paulette Cooper herself was not at all
sure that she hadn't actually sent the bomb threats herself back in
1973, before she took a sodium pentathol test to assure herself that
she had not.
It doesn't take a psychic to read.
>|>why psychiatric therapy if she was totally innocent??
>|
>|Because at the time she wasn't even sure that she had not sent
>|the bomb threats herself.. Nan McLean makes that quite clear in her
>|deposition.
> so even though the us attorney's office was convinced paulette
>didn't make the bomb threats,
Really? Why do you believe that the U.S. Attorney's office was
"convinced paulette didn't make the bomb threats" in 1973? All the
evidence I've seen indicates that they believed she had.
>they forced her to undergo a year's
>psychiatric treatment anyway, just so she could know that for herself?
>they didn't just suggest it, they *forced* her to take it.
They did? What evidence do you have to prove that Cooper was "forced"
to undergo psychiatric therapy?
> sorry, that just doesn't hold water. the us government doesn't
>*force* people to take a year of psychiatric treatment for something they
>know the person didn't do.
You have made two incredible assumptions. The first is that the
government didn't think that Cooper sent the bomb threats in 1973.
The second is that the government "forced" Cooper to undergo a
year of psychiatric therapy. You have provided nothing to
substantiate these idiotic claims.
> they do force them to do it for things they suspect but can't
>prove the person did, however. which is clearly what happened here.
What evidence do you have to support your assertion that it is
"clearly what happened here." Your assumptions are not clear to me at
all. You have provided nothing to support your assertions.
> paulette was not exonerated before the op. freakout documents were
>discovered, there can be no other conclusion.
Why? Because you say so?
>[...]
>|>"exonerate." look it up.
>|
>|Black's Law Dictionary defines "exoneration" as "The removal of
>|a burden, charge, responsibility, or duty." It is primarily a term
>|used in contract law rather than criminal law.
>|
>|The charge against Paulette Cooper was removed when the
>|Nolle Prosequi was filed with the court on 16 September 1975.
>|Paulette Cooper was "exonerated" on 16 September 1975, two
>|years before the FBI seized the Operation Freakout documents
>|during the CoS raid in 1977.
> if she was exonerated and had no further duty to discharge, then
>she had no duty to undergo a year of psychiatric treatment. but she had
>exactly such a duty, therefore she was not exonerated. your own
>definition hangs you, richardson.
She was exonerated *after* she completed one year of psychiatric
therapy. That is made quite clear in my post. You obviously have
chosen either not to read my post or to deliberately misrepresent what
I wrote.
> shuddered but not silenced
I'd hardly say you've been silenced.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
John Anonymous MacDonald
In article <57dle3$5...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
|nob...@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald) wrote:
|>In article <578hmc$e...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
|>Richardson) wrote:
|>|I don't consider that a "humiliating condition," Rob. Neither,
|>|apparently, did Paulette Cooper.
|
|>do you have a letter, deposition or statement from her saying "i didn't
|>think the psychiatric treatment was a humiliating condition"? are you
|>psychic? enlighten us.
|
|If you had read my post rather than snipped it, you would have read
|Nan McLean's testimony that Paulette Cooper herself was not at all
|sure that she hadn't actually sent the bomb threats herself back in
|she had not.
she was sometimes unsure of whether she made the bomb threats,
therefore being forced to undergo a year of treatment wasn't humiliating.
do i have your reasoning correct?
[...]
|>they forced her to undergo a year's
|>psychiatric treatment anyway, just so she could know that for herself?
|>they didn't just suggest it, they *forced* her to take it.
|
|They did? What evidence do you have to prove that Cooper was "forced"
|to undergo psychiatric therapy?
it was a condition of the dropping of charges. i'd call that
force. the government said "do a year of psychiatric therapy or we
prosecute you for making bomb threats". that's not force?
