Scientology attacks animal sanctuary
JimDBB
>Subject: Scientology attacks animal sanctuary
>From: wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
>Date: Sat, Oct 4, 1997 03:50 EDT
>My name is Robert Vaughn Young. My wife and I have been operating a small
>non-profit animal sanctuary in Seattle, Washington. Over the last two
>years, we have rescued and adopted out nearly 500 cats and dogs. That
>effort is now jeopardized because the Scientology cult is attacking the
>sanctuary and trying to get it closed down.
RVY and Stacy:
Contact the Criminal InvestigationDivion of the IRS. they have regional and
local offices around the country. You are being criminally harassed with
tax-exempt money. They will listen to you and might even do something. In
any case,. your complaint should be on record with them. Contact the Dept.
of Justice who have been waffling in investigation the many crimes and frauds
of the scientology cult. Contact the US Attorney and your State Attorney
General.
This situation is truly appalling. I think that we should start listing
scientology's covert OSA agents around the country who are committing these
criminal harassments. We should list who they are, where they are , where they
live and who they work for...if they are non-staff. I will start shortly and
list some in the chicago area who have beeen harassing the CAN staff and
worked actively in the conspiracy to destroy CAN.
JImDBB
Dean Benjamin
wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young):
>> THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT IS ATTACKING AN ANIMAL SANCTUARY
gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel):
> Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
> had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too.
Operation Footbullet wins another convert.
Excellent use of the Net, RVY! GO/OSA/Dept.20 should know that
whenever on whomever they play their dirty tricks, they are far less
likely to shudder anyone into silence. Instead, they merely offer
another opportunity to reveal themselves as creeps to another
audience.
Martin Hunt
In article <616ceo$d...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
>Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
>had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too.
Ah, how those words are like music to mine ears!
See? It's not such a hard message to get out. Every time a complete
newcomer makes a remark like that, it makes my day. One less person
for the cult recruiters (never mind who she'll tell).
[newsgroups trimmed; thanks, RVY]
ttyl,
martin.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Use "Xenu" in Subject: line of email.
Gwen A Orel
Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
you to be dealing with them. It sure looks like they will stop at nothing.
But G-d sees your good work for the animals. Please don't stop. It does
look like you will have to move, I would just cut my losses if I were you.
Next time make absolutely sure thant everything you do is legal according
to every code conceivable, they will surely find a loophole if they
can.
Good luck and G-d bless you,
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Rob Clark
Dean Benjamin <d...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young):
>>> THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT IS ATTACKING AN ANIMAL SANCTUARY
>gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel):
>> Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
>> had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too.
>Operation Footbullet wins another convert.
>Excellent use of the Net, RVY! GO/OSA/Dept.20 should know that
>whenever on whomever they play their dirty tricks, they are far less
>likely to shudder anyone into silence. Instead, they merely offer
>another opportunity to reveal themselves as creeps to another
>audience.
gotta agree with Xmudder here, RVY is quick study, and realized that
the cult's recent attacks deserved a wider audience.
back when there were arbitron ratings, i used to sit and wonder how
precisely one could justify a massive crosspost to the various
*.pets.* hierarchies, which are often the most widely-read newsgroups
on the net.
evidently, it took scientology itself to give that audience to us on a
silver platter with this repulsive attack on an animal sanctuary, thus
making themselves look like a pack of thugs with no compunction at
attacking innocent kittens and puppies just to attack an enemy.
once again, i'll repeat an old comment.
i would be deadly terrified of scientology if they still had people of
the calibre of RVY or dennis erlich or arnie lerma or any of the Big
Names. however, those people are now on the right side, while the
cult is stuck with clowns like wgert, who seem to think you can polish
a turd like this vile threatening of kittens into a "win."
rob
Gwen A Orel
You're right, I've even added this newsgroups to my list, for now.
I am quite devoted to animals, though not a vegetarian (I don't
want to start something I can't finish). And in some ways, crimes
against animals hurt to think about even more than crimes against
people, because animals are so trusting, and so innocent. The
fact that Young had a shelter (or a placement service) says so much
about him that he has my sympathies already. I knew Scientologists
bilked people of money, but had no idea they conspired to do worse.
If this is true, more people should know.
Gwen
Rob Clark (xe...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Dean Benjamin <d...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
: rob
--
Tilman Hausherr
In <6176se$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
wrote:
>You're right, I've even added this newsgroups to my list, for now.
