The Un-Funny Truth about ARS
Tory Christman
working on a "top secret OSA Int
Internet Project".
At the time, he was the only person I knew who was "on the Net". While
"in" C of $, people were HIGHLY
discouraged from reading or even looking at the Net, as I'm sure they
still are, today. Only a few are "allowed"
to post on such sites.
Turns out, Bill has been a part of ARS "Since it started", to quote
him. As Bill? Oh no---he'd created 10 different
identities and loved fooling the critics. He's worked on this for
years and years. The key way to find out if you're talking to Bill (or
one of his "volunteer" OSA ops) is see if they'll meet with you, or
call you. He NEVER will). He's been a deaf-mute, crippled, lives in
some far off place where no one else lives.
He's also great at being clever, knowledgeable, funny, etc.You get the
picture.
The funny part of it (well, not funny for Scientology---but funny to
me) is that I'm sure for them, having
looked at ARS today, after years of rarely looking here----they've
managed to turn it into the graveyard
they were hoping to.
The Un-Funny part is that who cares??? There are fantastic people ALL
around the Net now, everyone
from people who were "in" such as myself, who woke up, realized the
CON it is, and literally escaped out.
To "Critics"---people who were never "in" but are highly effective at
exposing C of $'s abuses, to
"Anonymous"---those that picket and help expose Scientology's abuses.
And then there are the most recent Executives who left, spoke on
Nightline---you can see those interviews
on www.xenutv.com if you missed them, and the "Indies".
The NET is JUMPING. There is no lack of a place to meet people. I
suggest starting at
www.exscn.net or www.xenu.net :)
OSA's Goals----for anyone who *may* be new here are 3 fold:
1) Distract off of *any* and ALL "HOT" topics (Things they do NOT
want known)
2) Degrade any and all effective critics or X-members. (or now even
those calling themselves "independents")
3) SLIME THE AREA SO NO ONE WANTS TO POST HERE.
Well, I'm sure they're thrilled about ARS. The funny part is
WHO CARES???
Literally, it's my opinion that the very actions of 1, 2, and 3 have
created more enemies
for the "church" of $cientology, than ANY other one action in their
history.
So way to go Yaude and OSA floor mats! My thanks to each of you for
your idiotic actions.
You do such a great job of proving what each of us says!
Love to all :)
Tory/Magoo~~~Still Dancin'
www.youtube.com/ToryMagoo44
and www.xenutv.com
and
www.xenu.net
and
www.torymagoo.org
:)
Burbank, CA
(818) 588-3044 (Call me if you'd like to leave and feel you cannot.
LEAP AND THE NET WILL APPEAR!)
xenufrance
You're probably right. People and groups who try to stop communications and
truth exchange are dead in their head, but actively opposing life itself:
the "SPs", sort of. What a damage such a criminal as hubbard and his felon
secon did...
roger
Leonardo Been (Plato)
(nn) 'The Final FAQ's Answer about alt.religion.scientology - on
sociopaths who want to feel themselves and each other as
"fighting for truth and freedom" ' (FF)
{HRI 20100402-V1.0}
(2 April 2010)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.rights.human/msg/76f2134a5fb572a4
'
'
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
news:18e6677b-9491-4312...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
What a lost individual! It's plain to see this individual hasn't managed to
shake off the main aspect of Scientology indoctrination which is
paranoid/delusional thinking.
--
Gregory Hall
Hartley Patterson
> The funny part of it (well, not funny for Scientology---but funny to
> me) is that I'm sure for them, having
> looked at ARS today, after years of rarely looking here----they've
> managed to turn it into the graveyard
> they were hoping to.
And they'd be wrong to think so.
Anonymous didn't come here because they started off at 4chan, a Bulletin Board, and so they
looked for our Bulletin Boards. OCMB was closed to new posters, ESMB didn't match their
preconceptions as it included non-evil Scientologists, so they started their own. This was, in
retrospect, perhaps a good thing.
After about a year most critics using ARS left, having overcome their initial uncertainty about
Anonymous culture. OSA carried on here for a while, sitting in their little offices spamming ARS
was far preferable to going out into the scary wog world and doing something useful for
Scientology. Eventually as staff numbers continued to shrink they were pulled off to other work.
But ARS doesn't suffer from staff problems or DDOS attacks. It is here until the Internet, a
force beyond anyone's control, unplugs it by switching off the servers. Their bandwidth is
trivial compared to the mass market demand for TV and movies. The graveyard, as you put it, is
OSAs not ours - we won this battle.
--
Patterson's Law: all public Internet discussions
about Scientology will include a post claiming that
all religions are equally bad
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Dennis L Erlich
Plus if you think it's such a worthless forum, why did you post this
"important news" here, except to exert Upsmanship?
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>torym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The funny part of it (well, not funny for Scientology---but funny to
>> me) is that I'm sure for them, having
>> looked at ARS today, after years of rarely looking here----they've
>> managed to turn it into the graveyard
>> they were hoping to.
Ars blossomed into a multi-website, multi-forum, media force in the
90's because of the work arscc(wdne) and others put in here. Tory was
still in at the time and working against us.
>And they'd be wrong to think so.
'Zactly.
>Anonymous didn't come here because they started off at 4chan, a Bulletin Board, and so they
>looked for our Bulletin Boards. OCMB was closed to new posters, ESMB didn't match their
>preconceptions as it included non-evil Scientologists, so they started their own. This was, in
>retrospect, perhaps a good thing.
Of course the nonys were here. Reading. Digesting. Getting the lay
of the lan.
>After about a year most critics using ARS left, having overcome their initial uncertainty about
>Anonymous culture. OSA carried on here for a while, sitting in their little offices spamming ARS
>was far preferable to going out into the scary wog world and doing something useful for
>Scientology. Eventually as staff numbers continued to shrink they were pulled off to other work.
>
>But ARS doesn't suffer from staff problems or DDOS attacks. It is here until the Internet, a
>force beyond anyone's control, unplugs it by switching off the servers. Their bandwidth is
>trivial compared to the mass market demand for TV and movies. The graveyard, as you put it, is
>OSAs not ours - we won this battle.
What we set out to accomplish has been completed. Now that the truth
is out, it's up to the public to decide what to do about the cult.
D
--------------------------------
"Just do as I say and all will be well." - Elrong Hubturd
The Alien Krlll
> What Hartley said.
>
> Plus if you think it's such a worthless forum, why did you post this
> "important news" here, except to exert Upsmanship?
>
> Hartley Patterson<hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> torym...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The funny part of it (well, not funny for Scientology---but funny to
>>> me) is that I'm sure for them, having
>>> looked at ARS today, after years of rarely looking here----they've
>>> managed to turn it into the graveyard
>>> they were hoping to.
>
> Ars blossomed into a multi-website, multi-forum, media force in the
> 90's because of the work arscc(wdne) and others put in here. Tory was
> still in at the time and working against us.
Somehow it's looking like you are trying to take credit for something
others did, when in fact you had to be told every keystroke to hit on
the keyboard in order for you to just log on. You had to be educated.
You didn't know how to upload and download, or even dial in with your
modem without having your hand held every step of the way. Computers
are like children: some people just shouldn't have them. You certainly
shouldn't have in 1994. If you hadn't you couldn't have engaged in your
crime spree of distributing stolen intellectual property, and
victimizing others whose equipment you used to commit the crimes.
I wonder who you mean by we? Are you referring to partners in crime?
Are you saying Hartley conspired with you?
It's amazing Rev. how you can get on ARS now after betraying everybody
that fought against Scientology on this forum, after engaging in a
secret settlement with the enemy for your own financial gain.
And you have the unmitigated gall to criticize Tory. She's an effective
communicator with the proper message – without having to use your
obligatory obscenities.
You really take the cake Erlich. You baked it and you held a ceremony
to bestow it upon yourself. Have you no shame Rev.? Why can't you as
Tilman said, just go away and spend your money and leave us alone.
Don't you get the point? People don't want to hear from you because
you're a traitor, and insufferably abrasive and vulgar.
You apparently signed a contract with Scientology saying that you
wouldn't criticize them, so you come here to criticize everybody else –
like Tory, to name just one.
Take a hint and get lost Rev. Erlich. You already took 15,000 bows on
stage and broke both arms patting yourself on the back for doing what
other intellectual property thieves have gone to prison for.
>
>> And they'd be wrong to think so.
>
> 'Zactly.
>
>> Anonymous didn't come here because they started off at 4chan, a Bulletin Board, and so they
>> looked for our Bulletin Boards. OCMB was closed to new posters, ESMB didn't match their
>> preconceptions as it included non-evil Scientologists, so they started their own. This was, in
>> retrospect, perhaps a good thing.
>
> Of course the nonys were here. Reading. Digesting. Getting the lay
> of the lan.
>
>> After about a year most critics using ARS left, having overcome their initial uncertainty about
>> Anonymous culture. OSA carried on here for a while, sitting in their little offices spamming ARS
>> was far preferable to going out into the scary wog world and doing something useful for
>> Scientology. Eventually as staff numbers continued to shrink they were pulled off to other work.
>>
>> But ARS doesn't suffer from staff problems or DDOS attacks. It is here until the Internet, a
>> force beyond anyone's control, unplugs it by switching off the servers. Their bandwidth is
>> trivial compared to the mass market demand for TV and movies. The graveyard, as you put it, is
>> OSAs not ours - we won this battle.
>
> What we set out to accomplish has been completed. Now that the truth
> is out, it's up to the public to decide what to do about the cult.
>
> D
"What we set out to accomplish," are you serious? What you set out to
do was use other people's computer equipment to vent the venom
constantly flowing through your veins, against the group that you were
proud to be part of for 13 years. But the drug ingestion, and guilty
feelings from spousal abuse took its toll. The cult would no longer
have you. Then they just paid you an amount that was a pitance to them,
just to get you to go away. The cult's revenge on the people in this
newsgroup, was to get you to come back and torment US!
--
"In this leg of the anti-scientology relay race, Rev. Erlich grabs the
bogus copyrights baton and runs it into the stands, secretively selling
it back to the Scientologists for use as a club to pummel their victims.
Erlich takes the money and splits for Palm Springs, saying his actions
didn't harm anyone that he knows of" -Anonymous 2007
The Alien Krlll
> What we set out to accomplish has been completed.
Let's take a look at what you accomplished. New tougher felony laws to
ward off actions of the the "cyber-renegade." Now honest dissenters are
in jeopardy of being locked up for felonies.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWE/is_4_8/ai_n6108144/
The most recent amendment to criminal copyright infringement was the No
Electronic Theft Act of 1997 (Net Act), which made it a felony to
reproduce or distribute copies of copyrighted works electronically
regardless of whether the defendant had a profit motive. Thus, it
changed the 100-year standard regarding profit motive but retained the
element of willfulness. The ease of infringement on the Internet was the
primary reason for criminalizing noncommercial infringement, as well as
recognition of other motivations a nonprofit defendant might have, such
as anti-copyright or anti-corporate sentiment, or trying to make a name
in the Internet world and wanting to be a *cyber-renegade.*
G Rev. is that really what you set out to accomplish? To make a name
for yourself?
Michael Reuss
Hi Tory! Long time no see. I watched your recent video. You look good!
Thanks for warning the African American community about the dangers of
Dianetics and Scientology. Obviously, anyone already a member of the
Nation of Islam, has already made one commitment to a personality
cult, and so might be more likely to be duped by another. However,
when the inculcation of the newbies not to "mix their practices" start
to come down, there could be some fireworks, eh?
And can you imagine Louis Farrakan and L. Ron Hubbard duking it out
for "spiritual supremacy?" One's a fricken murderer, and the other was
a liar, charlatan and scam artist of almost unprecedented proportion.
Carlos Mencia, can we have another smackdown?
> Years ago, in the 90's, my friend (then) and auditor, Bill Yaude, as
> working on a "top secret OSA Int Internet Project".
[snip]
> ---he'd created 10 different
> identities and loved fooling the critics. He's worked on this for
> years and years.