[...]
|>|Black's Law Dictionary defines "exoneration" as "The removal of
|>|a burden, charge, responsibility, or duty." It is primarily a term
|>|used in contract law rather than criminal law.
|>|
|>|The charge against Paulette Cooper was removed when the
|>|Nolle Prosequi was filed with the court on 16 September 1975.
|>|Paulette Cooper was "exonerated" on 16 September 1975, two
|>|years before the FBI seized the Operation Freakout documents
|>|during the CoS raid in 1977.
|
|> if she was exonerated and had no further duty to discharge, then
|>she had no duty to undergo a year of psychiatric treatment. but she had
|>exactly such a duty, therefore she was not exonerated. your own
|>definition hangs you, richardson.
|
|She was exonerated *after* she completed one year of psychiatric
|therapy. That is made quite clear in my post. You obviously have
|chosen either not to read my post or to deliberately misrepresent what
|I wrote.
so before the year of therapy the government believed she made the
bomb threats, but after it they realized she hadn't? it sounds to me more
like they believed she had right up to the point when the op. freakout
documents were found.
if you take the narrowest definition of "exonerated" (removal of
duty) you may be right. the government said they would not prosecute her
after the year of therapy. but by the common definition of "exonerated"
(no longer a suspect), she surely was not.
when did the government decide paulette was no longer a suspect?
when did the government *say* paulette was no longer a suspect?
|> shuddered but not silenced
|
|I'd hardly say you've been silenced.
damn straight.
shuddered but not silenced
Tashback
> gemm...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Ever hear of a fallacy called tu quoque (translated "you're another")? It
> >is a fallacy that is related to ad hominem. Here is a quote from a
> >textbook I have on logic & reason:
>
> >"Suppose that someone criticizes you for telling a white lie. If your
> >critic is himself a notorious liar, you would probably be tempted to say,
> >'Look who's talking!' This response is certainly understandable -- no one
> >enjoys being censured by a moral inferior -- but it is fallacious. It is
> >a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another")
> >argument.
>
> Is this supposed to be French? "tu" is French. But "quoque" is
> not. Anyone knows its origin?
Latin for "you too," according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,
10th edition. Looks like it's a pain to pronounce as well. ;-)
Tashback
Tashback
> ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
> >All I ask is that you examine your own reaction to this matter,
> >Karin. Why didn't you (and others) demand that Rob Clark prove
> >the charges he was making against me? Is it because you are
> >willing to believe anything he chooses to say without further
> >substantiation? Or is it because you don't hold Rob Clark to the
> >same standards of ethical behavior to which you hold me and others?
>
> Ever hear of a fallacy called tu quoque (translated "you're another")? It
> is a fallacy that is related to ad hominem. Here is a quote from a
> textbook I have on logic & reason:
>
> "Suppose that someone criticizes you for telling a white lie. If your
> critic is himself a notorious liar, you would probably be tempted to say,
> 'Look who's talking!' This response is certainly understandable -- no one
> enjoys being censured by a moral inferior -- but it is fallacious. It is
> a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another")
> argument. The fact that someone else is guilty of an accusation doesn't
> prove that you are innocent. It may be unseemly for the pot to call the
> kettle black, but the kettle is black nonetheless."
>
> from *The Art of Reasoning* by David Kelley, 1988, W.W. Norton
>
> The book has an excellent chapter on fallacies that we could really have
> fun with on this newsgroup. I've been hearing so much tu quoque on this
> ng lately I just had to point it out.
>
> Monica Pignotti
Monica, I think your analysis falls apart on closer scrutiny: Henry *was*
lying ("fraud on the court") -- he has even admitted it -- while Diane
wasn't. There was no "Look who's talking" stuff going on. Diane was simply
asking Karin why she was so quick to accuse Diane of making
unsubstantiated claims (claims that are quite easily checked out, by the
way, via the avenues Diane has already described) while she (Karin) was
willing to let Henry's unsubstantiated claims (claims that Ron Newman has
already shown to be bogus) float by unchallenged.
Again, the point is: Diane wasn't lying. Henry was. No pot/kettle/black
involved.
Tashback
Rebecca Hartong
In article <tashback-261...@ip087.phx.primenet.com>, tash...@primenet.com (Tashback) wrote:
>Monica, I think your analysis falls apart on closer scrutiny: Henry *was*
>lying ("fraud on the court") -- he has even admitted it -- while Diane
>wasn't. There was no "Look who's talking" stuff going on. Diane was simply
>asking Karin why she was so quick to accuse Diane of making
>unsubstantiated claims (claims that are quite easily checked out, by the
>way, via the avenues Diane has already described) while she (Karin) was
>willing to let Henry's unsubstantiated claims (claims that Ron Newman has
>already shown to be bogus) float by unchallenged.
