CLamelon Challenge No. 3 (or is that 4?)
Gerry Armstrong
years, that CL says what he says about me, and a bit of everything
else come to think of it, for the purpose of creating the illusion
that there is some group different from Scientology which hates me.
He uses a completely insane, and even if not insane, irrelevant,
platform (the truth or conclusion "proven" by his "exposed" documents)
to create an "environment" or "atmosphere" or "reality" in which I can
be disposed of quietly and without sorrow. Or sure, noisily if that
helps, to, for example, pin it on the people who aren't there.
The cult is impeded, DM is sure, in its latest big thrust to rewrite
Hubbard, by Gerry Armstrong. Notice CL's literary interest in the
Hubbard biography, and the Armstrong I (LASC C 420153) trial and case,
almost to the exclusion of any one of the thousands of other
interesting points in the Hubbard/Scientology/Sea
Org/Miscavige/Starkey/Lenskes/CST/Emory/corp upon corp/
name upon name/point upon point, history.
I believe that the "documents" on which he bases his "platform" are
Scientology's documents that the Miscavige intel apparatus wants
"exposed." They would never have filed CST v. US if that was not the
case. See recently posted to a.r.s. 1989 final adverse ruling. I filed
this in 1990 in the Armstrong I appeal. I cited to the Bruggink
decision dozens of times in Armstrong II, III and IV between 1992 and
1996. There was no exposure on a.r.s. of CST or the Lenskes or the
special directors or anything of relevance whatsoever which would
justify this op's vicious, insane attacks. There have been no
"revelations" from CL or anyone else that justify or in any way
support the lies CL and this idiot op tell about me.
The fact is that for no other reason than the Great Good Humor of God
Himself I smoked this op out as soon as it appeared on a.r.s. I've
told this story before, although neither the op nor its water carriers
have responded.
One of the op's first actions was to provide a phone number to call,
in Nevada, to their "public research" deal. Shortly thereafter, being
in Nevada, I called the number, and left my name, and I'm sure my
number. Since these folks claimed to be doing all this "research"
about Scientology and CST and the Lenskes and Miscavige and maybe even
Hubbard, I forget, and since I certainly knew something about the
whole enterprise, I figured we'd have things to chat about, and they'd
appreciate my making contact. But instead, back came this ugly, sick
prose the op will forever be famous for. It is altogether reasonable
to acknowledge that the cult would dedicate decent literary and intel
talent to this op. And I stumbled on it through no other way than
God's amazing Grace.
These "researchers" were not interested in research and never have
been interested in it. They already had the target of attacking the
witnesses by "exposure" of what Scientology wants exposed, and one of
the central targets gives them a call. It threw them off and they
leaped at God's goofy bait, and responded with what as I say will be
the literary fair game the Miscavige regime will be famous for.
The response was a reminder of the response of Gene Ingram when I
called his office and stumbled onto one secretary or another who told
me things about Norman Starkey's frequent visitor status at the office
she was apparently not supposed to tell me. Gene calls me back and
threatens to put a bullet between my eyes. What a Godsend. I get the
reality that Ingram will indeed murder for his Scientology account,
and that his Scientology account would approve such action. Knowing
Norman was then Ingram's best bud had no importance because I already
knew it, but knowing that the Miscavige regime will indeed murder is
hugely valuable.
The CL op had to generate the idea that what it was "exposing" had
course-changing value in the "fight," the fight which many people see
unclearly but which can for the purpose of this post be referred to as
the War on Wogs (WoW!)(R), and was not just a few facts not unlike a
billion other facts in Scientology's history, what it now is and how
it acts in this war. To generate the idea that what it was "exposing"
was in fact being "exposed," the op had to generate the illusion that
because this information had been a "total surprise" to the op
personnel, and to some people on alt.religion.scientology obviously,
the op really was exposing something.
This necessitated, if you can think about it, generating the insane
illusion that people who in fact knew something about the
Miscavige/Lenske/Heller/CST/RTC operation, were covering it all up.
Right along with this, the op is still attempting to generate the even
more insane illusion that these people, who, incidentally, if anyone
cares to look, are the wogs (R) willing to testify as to their
knowledge of Scientology, were in bed with the Lenskes.
What do the Lenskes care? They get paid good money to be part of the
op. Or the Miscavige intel op deliberately keeps this from the Lenskes
(doubtful) to keep the Lenskes clear to testify as to their
non-involvement.
That is not to say that we should not be grateful for all the
documents the op and the Miscavige regime have "exposed" on a.r.s.
They put a lot of work into getting these documents into an easily
usable form for us. Exposing the IRS closing agreement was a nice
touch, but that, of course, could not really be done directly through
the Veritas/Research/CLOp deal. But it was definitely something the
cult wanted exposed. It got "exposed," they weathered the "storm"
which never happened, and they can now say that the secret agreement
is not secret, has not been secret for x years, and that in all that
time nothing has been shown to be improper. If the "secret" agreement
was still "secret" the cult would be facing more problems with it than
they are now. It was nice too to get the direction the Miscavige
regime is going with its Hubbard biography rewrite in CL's repeated
interrogatory and the recent associated Armstrong I trial/prima facie
case/Garrison threads, where holes lie in their rewrite, and the
gargantuan worry I am to them. They really should not be afraid of me.
That's just plain nuts.
To make it appear, as obviously necessary, the op has clearance from
DM to put a dunce cap on him, call him names and ridicule his
education and intellect. That is precisely what Scientology has its
operatives do. The Loyal Officers of 1984 even said they wanted to put
DM the criminal in jail.
The CLameleon's assertion that de facto control of Scientology is
shown by his interpretation of publicly available documents and that
into his knowledge of this "truth" he only permits what is contained
in publicly available documents, is nuts. It's a trip that a few
people here on a.r.s. carry water for this guy. His establishment of
de facto control depends on ignoring completely de facto control. To
carry water for CL, just ignore reality.
To have my actions make sense in the op's illusion, the op identifies
me as an intelligence operative, GO connected, or US Intel connected.
And it is true that intel was much of my life in the Sea Org, and that
I had a connection to the cult's intel apparatus through Dan Sherman
and Dave Kluge and other operatives after I left. Read, e.g.,
http://armstrong.xenu.ca/2000-03-06f.htm
It's also true that my mind has not lost its capacity to think in
intel terms or to recognize intel's hand in events of each day. But at
one point or another I rejected intel in favor of intuition. I didn't
become stupid, I just placed my faith in something different. I used
my intelligence for something different from intel. So I'm the last
person to have any intel intentions or even thoughts. It's not my role
in relationship with Scientology.
I have been a witness in many cases, but my role is rarely to testify
about my experiences and knowledge. I have written many declarations
or affidavits about my experiences and knowledge, but such written
testimony is rarely called for at this time.
I am a full time simple Prophet to Scientologists (PtS)(R). I am not
what the CLameleon says or implies I am.
Who or what I am is very visible on the Internet and in life.
http://armstrong.xenu.ca/index.htm
http://holysmoke.org/ga/ga.htm
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&safe=
off&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=gerry+armstrong&as_oq=&as
_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=
i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
So, CL, tell me something about yourself.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Beverly Rice
> I believe, and have not been argued out of this belief in over four
> years, that CL says what he says about me, and a bit of everything
> else come to think of it, for the purpose of creating the illusion
> that there is some group different from Scientology which hates me.
Oh for Petes sake . . .
it ~always~ has to be about ~you~!!!
I could give a rats ass about the agendas of CL or you.
The fact that is of interest is that the awareness of
CST has been brought to light . . .
and the only real relevance is that the next time
RTC decides to bring a lawsuit against anybody for
copyright or any other infringement that the party
involved be aware of every entity the Hydra known
as the Co$ has so they can have the opportunity to
set ~all~ the heads of the Hydra on the chopping
block, that is the only way to reach the "heart"
of the matter.
Again, the relevance is that it is not about CL,
and it is not about you.
All that shite is Dev-T gaming and positioning.
Get out of the mind set that everything is always
a DM plot about you, and that you are the center
of that universe.
The Co$ needs ~all~ of its corporate bodies that
it has exposed, and how all of these come in to
play, so a complete overview can be seen, this is
to the advantage of all, and CST happens to be
one of those corporate bodies.
The rest of the silliness you all can play out
amongst yourselves.
ARC = As-Ising the CST, Co$, and all Corporate
Bodies involved in the fraud, lies, deception,
abuse, intimidation and criminal actions of
this farce of a religion,
Beverly
Ed
I agree with you that it has been nice to see these corporate
documents.
But ever since CL and the others appeared, I have been struck by the
absolute perfect lack of humanity they all exhibit. They are polished
disciplined warriors in service to some mission. They are way too
polished.
Unless we are talking about mathematics or the like, I want to know
where people are coming from before I buy into their arguments --
especially when the sources are anonymous and too polished to ever let
their guard down. And this goes for each and every single last one of
them, including Tenyaka and Cambridge and a lot of anons.
I have observed that CL and the gang have reserved their strongest
venom for Gerry Armstrong, Stacy Brooks, Robert Vaughn Young, and
Chris Owen. These are people who have been very courageous in exposing
evil. I like these people and want to see them nurtured and supported,
not attacked viciously. I don't like people who make a point of
bullying freedom fighters from an anonymous position.
And what do CL and the gang support? There are only two consistent
themes. One is the CST is everything, and anyone who believes
otherwise is to be attacked harshly. Two is an op to discredit the
reputations of the people with important insider knowledge: Gerry,
Stacy, and RVY. (Chris Owen is added because his work on Ron the War
hero is devastating to the cult.)
