Part 1: Get your records straight about me and Scientology
ptsc
wrote:
WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP KOOK ALERT KOOK ALERT.
Note that we on alt.religion.scientology are already WAY over our
nutcase quota. There's no room for another, Ms. Schwartz.
However, for the poor people on other newsgroups who may not
know exactly what this nut is jabbering about, here's some information
>You got it wrong once more, people. You Anti-Scientologists can't
>think straight, that is why you can't figure me out. With all the
>hate, the lies and criminal acts against Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard
>and good and real Scientologists, you clogged your braincells and
>impaired your mind and intelligence. I found your incoherent and
>confused postings about me on the web, and I just can say, that if
>anyone of you ever would come under attack having to prove your
>sanity, you would all fail and not pass like me with flying colors and
>clean bill of health.
The fact is you're a complete bloody loony.
For newbies, note that this absolute freak stalks a Scientology official
named Mark Rathbun claiming that she is his wife (she isn't). She also
wallpapers various government agencies with a blizzard of FOIA
requests for such categories as "Nazis" and "Communists", her hapless
stalking victim Marty "Mark" Rathbun and a dizzying array of other
individuals and entities relating to her demented conspiracy theories to the
extent she has managed to lose multiple court judgements.
http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/vfa0646.htm
Here's a loss on her nutty stalking of Marty Rathbun
A representative quote follows:
Waiver Request One is apparently based upon Appellant’s assertions therein that
(1) she is indigent and cannot afford to pay the required fees, (2) she needs
the requested documents to find and free Mr. Rathbun, who Appellant believes has
been wrongfully imprisoned by a "German Nazi conspiracy," and (3) the requested
documents "will be of high interest for the American public and will shed light
as to how a German infiltrated government works."
http://www.opic.gov/FOIA/FOIAReports/2001FOIAReport2.htm
Search through this for various clearly nutty FOIA requests.
And here's a court case decided against this brazen lunatic.
http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/vfa0536.htm
Case No. VFA-0536, 27 DOE ¶ 80,245
December 2, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Appeal
Name of Petitioner: Barbara Schwarz
Date of Filing: November 2, 1999
Case Number: VFA-0536
On November 2, 1999, Barbara Schwarz filed an Appeal from determinations issued
by the Department of Energy Headquarters Freedom of Information and Privacy
Group (DOE/FOI) and by the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General
(DOE/IG). These determinations responded to a request for information filed
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by
the Department of Energy (DOE) in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004.
The FOIA generally requires that documents held by the federal government be
released to the public upon request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A). However, Congress
has provided nine exemptions to the FOIA setting forth the types of information
agencies are not required to release. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). Under the DOE’s
regulations, a document exempt from disclosure under the FOIA shall nonetheless
be released to the public whenever the DOE determines that disclosure is not
contrary to federal law and in the public interest. 10 C.F.R. § 1004.1.
I. Background
In a request dated June 18, 1999, Ms. Schwarz requested from the DOE records on
the following individuals or subjects:
1) As to that the Germans are behind the nuclear weapons and other weapons of
nations that are hostile to the United States,
2) As to that the Germans are behind terror acts and wars against the United
States or against other countries which the United States want to protect,
3) As to a civilian submarine in the Great Salt Lake, that protects it’s [sic]
residents from all kind of pollution and germs with the result that people stay
young and have currently at least double the lifespan than people not living in
this village,
4) As to L. Ron Hubbard and proposed energy programs and environmental programs
and nuclear counterintelligence programs proposed by him,
5) As to Claude, Elizabeth, Phillip, Mark C., Harvey L., Edwin, Willard, Olivia
Rathbun (de Rothschild) and proposed energy programs, environmental programs and
nuclear counterintelligence programs proposed by them,
6) As to myself, Barbara Schwarz or misspelled version Schwartz,
7) As to if Mark C. Rathbun (de Rothschild)[,] members of his family, their
attorneys or any Independent or Special Counsel inquired records pertaining to
myself from the Dept. of Energy.
Letter from Barbara Schwarz to DOE (June 18, 1999).
On October 20, 1999, DOE/FOI sent a response to Ms. Schwarz. Letter from Abel
Lopez, Director, DOE/FOI (October 20, 1999). DOE/FOI first stated that it had
informed Ms. Schwarz in a July 19, 1999 letter that items 1 and 2 of her request
"did not describe the records you were requesting with sufficient specificity
for the DOE to conduct a search for responsive documents. This response,
therefore, responds to items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of your request." Id. The response
then informed Ms. Schwarz that the
files of five offices at Headquarters were searched for documents responsive to
your request. These offices were the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs, the Policy, Standards and Analysis Division in the
Office of Safeguards and Security, the Office of Headquarters and Executive
Personnel Services, the Office of Inspector General, and the Office of the
Deputy General Counsel for Litigation.
Id. DOE/FOI reported that (1) the searches of the first three offices listed
produced no documents responsive to items 3 through 7 of her request; (2) DOE/IG
has already provided a separate response to Ms. Schwarz; and (3) the search of
the Office of the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation located only one
document, the July 19, 1999 letter to Ms. Schwarz referred to above regarding
the lack of specificity of the first two items of her request. Id. That document
was provided to Ms. Schwarz in its entirety along with DOE/FOI’s October 20,
1999 response.(1)
II. Analysis
Ms. Schwarz’s November 2, 1999 Appeal contends that the DOE’s search for
documents responsive to her request was inadequate. She also takes issue with
the DOE/FOI’s opinion that items 1 and 2 of her request did not sufficiently
describe the records she was seeking. Finally, Ms. Schwarz contends that DOE/FOI
ignored her request for a waiver of fees associated with the processing of her
FOI request.
A. Ms. Schwarz’s Request for a Fee Waiver
The DOE FOIA regulations state that the Department "will charge fees [to FOIA
requesters] that recoup the full allowable direct costs incurred" but also state
that, with certain exceptions, the "DOE will provide the first 100 pages of
duplication and the first two hours of search time without charge." 10 C.F.R. §
1004.9(a). In addition, the DOE "will furnish documents without charge or at
reduced charges if disclosure of the information is in the public interest
because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of the Government and disclosure is not primarily in
the commercial interest of the requester." Id. On July 24, 1999, Ms. Schwarz
sent to DOE/FOI a request for a waiver of fees associated with the processing of
her request. Letter from Barbara Schwarz to Abel Lopez, DOE/FOI (July 24, 1999).
In her Appeal, Ms. Schwarz complains that DOE/FOI ignored her fee waiver request
in its October 20, 1999 response, and insists that the DOE make a decision on
this request. Appeal at 1. We will dismiss this portion of Ms. Schwarz’s appeal
as moot because Ms. Schwarz does not claim the DOE charged her any fees for
processing her request, and DOE/FOI has confirmed that the Department charged
Ms. Schwarz no fees. Electronic mail from Sheila Jeter, DOE/FOI, to Steven
Goering, OHA (October 10, 1999).