Welcome... ars can be quite confusing, and they are a lot of mini-wars
going on... I suggest you read the WWW first, search for "scientology"
on www.infoseek.com or read http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
Gunbunny
On 4 Oct 1997 20:34:31 GMT, jim...@aol.com (JimDBB),
<19971004203...@ladder02.news.aol.com> wrote :
>RVY and Stacy:
>
>Contact the Criminal InvestigationDivion of the IRS. they have regional and
> local offices around the country.
The last thing any person should do is contact the IRS for help. After the
hearing last week when IRS agents testified behind screens and with altered
voices I would say, "YOU CAN'T TRUST THE IRS"
Keith
-----------------------------------------------------------
! Keith Wyatt http://www.teleport.com/~kewyatt !
! PGP KEY by finger and keyservers !
-----------------------------------------------------------
MR. SZUMIAK: Tom (Klemesrud), would you please just listen to
the question and answer the question, please?
Joesep E. Cisar
This isn't the first time Scientology has been accused of violating
not only human rights, but animal rights.
Who drowned the judge's dog?
New York Times, Sunday, March 9, 1997
An Ultra-Aggressive Use of Investigators and the Courts
by Douglas Frantz
states:
In 1992, Judge Ronald Swearinger of Los Angeles County Superior
Court told The American Lawyer magazine that he believed
Scientologists had slashed his car tires and drowned his collie
while he was presiding over a suit against the church.
The Church denied the accusations, ... but the founder of the
Church, L. Ron Hubbard wrote:
"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than
win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough
harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway
... will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decrease.
If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
In the U.S., a religion is not required to have a god.
Joe Cisar
--
Walk this way! http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/conmenu.htm
Sanity and honesty consist of producing a valuable final product
..... Modern Management Technology Defined, (C) 1976, p.259
Martin Hunt
In article <618khi$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>,
hosb...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Hilary B Osborne) wrote:
>Indeed. I was already an SP (will some clam notice me so I can get my
>SP2?), but I can use this to convince the animal-lovers I know. I work
>with critters and know several people at the local humane society, so...
>
>This is a good angle for the ARSCC(wdne) to play up--we've got the
>human-rights violations, the silly hidden beliefs, and now cruelty to
>animals. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other stories of $cn
>hurting or killing critters. Anyone?
Well, there's this report by Steve Fishman about Scientology's treatment
of animals:
Article #159059 (159197 is last):
From: xe...@ix.netcom.com (STEVEN FISHMAN )
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gravy, The Babble-on, babbles on
Date: Thu Mar 14 14:03:59 1996
[...]
Listen Vera,
You have a lot of nerve talking about inflicting pain on small animals
when it was your filthy, disgusting cult that cut up a rabbit into four
pieces and left it on my doorstep for my two daughters to see while I was
confined in the halfway house one year ago.
And what about the dead rats your cult left on the doorstep of Margaret
Singer, my clinical psychologist and expert witness in the criminal
case? This happened twice, once before and once after your cult stole
all of my folders from her garage.
Don't tell me about large animals either. Remember Duke, Judge
Swearinger's dog? You drowned him.
You also poisoned Dr. Geertz's chickens after Eugene Ingram told all of
his neighbors that Dr. Geertz was running illegal cockfights (a lie).
And Dr. Geertz's German Shepherd was poisoned --- that never happened
to any of his neighbors.
Crimes against animals are typical of your stinking cult. What ever
happened to the fifth dynamic? Or are these animals fair game because
they were connected to suppressives?
Vera, your hypocrisy is only exceeded by the foul odor of your body
thetans oozing through your stubble runty fingers onto the keyboard.
I hope that in your next life, you come back as a Sea Org dog who gets
starved and neglected in an RPF. (You are already a plain dog in this
life, with out a doubt, Vera).
And when are you going to stop picking on Grady? Haven't you tortured
his mother enough, (you and your pimp boss)?
People see through your transparent plethora of evil conundrums. You
are the typical cultic ghoul incarnate. But don't post your two-faced
comments about animals. If you had as much compassion as an animal
you might even pass for being human.
--- Steve Fishman
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <6176se$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>You're right, I've even added this newsgroups to my list, for now.
>want to start something I can't finish).