Why are they feeding us all this CST stuff, dribbling out another
piece of paper or two every so often? The intensity of their apparent
zeal to persuade us that the CST is everything immediately inspires
skepticism.
I've observed how CL has cozied up to you in the last year, Bev,
probably because you were a close friend of their #1 enemy Gerry. I
hope to God that "ptsc" and Kady will not be lured into his arms. Both
have been acting like shills for CL lately in the recent CST
arguments.
Ed
Beverly Rice
> probably because you were a close friend of their #1 enemy Gerry. I
> hope to God that "ptsc" and Kady will not be lured into his arms. Both
> have been acting like shills for CL lately in the recent CST
> arguments.
>
I don't control how anybody here posts . . .
if they play up a person or not is not in my control,
and I am not going to think or post according to how
others might perceive things from their uninformed
view.
I am was ~NOT~ locked in to the Co$ mindset that has
stuck with so many since they have gotten physically
out of the Co$, but not mentally or emotionally . . .
to me it is not an ~either or~ type of deal.
To me it is lets get the facts out about the Co$ and
screw getting locked in to the personalties of ars
deal.
You should know me a lot better than that.
When you appeard at CW and everyone was in their
typical paranoid "who is ~that~ guy" valence, I
walked right up to you and introduced myself, and
then introduced you around.
I figured you knew me better than that, but that's
okay, I understand.
Again, the most important thing is to bring ~ALL~
the heads of the Hydra in the open, and that way
one knows what they are dealing with.
ARC = As-Ising the Real CST,
Beverly
Phil Scott
wrote:
>I believe, and have not been argued out of this belief in over four
>years, that CL says what he says about me, and a bit of everything
>else come to think of it, for the purpose of creating the illusion
>that there is some group different from Scientology which hates me.
official scientology hates you because you exposed their man, Elrong as a fraud
in many respects.
... additionally....some believe the US govt has seized control of scientology
in order to use its intelligence, brain washing, espionage and money laundering
capabilities.. thats the unofficial or hidden 'scientology' .... **and** that
same group also wants to defuse the good that Hubbard produced, including his
tactics for uncovering hypnotic implants (which might work reasonably well in
some cases... and the RV thing as well).. thats also my view.
Then seen **IN THAT context .... anyone who exposed Hubbub ( and imho that
needed doing), was "part of the govt plot to turn scientology into a world wide
pariah". .. and yes he was exposing hubbub but not as knowing plot by the govt
to do so.
In otherwords I see two parallel activities. One to simply expose hubbard.
(your activity)...and one to deliberately set out to ruin Hubbard by any means
necessary (not your activity, but from others probably US intelligence).
Those who do not differentiate that group you in with the govt agents...and who
knows maybe you are...anyone could be. But I dont see that you are..I see you
as leading the first group and not at all part of the second group.
So on that basis do I think CL is a fraud or an op? No.
I think CL has done a world class job of exposing the US govt connections and
activity in ruining the cult. and just sees anyone who exposed hubbard as a
govt agent...CL's blind spot imho.
all hubbard defockers are NOT govt agents... not all govt agents are hubbard
defrockers, they work with the cult imho on international intelligence,
espionage and money laundering operations.
This mess has driven a lot of good people nutz...along with Hubbards own
paranoia..and I have seen enough to know that the paranoia was not entirely
unjustified.
The US govt makes it a practice to infiltrate and destroy many organization it
considers might be a threat to any of its constituents... published or
unpublished constituents.
So some have you targeted as a govt op because you were there and waved that pic
of Hubbard obviously taken against his will... so they figure only the bad guys
would have the pic... viola..you are a bad guy.... thats the thinking. .. where
did you get the pic? thats thier question. Your answer regardless of what it
is will not be accepted because you are seen as a govt op by this contingent.
My view is that in your case its just an *aparency when viewed from that
lense... your producing the pic of a wasted Hubbard is held as evidence that you
had such govt connections. My guess is that you had another source for the pic,
perhaps captured intelligence, and displayed it simply because you wished to
futher expose hubbard.
On the 'admissions' issue... it tracks with Hubbards known past and life style
and public fiasco's too closely to be a fake imo...and it is in his style and in
accordance with his practices of record at those times.
Having said that, do I think US intelligence agents have taken over the cult...
I do. Starting in about 1965 and ending in about 1982... its been a mop up
operation on the cult ever since...with vastly expanding espionage
activity...nurtured, supported and defended by the US government.. in very
complete and very obvious fashion.... world wide... .with many unconnected dots
in between.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
WELL said.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
and... I think those are all good points too.. and need to be factored into
the equation. but as Bev mentions, getting all the heads of the hydra exposed is
really all thats required to get them all on the same chopping block.
and that will be the bottom line.
Phil Scott
Warrior
ex-Scientologists (Gerry, Stacy and R V Young) I am suspect of his
motives. Then, after seeing the spin he puts on things I have to
question his honesty. The fact that he is in hiding tells me he
has much he is protecting. His attacks on Chris Owen also make
me suspect his motives. All of this together adds up to a black
PR and an intelligence gathering operation.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.offlines.org
In article <3CAFBB91...@aol.com>, Ed says...
Warrior
>
>When you [Ed] appeard at CW and everyone was in their typical paranoid
>myself, and then introduced you around.
Well, not everyone was in a "paranoid valence". In fact I immediately
liked Ed. And you know what? I approached and spoke with him, as well
as public Scientologists (like Marybeth Mitchell), OSA staff (like Humberto
Fontana, Sylvia Stanard, John Carmichael and Cathy Norman), FSO staff
(like Paul Kellerhals), OSA FSMs (like Mary Demoss) and even PIs (like
Steve Bellavigna, Gregg Colton and Lindsay Colton).
ka...@wwwaif.net
>
>I've observed how CL has cozied up to you in the last year, Bev,
>probably because you were a close friend of their #1 enemy Gerry. I
>hope to God that "ptsc" and Kady will not be lured into his arms. Both
>have been acting like shills for CL lately in the recent CST
>arguments.
Watch who you're calling a "shill", Ed. I shill for nobody, and I don't
appreciate having my motives or my loyalties -- or my common sense, critical
thinking skills and ability to think for myself -- questioned, particularly by
those who do so in the same breath that they freely admit that their own
position on the issue is largely influenced by their personal affection for
those who the proponents of a certain argument choose to attack.
I can't speak for ptsc (although I suspect on this particular issue, he would
use much the same words, albeit interspersed with descriptive profanity), but I
am not being "lured into [the] arms" of anyone. I've been researching CST since
1996, for goodness sakes. This is not a new line of interest for me; this is not
some sinister alliance or, as you delicately put it, "shilling" for a particular
interest. I've asked questions, I've suggested theories, and since you obviously
haven't actually read my posts on the subject, I will also point out to you, Ed,
that I have been involved in lively debates on the matter with individuals of
the same persuasion and skill at expressing opinions as CL
News flash: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY VARIOUS ANON ENTITIES WITH AN INTEREST IN
SIMILAR CORPORATE QUESTIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THOSE OF
KA...@WWWAIF.NET.
However, I do find that there are some individuals on this newsgroup, including
Zed, ptsc, the Librarian, CL, Marie and others, whose opinions on the matter of
CST are backed up with documents. Because of the factual basis of many of their
claims, which are at least circumstantially corroborated, in some cases, by
legal documents, court cases and other pieces of "hard evidence," these
individuals have tended to raise questions of an intriguing nature about the
origin, purpose and operating structure of the mysterious CST (which, I will
remind you again, has been an interest of mine since before the Veritas website
even appeareed on the Internet).
For me, personally, the speculations that follow from these lines of
investigation hold more scope for further research and discussion than those
expressed by other individuals who cite God as their main witness, and accuse
all who disagree of being OSA ops engaged in the "cruelty" of not believing
every word he says as if it were gospel. Not that I'm thinking of anyone in
particular.
If you don't find CST interesting, that's *fine*. I'm not saying you should.
Ignore the threads. Discuss other issues. Do what thou wilt. But for heaven's
sake, please don't join the weak but grating chorus of those who believe that
certain matters should be off limits for critical discussion, or that only
"approved" sources of information should be considered when conducting research.
I'm not a newcomer to a.r.s. I've done a bit of research before. I'm capable of
forming my own opinions on the credibility and plausibility of various claims
made here, and elsewhere. Give me - and pts, and CL and everyone else, for that
matter - some credit for being able to think for ourselves.
an increasingly cranky,
K
CL
Hash: SHA1
GERRY:
1. Did you know about CST owning all the copyrights before the
"Scientology Copyright Transfers" database was published in a.b.s.?
2. In a recent post, you said: "$cientology, as directed by the
Miscavige regime..." and that the "$cientology corporations...are
all part of the single criminal enterprise under the criminal
dictator Miscavige." How, exactly, does Miscavige exert dictatorial
control over the people who own all the copyrights, and how can I
document/verify your answer the way the Library of Congress
documents prove conclusively that CST owns all the copyrights?
3. Have you seen the legal documents proving that CST can take over any
and all of the registered trademarks from RTC (Miscavige) at any
time, at their "sole discretion"?
4. Given that CST owns the copyrights, and has ultimate control over
the trademarks, precisely what is the leverage that Miscavige has
over CST that makes them dance to his dictatorship anyway?