Bill, as Woody the talking cowboy doll, made a big splash on a.r.s
after the cult's infamous 1995 Erlich / Klemesrud / Netcom / FACTNet /
Penny / Wollersheim raids. Then he went on NPR to give an interview,
not as Bill, but as Woody, about $cientology's war with the Internet.
Every time the Woody persona spoke, he came across like a brainwashed
idiot, making $cientology appear to be exactly what critics said it
was.
After a while, the Woody persona blew a.r.s, and Bill assumed others.
But every persona had the same essential qualities. If he fooled
anyone, it was certainly not due to his cleverness.
But, Bill, just like Tory, if you blow the cult and start to reclaim
your WOG-type humanity [tm], I'm sure you too can regain the good
graces of all the critics who you formerly annoyed (at the high cost
of proving their point about the dangers and stupidity of Scientology
training).
> The key way to find out if you're talking to Bill (or one of his
> "volunteer" OSA ops) is see if they'll meet with you, or call you.
> He NEVER will). He's been a deaf-mute, crippled, lives in some
> far off place where no one else lives. He's also great at being
> clever, knowledgeable, funny, etc.
As Woody, I never found Bill to be particularly clever or funny, (I'm
fussy about my humor), but rather, simplistic, dogmatic,
non-responsive, unable to communicate, and pretty clearly incapable of
"thinking for himself." In short, not a good commercial for the
Scientology cult.
> The funny part of it (well, not funny for Scientology---but funny to
> me) is that I'm sure for them, having looked at ARS today, after years
> of rarely looking here----they've managed to turn it into the graveyard
> they were hoping to.
No, I think this is wrong, Tory. A.r.s is this way because of
evolution, not because any person or organization made it that way.
The interest by critics of Scientology is far greater now than it ever
has been. It's just more diffuse because of the myriad sites and blogs
where people can choose to participate. More people see the
anti-Scientology videos on UTube than probably ever visited a.r.s.
> The Un-Funny part is that who cares??? There are fantastic people ALL
> around the Net now, everyone
> from people who were "in" such as myself, who woke up, realized the
> CON it is, and literally escaped out.
> To "Critics"---people who were never "in" but are highly effective at
> exposing C of $'s abuses, to
> "Anonymous"---those that picket and help expose Scientology's abuses.
> And then there are the most recent Executives who left, spoke on
> Nightline---you can see those interviews
> on www.xenutv.com if you missed them, and the "Indies".
Even moderated blogs get tons of crap. That's what you get, indeed,
what we should expect, when everyone gets to speak.
It matters very little that a.r.s is now a comparitive backwater.
Xenu.net, U-Tube, and all the rest, are now the front lines of how the
internet is eviscerating Scientology by innoculating the raw meat.
I'll snip the rest, but leave the links. ;-)
> www.exscn.net or www.xenu.net :)
> www.youtube.com/ToryMagoo44
> www.xenutv.com
> www.xenu.net
> www.torymagoo.org
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Michael Reuss
>> Dennis L Erlich wrote, On 8/31/2010 12:35 PM:
>> Ars blossomed into a multi-website, multi-forum, media force in the
>> 90's because of the work arscc(wdne) and others put in here. Tory was
>> still in at the time and working against us.
> Somehow it's looking like you are trying to take credit for something
> others did,
Krill, as an anony - mouse, your rants against Dennis are pointless,
non-persuasive and cowardly.
Tell us your name and your agenda, and then maybe your limited,
tiresome perspective on this subject might gain a little weight.
Probably not, but without that, no one cares what you say in the
least.
It is certainly true that Dennis sacrificed much to this battle, for
many years. That he took a break and enjoyed his life for a while
merely shows his good sense. I recommend the same for everyone who
gets involved in this, and indeed, all political battles. There's
nothing wrong with going away for a while, giving one's psychic
batteries time to recharge, and finding other interests. That way, we
become more well-rounded people, when and if we want to come back.
Returning is not essential. The stories of Astra Woodcraft and Dennis
and Tom Klemesrud, Tory Christman and Lisa McPherson and Noah Lottick
and Raul Lopez, hell, even the sad videos of Mary DeMoss, are
ubiquitous, now. They're available everywhere. And they tell so
clearly how Scientology harms people and families.
realpch
Eh, it's just Tom Klemstrud.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Dennis L Erlich
>Krill, as an anony - mouse, your rants against Dennis are pointless,
>non-persuasive and cowardly.
>
>Tell us your name and your agenda, and then maybe your limited,
>tiresome perspective on this subject might gain a little weight.
>Probably not, but without that, no one cares what you say in the
>least.
Michael,
Krill is one of the many sock-puppets Tom Klemsrud has used since the
early 90's. His first was Jerry Ladd, which he hid behind to
criticize the cult, while I took all the heat for posting the Xenu and
"no Christ" material back in 1994.
After I settled, Klemmy kept calling me up, drunk outta his ass, late
at night blathering on about how "we" changed the world. I finally
had to tell him to stop calling me when he had been drinking.
Since then he has used another dozen socks to spew his hatred for me.
Krill is just one of them. I could dig up the list of sock puppets he
uses, but I'm sure someone else has it more handy.
Be well,
Dennis
----------------
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
altogether, I would be all for it." - Monica Pignotti, PhD (Nov 2009)
Ted Mayett
<honor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Krill, as an anony - mouse, your rants against Dennis are pointless,
>non-persuasive and cowardly.
>
>Tell us your name and your agenda, and then maybe your limited,
>tiresome perspective on this subject might gain a little weight.
>Probably not, but without that, no one cares what you say in the
>least.
>
>It is certainly true that Dennis sacrificed much to this battle, for
>many years. That he took a break and enjoyed his life for a while
>merely shows his good sense. I recommend the same for everyone who
>gets involved in this, and indeed, all political battles. There's
>nothing wrong with going away for a while, giving one's psychic
>batteries time to recharge, and finding other interests. That way, we
>become more well-rounded people, when and if we want to come back.
>
You missed some info that came to light regarding the Rev. Dennis
Erlich. Certainly you remember the man is a Reverend, a Minister, an
Ordained Minister, surely you remember this?
Perhaps you think of him as the 'potty mouthed reverend' but lets put
aside his excessive and prolonged vulgarity for right now.
It might be called luck, but I call it skill that Monica Pignotti was
able to get Erlich to actually answer where his title of Reverend
comes from. He calls himself a Minister, an Ordained Minister, a
Reverend, but where does the title come from? Well it turns out he is
a Scientology Reverend. He is a man of God because of a course he
took written by L. Ron Hubbard and done in the Church Of Scientology.
When he applied for tax exemption as a religion, he used the Church Of
Scientology as his reference for the IRS. He told the IRS that
Scientology was his religion. He lied about that in order to get tax
exemption. We learned this not from Dennis, he lied to us about this.
He put some IRS work on his web site and inferred that was all the
paperwork. And then somebody anonymous tracked down the rest of his
paperwork and his lies were revealed.
At this very moment he has a resume webbed stating that he was a
Minister from 1968-1982, but it does not say scientology minister:
http://www.informer.org/erlich_resume.html
But then as you are well aware, Dennis is of the opinion that
everything about scientology and hubbard is a fraud and is bogus.
EVERYTHING. Except that well, where money is concerned he doesn't
mind telling lies.
If you are interested in this stuff the links can be found or the
pages simply reposted. You can read for yourself the irs paperwork
that Dennis would have preferred remain hidden, and understandably.
He types one thing here, another thing on his web page, and still
another thing in his irs paperwork. He lies a lot regarding this
Minister business.
And realize, this paperwork was never supplied by Erlich. He has this
on his main page: "Public inspection disclosure documens now "widely
available.""
http://www.informer.org/public.htm
BUT, they were not all the docs required by law.
----------
Some quotes from Erlich:
The Rev. Dennis Erlich speaks:
"I was ordained a minister in the Church of Scientology. I found God.
I accepted the task He assigned to me."
"During the two years between 1982 -1984, I broke away from the
organized Scientology church, and found God. God gave me a mission."
--------
Dennis has said he cannot change his IRS paperwork because the IRS
does not allow you to change your religious beliefs, or maybe they
just do not allow you to change your religion once you register with
them. Does this sound lame to you I wonder? Oh well, if Dennis says
this then it must be true. At any rate, at this time the guy is the
Scientology Reverend Dennis Erlich. Not on this ng though, only with
the irs is he a scn rev.
>Krill, as an anony - mouse, your rants against Dennis are pointless,
>non-persuasive and cowardly.
>
I don't know Mike, I just don't know... this guy Erlich is using a
shield of religion to prey on marks. He seeks the mentally troubled
and has only snake oil to offer. He is vulgar, he lies, and yet he
solicits for business. Conversations with God does not make him a bad
guy, but actively lying about his credentials is a low-life activity.
He won't talk to me Mike, maybe you ask him...
Is Erlich ashamed because he became an Ordained Minister based on the
L. Ron Hubbard Technology as delivered in the Church Of Scientology?
And yet it was through the Application Of Standard Hubbard Tech that
he first found God. Why would he be ashamed of this?
And before you respond Mike know this, Erlich is quite sensitive about
people denigrating his religion. So please, no jokes about Hubbard or
Scientology and their relationship with God.
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology
Michael Reuss
>> Michael Reuss wrote:
>> Krill, as an anony - mouse, your rants against Dennis are pointless,
>> non-persuasive and cowardly.
> Eh, it's just Tom Klemstrud.
Awww, crap! I hate to hear that.
Tom, what in the hell are you doing? Dennis had a chance to get away from this
for a while. How does that hurt you?
I implore you not to be bitter. Ideological battles that descend into bitterness
have so much more to overcome. The whole idea is to be persuasive, isn't it?
Or maybe you're fighting a different battle, now? If so, to my mind that would
be a dirty shame, since that would make you the only one fighting, and for a
cause no one else can share.
The Alien Krlll
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:19:05 -0600, Michael Reuss
> <honor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Krill, as an anony - mouse, your rants against Dennis are pointless,
>> non-persuasive and cowardly.
You've got a lot of nerve coming back here – not knowing what's going on
– and calling people cowards. Have you checked out the things that he
has been saying about people? Lurk more.
Some people don't like their names dragged through the pigpen in which
the Rev. Erlich demands it be discussed, and I'm not going to
voluntarily offer mine up. That's how he wins his arguments – by being
so vulgar and obscene, that people don't want to challenge him.check
this link out.
>>
>> Tell us your name and your agenda, and then maybe your limited,
>> tiresome perspective on this subject might gain a little weight.
>> Probably not, but without that, no one cares what you say in the
>> least.
>>
>> It is certainly true that Dennis sacrificed much to this battle, for
>> many years. That he took a break and enjoyed his life for a while
>> merely shows his good sense. I recommend the same for everyone who
>> gets involved in this, and indeed, all political battles. There's
>> nothing wrong with going away for a while, giving one's psychic
>> batteries time to recharge, and finding other interests. That way, we
>> become more well-rounded people, when and if we want to come back.
With your mind in the fog, and lack of understanding of what's been
transpiring, you're really not much of an expert to tell us how to be
well-rounded people.
Here's what happened in a nutshell: although Dennis Erlich's use of
certain copyrighted material was definitely fair use, the church of
Scientology enticed Erlich to agree to exactly the opposite by appealing
to the Reverend's greed. He turned tail and agreed with everything the
church of Scientology accused him of, in order to line his pockets with
money from the other victims of Scientology. Although he says he is not
under any gag order he's chosen to – as you say – cowardly pull the rug
out from under his pro bono attorneys at Morrison Foerster who wanted to
fight on and set a precedent in law to protect other victims of this
kind of treachery and just line Dennis is pockets. He has done all this
in secrecy. When somebody asks a question about – as Tilman did – they
are mercilessly attacked with vulgarity and obscenities.
Erlich will not criticize Scientology in any meaningful way other than
his cartoonlike names for L Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige.
As opposed to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?zneznngdztt
or here
--
"Settlement money isn't taxed. Money won in a judgment is." -- Rev.