>
>Again, the point is: Diane wasn't lying. Henry was. No pot/kettle/black
>involved.
Hmm... I think I'm with Monica on this one. Though I'd leave the
pot/kettle/black bit out of it because that assumes that both parties are, in
fact, lying and I don't believe that to be the case. (It could even be
possible when this logical fallacy is employed for *both* parties to be
innocent of lying!)
I think the point Monica was making (and correct me if I'm wrong, Monica) is
that pointing out the lie of another doesn't prove the truth of one's own
contention. Henry may be lying, but that's not what proves the truth of
Diane's statements. The proof of Diane's statements was given by Ron. (This
situation is much more complicated than that, but I think that's the gist of
it.)
Rebecca Hartong
************************************************************
"One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining
any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is
built upon will warrant." --John Locke
Bernie
gemm...@aol.com wrote:
>Ever hear of a fallacy called tu quoque (translated "you're another")? It
>is a fallacy that is related to ad hominem. Here is a quote from a
>textbook I have on logic & reason:
>"Suppose that someone criticizes you for telling a white lie. If your
>critic is himself a notorious liar, you would probably be tempted to say,
>'Look who's talking!' This response is certainly understandable -- no one
>enjoys being censured by a moral inferior -- but it is fallacious. It is
>a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another")
>argument.
Is this supposed to be French? "tu" is French. But "quoque" is
not. Anyone knows its origin?
>The fact that someone else is guilty of an accusation doesn't
>prove that you are innocent. It may be unseemly for the pot to call the
>kettle black, but the kettle is black nonetheless."
>from *The Art of Reasoning* by David Kelley, 1988, W.W. Norton
>The book has an excellent chapter on fallacies that we could really have
>fun with on this newsgroup. I've been hearing so much tu quoque on this
>ng lately I just had to point it out.
---------
Bernie
Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except
for the rare story of which you happen to have frist-hand
knowledge.
(Erwin Knoll)
Rebecca Hartong
>Is this supposed to be French? "tu" is French. But "quoque" is
>not. Anyone knows its origin?
It's Latin.
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <57a9hs$h...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>You copied the tapes and that activity was not written
>>up as a reason for why you wanted access to these materials
>>on teh forms you and K signed.
>Barwell, neither Keith nor I signed *any* forms listing what we
>did while we were at the Federal Records Center.
point out where *i* said you *signed* anything.
i never said you *signed* so much as a plugged nickel,
and i defy you to say where i said such a thing.
>I fear you've accepted the lies put forth here by Rob Clark without
>question. Rob Clark is a liar. If you choose to base your
>accusations against me on the word of Rob Clark, you, too, are
>lying.
huh? now wait, if i'm a cretan, and a liar, and someone
believes my horrendous, inexplicable barrage of constant
lies shouted through a megaphone, and they repeat those
lies, do they somehow magically become both a cretan and
a liar?
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMpuRFnZ/m2/Pgo35AQE0bAIAh3dv3RVc1YGx6FKWSDiAoetgZ6bHMaJd
leJJS8pEoEpgemvTBH6hRsNfyqZ2KxHfS5jhu04Sy42bMYP9o6Galw==
=S9Ek
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <tashback-261...@ip087.phx.primenet.com>,
Tashback <tash...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Monica, I think your analysis falls apart on closer scrutiny: Henry *was*
>lying ("fraud on the court") -- he has even admitted it -- while Diane
where did i admit lying? if it comes down to lying,
diane lied in a #mediation log about a post she'd made
not three days before, and only backed down on this
lie when the faxing of the post was offered.
>wasn't. There was no "Look who's talking" stuff going on. Diane was simply
oh, isn't there?
>asking Karin why she was so quick to accuse Diane of making
>unsubstantiated claims (claims that are quite easily checked out, by the
>way, via the avenues Diane has already described) while she (Karin) was
>willing to let Henry's unsubstantiated claims (claims that Ron Newman has
>already shown to be bogus) float by unchallenged.
the phrase "fraud on the court" i have disavowed. i have
certainly not retracted the original claims, that keith
and diane were simply not up front about their behind-the-
scenes machinations and deceptions.