5. In message <34c522e1....@news.dowco.com>, dated 20 January
1998, you said: "Because of dealing with Hubbard's lawyers in LA,
and for security reasons, Laurel and I move to the Cedar complex and
set up MCCS [Mission Corporate Category Sort-Out] and the Hubbard
Archive." Your own Appendix to the Breckenridge Memorandum says:
"During the first part of 1980, Defendant Armstrong moved all of the
L. Ron Hubbard Archives materials he had located at Gilman Hot
Springs to an office in the Church of Scientology Cedars Complex in
Los Angeles. ...Defendant Armstrong had located himself in the
Cedars Complex, because he was also involved in 'Mission Corporate
Category Sort-Out,' a mission to work out legal strategy."
A) Approximately in what month in 1980 was this move
to the Cedar complex, as closely as you can place it?
B) What was the purpose and nature of your dealings with
Hubbard's lawyers in LA?
C) Who were Hubbard's lawyers in LA that you were dealing with?
D) Did you deal with Hubbard's lawyers in relation to MCCS?
E) Where, exactly, was the Hubbard Archive set up?
F) Did you deal with Hubbard's lawyers in relation to the
L. Ron Hubbard biography?
G) Was the location of the Hubbard Archive 1301 North Catalina
Street, where Stacy Brooks Young later established the
corporation known as North Star Publishing, Inc.?
6. Please name all the people who had access to the Hubbard Archive
during your tenure--in any capacity--on the biography project.
7. In message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com> you say that you did,
in fact, meet with Ronald DeWolf, a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., a.k.a.
Nibs. In Bent Corydon's book, "Madman or Messiah," you are quoted as
saying that Norman F. Starkey questioned you in Archives when you
"had just gotten back at that time from seeing Nibs [Ron Jr.]." In
that book, you go on to say that "a few days later I was called out
to Gilman Hot Springs to talk with the Master at Arms about a report
from Starkey," and, "it would just be a matter of time till I was
'busted.'" You are describing events leading up to and just
preceeding your leaving, which you have placed as being on or about
12 or 13 December 1981. Given these orienting references:
A) Did you, then, meet with Ronald DeWolf, a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard,
Jr., a.k.a. Nibs, in approximately November of 1981? If not
November of 1981, what month in 1981?
B) In your meeting with DeWolf, did you at any time discuss, or
refer in any way to, the whereabouts or condition of his father,
L. Ron Hubbard? If so, what was said?
C) What information, in any form, did you give to DeWolf?
D) What information, in any form, did DeWolf give to you?
8. Did you continue to be "dealing with Hubbard's lawyers" [see
question #5, above] between April 1981, and when you left--on or
about 12 or 13 December 1981? If not, when did your dealing with
Hubbard's lawyers end, and why?
9. Did you ever meet Sherman Lenske? If so, when and under what
circumstances?
10. In message <2b0kct8ov258lgms8...@4ax.com>, you wrote:
"I was first Deputy Ship's Rep then Ship's Rep for maybe 2 1/2
years, from 1972 into 1974. The Ship's Rep handled many of the
ship's needs in port, including, dealings with...lawyers, and so
forth." According to Russell Miller's "Bare-Faced Messiah," Chapter
19, on or about 3 December 1972: "The Commodore then sat fretting in
his hotel suite for several hours while lawyers in Paris, Lisbon and
New York assessed the risk of his extradition to face fraud charges
in France. [Jim Dincalci]: '...After two or three hours there was a
telephone call from the Port Captain. When he [Hubbard] put the
phone down he said, 'This is really serious. I've got to get out of
here _now_.'" The Ship's Rep post you held was in the Port Captain's
office. You were in Lisbon, as the Apollo was in dry dock.
A) Who were the lawyers in Paris, Lisbon, and New York who were
assessing the risk of Hubbard's extradition to France?
B) Are you the person who placed the call to Hubbard? If not, who
was it?
11. On or about what date did you have your very first contact with
attorney Michael Flynn, and what were the circumstances?
12. In message <37iktt4g2ug0uq5sj...@4ax.com>, you say:
"The 'Armstrong documents' were under seal in LA Superior Court in
September, 1982." And, indeed, according to a U.P.I. story on file,
Judge John Cole, on 24 September 1982, had ordered the "21 boxes of
personal letters and journals of the sect's reclusive founder L. Ron
Hubbard" into the custody of the County Clerk. In another story, the
Associated Press (14 February 1983) said it was an estimated 30,000
documents.
A) Is the 30,000 documents estimate workably accurate?
B) Did the 21 boxes include somewhere in them what came to be known
as "The Zolin Tape(s)," an excerpted transcript of which has been
published in this forum and elsewhere?
C) How did you come into possession of the so-called "Zolin
Tape(s)"?
D) Who transcribed the "Zolin Tape(s)" and when?
E) If you had provided to Omar Garrison only materials he needed
for an LRH biography, and you only took documents from the
materials you had already supplied to Garrison, why was the
"Zolin Tape(s)" among the materials submitted to the court?
13. In message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com>, you said: "Your
assertion that I...have never mentioned that the Lenskes
participated in the set-up [of CST] and were 'Special Directors' is
a lie."
A) When, where, and to whom have you mentioned that the Lenskes
participated in the set-up [of CST] and were "Special Directors"?
B) When did you first know that the Lenskes were Special Directors
of CST?
C) How did you find out that the Lenskes were Special Directors of
CST?
D) When did you first know of the participation of the Lenskes in
the set-up of CST, and under what circumstances did you learn of
their participation?
E) Why did you never make mention of the Lenskes' participation in
the set-up of CST, and the fact of their being Special Directors
of CST, in any of your publically-available affidavits or
declarations, or in the very appropriate forum of a.r.s.?
14. According to your own Appendix to the Breckenridge "Memorandum of
Intended Decision": "Defendant Armstrong made two copies of almost
all documents copied for Mr. Garrison - one for Mr. Garrison and the
other to remain in Hubbard Archives for reference or recopying." And
in "Madman or Messiah," you are quoted as saying: "I was desperately
trying to get Garrison everything that I could. ...The pressure of
the situation was getting to me. ...So I worked as long as I could
and copied virtually everything I could for Garrison. I knew I had
to do that, because I knew that I would soon be sec checked on what
I'd been giving Garrison, and so I had to get it to him before that.
...Joycelyn was still working for me at that time and we were
copying madly to get all we could to Garrison. Every day I was going
to Costa Mesa in Orange County, where Omar Garrison lived, and I
would take down a box of materials that I had copied. Then I'd take
down a box of shirts or books or whatever, until we got down to the
point where we had, box by box, totally moved the whole place out."
Finally, in message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com>, you said
that you had "not actually" taken "a very impressive collection of
documents with you," but, instead had: "supplied the biographer
Omar Garrison with this 'impressive collection of documents,'
pursuant to contract arranged by Hubbard's personal attorney, over
the course of the prior year or more." In consideration of the
foregoing:
A) Were the 21 boxes of documents submitted to the court originals,
or were they only copies/reproductions of whatever you had
"supplied the biographer Omar Garrison with"?
B) Who was the "Hubbard's personal attorney" who arranged the
contract under which you supplied Garrison with copies of the
documents?
C) Did the contract allow you to deliver originals to Garrison, or
only copies/reproductions?
D) When and how did you get the 21 boxes of documents from Garrison?
E) Did you only make copies/reproductions of what Garrison had, or
did you take what he had, leaving him with no biography
materials?
F) If you or he made copies of some 30,000 documents so that you
could have the set was submitted to the court, who paid for that
copying, and how much was it?
G) Did your receiving of the documents or copies/reproductions of
documents from Garrison violate the contract?
H) Will you post a copy of the contract to a.r.s. or a.b.s.?
I) If there were original documents in the documents that were
submitted to the court, where, when, and how did you come into
possession of those originals, and by what authority?
15. Did Sherman Lenske ever have a key to the Hubbard Archives while you
were working in any capacity on the biography project?
16. Referring to the case filed by Ronald DeWolf, a.k.a. L. Ron
Hubbard, Jr., a.k.a. Nibs, in which he claimed that his father was
either dead or incapacitated, you say: "It was the forged
[$2,000,000] check on Hubbard's [New England Merchants Bank] account
which precipitated the missing person case, nothing I did."
(Reference: your message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com>)
According to an Associated Press article of 13 November 1982, "Son
Believes L. Ron Hubbard Dead Or Mentally Incompetent," the New
England Merchants Bank froze Hubbard's account after determining
that a $2 million check written against it in June of 1982 had a
forged signature. Yet as early as 5 May 1982 (at least a month prior
to the check forgery), in a Clearwater Sun article titled "Hubbard's
Son Will Testify Today," Clearwater Sun staff writer Bill Prescott
said: "In a recent magazine article, DeWolfe said he suspects his
father is dead." And indeed, two days later, on Thursday, 6 May
1982--in hearings being conducted by your attorney, Michael Flynn,
before the Clearwater city commissioners--DeWolf testified, and,
during his 6 May 1982 testimony stated publically that he believed
that his father was dead, insinuating that Hubbard's letters were
being forged. [Cite: Clearwater Sun 7 May 1982, "Sect Founder's Son
Thinks Dad is Dead," by Sun staff writer Steven Girardi.] Questions:
A) On what date did you retain Michael Flynn as your attorney?
B) On what date did you deliver the documents [see questions #12
and 14 above] into the custody of Michael Flynn for
safekeeping?
C) Did you ever discuss with DeWolf your own opinion that his
father might be dead (a sentiment which you expressed to
several journalist, as reported in several news articles),
and if so, when was the first time you discussed it with him,
and what did you say?