So you start with pressed tongue and work your way through
to oxtail soup :->
(and we haven't even got onto the topic yet of what happened
to Judge Swearinger's dog....)
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
David Gerard
On 4 Oct 1997 21:28:56 GMT,
Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote:
:Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
:had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too. I'm so sorry for
:you to be dealing with them. It sure looks like they will stop at nothing.
:But G-d sees your good work for the animals. Please don't stop. It does
:look like you will have to move, I would just cut my losses if I were you.
:Next time make absolutely sure thant everything you do is legal according
:to every code conceivable, they will surely find a loophole if they
:can.
$cientology are vindictive a'holes.
For the story of how they drowned a judge's dog when he looked like ruling
against them:
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/faq/woofglug.html
For how this has actually been used as a subject of protests against them
(these are all the same page):
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/demo/howto/uk-props.html
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/demo/howto/uk-props.html
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/demo/howto/uk-props.html
For a quick FAQ, check http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/faq/index.html
I also have an extensive web page about them (see .signature).
They are not just weird; if they were, that would be fine. They're evil
with it. That is not tolerable.
[posted + emailed]
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
I hereby encourage all earthlink.net users to leave for a provider whose
email and Usenet messages are not boycotted by the rest of the net, and
for ISPs to continue to block earthlink.net email and Usenet messages from
Earthlink, until earthlink.net *stop* the flow of junk email and spam.
Hilary B Osborne
Martin Hunt (mar...@islandnet.com) wrote:
: In article <616ceo$d...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
: >Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
: >had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too.
: Ah, how those words are like music to mine ears!
: See? It's not such a hard message to get out. Every time a complete
: newcomer makes a remark like that, it makes my day. One less person
: for the cult recruiters (never mind who she'll tell).
: [newsgroups trimmed; thanks, RVY]
: ttyl,
: martin.
: --
: Cogito, ergo sum. Use "Xenu" in Subject: line of email.
Indeed. I was already an SP (will some clam notice me so I can get my
SP2?), but I can use this to convince the animal-lovers I know. I work
with critters and know several people at the local humane society, so...
This is a good angle for the ARSCC(wdne) to play up--we've got the
human-rights violations, the silly hidden beliefs, and now cruelty to
animals. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other stories of $cn
hurting or killing critters. Anyone?
-HiLary, #193, SP1
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <618k5a$o...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>This isn't the first time Scientology has been accused of violating
>not only human rights, but animal rights.
>Who drowned the judge's dog?
>New York Times, Sunday, March 9, 1997
>An Ultra-Aggressive Use of Investigators and the Courts
>by Douglas Frantz
>states:
>In 1992, Judge Ronald Swearinger of Los Angeles County Superior
>Court told The American Lawyer magazine that he believed
>Scientologists had slashed his car tires and drowned his collie
>while he was presiding over a suit against the church.
As he was a judge what he actually said was, with complete fairness,
that while he was trying a case against Scientology some strange things
happened e.g. he came home and found his car tyres slashed and
his collie dog drowned in the pool. I always read this from the way
it was put as being the same night. Car tyres do not slash themselves
and, if it was the same night, one might reasionably assume the dog
just didn't commit suicide by tying bricks to its paws and diving in
but was forcibly drowned by others. He did not say (could not prove)
that it had been forcibly drowned and did not say (could not prove)
who was behind it, but simply stated the absolute facts. Scientology
would no doubt alledge the dog had a criminal past anyway! See webpage
wgert
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>i would be deadly terrified of scientology if they still had people of
>the calibre of RVY or dennis erlich or arnie lerma or any of the Big
>Names. however, those people are now on the right side, while the
>cult is stuck with clowns like wgert, who seem to think you can polish
>a turd like this vile threatening of kittens into a "win."
>rob
henri -
How does that compare with exhorting people to blow up your local
Church of Scientology from an anonymous account. And they lying about
it to the newsgroup and to the police?
wgert
Read the Rogues Gallery of ARS Bigots
www.dancris.com/~rshaw
wgert
gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
>You're right, I've even added this newsgroups to my list, for now.
>I am quite devoted to animals, though not a vegetarian (I don't
>want to start something I can't finish). And in some ways, crimes
>against animals hurt to think about even more than crimes against
>people, because animals are so trusting, and so innocent. The
>fact that Young had a shelter (or a placement service) says so much
>about him that he has my sympathies already. I knew Scientologists
>bilked people of money, but had no idea they conspired to do worse.