>Again, the point is: Diane wasn't lying. Henry was. No pot/kettle/black
>involved.
diane is not above lying when it suits her purposes.
>Tashback
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMpuR63Z/m2/Pgo35AQFPWAH+PY2mvXyXEFEzMgEa1LjQVht7B2zGrpgT
b+/K5r8LJ5DbBqGZqbdT30g+EJvS+E+xymF1DpPDbn56InCwtZejZw==
=Lj2r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <57dle3$5...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>| exonerate." look it up.
>>|Black's Law Dictionary defines "exoneration" as "The removal of
>>|a burden, charge, responsibility, or duty." It is primarily a term
>>|used in contract law rather than criminal law.
i speak english, not legal gibberish. the second definition
is important. a synonym given in this hypertext is
"exculpate." i use the term in its english definition,
and obviously by definition 2) which is omitted in
the legal gibberish edition.
ex.on.er.ate \ig-'za:n-*-.ra-t\ \-.za:n-*-'ra--sh*n\
\-'za:n-*-.ra-t-iv\ vt [ME exoneraten, fr. L exoneratus, pp. of
exonerare to unburde]n, fr. ex- + oner-, onus load 1: to relieve of a
responsibility, obligation, or hardship 2: to clear from accusation or
blame - ex.on.er.a.tion n
cooper was certainly not "exonerated" in any full sense
by a dismissal, which required psychiatric treatment--
why require psychiatric treatment if the person is
wholly innocent?
why do you keep arguing this so stupidly?
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMpuPxHZ/m2/Pgo35AQFO8AH9GCJCz7Vj2nemhF36hBWjMpb9NevB1/S8
gLj/j0EEZc6Y6omvK2CBxIi0nwgXFDk687zs5dB/iutlV15Adnn1lA==
=7iJh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Margaret Huffstickler
Bernie wrote:
>
> gemm...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Ever hear of a fallacy called tu quoque (translated "you're another")? It
> >is a fallacy that is related to ad hominem. Here is a quote from a
> >textbook I have on logic & reason:
>
> >"Suppose that someone criticizes you for telling a white lie. If your
> >critic is himself a notorious liar, you would probably be tempted to say,
> >'Look who's talking!' This response is certainly understandable -- no one
> >enjoys being censured by a moral inferior -- but it is fallacious. It is
> >a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another")
> >argument.
>
> not. Anyone knows its origin?
It's Latin.
MH
Diane Richardson
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <tashback-261...@ip087.phx.primenet.com>,
>Tashback <tash...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Monica, I think your analysis falls apart on closer scrutiny: Henry *was*
>>lying ("fraud on the court") -- he has even admitted it -- while Diane
>where did i admit lying?
You "took back" your accusation that we were committing a
fraud on the court, Rob. That implies that you realize your
statement was a lie.
Are you now claiming that we *did* perpetrate a fraud on the court?
>if it comes down to lying,
>diane lied in a #mediation log about a post she'd made
>not three days before, and only backed down on this
>lie when the faxing of the post was offered.
I apologized for the error when I found the post. I certainly
didn't back down when an offer to fax the thing was made.
You may choose to represent this mistake as a lie. It was
an honest mistake, not a lie. As soon as I found the post in
question and had an opportunity, I apologized for the
misunderstanding.
>>wasn't. There was no "Look who's talking" stuff going on. Diane was simply
>oh, isn't there?
>>asking Karin why she was so quick to accuse Diane of making
>>unsubstantiated claims (claims that are quite easily checked out, by the
>>way, via the avenues Diane has already described) while she (Karin) was
>>willing to let Henry's unsubstantiated claims (claims that Ron Newman has
>>already shown to be bogus) float by unchallenged.
>the phrase "fraud on the court" i have disavowed. i have
>certainly not retracted the original claims, that keith
>and diane were simply not up front about their behind-the-
>scenes machinations and deceptions.
Your first post on that topic was titled "Fraud on the Court."