17. In message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com>, you say, "C$T was
hatched in MCC$." [sic: "CST was hatched in MCCS."] "MCCS" stands
for "Mission Corporate Category Sort-out," of which you were Mission
2nd. According to your own Appendix to the Breckenridge Memorandum,
your involvement in MCCS ended in June of 1980. [NOTE: The Appendix
gives the date as "June 1990," which is clearly impossible. If
"1990" isn't a typo for 1980, please state correctly when your
involvement in MCCS did end.] Yet CST was not incorporated until 28
May 1982--nearly two full years after your involvement in MCCS
purportedly ended. Finally, according to Judge Bruggink in CST vs.
US, No. 581-88T, United States Claim Court: "CST...claim[ed] the
MCCS discussions were abandoned in June of 1981, and that no action
was taken with regard to anything the committee discussed."
Therefore:
A) When, how, and by whom was CST "hatched in MCCS?"
B) How do you know that CST was "hatched in MCCS"?
C) Was CST co-founder Meade Emory involved in any way in MCCS?
D) Did you ever meet or speak to Meade Emory? If so, when, where,
and under what circumstances?
E) Was CST co-founder and incorporator Sherman Lenske involved
in any way in MCCS?
F) Did you ever meet, meet with, or speak to Sherman Lenske in
relation to MCCS, CST, or the biography project? If so, when,
where, and under what circumstances?
G) Was CST co-founder Leon Misterek involved in any way in MCCS?
H) Did you ever meet, meet with, or speak to Leon Misterek in
relation to MCCS or CST? If so, when, where, and under what
circumstances?
18. When and where in 1979 did you last see L. Ron Hubbard?
19. On 17 December 1986 the Los Angeles Times reported on your
settlement. In their report, they said that the Hubbard papers you
were returning as part of your settlement had been valued by a
collector at $5 million, and included manuscripts. AP and UPI had
also reported that the documents at suit and in the custody of the
court contained "unpublished manuscripts." And PR Newswire had a
similar report valuing the collection at $5 million, further
stating that one of the unpublished manuscripts alone had been
valued at $1 million. Yet in your accounts of how you came into
possession of the documents (only via Omar Garrison; see data in
question #14 above), you refer only to having made copies to give to
Garrison. How could copies/reproductions be valued at $5 million,
and why would you be returning mere copies as part of a settlement?
20. If your answer to questions in #14 and #19 above involved
Garrison--and then, as a result, you-- being in possession of
originals instead of copies:
A) What justified having the highly-appraised originals being moved
out of the archives and into Garrison's private possession all
the way down in Costa Mesa, when all Garrison needed was the
information, and photocopies would have been perfectly adequate
for his research, since he would have had a direct chain of
custody to you, ensuring for him that the copies were valid?
B) Had L. Ron Hubbard approved of the originals of his diaries,
unpublished manuscripts, etc., being shuttled down to Omar
Garrison--who was a non-Scientologist?
C) If Hubbard didn't, who did? Who had that authority?
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPLBErNAKsx0v8qcvEQLbUgCeP+1XxjbXoCbdVoUV+TyftbK9yA0AnRJm
d4RITMksSO3aPB9eDlCT5AVj
=q6T6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>
>> I believe, and have not been argued out of this belief in over four
>> years, that CL says what he says about me, and a bit of everything
>> else come to think of it, for the purpose of creating the illusion
>> that there is some group different from Scientology which hates me.
>
>
>Oh for Petes sake . . .
>
>it ~always~ has to be about ~you~!!!
What a silly little lie. You're the only person saying or implying
that it always has to be about me. It is rather large don't you think?
And it is rather undefined, don't you think?
>
>I could give a rats ass about the agendas of CL or you.
But you do. Check google on the rats ass you've given about the CL
agenda.
Yes, you're not part of the equation. Your not caring does not,
however, mean the CL op doesn't care. The op cares enough to carry out
its vicious attacks.
>
>The fact that is of interest is that the awareness of
>CST has been brought to light . . .
It was brought to light in 1982. It is of interest why people are led
to believe it is being brought to light now.
Is CST really a revelation for you?
>
>and the only real relevance is that the next time
>RTC decides to bring a lawsuit against anybody for
>copyright or any other infringement that the party
>involved be aware of every entity the Hydra known
>as the Co$ has so they can have the opportunity to
>set ~all~ the heads of the Hydra on the chopping
>block, that is the only way to reach the "heart"
>of the matter.
Is it? I don't accept that. Do you really have that great confidence
in your legal opinions?
>
>Again, the relevance is that it is not about CL,
>and it is not about you.
What isn't about me? What CL writes about me is about me. Surely you
would agree with that.
What the op writes about me is about me. Surely you would agree with
that.
What the Miscavige regime writes about me is about me. Surely you
would agree with that.
And even what you write about me is about me. Even the things you
write about me when you don't mention my name, but just snipe at me,
those things too are about me. Surely you would agree with that.
The fact that what you and CL and the crime cult and Kady, et al write
about me, is indeed about me, cannot be helped. Maybe you think
somehow it isn't about me, or shouldn't be about me if it is, but
you've got a different it in mind. Your it is an undefined illusory
generality which serves your sniping purposes.
I am talking about what's about me. You are saying that what's not
about me is not about me. I am not arguing with that, although I'm
sure you would admit it's irrelevant. But I am arguing with your silly
logic that what is about me, including what you say about me, is not
about me. I do not accept your silly logic, and suggest that it would
be good to reconsider the illogical assertion you're making here.
>
>All that shite is Dev-T gaming and positioning.
You'll have to be more specific. If you mean that your illusions and
misinterpretations of reality are shite and Dev-T gaming and
positioning, that may be true. But if you are using these
misinterpretations to refer to someone else's actions, you should
provide some specifics.
>
>Get out of the mind set that everything is always
>a DM plot about you, and that you are the center
>of that universe.
Oh, now I'm beginning to see. But why don't you speak the truth
instead of inventing mind sets and plots and universes and centers
which do not exist?
Why are you lying about me? Do you lie about me just so you can lie
about me? That's not very nice.
>
>The Co$ needs ~all~ of its corporate bodies that
>it has exposed, and how all of these come in to
>play, so a complete overview can be seen, this is
>to the advantage of all, and CST happens to be
>one of those corporate bodies.
Oh, is this a revelation?
And are you stating or implying as the CL op does, that I am
preventing this "exposure?"
>
>The rest of the silliness you all can play out
>amongst yourselves.
And what exactly is that? What have you misinterpreted as a silliness.
And why?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
No, that's a silliness, an interpretation which makes no sense. It
isn't really all that's required. It's an illusion, and an illusion is
not and cannot be all that's required.
Why not think through all that you really believe is really required
to prevail against Scientology and post it. That would be useful.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 21:58:29 -0500, Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
Oh. I don't know what was said, and you say it's well said, so I'll
have to depend on you to explain it.
I think Beverly is talking about an illusion, not reality. And what a
silly direction for a.r.s. participants. Do you really want this
CST/Miscavige/CL/Lenske op taken off of a.r.s.? Nuts.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>Ed wrote:
Good.
>
>if they play up a person or not is not in my control,
>and I am not going to think or post according to how
>others might perceive things from their uninformed
>view.
How about their "informed virew," would that cause you to think?
>
>I am was ~NOT~ locked in to the Co$ mindset that has
>stuck with so many since they have gotten physically
>out of the Co$, but not mentally or emotionally . . .
Oh don't be silly. What do you care about other people's "mindsets?"
Especially nonexisting "mindsets?" You've invented these "mindsets"
and these "locked ins" and this being in the cult "mentally or
emotionally," just as a basis to attack people who actually do not
have these things you're invented. Why are you doing this?
>
>to me it is not an ~either or~ type of deal.
Good. Then don't attach your either/or equations to other things that
also are not equations.
>
>To me it is lets get the facts out about the Co$ and
>screw getting locked in to the personalties of ars
>deal.
Yes, why are you doing that? Who or what is locked into personalities?
Isn't that an invention?
>
>You should know me a lot better than that.
Why is that?
>
>When you appeard at CW and everyone was in their
>typical paranoid "who is ~that~ guy" valence, I
>walked right up to you and introduced myself, and
>then introduced you around.
Everyone? That is a hell of a lot of wogs (R) to lock into that
particular personality trait. Paranoid? Are you certain that everyone
was in their typical paranoid valence? That's a lot of people to stick
in that eval box. Are you certain your evaluations and diagnosis are
correct?
>
>I figured you knew me better than that, but that's
>okay, I understand.
>
>Again, the most important thing is to bring ~ALL~
>the heads of the Hydra in the open, and that way
>one knows what they are dealing with.
Well certainly this is important. But you're implying it hasn't been
done. So you must know some hydra heads which have not been brought in
the open. Who are these folks?
Oh, and don't go shooting at the heads of the people trying to do what
you think is this most important thing to do.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
ka...@wwwaif.net
>I believe, and have not been argued out of this belief in over four
>years, that CL says what he says about me, and a bit of everything
>else come to think of it, for the purpose of creating the illusion
>that there is some group different from Scientology which hates me.
Okay, "illusion" is obviously the Word of the Day for you today, I gather from
reading your posts. So "illusion" it is. I don't disagree with everything you
have written here, or elsewhere, on this issue - particularly when it relates to
your own personal experiences, of course. But you begin this explanation on a
false premise, which is that there cannot be a group other than Scientology that
hates you. My question would be - why not? It is not so black and white and
simplistic as you try to suggest. One who disagrees with, or even dislikes Gerry
Armstrong is not, QED, a representative of Scientology, regardless of how many
times you put forward that argument. It would save considerable time if you
would acknowledge that, so we can move on to deal with the actual issues in
dispute, or under discussion, without constantly falling back on that particular
straw man (to mix a metaphor).