>If this is true, more people should know.
>Gwen
If you came to this newsgroup to talk about Scientology with
Scientologists, then you came to the wrong place.
Scientologists do not post here. Much of what is here is hate filled
invective. It is akin to trying to learn about Judiasm by reading a
neo-Nazi newsgroup. It is the same level of communication.
For the accurate information about Dianetics: The Modern Science of
Mental Health or the Scientology religion, see the attached list of
official web sites. Or, go to your local library and check out a book
by L. Ron Hubbard, the Founder of Scientology. Find out why some of
the
most successful people in the world, including artists, musicians,
actors,
business executives as well as ordinary people are Scientologists.
DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY:
http://www.scientology.org
http://www.dianetics.org
http://news.scientology.org
L RON HUBBARD:
http://www.lronhubbard.org
http://www.bridgepub.com
http://www.authorserviceinc.com
http://www.battlefieldearth.com
SOCIAL BETTERMENT PROGRAMS:
http://www.able.org
http://www.appliedscholastics.org
http://www.narconon.org
http://www.thewaytohappiness.org
http://www.criminon.org
FREEDOM MAGAZINE:
http://www.freedommag.org
http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/hatewach
SCIENTOLOGY AND THE BUSINESS WORLD
http://www.wise.org
http://www.hubbardcollege.org
SOCIAL REFORM
http://www.cchr.org
http://www.theta.com/can_reform
OTHER:
http://www.theta.com/csla
http://www.theta.com/goodman
INFORMATION ABOUT ARS BIGOTS:
http://www.dancris.com/~rshaw
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <619ari$ll0$1...@usenet88.supernews.com>, wgert writes:
>gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
>If you came to this newsgroup to talk about Scientology with
>Scientologists, then you came to the wrong place.
>Scientologists do not post here. Much of what is here is hate filled
>invective. It is akin to trying to learn about Judiasm by reading a
>neo-Nazi newsgroup. It is the same level of communication.
>For the accurate information about Dianetics: The Modern Science of
>Mental Health or the Scientology religion, see the attached list of
and
In article <1997093002...@basement.replay.com>,
on Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:36:08 +0200 (MET DST), re: Welcome to A.R.S.,
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> writes:
>If you came to this newsgroup to talk about Scientology with
>Scientologists, then you came to the wrong place.
>Scientologists do not post here. Much of what is here is hate filled
>invective. It is akin to trying to learn about Judiasm by reading a
>neo-Nazi newsgroup. It is the same level of communication.
>For the accurate information about Dianetics: The Modern Science of
>Mental Health or the Scientology religion, see the attached list of
bullshit.
Readers, there is no W.Gert: it is simply an Artifical Stupidity
project which churns out pre-programmed scripts.
Rasta Robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 05:30:38 GMT,
hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote
in article <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>
in the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology:
>wgert (wg...@loop.com) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>: If you came to this newsgroup to talk about Scientology with
>: Scientologists, then you came to the wrong place.
>
>: Scientologists do not post here.
>
>That's odd. I sure thought wgert was a scientologist, maybe even one of
>those who sprayed my sign last time I was picketing Cedars. But if I
>take this statement at face value, it seems wgert is not a scientologist.
>What's the deal wgert? Do you post here? Are you a scientologist? Is
>the above statement correct? Or is logic beyond your abilities?
>Keith Henson
Is it some kind of scientology koan? It sure looks paradoxical to me.
Rasta Robert
--//->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNDmYSD1YUrjT3wzhAQFd2QP+JEOe+2+zNqXHp6ZZ92++A9Mo9lAkAoa1
QUvBAdWeRd+5vz4B8yOlihjMvef2sEOYgQ1310OyYLzh+S/2HwbEqJNni7OQCcn2
BBp5vVD4QMly2iHa8sJsIoMJznd6trZDMFphbIpUhIWoI0sKpapRjSIN8JapretD
MVl8iwAhuqY=
=28ij
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
DDS - Dust Detector Subsystem
The DDS weighs 4.2 kilograms and uses an average
of 5.4 watts of power. The DDS can measure from
3x10^-7 to 1x10^2 impacts per second.
NB: e-mail adress modified against spam-bot adress-snatchers.