Dennis L Erlich concerning his secret settlement, (Mar 19, 2010)
The Alien Krlll
yhn
> After I settled, Klemmy kept calling me up, drunk outta his ass, late
> at night blathering on about how "we" changed the world. I finally
> had to tell him to stop calling me when he had been drinking.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/5c00915cb6069403?hl=en
yhn
"I listen to what they have to say. I let them voice their
personal concerns. I advise them how to deal with interpersonal and
real-life problems. Such consultations are private, confidential and
fully privileged under California law."
Michael Reuss
> You've got a lot of nerve coming back here – not knowing what's going on
> – and calling people cowards. Have you checked out the things that he
> has been saying about people?
Sorry I called you a coward, Tom. Like Dennis, you too have suffered at the
hands of cult totalitarianism. I didn't know it was you, and your post sounded
like one of those classic anonymous OSA hatchet jobs.
> Lurk more.
I'll try to be more circumspect about what I say, if you promise to do the same.
> Some people don't like their names dragged through the pigpen in which
> the Rev. Erlich demands it be discussed, and I'm not going to
> voluntarily offer mine up. That's how he wins his arguments – by being
> so vulgar and obscene, that people don't want to challenge him.
Ah, but does one ever truly win an argument?
> check this link out.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/5d40a3121de0bf74/944ff7b837b5e014?hl=en&q=what+can+dennis+erlich+allowed+to+say#944ff7b837b5e014
I'd seen all this before, this is old stuff. I was frustrated by Dennis' lack of
candor about the settlement. But I was still happy for him. Sometimes a person
just has bigger fish to fry.
> With your mind in the fog, and lack of understanding of what's been
> transpiring, you're really not much of an expert to tell us how to be
> well-rounded people.
Fair enough. And you are not an OSA anonybot. If you care, you might want to try
sounding less like one.
> Here's what happened in a nutshell: although Dennis Erlich's use of
> certain copyrighted material was definitely fair use, the church of
> Scientology enticed Erlich to agree to exactly the opposite by appealing
> to the Reverend's greed. He turned tail and agreed with everything the
> church of Scientology accused him of, in order to line his pockets with
> money from the other victims of Scientology. Although he says he is not
> under any gag order he's chosen to – as you say – cowardly pull the rug
> out from under his pro bono attorneys at Morrison Foerster who wanted to
> fight on and set a precedent in law to protect other victims of this
> kind of treachery and just line Dennis is pockets. He has done all this
> in secrecy. When somebody asks a question about – as Tilman did – they
> are mercilessly attacked with vulgarity and obscenities.
Tom, I agree that IF Dennis and MoFo had won a public trial, the cult would have
been badly hurt. But you simply assume this result. There was no guarantee. And
your ass was not on the line, his was.
This line of argument is all crap. MoFo were HIS representatives. He didn't pull
the rug out from under them. They were HIS attorneys. He had every right to
settle. If you recall, YOUR attorneys also settled with Scientology. They didn't
represent what you wanted, either. Not what you wanted in the battle for free
speech rights and for fair use precedence anyway. Your lawyers represented your
insurance company, who wanted to save money!
Now, one can argue that Dennis betrayed "us" the critical community, and that
argument has some legs, because right up until Dennis settled, he behaved as if
he never would settle. And that he never spoke much about it afterwards was
immensely frustrating.
But we were placing a lot of our hope on a single person. He didn't want the
burden. And think about some of the other factors that might have also been
involved, and of which we are all ignorant. Dennis' ex-wife, family, child
support, and all that. What if he just wanted to have the chance to have his
daughter in his life again, before she grew up, and this was the price? Would
you demand he give all that up to satisfy our public/political desires?
And too, all this happened a long time ago. The cult hasn't sued or raided
anyone for a long time. The Erlich / Klemesrud / Netcom / Lerma case was
important in the cult's thinking about that. I think we can safely assume that
MoFo put the fear of God (so to speak) into the cult. So fuck it. Let it go.
Enjoy a muffled sense of victory. Celebrate a tiny bit. Have a lite beer.
> Erlich will not criticize Scientology in any meaningful way other than
> his cartoonlike names for L Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige.
Ah, the litmus test... are you an "effective" critic? Remember when henri and
tigger and that crowd used to go on and on about shit like this. I really used
to hate that... ;-)
Take care, Tom. I hope you're well.
The Alien Krlll
Mike, here is something you might want to reread. I particularly like
the part about Jim Bostrom – it is James and not John. I learned about
his raid 1989 from the woman in whose house Dennis Erlich would, months
later, become a renter in for years.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/3f89d984ba857b0d?hl=en
"when people ask me about you, here is what I recall
you were the best poster on ars
the clams wanted you to stfu
you got raided...
and you were'nt the first raid
another guy, I think his name was john bostrum was raided a few years
previously..
and if I got the name wrong, I didnt have quotes around him either,
few heard of his case... he committed suicide before he ever walked
into a courtroom
You survived your raid!
...
Then have a look at the many posts in which Rev. Erlich likens himself
to the Uncle Ramus character of the Tar Baby, luring in an unsuspecting
church of Scientology, by knowing how they attack, to extract revenge in
the form of cash, and a small Palm Springs mansion -- and such appearing
not to have been taxed.
But as the chinese philosopher said, in seeking revenge, "dig two
graves." Erlich comes here giving everyone hell, in an apparent attempt
to resurrect his dead ego ... or because such bad-acting is called for
in his contract with Scientology.
Dennis L Erlich
klem wrote:
>> You've got a lot of nerve coming back here – not knowing what's going on
>> – and calling people cowards. Have you checked out the things that he
>> has been saying about people?
mich
>Sorry I called you a coward, Tom.
No, Michael. In retrospect, Klemsrud really ~was~ a coward. And
still is using his sock-puppet postings.
>Like Dennis, you too have suffered at the
>hands of cult totalitarianism. I didn't know it was you, and your post sounded
>like one of those classic anonymous OSA hatchet jobs.
That's precisely his modus operandi.
>I'll try to be more circumspect about what I say, if you promise to do the same.
Fat chance. Alcohol fuels the fire of his hatred.
>I'd seen all this before, this is old stuff. I was frustrated by Dennis' lack of
>candor about the settlement.
I backed away from the conflict for a bit. That was the advice of
lots of my trusted advisors and friends.
>But I was still happy for him. Sometimes a person
>just has bigger fish to fry.
I had accomplished what I set out to do. The xenu/body
thetan/no-christ material was out and in the public cross hairs.
>Fair enough. And you are not an OSA anonybot. If you care, you might want to try
>sounding less like one.
No, there's not that much difference between Klem's vitriolic spew
against me and the cult's (back in the day.)
>> Here's what happened in a nutshell: although Dennis Erlich's use of
>> certain copyrighted material was definitely fair use, the church of
>> Scientology enticed Erlich to agree to exactly the opposite by appealing
>> to the Reverend's greed. He turned tail and agreed with everything the
>> church of Scientology accused him of, in order to line his pockets with
>> money from the other victims of Scientology. Although he says he is not
>> under any gag order he's chosen to – as you say – cowardly pull the rug
>> out from under his pro bono attorneys at Morrison Foerster who wanted to
>> fight on and set a precedent in law to protect other victims of this
>> kind of treachery and just line Dennis is pockets. He has done all this
>> in secrecy. When somebody asks a question about – as Tilman did – they
>> are mercilessly attacked with vulgarity and obscenities.
What a load of crap coming from a booze-swilling, surrender monkey
like Klemmy.
>Tom, I agree that IF Dennis and MoFo had won a public trial, the cult would have
>been badly hurt. But you simply assume this result.
It looked like Whyte was going to punish us if we didn't settle.
>There was no guarantee. And
>your ass was not on the line, his was.
That doesn't matter to Klem's ilk. They were living vicariously thru
me. When I made a decision contrary to their wishes, they turned on
me with ugly lies and sliemy innuendo.
But I've seen it all before. And from more skilled sliemballs.
>This line of argument is all crap. MoFo were HIS representatives.
No, you don't understand, Michael. These idiots thought and still
think they own me because they jumped on the bandwagon of my
whistleblowing.
> He didn't pull
>the rug out from under them. They were HIS attorneys. He had every right to
>settle. If you recall, YOUR attorneys also settled with Scientology.
He quickly settled with the cult and even settled with Miss Bloodybutt
in small claims court to make that mess go away. In both cases he
could have stood up and defended himself. But obviously there was
something to hide in the Miss Bloodybutt incident.
Like I said: booze-guzzling, surrender-monkey.
>They didn't represent what you wanted, either.
He dint have to settle.
>Not what you wanted in the battle for free
>speech rights and for fair use precedence anyway.
Back then he wanted to bring the cult down. Now he's decided to try
to bring me down from some strange status he thinks I've falsely
earned.
>Your lawyers represented your
>insurance company, who wanted to save money!
He didn't have to settle.
>Now, one can argue that Dennis betrayed "us" the critical community, and that
>argument has some legs, because right up until Dennis settled, he behaved as if
>he never would settle.
I hadn't even considered it a possibility until just hours before we
settled.
>And that he never spoke much about it afterwards was
>immensely frustrating.
I don't know what they think I withheld or why they think they are
entitled to grill me about some non existent agreement they telling
people exists. They cannot produce evidence that it does and it
irritates them that I still post here about the cult and about others'
posts. Dox or STFU applies.
They want me to behave as if I am muzzled, but I am not.
>But we were placing a lot of our hope on a single person.
I was the one living it.
>He didn't want the burden.
No. I am not their property. The case was all mine. It was I who
first posted the material that let the genie out of the bottle.
>And think about some of the other factors that might have also been
>involved, and of which we are all ignorant. Dennis' ex-wife, family, child
>support, and all that. What if he just wanted to have the chance to have his
>daughter in his life again, before she grew up, and this was the price? Would
>you demand he give all that up to satisfy our public/political desires?
Those factors don't interest people who believe they had ownership of
my life and my case.
>And too, all this happened a long time ago. The cult hasn't sued or raided
>anyone for a long time. The Erlich / Klemesrud / Netcom / Lerma case was
>important in the cult's thinking about that. I think we can safely assume that
>MoFo put the fear of God (so to speak) into the cult. So fuck it. Let it go.
>Enjoy a muffled sense of victory. Celebrate a tiny bit. Have a lite beer.
Alcohol is part of the problem.
>> Erlich will not criticize Scientology in any meaningful way other than
>> his cartoonlike names for L Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige.
Klemmy wants to use me as one of his many sock puppets. Why doesn't
he just send me the words he wants me to spew for him.
>Ah, the litmus test... are you an "effective" critic?
Perhaps a loyalty oath would convince him ... but I wouldn't bet on
it.
D
The Alien Krlll
What you did was to deliberately, and criminally, infringe copyrights
and trade secrets -- while all along telling your ISP that what you were
doing was not infringement, but was fair use.
The role of the quality control person in a brainwashing factory -- the
role they you have described yourself doing as the Chief Cramming
Officer -- knoww everything that L. Ron Hubbard wrote, knows where to
find it in the files, and to be able to scream at those who are getting
crammed with it. It's very disingenuous for you to say -- as you said
in the BBC video -- that you did not know what claim the Church of
Scientology might have on the infringing material you were illicitly
posting to the Internet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6KM27TUsvM
It's amazing that only just now your words captured on the Internet
along with your pictures and video is starting to catch up on you and
prove to the world what a lying charlatan you are.
This whole thread started with you suggesting that Tom Klemesrud and
Netcom Online Communication Services, where two cowards, too afraid to
fight the Scientology cult as the brave Rev. Dennis Erlich did. That is
untrue. Not only did these ISPs fight, they won! They set up a new
protocol and precedent in law that would have global ramifications.
Your only input into this was you provided the criminal impetus to get
the ball rolling. It goes beyond the pale how you can pat yourself on
the back for criminal actions you took, lied about, that had deleterious
collateral effects on innocent third parties. It's amazing too that you
have a whole cheering section from Canada to the United States that
goads you on to bragging about your deliberate destruction of other
people's property, utilizing other people's property to do it.