>He uses a completely insane, and even if not insane, irrelevant,
>platform (the truth or conclusion "proven" by his "exposed" documents)
>to create an "environment" or "atmosphere" or "reality" in which I can
>be disposed of quietly and without sorrow. Or sure, noisily if that
>helps, to, for example, pin it on the people who aren't there.
I don't really see what a line of inquiry regarding the Lenskes, Larry Heller,
CST, ASI and Norm Starkey have to do with fair game.
>The cult is impeded, DM is sure, in its latest big thrust to rewrite
>Hubbard, by Gerry Armstrong. Notice CL's literary interest in the
>Hubbard biography, and the Armstrong I (LASC C 420153) trial and case,
>almost to the exclusion of any one of the thousands of other
>interesting points in the Hubbard/Scientology/Sea
>Org/Miscavige/Starkey/Lenskes/CST/Emory/corp upon corp/
>name upon name/point upon point, history.
Well, that's because he - or she - apparently believes that you were at the
heart of a conspiracy to somehow defraud or debase Hubbard, and steal his
intellectual property, allowing the church to be taken over by gormless puppets
like Miscavige while quietly installing non-Scientologist lawyers as the
ultimate overseers of the tech.
Note for those who have trouble reading: I am not stating that I agree with this
theory. For the record, for the most part, I do not, although I do believe there
was a putsch, of sorts, between rival gangs of Sea Orgers in the years
immediately preceding Hubbard's death, which eventually saw DM emerge
victorious. However, for the purposes of understanding CL's interest in your
story, in particular, it is necessary to deduce exactly why it would be so
relevant to his area of interest, which is, of course, CST et al.
>I believe that the "documents" on which he bases his "platform" are
>Scientology's documents that the Miscavige intel apparatus wants
>"exposed." They would never have filed CST v. US if that was not the
>case. See recently posted to a.r.s. 1989 final adverse ruling. I filed
>this in 1990 in the Armstrong I appeal. I cited to the Bruggink
>decision dozens of times in Armstrong II, III and IV between 1992 and
>1996. There was no exposure on a.r.s. of CST or the Lenskes or the
>special directors or anything of relevance whatsoever which would
>justify this op's vicious, insane attacks. There have been no
>"revelations" from CL or anyone else that justify or in any way
>support the lies CL and this idiot op tell about me.
Okay, here is where you start to go off the rails, as far as explaining your
evidence for the Mitchell case being "an op". CST brought its initial claim
against the IRS in yet another (failed) attempt to win tax exemption for the
orgnaization. Remember, this was *before* the end of the war in 1993. To do so,
CST had to submit copious documents in order to attempt to convince the court
that it merited tax exempt status. This would include documents such as the
articles of incorporation, the by-laws, and other corporate information, as well
as details of the command structure, the key personnel, the purpose and other
pertinent information. As you have read in the decision, the court was not moved
by the church's position that that the IRS had treated it unfairly. The full
text of the original letter denying exemption to CST is available online, and
makes for excellent reading in that it lies out precisely the areas where the
Service, at that point, believed that inurement and other activities ill
befitting a non-profit tax exempt religious organization were likely to occur.
I'm not sure what your logic is in this paragraph; it seems to be that since Scn
lost the CST case, that they obviously never would have filed it unless it was
part of a complex conspiracy. I think that's rather jumping to conclusions: it's
very possible that the original complaint was filed because they believed that
they could prevail in court where they were unable to do so when negotiating
with the IRS. That they were wrong, and lost the case, does not a juicy
conspiracy theory make.
As for your last two sentences, I have no idea what you mean by your claim that
there was "no exposure" of CST, Lenskes and special directors (or "anything of
relevance") that would justify "vicious and inane attacks". With all due
respect, Gerry, I believe that for many ars readers, the details about the
background and history of CST, not to mention the curious involvement of the
heretofore unnoticed Lenskes, the famous Meade Emory, Lawrence Heller and of
course, Norton Karno, were *not* common knowledge on ars before the "exposure"
by the good folks on Planet Veritas. I'm not saying that this somehow justifies
the subsequent attacks on you, and others, but I don't believe that the latter
nullifies the former either, nor does it render the entire topic one that should
not be discussed.
>The fact is that for no other reason than the Great Good Humor of God
>Himself I smoked this op out as soon as it appeared on a.r.s. I've
>told this story before, although neither the op nor its water carriers
>have responded.
See, here is the basic problem I have with your theory: I just don't agree that
these individuals and entities are an OSA op. It makes no sense. It's a
ludicrous supposition. The revelations about CST et al have done nothing to
"help" Scientology, nor have they - to this point- seriously damaged the
reputations of any ex-Scientologists who counter the Veritas version of events,
simply because for most of us, it is an issue of debate. It is perfectly
permissible to hold different interpretations or theories, and disagree strongly
with another, without one of the two parties involved being an OSA operation. If
you can successfully out-argue these accusers, and convince the readership of
ars that your version of events is the correct one, and that proposed by others
is simply wrong, more power to you. But resorting instead to labelling your
opponents OSA ops is not the way to build a powerful case against the charges
that have been made.
>One of the op's first actions was to provide a phone number to call,
>in Nevada, to their "public research" deal. Shortly thereafter, being
>in Nevada, I called the number, and left my name, and I'm sure my
>number. Since these folks claimed to be doing all this "research"
>about Scientology and CST and the Lenskes and Miscavige and maybe even
>Hubbard, I forget, and since I certainly knew something about the
>whole enterprise, I figured we'd have things to chat about, and they'd
>appreciate my making contact. But instead, back came this ugly, sick
>prose the op will forever be famous for. It is altogether reasonable
>to acknowledge that the cult would dedicate decent literary and intel
>talent to this op. And I stumbled on it through no other way than
>God's amazing Grace.
Yeah, yeah. Gerry? God IMed me this morning, and says he's sick of being dragged
into ridiculous threads on a.r.s. He'd appreciate it if you'd leave him be and
fight your own battles, without dragging him out like some sort of paper tiger.
I promised I'd pass the message along.
Anyway, moving along, in hindsight, it should have come as no surprise to you
that the PRF researchers in Vegas would not be eager to talk to you, since -
you'll acknowledge this now, I think - they are positively convinced that you
are lying at the heart of the conspiracy that they seek to unfold. Obviously,
they'd be a little hostile to a phone call offering to "clear things up" -
particularly if you challenged the proposition that the Lenskes play a
significant role in CST (before CL tears me a new orifice, I will note that
technically, they do indeed play a most important role; the debate is over
whether the power they have is actually exercised).
>These "researchers" were not interested in research and never have
>been interested in it. They already had the target of attacking the
>witnesses by "exposure" of what Scientology wants exposed, and one of
>the central targets gives them a call. It threw them off and they
>leaped at God's goofy bait, and responded with what as I say will be
>the literary fair game the Miscavige regime will be famous for.
Note to Gerry: God is considering a restraining order to prevent you from
unauthorized use of his name. He'll be in touch with your attorney.
Okay, first of all - I would agree that the researchers *do* have a pet theory
that they are attempting to bolster by collecting hard evidence. Guess what? So
do a lot of critics. Hell, so do I (although not the one you think). We all
develop theories when researching Scientology; we attempt to prove those
theories by collecting documents and facts that would tend to back them up.
That's not something on which OSA has a monopoly; the difference, of course, is
the degree to which one is willing to ignore contrary evidence.
To this point, the only piece of hard - well, official -- evidence that those
who present a certain theory of events surrounding the corporate sort-out and
the formation of CST have publicly denounced as fakery is the Stipulation of
Evidence that came out of the Snow White debacle.
For the record, and just to clarify my position for those with soft and
impressionable brains who may believe to the contrary without it, I believe the
Stipulation of Evidence is genuine, and not a pack of lies. I've read the
evidence exhibits, which used to be available by PDF on lisatrust.net, and are
probably lurking somewhere else on the Internet now, and it's pretty clear to me
that MSH and the GO were engaged in a big, goofy spy vs. spy infiltration
attempt in an effort to collect information on any pending gov't investigations
of Hubbard and his finances, particularly by the IRS, and collect and 'edit' any
and all negative information about Scientology that had been collected in
official files. When they were caught (which, by the way, was remarkable only in
that it took so long given the Keystone Kops-like espionage strategy employed by
those wacky GO kids), there was general panic. Michael Meisner was alternately
petted and told lies about how his legal defence was being taken care of, and
treated like a dangerous hostage who had to be kept under GO control, complete
with his own "friendly" guards and round-the-clock monitoring. At the same
time, Jane Kember, MSH and other GO mucketymucks were furiously attempting to
deflect the charges and stave off disaster.
At the same time, in another part of the forest known as ASI, an upstart former
CMO boy named David Miscavige had been quietly culling power through his avenue
of choice, the Sea Org, a conveniently unincorporated, unofficial organization
that allowed a sort of Darwinist office politics that saw the strong, or at
least the sneakiest, thrive and prosper, climbing ever higher in power. The
only serious rival to the Sea Org for total control over the organization itself
was, of course, the Guardian's Office, which was run by MSH, under the direct -
if vague - authority of LRH himself. When DM realized that the GO's power was
being strained by its efforts to defend itself against government charges, he
realized that the time was ripe to launch his attack from within the Scientology
organization itself. He did so, and was successful, managing to expunge the most
powerful potential rival that he faced, MSH herself, as well as those loyal to
the Old Guard (who were not, as you seem to allege, merely part of a Miscavigean
"illusion", but represented a genuine threat to his continuing rise to a
position of absolute and total control. In Scn speak, he Simon Bolivared their
asses. Unable to fight two battles at once, the GO kids lost on both fronts; a
handful went off to jail, including MSH, and DM settled into his comfy new
throne. And the rest, as they say, is history.