B. Adequacy of DOE’s Search for Responsive Documents
Ms. Schwarz makes several arguments regarding the adequacy of the DOE’s search
for documents responsive to her request. First, the Appellant notes that the
DOE/FOI did not conduct a search of all offices of the DOE, as she had
specifically requested. Appeal at 1. Second, she states that she requested a
"search certificate, a declaration by the officials that conducted the search. .
. . I have a right to know who those people are and how they conducted exactly
the search to retrieve those records." Id. at 2. Third, she refers to a letter
she received from this office dismissing an earlier Appeal she filed after
receiving a separate response to her request from DOE/IG. Id. at 3. We stated in
that letter that Ms. Schwarz should wait until she received a final response to
her request from DOE/FOI before filing an Appeal with our office. Letter from
Thomas O. Mann, Deputy Director, OHA, to Barbara Schwarz (September 24, 1999) at
1. We also informed her that DOE/FOI assigned her request to DOE/IG, "as well as
to DOE’s Office of Management and Administration and the Office of
Nonproliferation and National Security for searches." We went on to state that
after "examining the documents you submitted, we have suggested that [DOE/FOI]
also coordinate searches of DOE’s Office of General Counsel, the Executive
Secretariat, the Office of Public Affairs and the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs." Id. Ms. Schwarz wants to know "why weren’t those
offices searched as it was promised . . . ?" Appeal at 3.
We have stated on numerous occasions that a FOIA request deserves a thorough and
conscientious search for responsive documents, and we have not hesitated to
remand a case where it is evident that the search conducted was in fact
inadequate. See, e.g., Butler, Vines and Babb, P.L.L.C., 25 DOE ¶ 80,152 (1995).
The FOIA, however, requires that a search be reasonable, not exhaustive. "[T]he
standard of reasonableness which we apply to agency search procedures does not
require absolute exhaustion of the files; instead, it requires a search
reasonably calculated to uncover the sought materials." Miller v. Department of
State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1985); accord Weisberg v. Department of
Justice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In cases such as these, "[t]he
issue is not whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather
whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate." Perry v.
Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
First, applying the above standard, we cannot agree with Ms. Schwarz that the
FOIA requires in the present case a search of every office in the DOE, no matter
how small the probability of finding responsive documents. Such would be the
epitome of an exhaustive search, far beyond the requirement that a search be
reasonably calculated to uncover the materials Ms. Schwarz seeks.(2)
In support of her contention that she was entitled to a "search certificate,"
the Appellant cites Steinberg v. Department of Justice, 23 F.3d 548 (D.C. Cir.
1994). In that case, a U.S. Court of Appeals reviewed the lower court’s granting
of summary judgment to the Department of Justice. The Court of Appeals reversed
the lower court, finding that the Justice Department had not shown that it had
conducted a "reasonably thorough search of its records" because it had not
described "in any detail what records were searched, by whom, and through what
process." Id. at 551, 552. The Steinberg opinion, however, only addresses the
showing an agency is required to make in support of a motion for summary
judgment in a U.S. District Court. It does not state that an agency’s response
to a FOIA request must provide a detailed description of its search. In fact,
the FOIA simply requires, without further elaboration, that an agency make a
determination in response to a request and "notify the person making such
request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such
person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; . . ." 5
U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). Nor do the DOE FOIA regulations contain such a
requirement, stating only, "Although a determination that no such record is
known to exist is not a denial, the requester will be informed that a challenge
may be made to the adequacy of the search by appealing within 30 calendar days
to the Office of Hearings and Appeals." Thus we cannot agree with Ms. Schwarz
that the DOE/FOI’s response to her request was somehow deficient for not
describing in detail the search for responsive documents.
Nonetheless, in order to determine for purposes of the present appeal whether
the DOE conducted an adequate search, we have gathered additional information
from the various offices responsible for carrying out the search. Initially,
because Ms. Schwarz questions in her Appeal whether each of the offices
mentioned in our September 24, 1999 letter to her were in fact searched, we
sought to clarify to which offices DOE/FOI referred Ms. Schwarz’s request. As
DOE/FOI stated in its response, it referred the request to the "Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Policy, Standards and Analysis
Division in the Office of Safeguards and Security, the Office of Headquarters
and Executive Personnel Services, the Office of Inspector General, and the
Office of the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation." Letter from Abel Lopez,
Director, DOE/FOI (October 20, 1999). Subsequent to Ms. Schwarz filing her
appeal, DOE/FOI informed us that it also coordinated searches of the Office of
Public Affairs and the Office of Executive Secretariat. Electronic mail from
Sheila Jeter, DOE/FOI, to Steven Goering, OHA (October 17, 1999); Electronic
mail from Sheila Jeter to Steven Goering (October 10, 1999). Thus, it appears
that DOE/FOI in fact coordinated searches of each of the offices mentioned in
our September 24, 1999 letter.(3)
1. Office of Safeguards and Security
The Policy, Standards and Analysis Division in the Office of Safeguards and
Security provided the following information regarding its search. First, the
office’s Central Personnel Clearance Index (CPCI) was searched for the names
Barbara Schwartz and Barbara Schwarz. Memorandum of telephone conversation
between Victor Hawkins, Office of Safeguards and Security, and Steven Goering,
OHA (November 18, 1999). The CPCI is an computerized index of individuals who
have held or been considered for security clearances. Id. The office also
searched clearance documents on microfiche that predate the CPCI. Id. These
microfiche documents are maintained in alphabetical order, and were searched
under the names Barbara Schwartz and Barbara Schwarz. Id. Finally, a search was
conducted of files of office correspondence dating from June 1993 to the
present. The office searched these files by subject for correspondence related
to the FOIA and Privacy Act. Id. The initial search of documents filed under
this subject did not reveal documents that the office believed were responsive
to the request. Id. A subsequent search, however, has revealed documents
pertaining to L. Ron Hubbard that are arguably responsive to the request, and
the Office of Safeguards and Security informs us that it will release these to
the requester. Id.
2. Office of Public Affairs and Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs
One DOE management official coordinated the search for responsive documents in
the Office of Public Affairs and the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs. This official informed us that her standard procedure
in response to FOIA requests is to send a memorandum to every staff member
informing them of the request and asking them to get back to her by a date
certain with any responsive documents located. Memorandum of telephone
conversation between T.J. Hopkins, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs, and Steven Goering, OHA (November 18, 1999). In the present case, no
documents were located.
3. Office of Executive Secretariat
The official at DOE/FOI who coordinated the DOE’s overall search also conducted
a search of the DOE’s Office of Executive Secretariat. Documents in this office
are indexed in the Document On Line Coordination System (DOCS) system. The
DOE/FOI official searched this system using the names of the individuals
mentioned in Ms. Schwartz’s request. This search only located one document, Ms.
Schwarz’s original FOIA request.