>
> Klems would have continued to be a net-nobody if I had simply chosen
> to get a Netcom account to post to ars,
I'm sure that being a net-nobody would be a far superior fate than what
you unleashed upon your ISPs -- that were defending your freedom of
speech. A successful career in broadcasting, television, film and
newspaper publishing would have to suffice in lieu of being a net-nobody.
> instead of using his little bulletin board.
The little BBS that you refer to was the sole source of over 4000 people
in Los Angeles for getting their e-mail.
> He hid behind his insurance company and abandoned the
> fight before risking anything.
What do you think Rev., insurance was made for? And while we're on the
topic, why were you so stupid that you didn't have an apartment renters
liability policy? Or, did you have such a policy? You have to be one
of the stupidest combatants that the Church of Scientology has ever
seen. It is becoming more apparent that ever you deliberately provoked
Scientology into raiding you -- as they had done to John Bostrom just
four years before -- knowing full well, as the "tar baby" you have
nicknamed yourself -- that they would come with overwhelming force.
The question has to be asked: Rev. Erlich, did you pull off this stunt
simply as a scam to gain money from Scientology?
A second question has to be asked: was this all a covert operation for
Scientology to sue themselves, with the aim of creating better
intellectual property law for themselves, and Hollywood movie and record
producers? If this were the case, a simple renters liability insurance
policy would not be wanted by the perpetrators of the fraud on the court.
How do you know Doug Jacobsen and David Butterworth?
It is simply inconceivable of any half intelligent person to go to war
with the Church of Scientology without having a simple liability
insurance policy. People simply aren't that stupid. I believe you had
a policy and did not tell Morrison Foerster about it. If you're
infringing activity started when you were living with Ed and Priscilla
Coates, then their homeowners policy would have covered your infringing
activity. You've got some explaining to do Rev. in this regard.
> And instead paid the cult a
> settlement.
As you should remember Amy Harmon of the Los Angeles Times said the
exact same thing on August 23, 1996 in the newspaper. The next day on
August 24, 1996 the Los Angeles Times printed a retraction on the front
page correcting what she said. The insurance company threatened
withdrawal of coverage if they could not simply pay Scientology the
token amount of $50,000 to settle the whole thing.
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Scientology_cases/960822_klemesrud_settle.announce
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tom.kl...@support.com
Subject: Klemesrud Press Release
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 11:56:16 -0700
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
8/22/96 -- The holders of copyrights to material authored by L. Ron
Hubbard, founder of the controversial Church of Scientology, have agreed
to dismiss the operator of a Los Angeles-based computer bulletin board
service as a defendant from a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement
over the internet.
Early last year, Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Bridge
Publications sued Tom Klemesrud, the operator of the service, along with
his subscriber, Dennis Erlich, and Netcom On-Line Communication
Services, Klemesrud's internet service provider. Netcom settled out
earlier this month. The lawsuit, which continues to proceed against
Erlich, an ex-Scientologist, alleges that Erlich infringed copyrights by
posting material written by Hubbard to a Usenet newsgroup known as
"alt.religion.scientology." The internet newsgroup has become widely
known for its impassioned postings by both proponents and critics of
Scientology.
In a novel claim that would have tested the limits of liability in
cyberspace, the plaintiffs had contended that Klemesrud and Netcom
should be held legally responsible for the alleged acts of Erlich
because he used their computer services to make his postings to the
internet.
Federal District Judge Ronald M. Whyte ruled in November 1995
that Klemesrud could not be found liable for direct infringement,
and could only be found liable for contributory copyright infringe-
ment if there was knowledge of a BBS user's infringement.
"This is the most important thing we have achieved in this
litigation. It has positive ramifications for all of the Internet,"
Klemesrud said.
The plaintiffs claimed significant economic damage resulting from
the postings. They alleged that those who might otherwise have
purchased Scientology materials and services were able to obtain them
for free once Erlich posted them to the internet.
The claims against Klemesrud were settled for $50,000, an amount
that is to be paid by Klemesrud's insurance carrier. Important to
Klemesrud, himself a critic of the Church of Scientology, is the fact
that the terms of the settlement include no admission of liability on
his part.
"Settling this case was a business decision by my insurance
company," Klemesrud said. "I would have liked to stay in there and
participate in total exoneration, but I understand it would have been a
lot more expensive to take this case all the way through trial rather
than to pay this token amount now, and be happy with the positive
results we've achieved."
##
> Some "big win" for the internet.
I believe this is the only sentence in your message that is not a lie.
To quote Paul Haggis to Tommy Davis, "To see you lie so easily, I am
afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?"
>
> He even paid off Ms Bloodybutt, who, after he was arrested for
> assault, sued him in small claims court.
There you go again. Someday you're going to have a chance to prove
these things in court. The fact is the insurance company forced the
payment. It was one of the dumbest legal moves that Bloody Butt could
make, but she had to make it because it was the only move she had
because the facts were not on her side. By paying $5000 in small claims
court, the insurance company saved the cost of full litigation in
Superior Court. Accepting a payoff in small claims, you are denied
litigating the matter any further.
But I'm sure that was the intent of her Scientology handlers. Gene
Ingram was even in small claims court that day with her. They wanted to
provide people like you Rev. Dennis Erlich with enough information for
you to plausibly claim that an assault happened, and Bloody Butt won in
court.
You neglect to mention that this woman would later try to frame him
again by claiming he was stalking her at a Burbank bar. She was proved
to be a liar in Los Angeles Superior Court because "Klemmy" was 1500
miles away attending his dad's funeral. His dad, unlike Tom, had the
nickname of "Klemmy."
You are one crass individual for a man of God, granted church status
from the Internal Revenue Service.
> He's a booze-guzzling, surrender-monkey.
And you know this how?
>>> Is that lost on you Ron?
>
> As if Klemmy were the cause of anything.
He seems to be the cause of your continual unraveling. every day yo are
more "as-ised."
>> Completely lost past the US border.
>
> And toadly irrelevant on this side of it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costar_v._Loopnet
Holdings of Appellate Court:
The appellate court supported the Netcom decision as "a particularly
rational interpretation of § 106 [of the Copyright Act]." The court
reasoned that similar to a copying machine, an ISP who owned an
electronic facility that responded automatically to users' input was not
a direct infringer. The court also reasoned that temporary electronic
copies made during the transmission were not "fixed" because such copies
were used to automatically transmit users' material and they were not
"of more than transitory duration."
In response to CoStar’s argument that the DMCA made the Netcom case
irrelevant, the court held that the DMCA was not exclusive and that the
Netcom case was still a valid precedent. The court first reasoned that
the DMCA specifically provided that despite a failure to meet the
safe-harbor conditions of § 512, an ISP was still entitled to all other
arguments under the law. Second, the court reasoned that when Congress
codified a common law principle, the common law remained good law.
Third, the court reasoned that legislative history suggested that
Congress intended the DMCA's safe harbor for ISPs to be a floor, not a
ceiling, of protection.
>
> D
Maybe someday "Klemmy" will give you a chance to prove all this in a
defamation action in court, you disgusting, profane little ant.
--
"You did all in your power to denigrate LRH tech. You then settled out
for big bucks. You are for sale – and were bought – and do not warrant
the time of day of those who frequent this board" -- Marty Rathbun to
Rev. Dennis L. Erlich, (10/26/09). "Settlement money isn't taxed. Money
won in a judgment is." -- Rev. Dennis L. Erlich, (Mar 19, 2010)
Michael Reuss
> Like I said: booze-guzzling, surrender-monkey.
I clearly stirred up a hornet's piss pot by jumping in on this topic (hmm, that
makes me wonder if hornets piss... but I digress) in the mistaken belief that
Tom was an OSA anonybot. I dearly regret that error, believe me. But since the
hornet's piss pot is stirred up, I will add a few last thoughts before I quit
this sorry topic.
Dennis and Tom, it's pretty clear that you're both angry. Tom, you feel Dennis
betrayed the cause and him, for your decision to settle, and not be forthcoming
about it. Dennis, you appear to feel that Tom (and others) are imposing on you
and trying to run your life, or maybe you think they've failed to adequately
appreciate your sacrifices.
Whatever the case is, your anger is making both of you say dumb things.
Dennis, this surrender-monkey thing is a case in point. Why in hell would you
criticize Tom for settling with the cult, when you did the same exact thing?
And his insurance company had more control over "his" attorneys than he did,
whereas you appeared to have complete control over yours. So by your own logic,
if he's a "surrender-monkey" then wouldn't you be a "super, double-secret
surrender-monkey?" I'm not calling you that, I'm just asking you to think about
your logic in your angry outburst.
As for accusations of alcohol abuse, well... if Tom needs some help in that
area, I hope he will go find it. But I can't say, because I don't know Tom that
well.
But I will note that there are lots of different kinds of addictions. Cult's are
addictions for their members, and Dennis, you were one yourself, for 18 years.
If there is any compassion in you for cult addicts, as your inFormer ministry
seems to be claiming, then maybe you can spare a little more tolerance for a
person you believe to be an alcoholic, even when he's attacking your integrity.
I'm not telling you what to do, only hinting a new course that might be more
productive, less hurtful, and more in line with what your ministry says it
represents.
And finally, if the effort required to treat one another with a modicum of
dignity is beyond you both, perhaps you could just start ignoring one another,
which is so simple, so liberating...
And now I'm preached out (in a completely secular way, of course), and bid a not
too fond adeau to this thread. I hope neither of you will feel the need to
answer this message with a "yeah, but..."
The Alien Krlll
> I had accomplished what I set out to do. The xenu/body
> thetan/no-christ material was out and in the public cross hairs.
You were 8 years late with the Xenu revelation, so you can's take credit
for that anymore. It was already in the public domain, by your not so
friendly Larry Wollersheim. So, the criminal infringement was for
exposing a believe in "thetans" and a nasty comment Hubbard made about
Christ? But I bet thetans and no Christ was in Larry suit as well, and
Gerry's suit too. So you are wrestling credit away from them, and
taking a bow in their place? Your hubris knows no bounds.
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
DATE: TUESDAY January 28, 1986
PAGE: B08 EDITION: FINAL
SECTION: NATIONAL LENGTH: MEDIUM
GRAPHICS: PHOTO
SOURCE: From Inquirer Wire Services
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
MEMO: OBITUARIES
L. RON HUBBARD OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
L. Ron Hubbard, the reclusive founder of the controversial Church of
Scientology, is dead, the church announced last night.
Mr. Hubbard, 74, who had not been seen in public since 1980, died Friday
of a stroke at his ranch near San Luis Obispo, 150 miles northwest of
downtown Los Angeles, said the Rev. Heber Jentzsch, president of the
Church of Scientology International.
Mr. Hubbard did not control the church and its corporations for the
last few years, said Mr. Jentzsch.
Mr. Hubbard's ashes were scattered at sea, said Earle Cooley, the
church's chief counsel.
Mr. Hubbard, a native of Tilden, Neb., was a little-known science
fiction writer until his book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental
Health appeared in 1950. It landed on American best-seller lists and
Dianetics - a kind of amateur psychotherapy - became a national fad.
The medical profession called Dianetics hokum. Mr. Hubbard called
it ''a milestone for man comparable to man's discovery of fire and
superior to man's inventions of the wheel and the arch.''
After interest in Dianetics faded, Mr. Hubbard in 1952 founded what
he called the Church of Scientology, described as an ''applied religious
philosophy.''
Mr. Hubbard left most of his estate to Scientology, Cooley said.
''L. Ron Hubbard, after making very generous provision for his
surviving wife and certain of his children, has left the entire balance
of his estate, which is very substantial, to Scientology,'' Cooley said.
''He has, by this act, confirmed his faith in the future of
Scientology and in its management, and the fruits of the labor of a
lifetime have been conferred upon the religion that he founded and
loved,'' said Cooley.