Geoffrey Burling
On Mon, 06 Oct 1997 00:36:45 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) saith:
>
>henri -
>
>How does that compare with exhorting people to blow up your local
>Church of Scientology from an anonymous account. And they lying about
>it to the newsgroup and to the police?
>
Both are pretty heinous, but Rob apologized for this. And attacking
someone who wants to find homes for neglected kittens is a real bad PR
move.
But I have to say, talking is one thing, doing's another. Rob talked
about blowing up a local CoS office: the CoS HAS killed people. Like
Lisa McPherson. And others. How does that compare, George? And then
lying about it to the newsgroup, the police, & the rest of the world?
Geoff
Olympic-Class Bore
Return address altered to foil spambots. Change ``cyberpromo"
to``agora", & your email will reach me.
David Gerard
On Tue, 07 Oct 1997 23:14:06 GMT,
Geoffrey Burling <lly...@cyberpromo.rdrop.com> wrote:
:But I have to say, talking is one thing, doing's another. Rob talked
:about blowing up a local CoS office: the CoS HAS killed people. Like
:Lisa McPherson. And others. How does that compare, George? And then
:lying about it to the newsgroup, the police, & the rest of the world?
Um, no, Rob didn't. He put the line 'BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!' at the end of a post, after the .sig line. It was
*obvious hyperbole*, considering that the larger proportion of his
posts at the time were full on blistering no holds barred henrying.
This BTW is how Dead Agenting works - the smear enters the realm of
the conceivable by repetition, despite its inanity.
Mike O'Connor
In article <61g441$92v$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert
Vaughn Young) wrote:
[...]
> Looking again at my post (below) I can see that I should have emphasized
> that if our cats were in filthy conditions and with "open sores" that
> would be "animal abuse" and a felony. Thus accusing us of that is accusing
> us of a felony. Too many unlicensed cats is not a felony. It is as
> different as saying you are guilty of overtime parking vs. you are guilty
> of drunk driving. Falsely accusing someone of a felony is when one moves
> into slander and that is what some people are now learning, that a serious
> line was mistakenly crossed. City officials don't like to be put into that
> position.
I guess it makes sense in cult-logic, that the cult was trying to get you
arrested for a felony. The sacred scripture instructs that with an enemy,
the proper procedures if to look for felonies or worse:
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY
agree to an investigation of the attackers.
[...]
This is correct procedure:
(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or
worse using own professionals, not outside
agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an
investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid , blood sex crime actual
evidence on the attackers to the press.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCOPL 15 Feb 1966
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they gave a false report saying there were sores on the animals, I
guess that makes sense in cult-logic too, because without it, the threat
of a felony would not have been raised. I believe the scripture instructs
members to find or manufacture enough threat to cause the enemy to give in
- to "sue for peace", as they put it:
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any
organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to
cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of
advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend.
Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of
the enemy's front ranks work best.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they lie while manufacturing threat, I guess that is ok in cult-logic
too, because the cult creed teaches not to fear hurting another in a just
cause, and the sacred scripture instructs that it is ok to trick, lie to,
or destroy declared enemies, and that the only way to control someone is
to lie to them. I believe there even used to be a course for cult PR
people in how to "outflow false data effectively".
Lies are part and parcel of things in the thriving cult of greed and
power, it seems, because withholding information from members is required
procedure from day one. My understanding is that you do not even learn
that Scientology is a SECRET UFO CULT, that YOU ARE NOT AN EARTHLING, and
that we are all victims of an ALIEN MIND IMPLANT, until you have
sacrificed enough time and cash to be worthy. -Mike
Shawn Hicks
Anonymous wrote:
>
> It is striking how so much of the scientology trashing (mafia like etc..)
> could just as well be applied to AR corporations.
> For such "innocent" sounding cat lovers, they sure seem to have a
> history of loving the spotlight.
> How's the "foundation" going? Found a way to write of a car and jacuzzi yet?
Oh right. It's another one of those "get rich quick" ideas where
you invite a ton of homeless felines into your home and pay for
food, water, medical care, just to milk the little critters for all
the loot you can. Why, I hear these kind of shelters are popping
up all over the place, so successful are they at generating
wealth.
> And, surely, this much cross posting is tantamount to spam, no?
Hey, at least they spammed with their real names, mr. anony-moose.