4. Office of Inspector General
After we contacted the DOE/IG regarding the present appeal, the office conducted
a new search to confirm the results of its earlier search that found no
responsive documents. Electronic mail from Jacqueline Becker, DOE/IG, to Steven
Goering, OHA (October 19, 1999). We were informed that DOE/IG documents are
maintained by three offices, the Office of Investigations, Office of Audits, and
the Office of Inspections. Id. Each office has a computerized database in which
any information maintained in a particular file can be retrieved electronically,
and each office conducted computer database searches using the following
keywords: Schwarz, Schwartz, Germans, Great Salt Lake, L Ron Hubbard, Hubbard,
Eisenhower, Nazi, de Rothschild, and Rathbun. Id. These searches yielded no
responsive documents. Id. The offices again distributed the request to DOE/IG
Management, Directors and Team Leaders. Id. Upon their review, none recalled any
cases or information concerning the individuals or subject matter mentioned
above. Id. Finally, the Office of Audits manually reviewed all DOE OIG
semiannual reports from 1982 to present with regard to the above- mentioned
subject-matter. Id. This review also yielded no responsive documents. Id.
5. Office of Headquarters and Executive Personnel Services
The Office of Headquarters and Executive Personnel Services informed us that it
searched the following files and records for the names of Barbara Schwarz or
Barbara Schwartz: Senior Executive Performance Appraisal Records (based on
career and non-career executive personnel data) in the Executive and Technical
Resource Division; Lending Library files and records in the Career Resource
Management Center; Computer database, office files and old office records in the
Employment and Classification Division; Medical records and files, performance,
conduct, leave, and family-friendly records and requests (e.g., leave transfer)
in the Employee and Labor Relations Division. Electronic mail from Marilyn
Greene, Office of Headquarters and Executive Personnel Services, to Steven
Goering, OHA. The office also performed a name search of the Corporate Human
Resources Information System (CHRIS) and a name search of the Department of
Energy Information Database (DOEInfo). Id. No records or files were found for
the names Barbara Schwarz or Barbara Schwartz. Id.
6. Office of the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation
The attorney responsible for conducting a search of the Office of the Deputy
General Counsel for Litigation told us that he first checked to see if his
office had any litigation pending that might relate to the subpoenas referenced
in her request. Electronic mail from Dow Davis, Office of the Deputy General
Counsel for Litigation, to Steven Goering, OHA (November 22, 1999). This
revealed no responsive information. Id. He then asked a document control
specialist in the office to conduct a computer search of two databases that
track the office’s correspondence, using the names and subjects referenced in
Ms. Schwarz’s request. Id. As noted above, this search yielded only a copy of
the July 19, 1999 letter from DOE/FOI to Ms. Schwarz.
Based on the above descriptions, we conclude that the searches of the Office of
Public Affairs, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of
Inspector General, and the Office of the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation
were reasonably calculated to uncover the records sought by Ms. Schwarz. Though
there was not one uniform search method used, each office clearly made a
thorough and conscientious effort to locate all responsive documents it might
have, either by notifying employees of the request and asking them to provide
responsive documents or by searching computerized document tracking systems, and
in some cases by using both methods.
Similar methods were employed by both the Office of Safeguards and Security and
the Office of Headquarters and Executive Personnel Services. We note, however,
that the Office of Safeguards and Security limited its subject search to one
subject (FOIA and Privacy Act) and both offices apparently limited their name
searches to only that of Ms. Schwarz. For this reason, we find that these
searches were reasonably calculated to locate some of the records sought by the
requester, but clearly not all of them. We therefore will remand this matter to
DOE/FOI to coordinate further searches of these two offices. For guidance in
conducting a more thorough search, we suggest that these offices refer to the
subject matter and name searches used by DOE/IG in its search, which we discuss
in detail above.
C. Adequacy of Ms. Schwarz’s Description of Documents Requested
The first two items of Ms. Schwarz’s June 18, 1999 request sought records "[a]s
to that the Germans are behind the nuclear weapons and other weapons of nations
that are hostile to the United States," and "[a]s to that the Germans are behind
terror acts and wars against the United States or against other countries which
the United States want to protect, . . ." Letter from Barbara Schwarz to DOE
(June 18, 1999). In a July 19, 1999 letter to Ms. Schwarz, DOE/FOI stated,
The DOE regulation that implements the FOIA provides, at 10 CFR 1004.4(c)(1),
that a request "must enable the Department to identify and locate the records
sought by a process that is not unreasonably burdensome or disruptive of DOE
operations." The regulations further states that, where possible, specific
information regarding dates, titles, file designations, offices to be searched,
and other information that may help identify the records should be supplied by
the requester.
We have determined that items 1 and 2 of your request do not reasonably describe
the records you are seeking. Please provide more specific information that
identify the particular documents to which you seek access so the appropriate
programs can be searched for records responsive to the request. For example, you
should identify those countries that you consider ?hostile’ to the United States
and that the United States wants to ?protect.’
Letter from Abel Lopez, DOE/FOI, to Barbara Schwarz (July 19, 1999).
Ms. Schwarz responded to DOE/FOI’s July 19, 1999 letter by providing the
following details as to the information she was seeking:
There is Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Do you have any indication as to that the
Germans secretly set him up to any of his Anti-American hostilities? Do you have
any record hereto?
Same goes for Osama Bin Laden.
Same goes for Iran.
Same goes for China.
Same goes for Libya. You must know that the Germans build [sic] in this decade
secretly chemical weapons plants in Lybia, by knowing that Ghadafi targeted the
United States. Do you have any records hereto?
As to my observations there are German programs that target the United States,
it’s [sic] moral and it’s [sic] finances, and the lifes [sic] of U.S. citizens
by getting them involved in actions of war. E.g., two countries start to fight,
e.g. Israel and Palestine, or India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, Iraq and
Kuwait, Russia and Afghanistan, Serbs against Bosnians and Albanians, etc., with
the purpose that sooner or later the United States have to move in to restore
peace and human rights. Do you have any records hereto?
Do you have any records to that the former war between Iran and Iraq was a set
up so that Iraq would get secret information on U.S. weapons, which Iraq would
then use in a war against the U.S. to defeat the U.S. and that this was set up
secretly by the Germans?
Do you have any records as to that the Germans set up the Chinese secretly to
spy out U.S. weapons?
Do you have any records that the Germans have plans to set up a war between
China, any other country and the United States?
Letter from Barbara Schwarz to DOE/FOI (July 24, 1999).
We understand the position of DOE/FOI expressed in its October 20, 1999 response
that, even with the additional information provided by Ms. Schwarz, the first
two items of her request leave ambiguities that need to be resolved before DOE
should undertake a search for responsive documents. For example, Ms. Schwarz
does not indicate whether her use of the term "Germans" refers to the German
government or individual Germans, or both. Nor is it clear whether she is
seeking documents related to activities of the "Germans" during a specified
period of time. By providing these examples, we in no way imply that Ms. Schwarz
should be required to narrow the scope of her request. However, even a request
for a broad scope of documents must be clear enough for the agency to determine
what documents are being requested. Yeager v. DEA, 678 F.2d 315, 322, 326 (D.C.