Mr. Hubbard and his third and surviving wife, Mary Sue Hubbard,
founded the Scientology church.
The wealthy church, which has battled the IRS and fought lawsuits
filed by former members, has claimed up to six million members worldwide
since the height of the movement in the 1970s. Defectors, however, have
put the number at closer to two million.
At its peak, the church reportedly earned $100 million a year.
Mr. Hubbard had not been seen in public for years despite several
attempts to force him to appear in court in a series of lawsuits filed
by disgruntled former Scientologists, who contended he led a cult that
brainwashed its members.
According to court documents, filed last year in a Los Angeles
civil case against the church, Mr. Hubbard's religion was based on the
story of an evil tyrant named Xemu who planted the seeds of aberrant
behavior in people 75
million years ago.
Mr. Hubbard contended that Xemu trapped people in a compound of
frozen alcohol and glycol and deposited them in 10 volcanos. Xemu then
dropped nuclear bombs on the volcanos, according to Mr. Hubbard,
destroying the people but freeing their spirits, which clustered
together and were brainwashed by Xemu.
These clusters, or body thetans, according to Mr. Hubbard, attach
themselves to people, blocking their paths to total freedom. When
Scientologists reach a high level in their training, a level known as ''OT
3,'' they are taught how to identify thetans and how to purge them
from their bodies.
The documents were submitted as part of a case brought by a former
Scientologist, Larry Wollersheim, who says the organization defrauded
him by promising him higher intelligence and greater business success
through Scientology courses that cost thousands of dollars.
Former aides of Mr. Hubbard charged in newspaper interviews in 1984
that he had diverted more than $100 million from the church into his own
foreign bank accounts. They said Mr. Hubbard had directed them to
establish a series of shell corporations to channel much of the
church's resources into the overseas accounts between the 1970s and 1982.
Mr. Jentzsch said at the time that the newspaper reports were
''garbage . . . hyperspace junk writing.''
GRAPHICS: PHOTO (1)
1. L. Ron Hubbard
KEYWORDS: OBITUARY
You should remember this reverend because it was posted in ARS.
The Alien Krlll
1985 Los Angeles Times:
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
DATE: SUNDAY November 24, 1985
PAGE: A12 EDITION: FIRST
SECTION: NATIONAL LENGTH: MEDIUM
SOURCE: By Robert Welkos and Joel Sappell, Los Angeles Times
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
TRADE SECRETS
RIVAL GROUPS TO BE BARRED FROM USING SCIENTOLOGY TEACHINGS
In a major victory for the Church of Scientology, a federal judge
has said
she will bar breakaway Scientology groups from using confidential church
teachings that appear to have been stolen.
U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer said Friday that she would
issue a
preliminary injunction until a trial could be held on a lawsuit
brought by the
Church of Scientology against defectors who have established rival
churches
and counseling centers.
The church contends the teachings are protected by federal trade-secrets
law. Both the Church of Scientology and the rival centers charge fees for
their teachings.
Pfaelzer, at the end of a two-day hearing, said the teachings could be
construed as trade secrets, based on her reading of federal
appellate-court
decisions.
''You've just seen history made,'' Joseph A. Yanny, a Scientology
attorney,
said after the judge's ruling. ''It's the first time you've ever seen a
decision that religious scriptures constitute trade secrets.''
The judge's remarks were a blow to David Mayo, who once worked
closely with
Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard and now runs the largest so-called
independent center.
''It (Pfaelzer's decision) means we could be wiped out pretty damn
fast,''
said a dejected Mayo, president of the Church of the New Civilization,
also
known as the Advanced Ability Center, in Santa Barbara, Calif.
The suit alleges that Mayo and the others had conspired with an ex-
Scientologist named Robin Scott to steal top-secret instructional
materials
from a church branch in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Under questioning by church attorney Earle C. Cooley, Mayo denied
receiving
any of the stolen materials. He said that his own materials, while
similiar to
those offered by the Church of Scientology, had been ''reconstructed'
' from
memory after he left the church. Mayo said that he had written 80 to 90
percent of the material when he worked as one of the church's highest
theoreticians.
Pfaelzer, however, said that the hearing had ''very clearly
established'' a
''nexus'' between a program Mayo offers and one offered by the Church of
Scientology - and stolen by Scott in Decembet subsequently was
convicted in Denmark of a charge comparable to industrial espionage.
''The church material that was stolen is substantially identical in
content'' to that being used by the Advanced Ability Center, Pfaelzer
said,
adding that she was not accusing anyone of ''outright theft'' of the
documents.
During the hearing, Mayo acknowledged that two employees - no longer
connected to his center - had offered to train two ex-Scientologists
at half-
price in exchange for Church of Scientology documents.
Mayo said, however, that he had quashed the deal after learning that the
materials had been stolen.
The documents are a refinement of Hubbard's account of Xemu,
assertedly an
evil tyrant who planted the seeds of aberrant behavior in people 75
million
years ago.
According to documents filed previously in Los Angeles Superior Court,
Hubbard contends that Xemu trapped people in a compound of frozen
alcohol and
glycol and deposited them in 10 volcanos. Xemu then dropped nuclear
bombs on
the volcanos, according to Hubbard, destroying the people but freeing
their
spirits, which clustered together and were brainwashed by Xemu.
These clusters, or body thetans, according to Hubbard, attach
themselves to
people, blocking their paths to total freedom.
When Scientologists reach a high level in their training, a level
known as
''OT 3,'' they are taught how to identify thetans and how to purge them
from their bodies.
The materials taken by Scott, according to those familiar with the
teachings, explain that some body thetans do not respond to OT 3
processes. At
this level, new techniques of identifying and purging body thetans are
introduced.
KEYWORDS: RELIGION US COURT RULING
The Alien Krlll
PAGE: C05 EDITION: FINAL
SECTION: LOCAL LENGTH: MEDIUM
SOURCE: By Joel Sappell and Robert Welkos, Los Angeles Times
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
SCIENTOLOGY TEACHINGS ARE BARED
Members of the Church of Scientology believe that mankind's ills were
caused by an evil ruler named Xemu who lived 75 million years ago,
according
to documents filed in connection with a civil suit.
Scientologists had attempted to block the release of the documents,
which
they consider secret and sacred, and about 1,500 church members
crammed three
floors of the Los Angeles County Courthouse Monday, effectively blocking
public access to documents.
But the Los Angeles Times already had obtained the documents before
they
were resealed at the request of attorneys for the Scientologists. The
documents had been submitted to the court as part of a civil case
brought by
former Scientologist Larry Wollersheim.
Wollersheim accuses the organization of defrauding him by promising him
higher intelligence and greater business success through Scientology
courses
that cost thousands of dollars.
In arguing to keep the court documents sealed, the church has told its
members that it could be physically and spiritually harmful for them
to learn
about the upper levels of Scientology before they have mastered the
preparatory courses. Scientology attorneys have argued that disclosure
of the
materials violates the group's religious freedom.
Scientology is widely known for its use of ''auditing,'' a form of
one-on-
one counseling in which a lie detector-like instrument called an E
meter is
used to help a person erase negative experiences, supposedly freeing
him to
achieve his full potential. The group bases its beliefs on the
writings of L.
Ron Hubbard, the reclusive science-fiction writer who in the early 1950s
published the best-seller Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
What is rarely discussed, however, is Hubbard's secret teachings, which
disclose his thoughts on why mankind has been plagued by problems through
history, the topic of the disputed documents.
Generally, the documents suggest that a major cause of mankind's
problems
began 75 million years ago, when the planet Earth, then called
Teegeeach, was
part of a confederation of 90 planets under the leadership of a
tyrannical
ruler named Xemu. Then, as now, the materials state, the chief problem was
overpopulation.
ocuments state, decided to take radical measures to overcome the
overpopulation problem. Beings were captured on Earth and on other
planets and
flown to at least 10 volcanoes on Earth.
The documents state that H-bombs far more powerful than any in
existence
today were dropped on the volcanoes, destroying the people but freeing
their
spirits, called thetans, which attached themselves to one another in
clusters.
After the nuclear explosions, according to the documents, the
thetans were
trapped in a compound of frozen alcohol and glycol and, during a 36-day
period, Xemu ''implanted'' in them the seeds of aberrant behavior for
generations to come. When people die, those clusters attach to other
humans
and keep perpetuating themselves.
Before a Scientologist can learn about thetans and how to eradicate
them,
he must go through a progression of costly programs.
For hours Monday, Scientologists swamped workers in the clerk's
office with
hundreds of requests to photocopy the documents.
Superior Court Judge Alfred L. Margolis, over strong Scientology
objections, had issued an order the previous Friday making the documents
public at 9 a.m. Monday - on a first-come, first-served basis. But by
snaking
the line through three hallways, Scientologists made sure they were
the only
ones to buy copies of the materials. The documents were resealed shortly
before noon.
Jeff Pomerantz, a Scientology spokesman, said the strategy was
intended to
''keep the materials secure. . . . Religion is not supposed to be
disseminated from the courtroom.''
KEYWORDS: RELIGION
Gerry Armstrong
<E...@Teegeeack.con> wrote:
>Dennis L Erlich wrote, On 9/3/2010 8:55 AM:
>
>> I had accomplished what I set out to do. The xenu/body
>> thetan/no-christ material was out and in the public cross hairs.
>
>You were 8 years late with the Xenu revelation, so you can's take credit
>for that anymore. It was already in the public domain, by your not so
>friendly Larry Wollersheim. So, the criminal infringement was for
>exposing a believe in "thetans" and a nasty comment Hubbard made about
>Christ? But I bet thetans and no Christ was in Larry suit as well, and
>Gerry's suit too.
See, e.g., this declaration re what the state of exposure of OT III
was in 1985:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-1985-11-07.html
Also consider Robert Kaufman's 1972 book ~Inside Scientology: How I
Joined Scientology and Became Superhuman~.
"The book was the first to disclose secret Scientology materials."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Scientology:_How_I_Joined_Scientology_and_Became_Superhuman
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
The Alien Krlll
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:15:54 -0500, The Alien Krlll
> <E...@Teegeeack.con> wrote:
>
>> Dennis L Erlich wrote, On 9/3/2010 8:55 AM:
>>
>>> I had accomplished what I set out to do. The xenu/body
>>> thetan/no-christ material was out and in the public cross hairs.
>>
>> You were 8 years late with the Xenu revelation, so you can's take credit
>> for that anymore. It was already in the public domain, by your not so
>> friendly Larry Wollersheim. So, the criminal infringement was for
>> exposing a believe in "thetans" and a nasty comment Hubbard made about
>> Christ? But I bet thetans and no Christ was in Larry suit as well, and
>> Gerry's suit too.
>
> See, e.g., this declaration re what the state of exposure of OT III
> was in 1985:
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-1985-11-07.html
>
> Also consider Robert Kaufman's 1972 book ~Inside Scientology: How I
> Joined Scientology and Became Superhuman~.
>
> "The book was the first to disclose secret Scientology materials."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Scientology:_How_I_Joined_Scientology_and_Became_Superhuman
Erlich has insisted before that the complete copyrighted work had to be
published using his ISP's and Netcom's equipment, without comment;
because "Scienos" would not believe the books and newspaper articles if
the original was not posted by him, without comment. He was to be the
hero in all this – even lying about his use being fair use to the ISPs –
and the collateral damage to innocent third parties, be damned!
It begs the question however, would the scienos have believed what
Erlich portrayed as being an accurately reproduced copyrighted work?
Here is the link to the 1972 book dealing with the substance that Erlich
is taking credit for:
http://www.factnet.org/Books/InsideScientology/index.htm
http://www.factnet.org/Books/InsideScientology/isd-3a.htm
Dennis L Erlich
>And finally, if the effort required to treat one another with a modicum of
>dignity is beyond you both, perhaps you could just start ignoring one another,
>which is so simple, so liberating...
You are right, Michael. And yes, I have had him and his entire list
of socks on ignore for over a year. I only bother to respond to the
few gullible people, such as yourself, who bother to quote his drunken
blather.
