Jesse Prince in Deposition
Bob Minton
doubt become available--in the Factnet case.
However, I would like to point out something for all the scientologists who
screamed so loudly that Jesse may use PC folder material on ARS. (Keep in mind
that I implied that sec-check info would be used--and it will.) Rosen used
everything from Jesse's PC folder. Not even a second thought. Strange policy or
calculated evil? What did you expect from the church of hypocrisy?
Bob Minton
Mike O'Connor
Here is a 1995 claim by "President" Heber, made on the "Donahue" talk show:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Phil Donahue and Heber are on stage seated at a table, having a
discussion. Phil brings up the subject of church members who decide they
won't make it and want to leave.]
PHIL: [They have] been threatened with the public release of the
information which was said to the auditor in the session! Not unlike a
priest, threatening to tell, out loud, what my sins are!
HEBER: And you're saying that from some publications that have gone into
the media, ok, and I will tell you in each one of those cases it has been
proven that that is an absolute lie, there is a complete, confidentiality,
in the counselling sessions. And I've read those things, and I've read
those charges, and it's gone to court. And it's never been shown that that
was the actuality. But those people.. are very few people who leave. There
are eight million members around the world, Phil.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-Mike
Censored by Scientology
Inducto
actual PC files from "counseling", and the other material generated by "sec
checks" and the like; and remember, if the auditor finds juicy "crimes" during
"counseling" then the subject gets forwarded to arenas like "sec checks" where
it's not confidential, which forwarding _is itself_ the real violation of
confideniality. It's about as if you confessed something to a priest, and he
didn't reveal any details, but instead handed you over to the inquisition to
let them try to get out details of your "crimes".
>Here is a 1995 claim by "President" Heber, made on the "Donahue" talk show:
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>[Phil Donahue and Heber are on stage seated at a table, having a
>discussion. Phil brings up the subject of church members who decide they
>won't make it and want to leave.]
>
>PHIL: [They have] been threatened with the public release of the
>information which was said to the auditor in the session! Not unlike a
>priest, threatening to tell, out loud, what my sins are!
>
>HEBER: And you're saying that from some publications that have gone into
>the media, ok, and I will tell you in each one of those cases it has been
>proven that that is an absolute lie, there is a complete, confidentiality,
>in the counselling sessions.
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
EldonB123
Strange policy or calculated evil?
Of course. Scientology assumes that the rules only apply to others. It holds
itself outside the law.
Starshadow
> Jesse concluded 2 days of questioning by Rosen--the transcript of which will no
> doubt become available--in the Factnet case.
>
> However, I would like to point out something for all the scientologists who
> screamed so loudly that Jesse may use PC folder material on ARS. (Keep in mind
> everything from Jesse's PC folder. Not even a second thought. Strange policy or
>
> Bob Minton
Scientology is the "do as I say, not as I do" "religion".
But the evils are coming to light. Every once in a while I talk to
someone who isn't on the Net, and if I mention Scn they immediately think
"Kriminal Kult" or "Loon Cult" and the otherwise not involved person
sometimes asks if they are about to get their tax-exempt status revoked,
or if there is progress in the Lisa McPherson case.
The knowlege of their crimes is beginning to spread and soon will be
near universal. I'm looking forward to it.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
ExScio
>no
>doubt become available--in the Factnet case.
>
>However, I would like to point out something for all the scientologists who
>screamed so loudly that Jesse may use PC folder material on ARS. (Keep in
>mind
>that I implied that sec-check info would be used--and it will.) Rosen used
>everything from Jesse's PC folder. Not even a second thought. Strange policy
>or
>calculated evil? What did you expect from the church of hypocrisy?
>
>Bob Minton
Nothing less.
They are firm believers that the ends justify the means.
<<<<< ExScio (with the emphasis on EX) - St. Louis area SP >>>>>
Bob "Da Sloth" Bingham
>
> I think what we're talking here is the comparatively fine distinction between
> actual PC files from "counseling", and the other material generated by "sec
> checks" and the like; and remember, if the auditor finds juicy "crimes" during
> "counseling" then the subject gets forwarded to arenas like "sec checks" where
> it's not confidential, which forwarding _is itself_ the real violation of
> confideniality. It's about as if you confessed something to a priest, and he
> didn't reveal any details, but instead handed you over to the inquisition to
> let them try to get out details of your "crimes".
More than that - the only thing keeping those files confidential are
Scientology rules. If you are declared Fair Game (or maybe F*ir G*me since
they can't use the term itself) then those laws are null and void. Your
confidentiality is gone. They are free (encouraged?) to use your files
against you.
--
Bob "Da Sloth" Bingham <http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts
to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to
be one of the facts that needs altering.
-- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil"
Podkayne
ind...@aol.com (Inducto) wrote:
> I think what we're talking here is the comparatively fine distinction
between
> actual PC files from "counseling", and the other material generated by
"sec
> checks" and the like; and remember, if the auditor finds juicy "crimes"
during
> "counseling" then the subject gets forwarded to arenas like "sec checks"
where
> it's not confidential, which forwarding _is itself_ the real violation of
> confideniality. It's about as if you confessed something to a priest, and
he
> didn't reveal any details, but instead handed you over to the inquisition
to
> let them try to get out details of your "crimes".