That's my theory, in a nutshell. When I read documents, and accounts, I will
always have that at the back of my mind when evaluating new material. If
something that seriously contradicts it arises, I will reconsider my position,
if necessary, because to do otherwise would be sloppy research. As you may
note, my theory is quite different than that proposed by others, but that does
not mean that I dismiss their research, findings or conclusions. It simply means
that I evaluate them based on the subjective bias that any human brings to any
debate. I believe that the creation of CST was not a direct result, or impetus,
to the end of the old GO and the beginning of the DM regime; I think it was a
mostly unrelated sub-plot involving an audacious long-term plan to protect the
assets of Scientology, most particularly the copyrights and trademarks, from
successful litigation by "enemies" like Larry Wollersheim, Julie Titchbourne and
the Flynn class action gang.
However, that said, I am fascinated by what exactly led to the creation of the
CST corporation, who was involved, and whether there is some more sinister
reason that it was set up in such a curiously backroom fashion. For this
reason, some accuse me of being part of a garbled OSA "op" against you, Gerry
Arsmtrong, despite the fact that (sorry, Gerry) your theories are of little
direct interest to me at the moment, and never played more than a peripheral
role in my research and investigations to date. Until you thrust yourself into
the debate by attacking those with the temerity of questioning your version of
events, I had no interest at all in dispelling your credibility.
>The response was a reminder of the response of Gene Ingram when I
>called his office and stumbled onto one secretary or another who told
>me things about Norman Starkey's frequent visitor status at the office
>she was apparently not supposed to tell me. Gene calls me back and
>threatens to put a bullet between my eyes. What a Godsend. I get the
>reality that Ingram will indeed murder for his Scientology account,
>and that his Scientology account would approve such action. Knowing
>Norman was then Ingram's best bud had no importance because I already
>knew it, but knowing that the Miscavige regime will indeed murder is
>hugely valuable.
While fascinating, I'm not sure what Gene Ingram's phone calls, death threats,
or very existence as a shady Scn PI has to do with the subject of your post,
other than that it "reminded" you of past experienced. Here's a tip: just
because two people attack you doesn't necessarily mean they are in cahoots. If
PRF called up Ingram and sent him to bully you, *that* would be a connection.
The fact that one simply reminded you of the other is not.
>The CL op had to generate the idea that what it was "exposing" had
>course-changing value in the "fight," the fight which many people see
>unclearly but which can for the purpose of this post be referred to as
>the War on Wogs (WoW!)(R), and was not just a few facts not unlike a
>billion other facts in Scientology's history, what it now is and how
>it acts in this war. To generate the idea that what it was "exposing"
>was in fact being "exposed," the op had to generate the illusion that
>because this information had been a "total surprise" to the op
>personnel, and to some people on alt.religion.scientology obviously,
>the op really was exposing something.
Again, maybe you weren't around in the pre-Veritas days, but I was, and I can
attest to the fact that very little was known about CST, nor was there much
interest or awareness of it as a significant facet of the Scn corporate empire.
Jeff Jacobsen posted some interesting material on the building of the vaults,
which was goofy enough to attract our collective attention (or at least mine),
but it wasn't until I read the Council document, available on my website at
http://www.wwwaif.net/loose-ends/CASH , that I personally became fascinated by
what makes CST tick. It *was* an exposure, of sorts, to learn of the existence
of the Special Directors, as well as the stranglehold that Norman Starkey, as
executor of the estate, holds over the copyrights, ASI and CST, at least for the
majority of the critics on a.r.s. at the time.
Maybe you knew all along, and it wasn't an exposure for *you*, but given your
response to the revelations, I doubt that is the case. However, rather than
accepting it as yet another piece of the puzzle, you seek to attack all those
who seek further information about the CST situation.
>This necessitated, if you can think about it, generating the insane
>illusion that people who in fact knew something about the
>Miscavige/Lenske/Heller/CST/RTC operation, were covering it all up.
>Right along with this, the op is still attempting to generate the even
>more insane illusion that these people, who, incidentally, if anyone
>cares to look, are the wogs (R) willing to testify as to their
>knowledge of Scientology, were in bed with the Lenskes.
The "insane illusion" that you present is, indeed, one theory. There is also
another theory, which is that "these people", including yourself, Stacy Brooks
and others, simply did not know about the backroom shenanigans involving
Lenskes, Karno, Heller and the estate of a dying despot. (The latter has the
added benefit of not being forced to assume that everyone who contradicts the
assertion that CST is important is Part of the Conspiracy, but may simply have
been unaware.)
>What do the Lenskes care? They get paid good money to be part of the
>op. Or the Miscavige intel op deliberately keeps this from the Lenskes
>(doubtful) to keep the Lenskes clear to testify as to their
>non-involvement.
What op are you talking about now? The CST op? The CL (et al) op that, contrary
to your arguments, carries with it absolutely no evidence to prove its existence
other than the fact that it is hostile towards you? I'm sure the Lenskes are
well-paid; what they do, or have done, to earn that pay is a subject for a
different post, and a much more entertaining one. But for you to continually
assert the presence of an Op despite the reams of evidence to the contrary
throws your ability to critically evaluate arguments into question. I don't
think that's what you want.
>That is not to say that we should not be grateful for all the
>documents the op and the Miscavige regime have "exposed" on a.r.s.
>They put a lot of work into getting these documents into an easily
>usable form for us. Exposing the IRS closing agreement was a nice
>touch, but that, of course, could not really be done directly through
>the Veritas/Research/CLOp deal. But it was definitely something the
>cult wanted exposed. It got "exposed," they weathered the "storm"
>which never happened, and they can now say that the secret agreement
>is not secret, has not been secret for x years, and that in all that
>time nothing has been shown to be improper.
Okay, now you're approaching downright delusion. What evidence do you have that
the IRS closing agreement was "exposed" by anyone even remotely connected to
a.r.s. criticdom, much less the Veritas contingent? I think you ascribe to them
far more power and influence than they actually possess (sorry, guys). The most
likely scenario to me always seemed to be a frustrated whistleblower within the
IRS who still harboured a grudge over the reversal of 1993, and wanted to get
the information out into the public domain; however, as far as I know, the brave
individual who did so has never been uncovered.
There was indeed a storm when the IRS agreement was leaked, which sparked
significant media coverage of the deal itself, not to mention provided corporate
researchers with numerous new leads to track down and loose ends to tug. Some
excellent essays and analysis were written on the closing agreement, and the
legacy of the now-public "secret" deal even popped up just last fall in the
notorious Sklar case, which once again got those in the 'real world' non-critic
community discussing the anomalies that riddle the relationship between the IRS
and the Church of Scientology.
As for nothing being shown to be improper, perhaps you might be so good as to
read some of these excellent essays, as well as analysis of the 'letter not
spirit' compliance by Scn of some of the requirements in the agreement,
particularly the winding down of WISE (RIP WISE, welcome to the world WISE Int).
You will see that far from being a "win" for the church, the IRS closing
agreement acted as a seed which has been nothing but fruitful for critical
researchers.
If the "secret" agreement
>was still "secret" the cult would be facing more problems with it than
>they are now.
Well, no, because it would still be secret, so nobody would be able to argue
that it was unfair, unconstitutional, or not being fulfilled by the Church of
Scientology.
It was nice too to get the direction the Miscavige
>regime is going with its Hubbard biography rewrite in CL's repeated
>interrogatory and the recent associated Armstrong I trial/prima facie
>case/Garrison threads, where holes lie in their rewrite, and the
>gargantuan worry I am to them. They really should not be afraid of me.
>That's just plain nuts.
I don't think they're afraid of you, they just don't like you very much and they
don't agree with what you have said and done. There is a difference.
>To make it appear, as obviously necessary, the op has clearance from
>DM to put a dunce cap on him, call him names and ridicule his
>education and intellect. That is precisely what Scientology has its
>operatives do. The Loyal Officers of 1984 even said they wanted to put
>DM the criminal in jail.
I'm sure they did say that, and I'm sure that many of the loyalists wanted to do
just that. Cripes, Gerry, read the Missionholders Conference. Talk to some of
the hundreds of former Scientologists who left in droves after DM took over.
There was an absolute flood of angry departures, some voluntary, some as a
result of the Goldenrod that was spitting out of the WDC/SO printers at a
dizzying rate. When you suggest that somehow this, too, was part of a complex DM
plot, it really throws into question your understanding of even the most basic
aspects of Scientology history, which is particularly bizarre since you were
actually *there* at the time. That might be why the CL et al contingent find
that you lack credibility; after reading this far into your post, I'm
hardpressed to understand how someone with such a close view of the shenanigans
that were ongoing could possibly come to a conclusion that is so diametrically
opposed to the statements and records of many of those involved.
>The CLameleon's assertion that de facto control of Scientology is
>shown by his interpretation of publicly available documents and that
>into his knowledge of this "truth" he only permits what is contained
>in publicly available documents, is nuts. It's a trip that a few
>people here on a.r.s. carry water for this guy. His establishment of
>de facto control depends on ignoring completely de facto control. To
>carry water for CL, just ignore reality.