Thanks for the advice, tho.
Dennis L Erlich
yhn
>>> I had accomplished what I set out to do. The xenu/body
>>> thetan/no-christ material was out and in the public cross hairs.
klemida
>>You were 8 years late with the Xenu revelation, so you can's take credit
>>for that anymore.
I was the first to publish the material complete in the inFormer
Newsletter and then again the first to put it on the net in 1994 to
counter the cult operatives on ars who claimed the cult was compatible
with real religions.
>It was already in the public domain,
Sure, Klementine! That's exactly why the cult sued me. Because the
material I posted in 1994 was all in the public domain. Have another
double on me.
>by your not so
>>friendly Larry Wollersheim. So, the criminal infringement was for
>>exposing a believe in "thetans" and a nasty comment Hubbard made about
>>Christ? But I bet thetans and no Christ was in Larry suit as well, and
>>Gerry's suit too.
arms
>See, e.g., this declaration re what the state of exposure of OT III
>was in 1985:
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-1985-11-07.html
>
>Also consider Robert Kaufman's 1972 book ~Inside Scientology: How I
>Joined Scientology and Became Superhuman~.
>
>"The book was the first to disclose secret Scientology materials."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Scientology:_How_I_Joined_Scientology_and_Became_Superhuman
I didn't say I first revealed stuff. Only that I pushed it out so
that it could never be denied. I got it out on the internet and made
them claim the material as theirs. The genie was finally out of the
bottle.
>>So you are wrestling credit away from them, and
>>taking a bow in their place? Your hubris knows no bounds.
Glug, glug twistoid.
Ted Mayett
<honor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org> wrote:
>
>> Like I said: booze-guzzling, surrender-monkey.
>
>I clearly stirred up a hornet's piss pot by jumping in on this topic (hmm, that
>makes me wonder if hornets piss... but I digress) in the mistaken belief that
>Tom was an OSA anonybot. I dearly regret that error, believe me. But since the
>hornet's piss pot is stirred up, I will add a few last thoughts before I quit
>this sorry topic.
>
His IRS paperwork is an interesting study. The man tells lies when
there is no reason to tell lies.
>Dennis, this surrender-monkey thing is a case in point. Why in hell would you
>criticize Tom for settling with the cult, when you did the same exact thing?
Fool, now you are not a friend of his, you fool.
Dennis L Erlich
>Dennis, this surrender-monkey thing is a case in point. Why in hell would you
>criticize Tom for settling with the cult, when you did the same exact thing?
I settled after 5 years of fighting the cult in 2 courts (San Jose
Federal and San Diego Family Court) with no resources. All the while
the cult was attacking my employers, arranging for my driver's license
to be revoked, leafleting my neighbors and parents, etc. I'm sure you
cannot grasp the full scope and personal effect of their "destroy the
Espee" campaign against me. Only going thru something like that can
give perspective on it.
In comparison, Klemida allowed his insurance company to settle after a
couple of months without a fight, rather than stand up on his own and
fight the cult which he had been doing in proxy by using me and the
Jerry Ladd sock. He had resources. I had none.
Then after he got arrested for attacking Miss Bloodybutt, she sued him
and he quickly settled that too rather than fighting the accusations.
And he has the nerve to criticize me for settling with the cult after
fighting them for years on MANY fronts.
I hope this clarifies why I call him a drunken, cowardly
Surrender-Monkey, lying Sock-Master. And I'll stick with that
assessment.
>And his insurance company had more control over "his" attorneys than he did,
>whereas you appeared to have complete control over yours.
I see you are unfamiliar with the internal workings of litigation. He
had complete control over his attorneys. He made a choice to take the
easy, cowardly path.
>So by your own logic,
>if he's a "surrender-monkey" then wouldn't you be a "super, double-secret
>surrender-monkey?"
<scoff> That's why I have been exposing the inner workings of the
cult since I left in 1982. That's why they ran many operations
against me as a prime Espee over a period of almost 20 years. Because
I was trying to surrender all that time and they wouldn't let me.
>I'm not calling you that, I'm just asking you to think about
>your logic in your angry outburst.
Maybe you're the one who needs to think a bit more deeply about the
rift that has occurred here and the reasons for it.
The Alien Krlll
> Michael Reuss<honor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> And finally, if the effort required to treat one another with a modicum of
>> dignity is beyond you both, perhaps you could just start ignoring one another,
>> which is so simple, so liberating...
>
> You are right, Michael. And yes, I have had him and his entire list
> of socks on ignore for over a year. I only bother to respond to the
> few gullible people, such as yourself, who bother to quote his drunken
> blather.
Here is what "yhn" ("Your Humble Narrator") does to booze swilling
surrender Monkeys!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWLByMshYIU
Can you spare some cutter Dennis?
--
"You did all in your power to denigrate LRH tech. You then settled out
for big bucks. You are for sale – and were bought – and do not warrant
the time of day of those who frequent this board" -- Marty Rathbun to
Rev. Dennis L. Erlich, (10/26/09). "Settlement money isn't taxed. Money
won in a judgment is." "super, double-secret surrender-monkey" Rev.
The Alien Krlll
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:20:33 -0600, Michael Reuss
> <honor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Dennis L Erlich<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Like I said: booze-guzzling, surrender-monkey.
>>
>> I clearly stirred up a hornet's piss pot by jumping in on this topic (hmm, that
>> makes me wonder if hornets piss... but I digress) in the mistaken belief that
>> Tom was an OSA anonybot. I dearly regret that error, believe me. But since the
>> hornet's piss pot is stirred up, I will add a few last thoughts before I quit
>> this sorry topic.
>>
>
>
> His IRS paperwork is an interesting study. The man tells lies when
> there is no reason to tell lies.
A definite "stink" – as Dennis says – has bee put on Rev. Dennis
Erlich's ministry – but the stink comes from Stinky Erlich's own
complete IRS paperwork submission.
http://www.informer.org/public.htm
The stinky parts were exactly those pages that the Rev. decided to omit
from his website, contrary to IRS rules. Here is the full file provided
by the IRS:
http://www.mediafire.com/?zneznngdztt
I often wonder what the Rev. meant when he asked the IRS man Jim Brophy
to expedite his application for exemption. The time period was July of
1998. Was Rev. Dennis Erlich in settlement talks with the
Scientologists back then, and needed a tax-exempt organization in order
for money to flow from the cult to Erlich's coffers?
>> Dennis, this surrender-monkey thing is a case in point. Why in hell would you
>> criticize Tom for settling with the cult, when you did the same exact thing?
>
> Fool, now you are not a friend of his, you fool.
>
>
>
> --
> Ted Mayett
> Critical information regarding Scientology
>
> http://www.solitarytrees.net
Zinj
for the good. I'm not around on ARS that much any more, although I do
try to stop in every once in a while. Mostly I've just barely enough
time to stay somewhat abreast of ESMB (http://forum.exscn.net) although
I do try to read other stuff time allowing.
But, it's good to see you again.
Zinj
The Alien Krlll
>> Now, one can argue that Dennis betrayed "us" the critical community, and that
>> argument has some legs, because right up until Dennis settled, he behaved as if
>> he never would settle.
>
> I hadn't even considered it a possibility until just hours before we
> settled.
I think we are witnessing yet another untruth from the Reverend. It
appears back in 1997 he was involved in settlement talks with the cult.
Get it straight Dennis. If you admit to copyright infringement and
win an award, I will open up that award and enforce my BBS rules and
regulations that call for a user to indemnify legal fees. If you do
not 1) admit copyright infringement, or 2) aren't awarded money; I won't
do that. I want to let your legal team know this in order to factor it
in. It was a courtesy.
--
" http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=2294&postcount=59 "The court's
order is public record. Anything else is private. You don't object to my
maintaining a bit of privacy, do you?" and here: "There is no secret
agreement. All of the settlement is public." So, is the settlement
public, or is it private? -- Tilman Hausherr question to Dennis Erlich
(Dec 2007), still unanswered.
The Alien Krlll
Full posting of advantage Morrison Forester had on Scientology before
the secret settlement because -- as Dennis said -- "Judge Whyte wanted
to punish us."
Author is Larry Wollersheim:
Posted by Joe Harrington <joeh...@worldnet.att.net>
in alt.religion.scientology, Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:16:25 -0400
Message-ID: <340F87...@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: The biggest event in ARS and Scientology History is 10 days
away.
On Sep 15 the judge in Dennis Erlich's case will order Scientology to
produce the orginals of the Hubbard 1986 will and the 1982 copyright
transfers Giving RTC and Bridge Publications ownership of all
copyrights and trademarks. I sincerely believe this will be the single
most important event in the History of ARS, Scientology's attacks on
Internet free speech and the raids. Here's why
1. Scientology WILL NOT produce the orginals of the Hubbard 1986 will
and the 1982 copyright transfers giving RTC and Bridge Publications
ownership of all copyrights and trademarks because they are forgeries.
If it produces the documents and they are shown to be forgeries,
Miscavige and everyone involved including the attorneys are on the
Midnight Express to jail and, Scientology's IRS filings for non profit
status will be quickly reversed.
2. They will non comply with the judges order and take the court
sanctions.
3. MOFO will bring a Rule 37 motion to dismiss the case for
Scientology's noncompliance in discovery.(This is exactly what
happened in the Fishman case when Miscavige refused to appear in
deposition.)
4. Before the Rule 37 dismissal, to minimize its damages, Scientology
will make Dennis Erlich a multi-millionare in a secret settlement and
once again avoid criminal prosecution for felony fraud on the federal
court system.
5. Dennis should get in the range of 12-20 million. (Factnet has
already turned down 12 million to hide this criminal fraud and
criminal conspiracy of the federal court system.
6. Dennis should take his money. Factnet has and will continue to take
the felony fraud issues to the goverment relating to all federal
districts and international courts where Scientology has conspired to
file the fradulent Hubbard 1986 will and the 1982 copyright transfers.
7. When Scientology defaults on presenting the orignal 1982 and 1986
documents every lawsuit anywhere in the world involving Scientololgy
copyrights and trade secrets involving RTC or Bridge publications is
for all intents and purposes OVER as the other victims of the fraud
will demand the production of these documents if it has not done so
already. Each of these victims will then be entitled to millions in
damages.
8. When Scientology defaults on presenting the orignal 1982 and 1986
documents every past copyright or trade secret lawsuit anywhere in the
world that was lost i.e. Enid Vein, Grady Ward, Kieth Henson, Bostrom
etc involving RTC or Bridge publications can be reopened under the
Fraud exemptions that exist in almost every legal system. Those
individuals who lost suits to Scientology because of their fraud will
soon also become millionares.
8. Scientology's OSA people should soon try to make excuses why
Miscavige will not produce the documents. Scientology should know that
new document experts may be reviewing the documents (in case they try
to intimidate the current document experts). Scientology knows it does
not have the proper colateral and corroborating materials to pull off
a re-forgery no matter how good a new forger they find.
9. Scientology knows that if it can avoid producing the documents it
can afford to pay out 50-70 million for all the cases, avoid criminal
convictions and still keep running for a few more years. If it brings
in originals its nailed. First on the criminal fraud on the court but
far more seriously it opens up the cause of the death of L Ron Hubbard
and the circumstances surrounding someone mentally and physically
incapable of changing his will on the day before he died doing so...
9. Miscavige as the master architect of the attacks on ARS and raids
on ARSers has lead Scientology to its disaster. The ARS newsgroup has
been the major force in precipitating these events.
Prepare yourselves for the Biggest day in ARS history Sept 15, 1997.
Let's all be glad if Scientolgy makes Dennis Erlich the first of many
millionares.
I personally would be happier if they try to bluff and bully their way
through this. Then criminal charges would reorganize Scientology once
again and fewer people would be hurt.
IMHO
Lawrence Wollersheim
> Dennis L Erlich wrote, On 9/3/2010 8:55 AM:
>
>>> Now, one can argue that Dennis betrayed "us" the critical community,
>>> and that
>>> argument has some legs, because right up until Dennis settled, he
>>> behaved as if
>>> he never would settle.