Cir. 1982) (holding valid request encompassing over 1,000,000 computerized
records: "The linchpin inquiry is whether the agency is able to determine
?precisely what records [are] being requested’" (quoting S. Rep. No. 854, 93d
Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1974)). Thus, on remand, DOE/FOI should "invite the
requester to confer with knowledgeable DOE personnel" in an attempt to clarify
Ms. Schwarz’s description of the documents she is seeking in items 1 and 2 of
her request. 10 C.F.R. § 1004.4(c)(2).
For the reasons explained above, we will grant Ms. Schwarz’s Appeal to the
extent that we will remand this matter to DOE/FOI to coordinate a further search
for responsive documents as described above. In all other respects, the present
Appeal will be denied.
It Is Therefore Ordered That:
(1) The Appeal filed by Barbara Schwarz, Case No. VFA-0536, is granted as set
forth in paragraph (2) below, and is in all other respects denied.
(2) This matter is hereby remanded to the Department of Energy Headquarters
Freedom of Information and Privacy Group for further proceedings in accordance
with the instructions set forth in this Decision and Order.
(3) This is a final order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved
party may seek judicial review. Judicial review may be sought in the district in
which the requester resides or has a principal place of business, or in which
the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia.
George B. Breznay
Director
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: December 2, 1999
(1)Ms. Schwarz apparently misunderstood DOE/FOI’s October 20 letter as stating
that the one document located in the search of the Office of the Deputy General
Counsel for Litigation had been sent to her along with DOE/FOI’s July 19, 1999
letter to her. Appeal at 2. We sought clarification from DOE/FOI, who informed
us that the document located by that search was the July 19, 1999 letter.
Electronic mail from Sheila Jeter, DOE/FOI, to Steven Goering, Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) (October 10, 1999).
(2)Ms. Schwarz also misreads the FOIA when she claims that she has "a right for
[sic] two hours free search time and 100 copies of free document[s] from each of
the offices of the Department of Energy." Appeal at 1. The statute simply
provides that "[n]o fee may be charged by any agency under this section . . .
for the first two hours of search time or for the first one hundred pages of
duplication." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iv). This simply means, for example, that
the DOE may not charge for the first two hours of its search. It does not mean
that the first two hours of the search of each DOE office is free. And the
statute certainly does not require an agency (let alone each office within an
agency) to expend a specified amount of its resources (e.g., spend two hours on
each search) in response to a FOIA request.
(3)Two offices we mentioned in our September 24, 1999 letter, the Policy,
Standards and Analysis Division in the Office of Safeguards and Security, and
the Office of Headquarters and Executive Personnel Services, are offices within
two of the offices searched, the Office of Nonproliferation and National
Security and the Office of Management and Administration, respectively. We
apologize to Ms. Schwarz for any confusion created by our September 24, 1999
letter.
Tilman Hausherr
<a6bc00a0.02111...@posting.google.com>:
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.60.1.206
That may be the real one - Barbara does live in Utah, and Steve Fishman
doesn't :-)
Tilman
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html
James W. Glass
"Tilman Hausherr" <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in message
news:a2h2tu0j9r082phv2...@4ax.com...
Just have to love that public library access. First Chitester, now this
loon.
Jim
Rebecca Hartong
a6bc00a0.02111...@posting.google.com, "BarbaraSchwarz"
<BarbaraSc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
This is what happens when people don't have easy access to psychiatry.
Scientologists--pay heed.
Tilman Hausherr
wrote in <B9F6BC25.DD96%rhar...@cox.net>:
Actually, Barbara was put in psychiatry in Germany for a short time. But
she should be taken there again to get rid of her "Marty de Rothschild"
delusions.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
"BarbaraSchwarz" <BarbaraSc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6bc00a0.02111...@posting.google.com...
> You got it wrong once more, people. You Anti-Scientologists can't
> think straight, that is why you can't figure me out. With all the
> hate, the lies and criminal acts against Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard
> and good and real Scientologists, you clogged your braincells and
> impaired your mind and intelligence. I found your incoherent and
> confused postings about me on the web, and I just can say, that if
> anyone of you ever would come under attack having to prove your
> sanity, you would all fail and not pass like me with flying colors and
> clean bill of health.
Great ghu, they *must* be paying her to act whacked out. Does anyone else
see the kind of ludicrous threat that they planted to discredit Paulette
Cooper here?
Capt. Fredric L. Rice
>You got it wrong once more, people. You Anti-Scientologists can't
>think straight,
Nobody here is "anti-Scientologists." If you read the
alt.religion.scientology newsgroup you'll notice that we are human
rights, civil rights, and freedom of speech rights activists who
often protest against Scientology's _homicides_ of their own
followers. We also picket and protest against their criminal actions
and their civil rights abuses conducted _against_ fellow Scientologists.
People in a.r.s are almost overwhelmingly _pro_ Scientologists
otherwise we wouldn't be involved in trying to help them.
See
http://www.whyaretheydead.org
http://www.raids.org/
http://www.cosvm.info/
--
George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil
http://www.gwbush.com/ http://www.bushwatch.net/
(And don't forget: SERE training sucks.)
Roger Larsson
> You got it wrong once more, people. You Anti-Scientologists can't
> hate, the lies and criminal acts against Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard
> and good and real Scientologists, you clogged your braincells and
> impaired your mind and intelligence. I found your incoherent and
> confused postings about me on the web, and I just can say, that if
> anyone of you ever would come under attack having to prove your
> sanity, you would all fail and not pass like me with flying colors and
> clean bill of health.
>
> anti-Scientologists are functioning? You just go in action if somebody
> puts you up to it? I am my own woman, always was, always will me. In
> fact, I have not had contact with any Scientologist in a decade. I am
> living here in Utah, that is LDS country, all I see here are Mormons,
> millions of them, and no, I am not one of them. I am a Scientologist,
> always was, always will be and I am proud of it. I am just not on
> staff and not on Scientology lines.
>
> My lawsuit of 1992 was not(!)against the religion Scientology,
> not(!)against devine, religious, genious, perfect, ethical,
> multi-talented, faszinating, grand humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard, and
> not(!)against courageous, highly intelligent, wonderful, irresistable,
> skilful, breathtaking and gentle Marty Rathbun (de Rothschild), (don't
> get jealous again, just get your own character and personality), and
> not against any true Scientologists. The lawsuit was against the
> criminal infiltrators of Scientology, people that pose as
> Scientologists, but are none, to destroy the true religion, L. Ron
> Hubbards findings and writings and deny good Scientologists their
> rights.
>
> The Scientology organizations are similar infiltrated as the U.S.
> government with officials that have no true American agenda, but
> secretly work for forces hostile to the USA. This is the reason I am
> not on staff or on Scientology lines. Not the true Scientologists, but
> the criminal infiltrators would try to stop me in what I do and I have
> no time to waste shaking them off. Are you finally getting the
> picture?