You based your accusation that Keith and I were committing
a criminal act upon your claim that someone told you (did they,
Rob, or were you merely parroting what someone else told
you to say?).
You have taken a three-word phrase completely out of context.
You made an accusation that Keith and I were committing a
criminal act based upon that three-word phrase, which you have
repeated endlessly without making any effort to provide the
larger context within which that phrase was spoken.
>>Again, the point is: Diane wasn't lying. Henry was. No pot/kettle/black
>>involved.
>diane is not above lying when it suits her purposes.
I have not lied about this, Rob Clark. You accused me of lying to the
court. I have not done so.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
nob...@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald) wrote:
[snip]
>[...]
>|>they forced her to undergo a year's
>|>psychiatric treatment anyway, just so she could know that for herself?
>|>they didn't just suggest it, they *forced* her to take it.
>|
>|They did? What evidence do you have to prove that Cooper was "forced"
>|to undergo psychiatric therapy?
> it was a condition of the dropping of charges. i'd call that
>force. the government said "do a year of psychiatric therapy or we
>prosecute you for making bomb threats". that's not force?
No, that is not "force."
>[...]
>|>|Black's Law Dictionary defines "exoneration" as "The removal of
>|>|a burden, charge, responsibility, or duty." It is primarily a term
>|>|used in contract law rather than criminal law.
>|>|
>|>|The charge against Paulette Cooper was removed when the
>|>|Nolle Prosequi was filed with the court on 16 September 1975.
>|>|Paulette Cooper was "exonerated" on 16 September 1975, two
>|>|years before the FBI seized the Operation Freakout documents
>|>|during the CoS raid in 1977.
>|
>|> if she was exonerated and had no further duty to discharge, then
>|>she had no duty to undergo a year of psychiatric treatment. but she had
>|>exactly such a duty, therefore she was not exonerated. your own
>|>definition hangs you, richardson.
>|
>|She was exonerated *after* she completed one year of psychiatric
>|therapy. That is made quite clear in my post. You obviously have
>|chosen either not to read my post or to deliberately misrepresent what
>|I wrote.
> so before the year of therapy the government believed she made the
>bomb threats, but after it they realized she hadn't? it sounds to me more
>like they believed she had right up to the point when the op. freakout
>documents were found.
If they believed she had, they would not have filed the Nolle
Prosequi.
> if you take the narrowest definition of "exonerated" (removal of
>duty) you may be right. the government said they would not prosecute her
>after the year of therapy. but by the common definition of "exonerated"
>(no longer a suspect), she surely was not.
Who besides you defines "exonerated" as "no longer a suspect"?
> when did the government decide paulette was no longer a suspect?
>when did the government *say* paulette was no longer a suspect?
When they filed the Nolle Prosequi with the court and dropped the
indictment against her in 1975, two years before the FBI conducted
the raid upon CoS headquarters.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <57a9hs$h...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
>>>You copied the tapes and that activity was not written
>>>up as a reason for why you wanted access to these materials
>>>on teh forms you and K signed.
>>Barwell, neither Keith nor I signed *any* forms listing what we
>>did while we were at the Federal Records Center.
>point out where *i* said you *signed* anything.
I was replying to Barwell, Rob, not to you. Barwell has now expanded
on your lie by claiming we signed a form that you accused us of
filling out deceptively.
>i never said you *signed* so much as a plugged nickel,
>and i defy you to say where i said such a thing.
No, you did not accuse us of signing anything, but you *did* accuse
us of lying on forms that claim we filled out.
______________________________________________
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: A Fraud on the Court?
Date: 10 Nov 1996 13:34:27 -0700
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <565e8j$m...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
it has come to my attention that when keith spurgeon
and diane richardson signed out the bast tapes, they indicated
on their worksheet that they were simply "listening to
the tapes."
____________________________________________________________
You called that "A Fraud on the Court," Rob. Barwell is merely
expanding upon the lie about us that you fostered here.
>>I fear you've accepted the lies put forth here by Rob Clark without
>>question. Rob Clark is a liar. If you choose to base your
>>accusations against me on the word of Rob Clark, you, too, are
>>lying.