--
=========================================
Shawn Hicks
http://www.wizard.com/~balistik
John M. Vreeland
wgert wrote:
> If you came to this newsgroup to talk about Scientology with
> Scientologists, then you came to the wrong place.
True, Scientologists are rarely permitted to post here; I think it's an
"ethics" violation. Some of what is here is hate-filled invective. It
is akin to trying to learn about Nazis by reading a Zionist newsgroup.
It is the same level of communication.
--
- John M. Vreeland in Virginia
"VreeJack"
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jmvree/
James L. Ryan
In article <343d6aaf....@news.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com
(Rob Clark) wrote:
[snip]
>
> On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:35:36 -0400, bosw...@waterw.com (James L. Ryan)
> wrote:
>
> >The fact remains that the "cat sanctuary" is in direct violation of the
> >zoning codes. The city has no recourse, upon receipt of a complaint, no
>
> which zoning codes? can you cite chapter and verse on that, specifically
> on any sections regarding enforcing compliance or on variances?
>
[snip]
My statement that the cat sanctuary was in violation of the zoning codes
is based upon information contained in Robert Vaughn Young's posting of
Saturday, October 4, 1997, 3:50:42 AM, the posting which I believe
initiated this whole discussion.
<<But we made one mistake: As valuable as our effort is - and there is
only one group that disagrees with that - we didn't check the zoning
regulations. That gave Scientology the chance they needed.>>
<<The section of Seattle law being used says that a residence cannot have
more than three small animals. Anyone walking by could see we had more
than three. When we asked if the fact that the animals are transitory
(between homes) made any difference. It was hardly a secret. We were told
it does not, unless we get a variance to the zoning code, which we cannot
do since we rent.>>
<<Despite the fact that the environment was completely contrary to the
complaints, he gave us citations for having 10 extra unlicensed adult
cats. (Kittens did not count.) We have 14 days to pay the fine ($50 each)
or request a hearing.>>
--
James L. Ryan -- bosw...@waterw.com
Rob Clark
[I'm dropping the general rec.pets.cats and rec.pets.dogs newsgroups, as
well as seattle.general, as they are no longer strictly relevant. As
further groups become further irrelevant, please feel free to continue
dropping groups on further followups.]
On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:35:36 -0400, bosw...@waterw.com (James L. Ryan)
wrote:
>The fact remains that the "cat sanctuary" is in direct violation of the
>zoning codes. The city has no recourse, upon receipt of a complaint, no
which zoning codes? can you cite chapter and verse on that, specifically
on any sections regarding enforcing compliance or on variances?
i'm also fairly certain that legal updates will be forthcoming.
>matter who the complainant is, but to force the operators of the sanctuary
>to operate within the constraints of the law. I have a feeling that this
>is a notion not fully appreciated by the operators of the cat sanctuary.
actually, a zoning board is usually not a dictatorial body, and they seem
to vary not only from state to state but even from county to county in the
degree of control they choose to exert.
a zoning board, or other local government body serving the same purpose,
has any number of options in such a situation, from granting a variance or
other form of exemption, to amending the rule, to fining the owner on a
per-day basis until the owner comes in to compliance, or in extreme
circumstances to file a civil suit or even impound the property.
this is usually at the discretion of the board.
on the other hand, malicious and manifestly false accusations of felonies
deliberately orchestrated are the sort of thing for which a civil course
has very little discretion, they are more or less obliged to find for the
plaintiff in any libel action. i would rather be on the bad end of a
zoning violation than in the realm of criminal libel.
>James L. Ryan -- bosw...@waterw.com
rob
Rob Clark
[I'm dropping the general rec.pets.cats and rec.pets.dogs newsgroups, as
well as seattle.general, as they are no longer strictly relevant. As
further groups become further irrelevant, please feel free to continue
dropping groups on further followups.]
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 08:05:59 -0400, bosw...@waterw.com (James L. Ryan)
wrote:
[robert vaughn young wrote]
>> Looking again at my post (below) I can see that I should have
>> emphasized that if our cats were in filthy conditions and with "open
>> sores" that would be "animal abuse" and a felony. Thus accusing us of
>> that is accusing us of a felony. Too many unlicensed cats is not a
>> felony. It is as different as saying you are guilty of overtime
>> parking vs. you are guilty of drunk driving. Falsely accusing someone
>> of a felony is when one moves into slander and that is what some
>> people are now learning, that a serious line was mistakenly crossed.