>
> Barbara Schwarz, November 12, 2002
The only enemy is peoples limited awareness. It's better to love these
stupid and try to open their eyes so they becomes aware that we all
have arrived to the world through our parents and that we owe a planet
in common to do the best of in our common interest - the rest is
aberration.
Roger Larsson
Lawrence Toomajan
Hi Barbara. Wether or not you believe me is totally your own choice. I am
not boasting, but I infiltrated the Church of Scientology of New York and
totally wrecked the communications lines between that org and the ASHO FDN
and the Flag Land Base, which was the normal route that people used to
follow who wanted to go free back then and I am not sorry that I did, not
the resultant crash in or of the three involved orgs statistics following
the "crime". Each time I look back on this groups activites since then I see
and hear nothing but bad news about a group that could be helped. I even
wrecked the careers of a few of Scientogy's top ranking officials. I am not
afraid of "case" or "BT's", I have been around a while like you, I just made
up my mind that those people needed a good kick in the ass on behalf of the
American public and did so. The FBI is aware of my activities involving the
Church. I am just telling you for your information. I have never been a
Scientologist, but it might happen one day, but what are we going to do
here, prevent people from having their freedom because of crimes committed
before becoming a Scientologist. Unlikely.
Lawrence
"BarbaraSchwarz" <BarbaraSc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6bc00a0.02111...@posting.google.com...
Nico Kadel-Garcia
"Lawrence Toomajan" <san...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:COGdnSkQA_A...@comcast.com...
> Dear Barbara:
>
> Hi Barbara. Wether or not you believe me is totally your own choice. I am
> not boasting, but I infiltrated the Church of Scientology of New York and
> totally wrecked the communications lines between that org and the ASHO FDN
> and the Flag Land Base, which was the normal route that people used to
> follow who wanted to go free back then and I am not sorry that I did, not
Who in the hell? What you are describing is criminal activity. *NEVER DO
THIS*. The way to fight the cult is to keep it completely clean. They do
more than enough stupid and criminal activity to bust them on and eventually
stop their fraud.
(Dig, dig, dig.)
Ohh. Looks like san...@comcast.net is some sort of random whacko story
poster. "Lawrence's" stories seem to be made-up Weekly World News type
stories, with the key word "Scientology" thrown in. From how unsupported and
weird and off-the-wall they are, I wonder if it's a made-up account for some
kind of a troll? Maybe a $cientologist trying to become "accepted" among the
$cientology-fighting community and cause trouble, or posting wild craziness
so that the $cientologists can point to "lies, lies, nothing but lies" on
the newsgroup.
Looking at the stories, "Lawrence" seems to have the inventiveness of a
$cientologist describing the crimes of their previous lives as a Marcabian
citizen of the Galactic Confederation of Xenu (Scientology's Operating
Thetan III documents!). Plonk him....
Michael Wilde
organization. I guess you could say it's freedom from politics *and*
lunacy.
--
Michael Wilde
Executive Director
W.S.A.I.
Screenwriting & Film Production Consultants
Fax: +613 977 47849
Email: ws...@electric-entertainment.org
http://www.blackhorsedesign.com/wsai
http://www.wsai.net
Call: +613-977-47849
"Capt. Fredric L. Rice" <FR...@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:ut3e3u9...@corp.supernews.com...
Nico Kadel-Garcia
"Michael Wilde" <ws...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3de8f258$0$2764$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> We thank you for your support, but Scientology is not a political
> organization. I guess you could say it's freedom from politics *and*
> lunacy.
Oh, is *THAT* what it is when you bring down cult awareness groups by suing
them to death fraudulently (Cult Awareness Network), forge copyright notices
on your documents to prevent their publication (OT levels I-VII as
documented in the Fishman case), and have L. Ron's wife and her cronies
steal FBI/medical/police/personal documents to harass people who expose the
cult (Mary Sue Hubbard and Operation "Snow White", performed against the
author Paulette Cooper because of her book "The Scandal of Scientology")?
Or when they orchestrate the worst spamming in history to try and shut down
alt.religion.scientology, tying up 3 long-distance lines all night every
night at hundreds of throwaway accounts all over the US more than 5 years
ago when the newsgroups couldn't take that kind of traffic?
Or the forged cancellation messages on alt.religion.scientology to remove
anyone's messages that quote the secret inner scriptures?
Or the lawyer Helena Kobrin's attempts to have the newsgroup removed, the
event that triggered so many of us to fight the cult?
Or when the number of people who shatter when the Operating Thetan III
documents about the galactic emperor Xenu is what they finally read after
paying in $100,000 or many thousands of hours of work, realize the last 5
years of their life is a complete cult sham, and you lock them up for a
"BabyWatch" or "Purification Rundown" at the Flagg base?
You *really* need to check out the links at www.xenu.net for a better set of
links to the cult's behavior.
ptsc
>We thank you for your support, but Scientology is not a political
>organization. I guess you could say it's freedom from politics *and*
>lunacy.
You goddamn liar.
Cult leader L. Ron Hubbard said the following:
"And in the Central Organization - just looking a bit further ahead than that -
there'll be a political officer. You want to know what happens when
you clear everybody in that neighborhood, the only thing that center
can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you've
done all this, you are the government."
Cult leader L. Ron Hubbard, lecture, "Future Org Trends," January 9, 1962
Are you calling cult leader Hubbard a liar?
ptsc
Michael Wilde
Thank you Lawrence for publishing your crimes. your posting has been sent
to the lawyers for Scientology.
The legal system of the United States of America deems that you have made a
signed Confession to a criminal act.
--
Michael Wilde
"Lawrence Toomajan" <san...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:COGdnSkQA_A...@comcast.com...
Michael Wilde
--
Michael Wilde
Executive Director
In 1984, All records written by Hubbard were checked and double checked,
since some policy letters were found to have contradictions in them.
Thousands of hours of audio and Dictaphone tape were checked against these
documents, in front of and with the assistance of the FBI. There is an
ongoing investigation by the FBI and interpol against those like you guys
that, like Lawrence would use lies to make yourself look good.
Lawrence has just been cleared of the criminal act he admitted in this news
group, because according to records, he never set foot in the place the day
the computer went down for five minutes. It was a standard computer glitch
that was fixed by simple rebooting. Besides, the public stays in the public
area and never get anywhere near the records department. You can't get past
security.
No I'm not call ing Hubbard a liar, I'm calling Lawrence a liar.
besides, the OT3 materials have been public knowledge since 1978. For God's
sake guys, come up with new material, or use your imaginations. All you're
doing is rehashing old bullshit that's 20 to 30 years old. and published in
two books, one written by a convicted pedophile and the other by a
murderess. Do you at least have a real source that can be seen as a honest
member of society?? Come on, guys...at least try.
I like to argue, but at least get some REAL ammo before you open your
mouths, otherwise all you are to us is a joke that's no threat at all. Be a
threat, not a bunch of panty-waist wimps with nothing better to do.
Mike
ptsc
>No I'm not call ing Hubbard a liar, I'm calling Lawrence a liar.