Speaking as a Catholic that's a very good analogy.
(We *admit* we've got a dodgy past - that's how we recognize when it happens
*again*)
roger gonnet
>
> Inducto wrote:
> >
> > I think what we're talking here is the comparatively fine distinction between
> > actual PC files from "counseling", and the other material generated by "sec
> > checks" and the like; and remember, if the auditor finds juicy "crimes" during
> > "counseling" then the subject gets forwarded to arenas like "sec checks" where
> > it's not confidential, which forwarding _is itself_ the real violation of
> > confideniality. It's about as if you confessed something to a priest, and he
> > didn't reveal any details, but instead handed you over to the inquisition to
> > let them try to get out details of your "crimes".
>
> Scientology rules. If you are declared Fair Game (or maybe F*ir G*me since
> they can't use the term itself) then those laws are null and void. Your
> confidentiality is gone. They are free (encouraged?) to use your files
> against you.
And still worse, scieno auditors (even on highest levels,
NOTs and so) have been, at least near 1982, to report
anything said by the pcs which could be used against OTHER
PCs or pre-OTs: Like that, i was summoned to ethics because
someone else had said something, i don't remember what.
That's the delation-treason line in scientology.
Roger
Starshadow
says...
> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow):
>
> > Scientology is the "do as I say, not as I do" "religion".
>
>
> > But the evils are coming to light. Every once in a while I talk to
> >someone who isn't on the Net, and if I mention Scn they immediately think
> >"Kriminal Kult" or "Loon Cult" and the otherwise not involved person
> >sometimes asks if they are about to get their tax-exempt status revoked,
> >or if there is progress in the Lisa McPherson case.
> >
> > The knowlege of their crimes is beginning to spread and soon will be
> >near universal. I'm looking forward to it.
>
>
> And clams is buyin'!
>
And I will look forward to the party as well, and being able to buy you
that brew of your choice on that day...
Then it's gird our loins for the next Killer Kult, the day after...
Cicero...@usa.net
b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
> Jesse concluded 2 days of questioning by Rosen--the transcript of which will
> no doubt become available--in the Factnet case.
>Rosen used everything from Jesse's PC folder.
> Bob Minton
The latest excuse. You pay someone with horrendous credibility
problems to lie and when the facts show that he is not
believable are presented you then claim "it's pc folder data".
Three questions: Are any of the following "pc folder data -
1. Report of criminal convictions and prosecutions from court
records?
2. Handwritten admissions of drug use, theft and sexual abuse
given to an employer after leaving Scientology?
3. Letters and documents written by a person and sent to
another person in the church (for example, requesting approval
to have a criminal record waived in order to be employed?)
Now Bob, obviously the answer to these questions is "No" - that
is not pc folder information, then you had better be careful
about the allegations you make. Is Jesse trying to hide from
the awful truth of things that show he's liar by having you
provide a pre-emptive D/A? You apparently write his postings
for him - perhaps you could comment on your use of data about
Marty Rathbun and his supposed feelings about being present
during the murder of a woman? How do you know all about it?
Was it invented (Jesse was not there, at best he may have seen
people arrive after the fact, from a distance) - so is your
account simply manufactured or did you take it from what Jesse
told you happened in an auditing session.
Bob, you should know by now that suborning perjury is actionable.
Paying someone to give false testimony is obstruction of justice.
It will be interesting to see how many contradictions there are
between the Prince declaration signed under oath that you paid
for, and the Prince deposition given under oath.
My prediction - plenty. I also predict it will be shown that
Prince didn't even write the declaration and didn't even know
what he signed.
By the way, how much of your money do you think Mr Prince
has spent on drugs in the last month?
Cicero
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Tommy
> It will be interesting to see how many contradictions there are
> between the Prince declaration signed under oath that you paid
> for, and the Prince deposition given under oath.
>
> My prediction - plenty. I also predict it will be shown that
> Prince didn't even write the declaration and didn't even know
> what he signed.
Do you also do weather forecasting?
>
> By the way, how much of your money do you think Mr Prince
> has spent on drugs in the last month?
Gee, I don't know - why don't you tell us? Be exact, now. :-)
Tommy
--
"Bluntly, we are out to replace medicine in the next three years."
L.Ron Hubbard - 1952
Steve A
> In article <35dfcd8e...@news.tiac.net>,
> b...@minton.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
> > Jesse concluded 2 days of questioning by Rosen--the transcript of which will
> > no doubt become available--in the Factnet case.
> snip
> >Rosen used everything from Jesse's PC folder.
> snip
> > Bob Minton
>
> The latest excuse. You pay someone with horrendous credibility
> problems to lie and when the facts show that he is not
> believable are presented you then claim "it's pc folder data".
He didn't have "horrendous credibility problems" _before_ he left
Scientology. Do you really think that the world at large is going to
believe that *every* ex-member who criticises Scientology is and
always was non-credible?
--
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net