>> City officials don't like to be put into that position.
>> Robert Vaughn Young
>> wri...@eskimo.com
>Whether the cats were kept in filthy conditions, etc. is _not_ relevant to
>the fact that the number of cats kept was in excess of the zoning codes,
>and as I suggested above, once a complaint has been received, regardless
>of the intent of that complaint, the authorities, and in this case also
>the operators of the shelter, have no choice but to act in accordance with
>the established codes.
actually, as i've pointed out previously, the issue of the zoning board is
one which the board has great leeway in deciding, though it is of course
possible they will utilize their discretion in a manner unfavorable to the
cats.
it is certainly a political choice which they ought to consider wisely.
the issue of malicious libel, however, is another question. the board may
be swayed simply by the outrageousness of the false accusations, which were
proven false on cursory examination. i know my sympathies would be with
the person outrageously and falsely slandered, libelled and accused of
felonies, and might be inclined to be more lenient than usual in the matter
of any "letter of the law" violations when its spirit has so obviously been
abused by the anonymous complaints stirred up at the behest of a
non-resident cult.
>--
NoScieno
In article <619ari$ll0$1...@usenet88.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert)
writes:
>
>If you came to this newsgroup to talk about Scientology with
>Scientologists, then you came to the wrong place.
>
>
You are a degraded being. No wonder you hide. Have a short life.
-
NoScieno accepts NO mail (spam-bounce). Try "thynkr"
The surest source of proof in an unfounded belief is the belief itself.
Shawn Hicks
IG-88 wrote:
> Give this man a cigar!!
For overstating the obvious? Please. The original messages had
no complaints about the zoning board enforcing the rules, just
a matter-of-fact admition that they broke them and were fined.
It's a dead issue that you've latched on to. Let go before
it rots in your mouth.
Seagull
[several newsgroups removed from cross-posting]
IG-88 (spic...@access1.com) wrote:
:
: I'll play the devils advocate here for a moment.... I may feel that
: having 20 or 30 animals living in a single residency house as "abuse"
: I call the city they then come out and find all animals healthy they
: find no abuse, but they do cite the home owner with a zoning violation
: now was I wrong in calling the city because "I" felt there being so
: many animals in a single building constitutes abuse and the
: owner/renter gets cited for a totally different violation?
But that's not what happened here. Either you misssed the
original post, or didn't read it close enough. Or, you are so hung up
on playing Devil's Advocate that you forgot that to do so, one's point
must be relevant. The abuse complaints that were filed were not some
random definition of "abuse", they mentioned specifics which were
entirely untrue. Here's a directo quote from the original poster:
The next day, Animal Control visited us, unannounced, saying they
had received numerous complaints about animals with "open sores" and
"filthy conditions" etc.
Now, "filthy conditions" may be a debatable and subjective point, but
"open sores" is awfully specific. One would either have to see the
animals up close to know whether or not this was true. There is very
little room for interpretation on this point, and filing such a
complaint is either the act of a malicious person with an axe to grind,
or someone with too much time and paranoia on their hands.
Cheers,
-+JLS
--
sea...@netcom.com \ carpe cavy!
sea...@aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull \ (seize the guinea pig!)
James L. Ryan
In article <343E4696...@wizard.com>, bali...@wizard.com wrote:
> James L. Ryan wrote:
>
> > My statement that the cat sanctuary was in violation of the zoning codes
> > is based upon information contained in Robert Vaughn Young's posting of
> > Saturday, October 4, 1997, 3:50:42 AM, the posting which I believe
> > initiated this whole discussion.
>
> [..three quotes deleted...]
>
> This has expired from my site...but am I not right in remembering
> that they also admitted they needed to find a new place, asked
> for help doing it, and never *once* said that the zoning board
> was acting irresponsibly by enforcing the rules?
>
> The issue of whether or not they are, in fact, violating the
> zoning rules was *never* in question. It was *never* the
> point, either. It's a dead cat, stop beating on it. :)
>
> Maybe you can help them find a place for their cats?
>
> =========================================
> Shawn Hicks
> http://www.wizard.com/~balistik
Shawn,
The comment of mine you quote above was in direct response to one directed
at me by Rob Clark in which he asked me for proof that the cat sanctuary
was in violation of the zoning codes. I referred Rob Clark to the original
posting by Robert Vaughn Young. If you go back to that posting you will
see that Young makes no claim that he was not in violation of the zoning
codes, but he also comes across with somewhat of a "poor me, the victim"
attitude, as though he feels that the codes should not be enforced in his
case.