>>
>> I hadn't even considered it a possibility until just hours before we
>> settled.
>
> I think we are witnessing yet another untruth from the Reverend. It
> appears back in 1997 he was involved in settlement talks with the cult.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.org.eff.talk/browse_frm/thread/9a6668e2d36104a/253efbc58ea7ea0d?hl=en&q=dennis+erlich+settlement#253efbc58ea7ea0d
>
>
> Get it straight Dennis. If you admit to copyright infringement and
> win an award, I will open up that award and enforce my BBS rules and
> regulations that call for a user to indemnify legal fees. If you do
> not 1) admit copyright infringement, or 2) aren't awarded money; I won't
> do that. I want to let your legal team know this in order to factor it
> in. It was a courtesy.
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mystory/dennis_final_judgement.txt
Why did Erlich give up this advantage, and pay the cult $69,000 for
admitted infringement, that presupposes admitting valid copyrights?!
Was this really Scientology suing themselves to establish IP law; and a
fraud on the court?
The Alien Krlll
>
> there is no reason to tell lies.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/0b5b2a23c996464a?hl=en
Erlich (yhn) 7/2/98:
"In 1994 the inFormer discovered (and perhaps even partially invented)
the internet and ars.
"The rest is net.history
"Work has now begun constructing the ministry's very first website. It
will feature all of our corporate papers and our 501(c)3 application
(which will receive IRS approval within 2 months)."
...
Compare "*all* of our corporate papers and our 501(c)3 application" on
his website here--
http://www.informer.org/public.htm
With what Erlich actually filed with the IRS -- and should have been
fully reported by him according to IRS rules --
http://www.mediafire.com/?zneznngdztt
It seems every time I check a fact, I come upon another lie by Reverend
Erlich.
From: infor...@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: Dennis Erlich - inFormer Ministry News
Date: 02 Jul 1998 16:56:41 EDT
Organization: inFormer Ministry
Message-ID: <359df1f9...@news.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts034d40.lax-ca.concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 103
Xref: news.islandnet.com alt.religion.scientology:419500
alt.support.ex-cult:21895
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/ff5e9139794e9243?hl=en
From Attorney Robert W. Clark 6/1/99 to ARS:
MoFo was "disappointed" at the settlement--they wanted to litigate.
Erlich 1/2/08:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/57ad08d8e32b8749?hl=en
"If my case was "better" it was in no small part due to the fact that I
stopped having anything to do with the rest of the people like arnie,
wollersheim & keith. IMO these people jumped on the doc-posting
bandwagon for the sake of personal glory or other dubious motives.
"*Ever wonder why MoFo didn't also want to take them on*? They actually
made my case MUCH weaker.
--
"ARS commentators, from Dennis Erlich through to Deana Holmes and Chris
Owen, have constantly rejected any message of cohesiveness or attempts
at co-coordinated civil and mutual self-defense. They prefer to be big
mouths, swaggering egos and loose cannons. With one careless or cavalier
sentence they damage months of painstaking work by numerous people. They
second-guess, backstab, condemn and cruelly criticize... Whether I
publicly commented upon the Dennis Erlich settlement, and the manner in
which he treated his lawyers, is irrelevant...." - Attorney Graham Berry
(2002) http://www.holysmoke.org/gb/gb096.htm
Anonymous
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>What Hartley said.
>
>Plus if you think it's such a worthless forum, why did you post this
>"important news" here, except to exert Upsmanship?
>
>Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>torym...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The funny part of it (well, not funny for Scientology---but funny to
>>> me) is that I'm sure for them, having
>>> looked at ARS today, after years of rarely looking here----they've
>>> managed to turn it into the graveyard
>>> they were hoping to.
>
>Ars blossomed into a multi-website, multi-forum, media force in the
>90's because of the work arscc(wdne) and others put in here. Tory was
>still in at the time and working against us.
>
>>And they'd be wrong to think so.
>
>'Zactly.
>
>>Anonymous didn't come here because they started off at 4chan, a Bulletin Board, and so they
>>looked for our Bulletin Boards. OCMB was closed to new posters, ESMB didn't match their
>>preconceptions as it included non-evil Scientologists, so they started their own. This was, in
>>retrospect, perhaps a good thing.
>
>Of course the nonys were here. Reading. Digesting. Getting the lay
>of the lan.
And the Nonys were forever humbled by your selflessness. Her's just
one response of appreciation of your professorship...
*You* are so over the top on 'personal' braggadocio of self importance
since your <ahem> 'return' to ARS no matter your <ahem> 'history' as a
meat wagon target for OSA forces it paints you as character pathetic.
Speaking for many who can see what you're doing but either don't care
to respond for fear of thread retribution or not caring in general
which I can fully understand, Go fuck yourself, asshole. Seriously:
Fuck off *and* die -- dickweed, and take your now ancient 'litigation'
wars with you.
>The work I have done for many years has been strenuous, costly and
>obviously effective.
Ibid. Bow down to "Mr. Einstein" of Scientology criticism in his above
statement who hasn't posted squat on the ARS board for years but
claims "strenuous" "costly" and "obviously effective" biceps as a
credo to his dead Ego needing a massage.
>Tilman's stink-putting on my ministry is just
>another sign of his fanaticism.
My ministry? Did I hear you right with "My Ministry" if quoting you
correctly which I am? Go fuck yourself with your 'ministry', asshole.
No *ministry* of *any* kind allowed in these parts, dickwad!
>Dennis
As in 'The Menace' even if Tilman from time to time is known to be an
introverted nutcase but not in general unlike interlopers from past
years trying to curry 'credibility favors' as some sort of critic
Godzilla 'from afar' who in fact is tearing up bandwidth as 'song' to
his Ego because, well, he "feels like it", as some sort of ARS birth
right. You are *WAY* out of the ARS *time stream*, pal! You're just
another meat body on the board, nothing more, AND, nothing less, so
welcome aboard that includes *all* anons which ARS asshole regulars
deplore because of their pathetic Egos feeling 'challenged'. If you
think I'm just trying to denigrate 'your highness'' by making those
statements, fuck you! Really. Fuck You! If you don't care, which I
suspect, again, fuck you! As in, fuck you!
Take your past litigation trials with tribulations as 'credibility
papers' to "muscle" ARS with and please shove it up your fat trailer
trash ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility
snip>
Humility is a quality or characteristic ascribed to a person who is
considered to be humble. "Humility is derived from the Latin word
"humilis", which means low, humble, from earth. A humble person is
generally thought to be unpretentious and modest: someone who does not
think that he or she is better or more important than others."
Take a lesson from that definition of 'Humble'; asshole. That's if you
can!
John Law Dogberry
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/60246c9907d3b284?hl=en
>What we set out to accomplish has been completed. Now that the truth
>is out, it's up to the public to decide what to do about the cult.
>
>D
Fuck you dickwad!
The Alien Krlll
Morrison Foerster was winning the case for Erlich. Judge Whyte had
telegraphed the message that failure to prove copyright by the
plaintiff, might be a fair use defense for the defendants.
"When the church informed Klemesrud and Netcom of Erlich's infringing
activities, they said they needed proof that the church held copyrights
to the materials in question before taking action against Erlich, but
the church refused to supply it. Judge Whyte pointed out in his opinion
that the church's failure to provide documentation of its copyright to
Klemesrud and Netcom might constitute a fair use defense." Religious
Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom, 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1374 (1995).
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/silence.htm
Dennis Erlich confirmed that Scientology never did provide the court
with proof of its copyrights as Larry Wollersheim describes above.
Then I ask again -- in God name, why would Dennis Erlich let Scientology
off the hook, keeping the cult's executives and lawyers out of jail, and
maintaining the cult's tax exemption? Why would he not seek a *public*
judgement, and public exposure, and a public jury award -- punitive
damages could have been in the hundreds-of-millions? Why a settlement
in secret? It incredulous, as Erlich has suggested, that settlement
money isn't taxed. It is patently false.
Was it to privately threaten RTC with exposing a fraud on the court, in
order to up the size of HIS personal ante, with money Enid Vien, Jim
Bostrom (estate), et al -- every other person sued using these bogus
copyright claims would have gotten? Did he screw all these victims, just
to get more money for himself?
Was Morrison Foerster complicit in hiding a fraud on the court?
Erlich likes to maintain he had to pay $69,000, admitting the copyrights
were valid. He says the only thing he collected was a court injunction.
Why the lies Reverend Dennis? What are you hiding? Why are your
checks, and Kurt Weiland's checks signed by the same person?
Anonymous
Fraud upon the court
In the U.S., when an officer of the court is found to have
fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in
the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud
upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed
to the operation of justice that it is *not subject to any statute of
limitation.*
Officers of the court include: Lawyers, Judges, Referees, and those
appointed; Guardian Ad Litem, Parenting Time Expeditors, Mediators,
Rule 114 Neutrals, Evaluators, Administrators, special appointees, and
any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to,
defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the
court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual
manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for
adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's
Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ś 60.23
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the
court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the
judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or
fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the
court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted
or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus
where the impartial functions of the court have been directly
corrupted."
Jerola
SOMETHING has seriously changed here, and I don't know what. But, I
suspect money.
http://www.holysmoke.org/de/de0415.txt
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis....@support.com
Subject: AB REVIEW..FOR TOM K.
Message-ID: <950810212...@support.com>
References: <409jus$a...@comet.magicnet.net>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 95 21:24:40 -0700
Lines: 82
...
I don't know whether you've noticed how the Internet
providers tremble and p*ss all over themselves when the
scienos threaten them. Perhaps you haven't.
I don't necessarily consider this to be symptomatic of
cowardice and inability to stand up for principle, but it
very well could be characterized as such by someone less
understanding than your humble narrator.
Tom, on the other hand, has stood unflinching and unwavering
against the scieno attack on my free speech and religion
rights. He has defended my rights by placing himself and his
BBS in harms way.
Perhaps you know lots of people who would do this for you.
My experience with people gives me the opposite expectation:
people tend to blow with whatever breeze appears stronger, and
usually *abandon* principle when faced with any real opposition.
Tom doesn't. He stands firm.
This gives Tom much, much more credibility than any of you
anonymous or semi-anonymous net.entities. (Not that you
*lack* any credibility, mind you.)
Tom is a person who stands up for what he believes despite
personal danger ... IRL! That, to me, is 99.9% of what I
give a damn about when judging someone's credibilty.
Lots of people have big mouths until asked to back up their
words with action.
Are they willing to put their put butts on the line for what
they believe, or do they slink away when confronted with a
real life challenge?
If you feel judgemental about Tom, you might ask yourself,
"Do *I* feel that brave?"
Well do you, punk?
<script mode off>
The answer to your question (above) is "no".
+--------------------------------------+
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
dennis....@support.com + inF...@primenet.com
"tar baby"
Out_Of_The_Dark
> Years ago, in the 90's, my friend (then) and auditor, Bill Yaude, as
> working on a "top secret OSA Int
> Internet Project".
>
> At the time, he was the only person I knew who was "on the Net". While
> "in" C of $, people were HIGHLY
> discouraged from reading or even looking at the Net, as I'm sure they
> still are, today. Only a few are "allowed"
> to post on such sites.
>
> Turns out, Bill has been a part of ARS "Since it started", to quote
> him. As Bill? Oh no---he'd created 10 different
> identities and loved fooling the critics. He's worked on this for
> years and years. The key way to find out if you're talking to Bill (or
> one of his "volunteer" OSA ops) is see if they'll meet with you, or
> call you. He NEVER will). He's been a deaf-mute, crippled, lives in
> some far off place where no one else lives.
> He's also great at being clever, knowledgeable, funny, etc.You get the
> picture.
>
> The funny part of it (well, not funny for Scientology---but funny to
> me) is that I'm sure for them, having
> looked at ARS today, after years of rarely looking here----they've
> managed to turn it into the graveyard
> they were hoping to.