You obviously have me, and others, mistaken for RPFers; as far as I can see, we
carry water for nobody. I have attempted to somewhat painstakingly document in
this post my own position on the myriad of issues that you have introduced, and
it should be clear even to you at this point that it diverges sharply from that
proposed by others. Yet I 'd bet a shiny silver quarter that you will *still*
accuse me of "carrying water" for having the indecency to discuss said issues
with those with whom I disagree, simply because in Gerryland, there are no
greys, there are no multiple choice questions, and there is no room for nuance
or interpretation. There is Gerry's View. All others are a result of insanity or
OSA operatives. To couch such ridiculousness as "reality" gives reality a bad
name. It ought to sue.
>To have my actions make sense in the op's illusion, the op identifies
>me as an intelligence operative, GO connected, or US Intel connected.
>And it is true that intel was much of my life in the Sea Org, and that
>I had a connection to the cult's intel apparatus through Dan Sherman
>and Dave Kluge and other operatives after I left. Read, e.g.,
>http://armstrong.xenu.ca/2000-03-06f.htm
>
>It's also true that my mind has not lost its capacity to think in
>intel terms or to recognize intel's hand in events of each day. But at
>one point or another I rejected intel in favor of intuition. I didn't
>become stupid, I just placed my faith in something different. I used
>my intelligence for something different from intel. So I'm the last
>person to have any intel intentions or even thoughts. It's not my role
>in relationship with Scientology.
I'm at a loss to understand why "intel", or intelligence, in its pure and
un-Hubbard-diluted form, is considered inferior to something as ephemeral as
"intuition". However, personally, I use both. One for hunches, the other for
backing 'em up. Seems to work alright, and I managed to do it without signing a
billion year contract with a creepy cult.
>I have been a witness in many cases, but my role is rarely to testify
>about my experiences and knowledge. I have written many declarations
>or affidavits about my experiences and knowledge, but such written
>testimony is rarely called for at this time.
>
>I am a full time simple Prophet to Scientologists (PtS)(R). I am not
>what the CLameleon says or implies I am.
Whatever. You can call yourself the Patron Saint of Cheesecake for all I care;
it's really irrelevant to the issues that you bring up in this post.
Anyway, I finally broke down and snipped the last part of your post, but I hope
that you will read through what I've written, and quit mindlessly attacking
those of us who choose to examine information, claims and evidence from
non-Gerry Armstrong approved sources. If not, well, at least it's on the record,
and next time you accuse me of "carrying water" for CL, or being part of some
sort of OSA op, I'll know it isn't because I haven't properly explained myself.
K
Generic Poster
>In article <3CAFBB91...@aol.com>, Ed <met...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I've observed how CL has cozied up to you in the last year, Bev,
>>probably because you were a close friend of their #1 enemy Gerry. I
>>hope to God that "ptsc" and Kady will not be lured into his arms. Both
>>have been acting like shills for CL lately in the recent CST
>>arguments.
I don't think Ed expressed himself well but he can correct himself if he
wants.
You and ptsc have done a superb job of working with CL in areas of mutual
interest and all the while keeping your distance where there's miles of it.
Some think this "arrangement" gives credence to CL's conspiracy theory but
it doesn't.
Some, including me, think CL is wasting your time. It's your time and I
respect how you decide to spend it.
If something more than interesting comes out of research into CST, my hat
will go off to all of you. I doubt anything will but some people are going
to spend a lot more time on it, so I hope I turn out to be wrong.
My only strong disagreement with you is that CL get some credit for being
able to think for himself. I'll give him credit for being able to think,
but not for himself. He's one of Hubbard's best made clones so Hubbard does
too much of their thinking for them.
Ed
I appreciate your work immensely, as well as that of Zed and
ptsc and the others, even assuming the others have a hidden agenda. I
find it all very interesting and useful. The one single problem I
have, and maybe it is just in my imagination, is when you guys (or
some of you) get emotional in rejecting without discussion the idea
that while CST controls everything in Scn through all these wonderful
documents, DM controls CST by instrumentalities that are ~not~ simply
publicly available legal documents. What exactly these
instrumentalities are we can only imagine. They exist in the private
universes of the Special Directors.
Ed
ka...@wwwaif.net
>
> I appreciate your work immensely, as well as that of Zed and
>ptsc and the others, even assuming the others have a hidden agenda. I
>find it all very interesting and useful. The one single problem I
>have, and maybe it is just in my imagination, is when you guys (or
>some of you) get emotional in rejecting without discussion the idea
>that while CST controls everything in Scn through all these wonderful
>documents, DM controls CST by instrumentalities that are ~not~ simply
>publicly available legal documents. What exactly these
>instrumentalities are we can only imagine. They exist in the private
>universes of the Special Directors.
>
>Ed
If I've reacted that way, I do apologize; it in no way represents my views on
the subject of CST, which I certainly do not believe is the only aspect of Scn
worth investigating. I am also well aware that the question of how much actual
(versus on paper) control it has over the operations of the Scientology empire
is an excellent one that has not yet been satisfactorily answered, largely
because its operations, and its influence (if any) is shadowed by so many of the
more prominent corporations like RTC, CSI and the rest.
I guess that's part of the reason why CST is so fascinating; it's an enigma.
There are more loose ends to pull, more gaps in available information than for
many Scn corporations, and that tends to attract those of us with an inquisitive
mind. I also believe that its unique structure, with the Special Directors as an
extra layer of oversight, makes it somewhat anomalous within the corporate
structure, and that, too, makes for interesting speculation. I agree that there
is much we do not know; I'm open to all suggestions, speculations,
interpretations and wild-eyed conspiracy theories.
Of course, I will give more weight to those theories that take into account the
information we *do* have when formulating a thesis; that is not, I don't think,
an unreasonable standard.
K
Beverly Rice
> >> I believe, and have not been argued out of this belief in over four
> >> years, that CL says what he says about me, and a bit of everything
> >> else come to think of it, for the purpose of creating the illusion
> >> that there is some group different from Scientology which hates me.
> >Oh for Petes sake . . .
> >it ~always~ has to be about ~you~!!!
> What a silly little lie.
No, it is not. You do take threads about assorted subjects and turn
them in to threads about you . . .
And you do tend to take the CST thing and make it about you.
To you, I'm sure it is, to others, it is not, it is something they are
interested in, with or without your approving nod.
> You're the only person saying or implying that it always has to be about me.
I'm sure that I am the only one that is saying that openly on the NG.
> It is rather large don't you think? And it is rather undefined, don't you think?
No, I don't. I do know that to you it is.
> >I could give a rats ass about the agendas of CL or you.
> But you do. Check google on the rats ass you've given about the CL
> agenda.
I took the time to look past all the BS, and there is a lot of BS
between the two of you, to see that there is some relevance to
the CST and it's hold on the copyright situation. I have stated
this recently many times on the NG.
> Yes, you're not part of the equation. Your not caring does not,
> however, mean the CL op doesn't care. The op cares enough to carry out
> its vicious attacks.
I'm not really interested in the attacks, there are lots of attacks
on lots of other critics here on the NG besides you. Some really
horrible and cruel vicious attacks.
I know that I've had some really cruel ones thrown at me, the
best thing is to not give them a life of their own, and just get
on with business.
> >The fact that is of interest is that the awareness of
> >CST has been brought to light . . .
> It was brought to light in 1982. It is of interest why people are led
> to believe it is being brought to light now.
> Is CST really a revelation for you?
Yes, it ~really~ is a fairly recent revelation for me. And after
looking in to it, I do happen to be interested in it's formation . . .
But most especially now in how it plays currently in the
entire copyright issue.
> >and the only real relevance is that the next time
> >RTC decides to bring a lawsuit against anybody for
> >copyright or any other infringement that the party
> >involved be aware of every entity the Hydra known
> >as the Co$ has so they can have the opportunity to
> >set ~all~ the heads of the Hydra on the chopping
> >block, that is the only way to reach the "heart"
> >of the matter.
> Is it? I don't accept that. Do you really have that great confidence
> in your legal opinions?
:-), now, I think most people that know me are aware I have no clue
about legal issues, I've never hidden that obvious fact, and you
already know the answer to that from the many discussions we've
had together about legal issues revolving around the Co$.
The situation is, that it is a fact that the Co$ has been able to
use its many front groups and assorted corporate structures in
the past for playing the shell game.
That is why it is important to get knowledge of all of Co$'s
assorted corporate structures out in to the open to be common
knowledge.
If you don't agree with that, I really don't care, I do care a
lot re copyright issues and everything that surrounds them.
> >Again, the relevance is that it is not about CL,
> >and it is not about you.
> What isn't about me?
CST.
>What CL writes about me is about me. Surely you would agree with that.
Stupid processing question. What CL writes about you is about you, what
you write about CL is about CL, what anybody writes about anybody is
about that anybody.
> What the op writes about me is about me.
Sl;ick move, but no cigar. That statement infers that CL is all about
an op about you. You want to see CL et. al. as ops, and yes, I was even
locked in to that mindset for a while, also.
But I'm tired of the op game and the conspiracies on all parts and
all sides. I just want data out there re issues that will explain the
copyright thing better, the BS can be tossed on both sides.
> Surely you would agree with that.
No, I do not agree that it is an op.
> What the Miscavige regime writes about me is about me. Surely you
> would agree with that.
What the Co$, under the control of Miscavige writes about anybody
is about that person. They have written a great deal about many
people, not just you. It isn't a source of constant martyrdom for
them.
> And even what you write about me is about me. Even the things you
> write about me when you don't mention my name, but just snipe at me,
> those things too are about me. Surely you would agree with that.
Everything anyone writes about others is about others, everything
one says about others is about others. Even what you say about
others is about others.