Lawrence IS a liar. He's a second-rate troll. Good job obnosing that, twit.
But it doesn't distract from your pathetic fuckup and your lie here, since this
is what you actually said in the last post. Did you think your blithering
would make me forget what you actually said?
It didn't. Here's what you said:
>We thank you for your support, but Scientology is not a political
>organization. I guess you could say it's freedom from politics *and*
>lunacy.
You said Scientology is not a political organization. That's bullshit.
Cult leader L. Ron Hubbard says differently.
"And in the Central Organization - just looking a bit further ahead than that -
there'll be a political officer. You want to know what happens when
you clear everybody in that neighborhood, the only thing that center
can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you've
done all this, you are the government."
Cult leader L. Ron Hubbard, lecture, "Future Org Trends," January 9, 1962
Are you calling cult leader Hubbard a liar? If not, then you are admitting
that your own statement is a lie. Scientology is a political organization in
intent and in the statements of the Founder of the cult, convicted felon
L. Ron Hubbard. He states that the Scientology cult will take over the
world in some kind of bogus Pinky and the Brain way (what a loon).
So which is wrong, your imbecilic statement or the drug-addled rambling
of your cult leader? They're clearly contradicting each other, so one of them
must be wrong. Which one is it?
ptsc
Michael Wilde
to make yourself right. But I'm not going to.
You've shown me where you're coming from, and I respect that. I also
respect that you are a follower of other people's opinions in order to save
you from thinking for yourself, or testing those you believe are above you.
(your problem with a lack of confidence in yourself and your abilities.)
Okay, you think everyone is out to get you and brainwash you...and you think
you are powerless to stop it from happening. But you're not powerless. as
long as you keep your own counsel. and don't act or make a decision without
first testing it out thoroughly for yourself, without anyone influencing
your decisions in any way.
I have to agree that you believe that all the police and those in authority
are part of politics and not of the system, which is why you fight the
system without first finding out what it is and the rules it follows.
The best way to fight is first know their rules, then pull them up everytime
they break or bend those rules.
Three people were involved in attempting to bring Wacko Jacko (Michael
Jackson) into scientology. One is in jail, the other has been "Declared" (a
word meaning to be declared as a suppressive element in the organization)
and chucked out on her ear.
The third (Ms Presley, herself), is not welcome back.
If you are referring to Scientologists supporting their favorite politician,
nothing in the rule book says they are not allowed to make their own
decisions or think for themselves. This does not make Scientology itself
align to this political party or that political party. If they whole of
Scientology one day announces that they "only back republicans or greenie
political parties, and God help the Scientologists who support another
political party", then I will stand corrected.
Instead of throwing around third, forth, and fifth-hand info that you have
not researched personally, find out what they really do believe, and the
rules they go by, and jump on that person personally, shouting, "You know
better, what's your problem!!!"
The way this group is doing it is so ineffectual that it's making you all
look like a bunch of non-thinking losers with nothing better to do.
Scientology jumps hard on their members doing the wrong thing, but they know
what the rules are. You better know what their rules are so you can let
them know intelligently and at least informed on the subject.
--
Michael
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:rh5juuc3su63niqhp...@4ax.com...
Michael Wilde
twit.
Well you proved the rule...there IS no honor among thieves.
ptsc
>I could complain that you took what I said out of context to feebly attempt
>to make yourself right. But I'm not going to.
>You've shown me where you're coming from, and I respect that. I also
>respect that you are a follower of other people's opinions in order to save
>you from thinking for yourself, or testing those you believe are above you.
>(your problem with a lack of confidence in yourself and your abilities.)
[Snip further blithering.]
Bla bla bla, this is just a bunch of fucking gibberish to dodge the question
again. Do you think everyone here is so stupid they don't realize what you're
doing? Answer the fucking question or just admit you're a pathetic liar and
FOAD.
Here's your statement:
>We thank you for your support, but Scientology is not a political
>organization. I guess you could say it's freedom from politics *and*
>lunacy.
Here's cult leader Hubbard's clearly contradictory statement:
"And in the Central Organization - just looking a bit further ahead than that -
there'll be a political officer. You want to know what happens when
you clear everybody in that neighborhood, the only thing that center
can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you've
done all this, you are the government."
Cult leader L. Ron Hubbard, lecture, "Future Org Trends," January 9, 1962
Obviously these contradict each other. Who was lying, you or Hubbard?
It's not a very difficult question unless you're some kind of fucking retard,
so spit it out already.
Here, I'll make it even easier for you. I am not asking for a bunch of non
sequitur blithering. I am asking this.
Who lied? Put an X where it fits.
[ ] Me, Michael Wilde of Writer Services Australia International
[] L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology cult
It's pretty easy. I don't know why you're having such difficulty with this,
unless it's perhaps, as I suggested earlier, that you're some kind of moron.
ptsc
ptsc
So what have I stolen, then? Are you even TRYING to make sense,
you blithering nutcase?
ptsc
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> I could complain that you took what I said out of context to feebly
attempt
> to make yourself right. But I'm not going to.
Because your complaint would be ludicrous.
> You've shown me where you're coming from, and I respect that. I also
> respect that you are a follower of other people's opinions in order to
save
> you from thinking for yourself, or testing those you believe are above
you.
> (your problem with a lack of confidence in yourself and your abilities.)
As opposed to Hubbard "Tech", where questioning it or attempting to
re-interpret it is defined as "Squirreling" and will get you sent to the
Flagg Base where you will be held, with guards, as you are "re-trained" on
the "RPF", or "Rebahilitation Project Force". Yup, that's really forming
your own opinions.
Remember, reaching higher levels of $cientology involves many thousands of
hours under a crude polygraph called the "e-meter", which measures the
electrical conductivity of the skin and is used to help monitor the hypnotic
state engendered by the constant droning repetition of the auditing itself,
and the exploration during other parts of auditing of your past lives,
criminal acts, thoughts against the cult, etc., the interesting bits of
which are recorded ini your "Pre-Clear" and sent to the world headquarters
in California.
Whoops. Forget about that, didn't you?
> Okay, you think everyone is out to get you and brainwash you...and you
think
*FLUNK*.
Just because L. Ron Hubbard's leadership of his cult is, doesn't mean others
are. We've certainly seen the evidence of it in the policies of this cult.
Didn't you *READ* the upper level materials, or the results of "Operation
Snow White" by Mary Sue Hubbard and the cult's "Guardian's Office",
relabeled the "Office of Special Affairs" and originally staffed with
everyone who didn't get convicted with L. Ron's wife as he hid off-shore in
the cult's yacht to avoid subpoena?
> you are powerless to stop it from happening. But you're not powerless.
as
No, but you need to be aware of it to stop it. That's what the newsgroups
are for.
> long as you keep your own counsel. and don't act or make a decision
without
> first testing it out thoroughly for yourself, without anyone influencing
> your decisions in any way.
*FLUNK*.