>huh? now wait, if i'm a cretan, and a liar, and someone
>believes my horrendous, inexplicable barrage of constant
>lies shouted through a megaphone, and they repeat those
>lies, do they somehow magically become both a cretan and
>a liar?
If someone accepts and expands upong a lie that you have
fostered, failing to read any and all refutations of your lies,
they, too, are lying.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <57dle3$5...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>>| exonerate." look it up.
>>>|Black's Law Dictionary defines "exoneration" as "The removal of
>>>|a burden, charge, responsibility, or duty." It is primarily a term
>>>|used in contract law rather than criminal law.
>i speak english, not legal gibberish.
That certainly places you at a disadvantage when you are
basing your argument on legal documents, written in
"legal gibberish."
> the second definition
>is important. a synonym given in this hypertext is
>"exculpate." i use the term in its english definition,
>and obviously by definition 2) which is omitted in
>the legal gibberish edition.
> ex.on.er.ate \ig-'za:n-*-.ra-t\ \-.za:n-*-'ra--sh*n\
> \-'za:n-*-.ra-t-iv\ vt [ME exoneraten, fr. L exoneratus, pp. of
> exonerare to unburde]n, fr. ex- + oner-, onus load 1: to relieve of a
> responsibility, obligation, or hardship 2: to clear from accusation or
> blame - ex.on.er.a.tion n
>cooper was certainly not "exonerated" in any full sense
>by a dismissal, which required psychiatric treatment--
>why require psychiatric treatment if the person is
>wholly innocent?
The U.S. Attorney dropped the indictment against Cooper when
they filed a Nolle Prosequi which dropped the indictment against
her. That occurred in 1975, two years before the FBI conducted
the raid on CoS headquarters.
The Operation Freakout documents were obtained in the FBI
raid of CoS headquarters in July 1977. That occurred two years
*after* the indictment against Cooper was dropped.
>why do you keep arguing this so stupidly?
I am not the one being stupid about this, Rob.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
James J. Lippard
In article <57hb9f$f...@clark.zippo.com>,
Actually, based on Maureen Garde's posting, I'd say that you are.
1. If the U.S. Attorney's dropping of the indictment was based on
belief that Cooper had been cleared, then (a) it would have been
unconditional, rather than requiring psychological treatment and (b) it
would have been dismissed with prejudice. We currently do not have
information one way or the other regarding (b).
2. You have stated that you don't consider it "humiliating" that
Cooper was required to undergo counseling as a condition of the charges
being dropped, and also that you don't consider this condition to have
been "forced" counseling. I think you are wrong--or at the very least,
totally uncharitable in your interpretation of these statements.
If I were required to undergo counseling as a condition of having
charges against me dropped and which I was innocent of, I would consider
that being forced and I would consider it rather humiliating.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <329f2eb6...@news.ping.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>
writes
>>a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another")
>>argument.
>
>Is this supposed to be French? "tu" is French. But "quoque" is
>not. Anyone knows its origin?
Latin -- French inherits the "tu" from Latin.
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In art<32999b8...@news.ping.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>>All in all I think that you are right in that "brilliance" is a
>>bit too glamorous a word, though. What I meant to say mainly was
>>to point out to the discrepancies between the reactions of
>>arsers when Diane was aiming at the COS and when she is aimed at
>>an ars icon. I don't think that this discrepancy is justified, I
>>think it is mainly due to the biases of the average arser.
>Biases such as...criticising an evil organisation like Co$ is worthwhile
>criticising each other is a waste of time.
I am interested in truth and fairness. I don't care whether
departure from these are within the COS or within its critics. I
don't have pre-conceived ideas on this issue. I believe that
critics deeds can turn out to be worst than that of the cult. I
do not believe that such effort is in the long term productive
at all.
Any critic who is unwilling to apply its criteria to himself
first is not a critic, IMO. He only is an hypocritical bigot,
and this is as offensive to me as the mistakes and wrong acts
perpetrated by cult members.
>A clever person who makes
>life easier and more productive for all is praised. A clever person
>who spends their talents teaching bumblebess to knit socks is regarded
>as a worse pain in the ass than a stupid person who has no talent
>to waste in the first place.
To assess one's basis for criticism in the light of the
fundamental issues of ethic and purpose is not what I would call
teaching bumblebees to knit socks.