>
> around the Net now, everyone
> from people who were "in" such as myself, who woke up, realized the
> CON it is, and literally escaped out.
> To "Critics"---people who were never "in" but are highly effective at
> exposing C of $'s abuses, to
> "Anonymous"---those that picket and help expose Scientology's abuses.
> And then there are the most recent Executives who left, spoke on
> Nightline---you can see those interviews
> onwww.xenutv.comif you missed them, and the "Indies".
>
> The NET is JUMPING. There is no lack of a place to meet people. I
> suggest starting atwww.exscn.netorwww.xenu.net:)
>
> OSA's Goals----for anyone who *may* be new here are 3 fold:
>
> 1) Distract off of *any* and ALL "HOT" topics (Things they do NOT
> want known)
>
> 2) Degrade any and all effective critics or X-members. (or now even
> those calling themselves "independents")
>
> 3) SLIME THE AREA SO NO ONE WANTS TO POST HERE.
>
> Well, I'm sure they're thrilled about ARS. The funny part is
> WHO CARES???
>
> Literally, it's my opinion that the very actions of 1, 2, and 3 have
> created more enemies
> for the "church" of $cientology, than ANY other one action in their
> history.
>
> So way to go Yaude and OSA floor mats! My thanks to each of you for
> your idiotic actions.
> You do such a great job of proving what each of us says!
>
> Love to all :)
>
> Tory/Magoo~~~Still Dancin'www.youtube.com/ToryMagoo44
> andwww.xenutv.com
> andwww.xenu.net
> andwww.torymagoo.org
> :)
> Burbank, CA
> (818) 588-3044 (Call me if you'd like to leave and feel you cannot.
> LEAP AND THE NET WILL APPEAR!)
Terrific post, Tory!
Mary McConnell
The Alien Krlll
Mike, before you set this opinion in stone, you might want to reread
some of Dennis Erlich's braggadocio found here:
# de1696.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1697.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1698.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1699.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1700.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1702.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1703.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1704.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1705.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1706.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1710.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
# de1711.txt Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off
Or, here:
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mystory/dennis17.txt
These are messages that were sent out by Erlich 3 1/2 months before
Erlich announced a stipulated final judgment upon himself – that
precluded any fair use – and from which he had to pay $69,000 to the
plaintiff Scientology. Where'd he get that money? Bob Minton only gave
him $25,000.
In these messages, Erlich appears confident that he will win, and eager
to go to trial May 3 of 1999. He assured us of his victory, and that
Morrison Foerster would be awarded its legal fees and costs. As it
turned out, Morrison Foerster had to bear their own costs for defending
Dennis Erlich free of charge – or so it seems from the only document the
public has access to.
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mystory/dennis_final_judgement.txt
For that, and the report that Morrison Foerster did not want to settle,
but wanted to litigate; I call it "pulling the rug out from under them."
The motive for Erlich's secret settlement can only be speculated upon.
There was no evidence that I can find of him being too distraught to
carry-on. To the contrary, it appears he was frothing at the mouth to
get the scienos in front of a jury, for his assured victory.
The motive for this secret settlement – that lets all the Scientology
executives associated with it and their lawyers off the hook; out of
jail for perpetrating a fraud upon the court – can only be excessive and
unrelenting thoughts of greed, in my opinion ... Or even worse.
Erlich tells us how one of his "closest friends" was Guardian's office
covert deep cover agent David Kluge, but he has ignored the question
about knowing Doug Jacobsen, or David Butterworth.
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mystory/dennis16.txt
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Remember Dennis? Re: It *Just* Doesn't Matter
From: inFo...@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich)
Date: 04 Oct 1998 14:28:40 PDT
--------
"Faithful Reader,
...
After the hearing Whyte called us all into chambers and tried to
convince the scienos that if the trial (there might be two jury
trials) go(es) forward the scienos were in serious jeopardy, and that
they best work out a way to settle with me. He talked about a long,
unpleasant trial, which would no doubt lead to appeal. And an outcome
which no one might like.
"What he was telling the scienos is that they had considerable
downside if they chose to pursue their barratry. They could lose
their copyrights on a number of money-making levels. Whyte already
said that OT3 was probably in the public domain. The whole transfer
document issue will be questioned. We demand to have our document
expert review the notary log and the transfer. Their copyrights are
shaky, just like I believed in the beginning.
"These scum may not even own the works they are bludgeoning me with...."
And it seems like the opinion of Lawrence Wollersheim was acted out in
Whyte's chambers, and was correct.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.test/msg/237280d619eda899?hl=en
IMHO
Lawrence Wollersheim
(Although unlike RTC versus Netcom, in which all the court rulings were
posted to the Internet, we could not see any rulings, or court
transcripts, of what went on in the courtroom or in the chambers, to my
knowledge. Erlich did not provide them.)
--
"The work I have done for many years has been strenuous, costly and
obviously effective. Tilman's stink-putting on my ministry is just
another sign of his fanaticism." -- The self-professed partial inventor
of the Internet -- The Rev. Dennis "Stinky" Erlich (12/31/07)
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
ARS is still my favorite site.
I look through it to read old postings by the smartest Scientology
critics in history.
ARS is easily searchable, and it is FREE.
Meaning anyone can post, and NOT be silenced by a moderator.
That is why ARS is all time the best, and will OUTLIVE all of the
other chat sites who are moderated, and thus will die when their
moderator/person who runs it, die.
ARS, I think will outlive ALL other sites, I predict.
I post here for people who will read this, after we're all dead and
gone, decades from now.
Chuck Beatty
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
I was on the Int RPF (rehabilitation project force, out at "Happy
Valley" the Castille Canyon Ranch) when I read of Warren McShane's and
Paul Wilmshurst's and the hired offduty cops "raid" on you.
You WERE a huge beacon to me, Dennis, having seen how "we" (I was
still in) smeared and tried to silence you, and Arnie, and the others
who printed the OT 3 materials, it certainly helped me in my decisions
to eventually get the hell out of the Scientology totalitarian cult
setup.
I took these side stories of critics pitted against each other,
seemingly rightfully, as side history.
The main history is getting the damn OT materials REALLY fully into
the public domain.
anonymous got all the materials onto Wikileaks via the Russian older
"freezone" "Ron's Org" site(s) though.
Wikileaks today has so much OT material, the Class 8 course HCOBs, the
Class 8 lectures in transcript form, and Assists lecture in LRH's own
voice.
That is just still probably the biggest most important leaking of
Scientology material that will effect longer range how Scientology is
even defined, once scholars catch up to the significance of defining
Scientology correctly.
Thanks for all time Dennis!
And thanks to whoever made ARS and made ARS so ARS will be around long
after we're ALL dead and long gone.
Chuck Beatty
ex Sea Org (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh
The Alien Krlll
Well Chuck, as long as you got "case gain" then everything else is ok,
and should be overlooked.
That IS the problem with Scientology.
Dennis L Erlich
>I post here for people who will read this, after we're all dead and
>gone, decades from now.
What Chuck said.
D
--------------------------------
"Just do as I say and all will be well." - Elrong Hubturd
Ted Mayett
<E...@Teegeeack.con> wrote:
>chuckbeatty77 @aol.com wrote, On 9/11/2010 5:18 PM:
>> and thankyou for all that Dennis.
>>
>Well Chuck, as long as you got "case gain" then everything else is ok,
>and should be overlooked.
>
>That IS the problem with Scientology.
Nicely said!
The Alien Krlll
Take another bow Reverend, for you are immortal!
--
"You did all in your power to denigrate LRH tech. You then settled out
for big bucks. You are for sale – and were bought – and do not warrant
the time of day of those who frequent this board" -- Marty Rathbun to
Rev. Dennis L. Erlich, (10/26/09). "Settlement money isn't taxed. Money
won in a judgment is." -- Rev. Dennis L. Erlich, (Mar 19, 2010)
Anonymous
>> It was already in the public domain,
>
> Sure, Klementine! That's exactly why the cult sued me. Because the
> material I posted in 1994 was all in the public domain.
I believe that's what the judge in Colorado had ruled, if I'm correct.
But Mr. Erlich, can you address the notion held by a few people that
Scientology in fact sued themselves? That, a conspiracy was set in
motion to defraud the United States courts?
The notion would go like this: because of forged documents that
transferred Hubbard's works to RTC and later CST, the Scientologists
realized that they really had no legal claim to what was making them money.
By Scientology suing themselves two things would be accomplished.
One, they could easily cave-in the small BBS operator, and a rather
irrational overly excited anti-Scientology zealot; they could put their
own brand of ethics in on intellectual property law in the United States.
Two, Because their copyrights and trademarks were illicitly transferred
using forged documents, a secret settlement monetarily with the
conspirator of the fraud, could perhaps legally establish that
Scientology truly owned what it has to own, in order to continue to
exist financially.
This fraud would kind of be like a form of real estate fraud, in which
the value of the real estate is elevated, simply by overpaying the
documentation tax. In the notion we are discussing, the simple fact of
admitting to and paying a judgment of 69 counts of infringement, would
tend to indicate to the court, and to the world, that the copyrights are
valid, especially with such a powerful law firm praised by the
defendant, as the mighty Morrison Foerster. The validity of the
copyrights would be all but a cinch. Nobody in the future would even
question the validity, because Morrison Forrester could not.
A legally establishing document might look something like this:
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mystory/dennis_final_judgement.txt
This is all just theoretical, but Mr. Erlich, what would you say to this
group of, perhaps crazy people, that this was all a charade by a group
of conspirators to put fraud upon the court?
-Anonymous
The Alien Krlll
> "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com"<chuckb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I post here for people who will read this, after we're all dead and
>> gone, decades from now.
>
> What Chuck said.
>
> D
Then why Reverend did you have the NO ARCHIVE bit set on most of your
postings when you were in negotiations with the Church and IRS?
Path:
rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!priori!pingflood.geo.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master
From: info...@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: inFormer Ministry News
Date: 04 Aug 1998 20:06:26 EDT
Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious
organization]
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <35c79677...@news.concentric.net>
References: <6q7ju4$a7e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts041d42.lax-ca.concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-No-Archive: yes *<-----------------------------------------------*
Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:97123
yhn
>> No, it means that the scieno ho-lawyers will be the
>> "prosecutors" and Keef will be tried in front of Whyte
>> instead of a jury.
osa-turd:
> Is anyone ever going to try you for not
> paying child support? Rod.
Nope. I have made every payment required by law since my venomous,
scieno-shill, ex-wife rOSA crawled out from under her rock (where she
was hiding my daughter from me for 7 years) and assisted the scienos
in getting into my home with their bogus, unconstitutional writ of
seizure in Feb of 1995.
But thanks for asking.
And btw, just to answer the new osa allegation of tax evasion, the
inFormer Ministry has now received official recognition as a
non-profit, charitable, religious/educational organization by the IRS.
If you really feel you need to complain, look up the number of the
IRS whistleblower's hotline, and let them know your concerns. You
could get a reward if it's true I'm evading taxes. Identify the
ministry by federal Tax ID #: 95-4666521. Good luck. [And don't
forget to FOAD.]
In the meantime donations to the ministry are fully tax deductible.
inFormer Ministry
826A Fischer St.
Glendale, CA 91205
Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<inF...@primenet.com>
<inF...@newsguy.com>
Horace McKenna
It is an obvious attempt to evade historical scrutiny of words and
actions. He perhaps wanted to cause an effect, then get out of town
unnoticed by the discerning eyes of historical prospective.
Android Cat
news:8ffsb4...@mid.individual.net...
Verses breeding a pack of obvious sock-puppets to talk to each other?
--
Ron of that ilk.
Aera23
How are you doing this week?
I'm doing good, and I'm enjoying reading the ARS group.
PS: By searching for keywords (like PGP, and Hubbard), you can find all the cool messages :)
I've reported a handful of spam messages to Google (not sure what will happen)
Tks,
Aera23
PS: I'm replying to a years old message. idk how many (or few) people will see this.