You refuse to admit the cult's fraud, the bait and switch about how it's
beliefs are a science of the mind, no wait it's a religion, it's a floor
wax, it's a dessert topping, it's whatever will get you *IN THE DOOR* and
your credit card number in their hands.
> The best way to fight is first know their rules, then pull them up
everytime
> they break or bend those rules.
Good. Go check out www.xenu.net and www.factnet.org, especially the old Time
magazine articles and the on-line copies of "Scandal of Scientology", and
the cult secret upper level documents submitted to the court in the Fishman
case.
> Three people were involved in attempting to bring Wacko Jacko (Michael
> Jackson) into scientology. One is in jail, the other has been "Declared"
(a
> word meaning to be declared as a suppressive element in the organization)
> and chucked out on her ear.
Only because they failed.
> The third (Ms Presley, herself), is not welcome back.
OF COURSE she's welcome back, as long as she brings her daddy's checkbook.
> If you are referring to Scientologists supporting their favorite
politician,
> nothing in the rule book says they are not allowed to make their own
> decisions or think for themselves. This does not make Scientology itself
> align to this political party or that political party. If they whole of
> Scientology one day announces that they "only back republicans or greenie
> political parties, and God help the Scientologists who support another
> political party", then I will stand corrected.
Hardly. No, take a look at the manipulation of copyright laws to protect the
cult secrets (including the forgery of copyright notices to protect
documents on which the copyright had lapsed under older laws), theft of
police and medical and FBI documents, threats against the "Fair Use" premise
of modern copyright law to protect the cult secrets from publication, their
deliberate and criminal harassment against people who speak out (especially
former members such as Arnie Lerma, Larry Wollersheim, and Dennis Erlich who
are active on the Net), etc.
That's political.
> Instead of throwing around third, forth, and fifth-hand info that you have
> not researched personally, find out what they really do believe, and the
> rules they go by, and jump on that person personally, shouting, "You know
> better, what's your problem!!!"
Unfortunately, the active membership of $cientology is isolated from outside
contact by the OSA, who are pretty much trained to ignore us. When we hand
out flyers at protests, those flyers are *SEIZED* from members' hands by the
OSA who are photographing everything on-site and trying to prevent the
membership from hearing us or speaking to us without their
censorship^^H^H^H^H supervision.
> The way this group is doing it is so ineffectual that it's making you all
> look like a bunch of non-thinking losers with nothing better to do.
Heh. alt.religion.scientology is thriving, and the web search engines still
find the secret materials scattered all over the world beyond your reach for
public examination. We tracked down the worst spamming in history to a
$cientology operation at the home of Jim Rego and it stopped immediately
when his name came out, which ended 5000 messages a night at 30K/message
designed to stamp the group into the group, 3 long-distance lines 12 hours a
night. *NOBODY* does that out of their own pocket for six months: that was
paid by the cult.
> Scientology jumps hard on their members doing the wrong thing, but they
know
> what the rules are. You better know what their rules are so you can let
> them know intelligently and at least informed on the subject.
Which is why Mary Sue Hubbard and her cronies at the Guardian's Office had
to be busted by the FBI, L. Ron hid on his boat to avoid subpoena as his
wife went to jail, the former membership got reshuffled and renamed the OSA
including Kendrick Moxon who led the fraudulent lawsuit drive that
bankrupted Cult Awareness Network and let the cult buy it so now all CAN
phones are answered by $cientologists who carefully report to the main
office any comments about $cientology, etc., etc.
I've spoken with a number of formerly high-ranking members, and even sat and
had long talks with your original webmaster, who explained that your
www.scientology.org website was *DESIGNED* to flood the search engines and
prevent people from seeing sites like www.xenu.net. He was to thrilled to be
out: he described how he was taught, in the cult, *not to think*. Not to
examine, not to question, but to repeat the Tech of L. Ron.
What broke him out, and breaks some others free, is exposure to the truth.
In his case, it was seeing that the "suppressive persons" declared as such
by the cult were not an organized group of plottiing schemers trying to
destroy the cult: they were people who spoke out, from both inside the cult
and outside it, against very real behavior.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
> Who lied? Put an X where it fits.
>
> [ ] Me, Michael Wilde of Writer Services Australia International
> [] L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology cult
>
> It's pretty easy. I don't know why you're having such difficulty with
this,
> unless it's perhaps, as I suggested earlier, that you're some kind of
moron.
His OSA handler hasn't decided the cult policy on this one. So he's going to
ignore it.
Michael Wilde
easy.
The Mormons print their own anti-Mormon literature. Well, we do work in a
similar vein. The only way to test the protection of your defenses is to
create attacks on your self to find the weak points and strengthen them.
So, basically, you guys are working for us. We need you to test our
defenses, to keep us in line, to keep our ethics in. Not one piece of
information you have was gained by you through deception. It has always
been handed to you on a silver platter, otherwise you would find it
impossible to get.
Most of the info you use to attack is available to any member of the
public, at any time. Only we give you additional information that is only
half fact, or half the story, and we let you use your imaginations to fill
in the blanks.
Oh, the challenge. Investigate me and Andreas. If you find nothing on us,
dig deeper. If you find we're your allies, dig deeper, 'cos you're sadly
mistaken. You work for and are an important part of Scientology.
--
Michael
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> I offer you a challenge. You guys are getting your info we give you too
> easy.
>
> The Mormons print their own anti-Mormon literature. Well, we do work in a
> similar vein. The only way to test the protection of your defenses is to
> create attacks on your self to find the weak points and strengthen them.
> So, basically, you guys are working for us. We need you to test our
> defenses, to keep us in line, to keep our ethics in. Not one piece of
> information you have was gained by you through deception. It has always
> been handed to you on a silver platter, otherwise you would find it
> impossible to get.
Bwaa-haa-haa! "You've fallen cleverly into our trap by destroying
Afghanistan! Really, that's why we bombed the WTC, we *wanted* you to
scatter us to the winds like termites whose nest has been smashed! Really!
That's how we we're winning, because we can no longer hide and you've
published our inner secrets! Honest!"
> Most of the info you use to attack is available to any member of the
> public, at any time. Only we give you additional information that is only
> half fact, or half the story, and we let you use your imaginations to fill
> in the blanks.
Nonsense. The stuff we care about came to the public primarily due to former
members at the highest ranks, including the stuff about the order to destroy
all records of Charles Manson's membership in the California offices after
his capture, the Fishman court case documents showing the secrets of the
"Operating Thetan" documents about Xenu and his Marcab Confederacy and how
you're supposed to be able to talk to the reborn galactic souls in plants
and animals and rocks, etc., etc.
> Oh, the challenge. Investigate me and Andreas. If you find nothing on
us,
> dig deeper. If you find we're your allies, dig deeper, 'cos you're sadly
> mistaken. You work for and are an important part of Scientology.
Ahh. "We actually wanted you to be misled, we actually still have
S*E*C*R*E*T*S (moo-ha-ha)."