---------
Bernie
If only there was a killfile that would remove everything ever
said by putrid rotting assholes like Bernie...
(Martin Hunt)
James J. Lippard
In article <57hbvd$f...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>Tashback <tash...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>>Monica, I think your analysis falls apart on closer scrutiny: Henry *was*
>>>lying ("fraud on the court") -- he has even admitted it -- while Diane
>
>>where did i admit lying?
>
>You "took back" your accusation that we were committing a
>fraud on the court, Rob. That implies that you realize your
>statement was a lie.
Are all falsehoods lies? Or only falsehoods told when one knows that
they are false?
I think henry's "taking back" his accusation implies no such thing.
gemm...@aol.com
Rebecca Hartong wrote:
>I think the point Monica was making (and correct me if I'm wrong, Monica)
is
>that pointing out the lie of another doesn't prove the truth of one's own
>contention. Henry may be lying, but that's not what proves the truth of
>Diane's statements. The proof of Diane's statements was given by Ron.
(This
>situation is much more complicated than that, but I think that's the gist
of
<it.)
Exactly. This fallacy has the effect of diverting attention away from
what was originally being challenged. Whether Henry was lying or not has
nothing to do with the validity of the point Karin was making.
************************************************
Monica Pignotti
"It may be unseemly for the pot to call the kettle black,
but the kettle is black, nonetheless."
David Kelley
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com wrote:
>Rebecca Hartong wrote:
>>I think the point Monica was making (and correct me if I'm wrong, Monica)
>is
>>that pointing out the lie of another doesn't prove the truth of one's own
>>contention. Henry may be lying, but that's not what proves the truth of
>>Diane's statements. The proof of Diane's statements was given by Ron.
>(This
>>situation is much more complicated than that, but I think that's the gist
>of
><it.)
>Exactly. This fallacy has the effect of diverting attention away from
>what was originally being challenged. Whether Henry was lying or not has
>nothing to do with the validity of the point Karin was making.
Whether or not Rob Clark was lying most certainly bears upon the
point Karin Spaink was making.
Rob Clark has achieved a certain "status" on this newsgroup because
of the "attention" he received from the CoS by way of their despicable
PI Eugene Ingram.
Let me be quite clear -- what Gene Ingram did to Rob Clark was
reprehensible. It is a typical CoS tactic indicative of the
viciousness of the CoS's attitude toward their critics.
What Rob Clark did was *also* reprehensible, although less so than
what was done by Gene Ingram at the CoS's behest.
Rob Clark lied about the incident. He lied because he was afraid he
was going to get in trouble with the law. He lied to save his own
skin. He built upon that lie when he realized that it enhanced his
image with other critics on a.r.s. He learned that being a victim
draws sympathy. He learned that he could get away with a lie --
that others on a.r.s. would not question his claims.
Rob Clark is a liar. He began here by lying about himself and
getting away with it. He now believes he can lie about me and
get away with it as well. He has lied about the content of our
personal conversations. He has lied about my honesty in doing
research at the Waltham Federal Records Center.
Rob Clark is a liar. His statements cannot be trusted. His word
as a credible participant on a.r.s. is worthless.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard) wrote:
[snip]
>Actually, based on Maureen Garde's posting, I'd say that you are.
>1. If the U.S. Attorney's dropping of the indictment was based on
>belief that Cooper had been cleared, then (a) it would have been
>unconditional, rather than requiring psychological treatment and (b) it
>would have been dismissed with prejudice. We currently do not have
>information one way or the other regarding (b).
You are correct, Jim, in that we do not know whether or not the
indictment had been dismissed with prejudice.
As for your first statement, please read the response I posted
to Maureen's post. You seem to be leaving out a critical point
in your analysis -- that Paulette Cooper underwent a sodium
pentathol examination.
>2. You have stated that you don't consider it "humiliating" that
>Cooper was required to undergo counseling as a condition of the charges
>being dropped, and also that you don't consider this condition to have
>been "forced" counseling.