Andy Collier
In article <bosworth-101...@access9.accsyst.com>,
bosw...@waterw.com says...
Actually, if you refer to the original post, RVY seems more at trouble
with the potential felony allegations that the animals were kept "with
open sores" and so forth. The zoning seems to be a minor thing - its the
nature of the people and reasons behind the bringing of charges that has
him worried - and the false allegations of animal abuse and mental
problems. How would you like being accused of a felony (animal
abuse/cruelty) without knowing the source or reasons for such
allegations? Dont overlook the real depth of the original post whilst
arguing about the surace.
A.C.
Rob Clark
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 05:54:21 GMT, spic...@access1.com (IG-88) wrote:
[the general newsgroups rec.pets.cats,rec.pets.dogs and seattle.general
have been removed as not strictly relevant.]
>My real name isn't relevant here and is a pretty shallow attempt at
>misdirection, as to any zoning violations in my residence I can say
>zero I don't have any pets larger then a hedgehog, don't run a meth
>lab nor are then any vehicles up on blokes in my front yard. The point
>being whether or not the clams called and lodge a bogus complaint
>isn't relevant here since there was a violation sure it wasn't the
>violation of animal abuse but just having too many animals at the
>resident it's just that easy to understand. If Mr. Young had only 2 or
>3 cats and the clams had called the city on him for abuse I would have
>sided on his side on this subject but hey we can't go around ignoring
>laws just so because it pleases us.
if you know so much, why not quote the specific zoning code, specifically
anything about what discretion the zoning board has. zoning boards are not
necessarily autocratic institutions forced to interpret their own rules
strictly, and can do anything from granting a variance (young can not
himself file for a variance, the owner of the property must), to levying a
fine, to evicting the owner or criminal prosecution in outrageous cases.
i believe the penalties for libel or slander are in all likelihood more
serious when attempting to subvert local authorities with false,
prejudicial accusations, and that the "balance of harms" lies strictly in
young's favor.
i doubt it would be easy enough to prove in court that it would be worth a
lawsuit, young certainly has more clear instances of libel than this to
choose from should it come to that.
>I'll play the devils advocate here for a moment.... I may feel that
>having 20 or 30 animals living in a single residency house as "abuse"
>I call the city they then come out and find all animals healthy they
>find no abuse, but they do cite the home owner with a zoning violation
>now was I wrong in calling the city because "I" felt there being so
>many animals in a single building constitutes abuse and the
>owner/renter gets cited for a totally different violation?
yes, perhaps, if you really thought they were abused. now, as you ignore
in your hypothetical, in the case which occurred in reality-land as opposed
to your fantasy scenario, there were specific allegations with specific
details, such as open sores and general filth, which on investigation
proved utterly false. instead of simply having to involve the zoning
board, other government bodies were called in and their time wasted
investigating completely false and libellous accusations of felonies.
certainly, not only the youngs, but the government bodies themselves, and
the taxpayer's paying the salaries of the people investigating false
accusations have cause to be interested. one can still say, of course,
that the cats must be relocated, but that would have been a simple enough
matter for a zoning board to decide on way or another.
now the situation has been complicated and completely unrelated third
parties have had their time wasted investigating bogus accusations instead
of doing their real jobs, and i imagine their annoyance at this might tend
to place their sympathies with the locals so harassed rather than with the
out-of-town agitators orchestrating a well-planned campaign of libel and
harassment.
>If you play with the "Clams" you had better watch your back they have
>in the past showed that they play dirty and with little regards to the
>law.
true.
rob
William Barwell
In article <slrn63dt7...@thingy.apana.org.au>,
David Gerard <f...@thingy.apana.spaaaamtraaaaap.org.au> wrote:
>On 4 Oct 1997 21:28:56 GMT,
>Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>:Wow. I knew the Sceintologists were a bit weird, to say the least, but
>:had no idea they were vindictive and manipulative too. I'm so sorry for
>:you to be dealing with them.
Vindictive and manipulative is the heart and soul of Scientology.
They have a 30 year history of this. This is what Scientology is.
This is typical.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!