Nahh. Heber Jentsch is running from Interpol and especially the police in
Spain, David Miscavige (the poodle running $cientology these days after his
little palace coup when Hubbard was sick and probably already dead on the
Free Winds yacht) is running from process servers in the US in the Factnet
case (which is why he refuses to go anywhere without lots of guards and
complete control of who's present), you're actually forging pictures of your
"big events" to cut and paste duplicates of the occupied seats on top of the
empty seats, and generally lying like hell about the size of your group.
Membership is *shrinking*, wildly, and orgs are closing all over the world
far faster than any new ones have been opened.
Miscavige is burying the cult: he doesn't have L. Ron's gift of gab to lead
the suckers into more promised but never delivered benefits, and it's
embarassing the hell out of the leadership of the cult.
ptsc
>I offer you a challenge. You guys are getting your info we give you too
>easy.
>The Mormons print their own anti-Mormon literature. Well, we do work in a
>similar vein. The only way to test the protection of your defenses is to
>create attacks on your self to find the weak points and strengthen them.
>So, basically, you guys are working for us. We need you to test our
>defenses, to keep us in line, to keep our ethics in. Not one piece of
>information you have was gained by you through deception. It has always
>been handed to you on a silver platter, otherwise you would find it
>impossible to get.
How did you get so stupid?
ptsc
Michael Wilde
talking to brainless wimps!
As they say in the X-files..."trust no-one!"
BTW, how can I supposedly fall into a trap you have absolutely no idea you
set. Now who's the stupid one???
--
Michael Wilde
Executive Director
W.S.A.I. (Writers Services Australia International)
Screenwriting & Film Production Consultants
Melbourne Office (Australia)
Fax: +613 977 47849
Email: ws...@electric-entertainment.org
http://www.blackhorsedesign.com/wsai
http://www.wsai.net
Call: +613-977-47849
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:maokuug2st0agkcrg...@4ax.com...
ptsc
>So I take it the challenge is way beyond your abilities?? I guess I've been
>talking to brainless wimps!
>
>As they say in the X-files..."trust no-one!"
>
>BTW, how can I supposedly fall into a trap you have absolutely no idea you
>set. Now who's the stupid one???
You are, as always. Do you think you have successfully distracted from your
total failure to be able to answer the question you were posed at the beginning
of this thread in response to your original lie?
Here is the question you can't answer. It really shows how pathetic you
cultists truly are that you can't answer such a simple question. What's wrong
with you? Are you mentally retarded or just brainwashed?
Here's your statement:
>We thank you for your support, but Scientology is not a political
>organization. I guess you could say it's freedom from politics *and*
>lunacy.
Here's cult leader Hubbard's clearly contradictory statement:
"And in the Central Organization - just looking a bit further ahead than that -
there'll be a political officer. You want to know what happens when
you clear everybody in that neighborhood, the only thing that center
can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you've
done all this, you are the government."
Cult leader L. Ron Hubbard, lecture, "Future Org Trends," January 9, 1962
Obviously these contradict each other. Who was lying, you or Hubbard?
It's not a very difficult question unless you're some kind of fucking retard,
so spit it out already.
Here, I'll make it even easier for you. I am not asking for a bunch of non
sequitur blithering. I am asking this.
Who lied? Put an X where it fits.
[ ] Me, Michael Wilde of Writer Services Australia International
[] L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology cult
It's pretty easy. I don't know why you're having such difficulty with this,
unless it's perhaps, as I suggested earlier, that you're some kind of moron.
ptsc
Michael Wilde
but all I find are ineffectual retards that can't even answer one simple
challenge, that they have to change the subject to something that's way past
the use by date. Are you that incompetent, or just playing extremely
stupid.
You're supposed to be toppling Scientology, and you are even incompetent at
that. For god's sake, give me someone that's at least out of diapers
intellectually to battle with.
Or are you too scared to find out who you're dealing with.
--
Michael Wilde
Executive Director
W.S.A.I. (Writers Services Australia International)
Screenwriting & Film Production Consultants
Melbourne Office (Australia)
Fax: +613 977 47849
Email: ws...@electric-entertainment.org
http://www.blackhorsedesign.com/wsai
http://www.wsai.net
Call: +613-977-47849
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:i6rkuukv13pvuvstd...@4ax.com...
ptsc
>I thought I was supposed to be dealing with a strong network of individuals,
>but all I find are ineffectual retards that can't even answer one simple
>challenge, that they have to change the subject to something that's way past
>the use by date. Are you that incompetent, or just playing extremely
>stupid.
What are you talking about, you moron? You wouldn't answer my question,
but you expect your own answered? I asked first, drooler. What is this
third-grade bullshit?
You started out and your very first post was a blatant lie. Since that you have
been a total failure at either explaining your lie or admitting it. That makes
you typical of the pathetic idiots of Scientology.
Here it is again. Here's your original lie that you started all this with.
You can continue to show how incompetent Scientology morons are
by continuing to fail to respond to it in any way. I mean what's mentally
wrong with you that you can't answer this simple question? I feel sorry
for you being so pathetic and useless. How can you possibly support
yourself in gainful employment when you are so clearly mentally
incompetent?
Here's your lie:
>We thank you for your support, but Scientology is not a political
>organization. I guess you could say it's freedom from politics *and*
>lunacy.
You said Scientology is not a political organization. That's bullshit.
Cult leader L. Ron Hubbard says differently.
"And in the Central Organization - just looking a bit further ahead than that -
there'll be a political officer. You want to know what happens when
you clear everybody in that neighborhood, the only thing that center
can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you've
done all this, you are the government."
Cult leader L. Ron Hubbard, lecture, "Future Org Trends," January 9, 1962
Are you calling cult leader Hubbard a liar? If not, then you are admitting
Nico Kadel-Garcia
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
> So which is wrong, your imbecilic statement or the drug-addled rambling
> of your cult leader? They're clearly contradicting each other, so one of
them
> must be wrong. Which one is it?
Both, maybe?
Michael Wilde
--
Michael Wilde
Executive Director
W.S.A.I. (Writers Services Australia International)
Screenwriting & Film Production Consultants
Melbourne Office (Australia)
Fax: +613 977 47849
Email: ws...@electric-entertainment.org
http://www.blackhorsedesign.com/wsai
http://www.wsai.net
Call: +613-977-47849
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:fj0luusiksfuvooqc...@4ax.com...
ptsc
>For god's sake fuckwit, keep up with what's going on around you.
What's going on around me is that you're having a total meltdown as you
completely decompensate following your pathetic failure to answer a simple
question. What's wrong with you? What mental problems do you have
that result in being unable to answer it?
Here we are again for about the fifth time, and all you appear to be able
to do is froth insanely. I guess the cult brainwashing has rendered you
completely incapable of responding to statements in plain English. I feel
sorry for you, forced as you are to hobble through life as a Scientology
mental cripple.
Now let's get back to the question you can't answer. If you can't answer
it, could you at least answer what psychosis you're suffering from that
renders you completely incapable of responding to anything about the
lie you started this thread with? What's wrong with you that you can't
make a single post that responds to it?