We have no idea what the physician who administered the sodium
pentathol examination to Cooper told the AUSA. For all we know,
the physician might have told the AUSA that Cooper herself told the
physician she was nervous and anxious over the indictment and was
in desperate need of therapy. She might have confessed to the
physician that she had a strong desire to destroy the CoS for what
they had done to her. We might come up with any number of
speculations as to what went on between Cooper, the physician
who administered the sodium pentathol, and the AUSA.
>I think you are wrong--or at the very least,
>totally uncharitable in your interpretation of these statements.
>If I were required to undergo counseling as a condition of having
>charges against me dropped and which I was innocent of, I would consider
>that being forced and I would consider it rather humiliating.
Cooper was the person who consulted the physician and arranged
for the sodium pentathol examination. Cooper was the person who
paid for that exam. Whatever the physician might have told the AUSA,
it was with Cooper's permission.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard) wrote:
>In article <57hbvd$f...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>>In article <tashback-261...@ip087.phx.primenet.com>,
>>>Tashback <tash...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Monica, I think your analysis falls apart on closer scrutiny: Henry *was*
>>>>lying ("fraud on the court") -- he has even admitted it -- while Diane
>>
>>>where did i admit lying?
>>
>>You "took back" your accusation that we were committing a
>>fraud on the court, Rob. That implies that you realize your
>>statement was a lie.
>Are all falsehoods lies? Or only falsehoods told when one knows that
>they are false?
>I think henry's "taking back" his accusation implies no such thing.
Jim, based on Rob Clark's statements on a.r.s., I doubt if he ever
talked with *anyone* at the Federal Records Center. He certainly
has never admitted doing so. I believe that Rob Clark received
this information second-hand, and then twisted words to make those
words appear to say something that was not originally meant.
In post after post, Rob Clark identified the Federal Records Center
as the "Waltham Courthouse," even after he was corrected. He
described his "source" as an employee of "the court".
There is no Federal Courthouse in Waltham, Massachusetts.
How could Rob Clark have contacted the NARA Federal Records
Center by calling a courthouse in Waltham? It was only after Ron
Newman identified Paul Palermo in his message that Rob Clark
identified his "source" as "Paul."
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
kEvin
In article <57havj$f...@clark.zippo.com>,
>> so before the year of therapy the government believed she made the
>>bomb threats, but after it they realized she hadn't? it sounds to me more
>>like they believed she had right up to the point when the op. freakout
>>documents were found.
>If they believed she had, they would not have filed the Nolle
>Prosequi.
Why? This looks like a non-sequitur. (Do you have something
that shows that the FBI changed their mind as to the origin of
the bomb threats before the Operation Freakout documents were
seized in the raid?)
They did belive PC had made the bomb threats or she wouldn't have been
indicted. I don't see anything they did as indicating that they changed
their minds until after the raids.
>> if you take the narrowest definition of "exonerated" (removal of
>>duty) you may be right. the government said they would not prosecute her
>>after the year of therapy. but by the common definition of "exonerated"
>>(no longer a suspect), she surely was not.
>Who besides you defines "exonerated" as "no longer a suspect"?
I do. OJ Simpson is "no longer a suspect" in the murders of Nicole
Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but he's hardly been exonerated
of the charges. (As the wrongful death civil suit makes clear.)
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
Sister Clara
In article <57hbvd$f...@clark.zippo.com>
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
> anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
> Your first post on that topic was titled "Fraud on the Court."
> You based your accusation that Keith and I were committing
> a criminal act upon your claim that someone told you (did they,
> Rob, or were you merely parroting what someone else told
> you to say?).
>
> You have taken a three-word phrase completely out of context.
> You made an accusation that Keith and I were committing a
> criminal act based upon that three-word phrase, which you have
> repeated endlessly without making any effort to provide the
> larger context within which that phrase was spoken.
>
> >>Again, the point is: Diane wasn't lying. Henry was. No pot/kettle/black
> >>involved.
>
> >diane is not above lying when it suits her purposes.
>
> I have not lied about this, Rob Clark. You accused me of lying to the
> court. I have not done so.
You know, I haven't seen anyone protest their innocence so vehemently and
across so many threads and posts since..........
....well, since henry was accused by Co$ of posting a bomb threat......
<grin>
--
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - potential DA subject
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
http://www.magpie.co.uk/
alt.religion.scientology - Open for all the usual business