Condensing Gerry blather:
> The fact that what you and CL and the crime cult and Kady, et al write
> about me, is indeed about me, cannot be helped. Maybe you think
> somehow it isn't about me, or shouldn't be about me if it is, but
> you've got a different it in mind. Your it is an undefined illusory
> generality which serves your sniping purposes.
> I am talking about what's about me. You are saying that what's not
> about me is not about me. I am not arguing with that, although I'm
> sure you would admit it's irrelevant. But I am arguing with your silly
> logic that what is about me, including what you say about me, is not
> about me. I do not accept your silly logic, and suggest that it would
> be good to reconsider the illogical assertion you're making here.
Yes, everything that doesn't fit in to how you see things is, to you
"illusion" and "silly logic". Been there, done that. I do not accept
your silly delusion.
> >All that shite is Dev-T gaming and positioning.
> You'll have to be more specific. If you mean that your illusions and
> misinterpretations of reality are shite and Dev-T gaming and
> positioning, that may be true.
No, I'm talking about yours and CL's shite, and it's really typically so
Very
Gerry of you to pull out with your ~my~ "illusions and
misinterpretations
of realtiy " when I say things when they aren't in line with yours.
That
little number gets old.
> But if you are using these
> misinterpretations to refer to someone else's actions, you should
> provide some specifics.
No misinterpretations.
The specifics I am refering to is that you are obsessed with the fact
that things revolve around you.
Yes, you have been harassed, so have others been harrassed, but
you are so caught up in it that you see op's, plots and conspiracies
against you everywhere.
> >Get out of the mind set that everything is always
> >a DM plot about you, and that you are the center
> >of that universe.
> Oh, now I'm beginning to see. But why don't you speak the truth
> instead of inventing mind sets and plots and universes and centers
> which do not exist?
No you are not beginning to see. The fact is that you are dead
set on seeing discussion re CST and with any others you think
are a DM plot against you in these threads that you deflect away
earnest discussion as falling in to being a part of the op against
you.
Some people really want to know what's up with CST. Those
that don't, well, there sure is no shortage of other threads with
other subjects to follow.
I want as much as possible, again, because you and everyone
else who knows me knows that I believe there is a lot of
value in understanding the copyright issue and in debunking
it. If you don't agree with me, that's okay.
> Why are you lying about me? Do you lie about me just so you can lie
> about me? That's not very nice.
I'm not lying about you, and I am being very nice.
You are suffering from an "illusion" of your own "silly illogic".
> >The Co$ needs ~all~ of its corporate bodies that
> >it has exposed, and how all of these come in to
> >play, so a complete overview can be seen, this is
> >to the advantage of all, and CST happens to be
> >one of those corporate bodies.
> Oh, is this a revelation?
No, that is common logic.
> And are you stating or implying as the CL op does, that I am
> preventing this "exposure?"
CL is not an op against you. Get help, please.
It is obvious CL doesn't like you, that is true.
And no, you aen't "preventing" anything. You do add Dev-T
by making yourself the focus of martyrdom and morphing discussion
from CST to yourself.
> >The rest of the silliness you all can play out
> >amongst yourselves.
> And what exactly is that?
See all of the above.
>What have you misinterpreted
Broaden your world, Gerry. When someone disagrees with
you or says something that goes the opposite way you choose
to have things directed or says something you don't like . . .
It is not dismissed by labeling it a "misinterpretation",
or "MI" for short.
That's as silly as pulling the old LRH "MU" tech on Co$'ers
when they disagree with the HubTOAD.
Get out of Co$ think. A rose by any other name is still a
rose, and BS by any other name is still BS.
Demo the following until you cog is reached:
LRH Tech: "What is your MU?" . . .
Gerry Tech: "What is your MI?"
> as a silliness. And why?
Silly and silliness are your words that you use on others all
the time to belittle what they have to say. I can't count the
times you have told me I am silly for thinking other than your
way of thinking.
I was just using your Gerry tech back on you so you could see
what it is like. Don't ya like it when its directed at you
instead of others?
You are not above being any less "silly" than you call others.
Zinj
nob...@cotsebay.cotse.net says...
Nobody objects to Kady 'wasting her time' on any endeavor she cares
to. Not when it results in actual mapping of deliberately hidden
corporate relationships. That happens to be her forte apparently, and,
as 'wasted' as it may seem to some, there is a point in any game of
'pick-up-sticks' when enough props have been removed and categorized
that the pile falls down.
Turning over cards in a game of 'Concentration' eventually results in
a comprehensible minimum of mystery.
Even Scientology isn't, long term, able to withstand rigorous
analysis; not even in its most deliberately obfuscated 'games'.
Where some critics may get irritated with Kady is her seemingly
obsessive willingness to only accept 'court ready evidence'.
Considering her inability to serve subpoenas or use any of the
otherwise available 'tools' of investigation that an 'officer of the
court' has, it seems to be a fairly narrow view, but, if *she's* happy
with it, who are we to complain?
Her belief that she hasn't got enough evidence to 'form a conclusion'
is only a problem for *other* critics if they adopt her paradigm as
the only one.
Obviously CL hasn't. His version of 'investigation' involves adopting
an axiom that L Ron Hubbard actually was brilliant and unique, and
developed a 'tech' that is so valuable that 'everybody wants it', then
finding data tha supports that theory.
That much of the data that he, and Veritas have found is actually
valuable in its own right, is *not* a support for that axiom.
If I'm reading this right, the question is 'who controls Scientology?'
I've asked before, and I'll ask again, if anyone's listening... I
believe there are only 3 possible answers yet; so far.
1) Scientology is controlled by money-grubbing lawyers or non-
scientologists, who have wrested control, in full knowledge of the
fraudulent nature of the tech and philosophy.
2) Scientology is controlled by 'the government' (possibly not the US
Government, but always one that has 'taken control' in order to use
the 'powerful tech' for their own purposes. (this is, as far as I can
tell, CL's theory (because axiomatically, the 'Tech' is valuable) and
also, in a variation, Phil Scott's (Scientology now controls the
government, using the 'Tech')
3) Scientology is controlled by true-believing Scientologists, who
deliberately obfuscate the 'corporate shell game' in order to better
hide their desire to fulfill Hubbard's goal of 'bringing society into
100% compliance with Scientology.'
If anyone has a *new* variation to add here, I'd appreciate it,
although, the theory that the Marcabs, other extra-terrestrial aliens
or trans-temporal 'Psychs' are the culprits is not one I'd consider
'new', just not really relevant to the list.
Kady and her lapdog PTSC, *may* consider the 'evidence not in' enough
to 'form an opinion. That's their right.
CL and Veritas wouldn't accept any evidence pointing to other than #2
anyway :) They're *still* sure Hubbard is/was 'Source'.
Maybe, after the Cult collapses, Kady will get all her documents, and
will write a brilliant book on the Cult.
In the meantime, treating the 'Cult' as a 'black box', and just asking
'What do they get? What do they do?' is enough for someone not as
obsessively into paint-by-numbers to decided 'Who Controls
Scientology.'
Zinj
Beverly Rice
> Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
> >You should know me a lot better than that.
> Why is that?
My God, you really are an asshole, and on purpose, too.
> Oh, and don't go shooting at the heads
Wow, and you have the nerve to accuse others of "cruel"
communication.
That was very ~covert~ of you, and ~very~ cruel.
You have just demonstrated once and for all to me just how
low you will go when you are taken off your pedestal.
I am done with you, nothing more needs to be said.
Beverly
ptsc
>> If you don't find CST interesting, that's *fine*. I'm not saying you should.
>> Ignore the threads. Discuss other issues. Do what thou wilt. But for heaven's
>> sake, please don't join the weak but grating chorus of those who believe that
>> certain matters should be off limits for critical discussion, or that only
>> "approved" sources of information should be considered when conducting research.
>> I'm not a newcomer to a.r.s. I've done a bit of research before. I'm capable of
>> forming my own opinions on the credibility and plausibility of various claims
>> made here, and elsewhere. Give me - and pts, and CL and everyone else, for that
>> matter - some credit for being able to think for ourselves.
>> an increasingly cranky,
>> K
> I appreciate your work immensely, as well as that of Zed and
>ptsc and the others, even assuming the others have a hidden agenda. I
>find it all very interesting and useful. The one single problem I
>have, and maybe it is just in my imagination, is when you guys (or
>some of you) get emotional in rejecting without discussion the idea
>that while CST controls everything in Scn through all these wonderful
>documents, DM controls CST by instrumentalities that are ~not~ simply
>publicly available legal documents. What exactly these
>instrumentalities are we can only imagine. They exist in the private
>universes of the Special Directors.
If he does this, that itself is an interesting avenue for exploration. It's
also within the realm of possibility that DM is simply the monolithic
tinpot tyrant he is often advertised as. The other possibilities include
that he's fronting for a cabal of other worthies, that he does indeed
wield dictatorial control--but only at the pleasure of another--or that
some more nuanced situation exists, such as a balance of powers
between DM and others who prefer not to be as prominent. I tend
to think that any power DM may have is not rock-solid but based in
the shifting sands of internal politics, but that his power is only likely
to come to an end should the factions that could unseat him if ever
united ever manage to do so. (This would include some kind of
internal struggle with the Sea Org combined with attacks from some
bigwig like, for example, Norman Starkey, combined with some kind
of legal controversy concerning the ownership of the copyrights.)
That last is a purely wild speculation with no factual basis except
that only some combination equally spooky could remove or even
seriously disrupt Scientology's current command structure--whether
you put DM atop it or not.
I would find the idea very interesting of Scientology parishioners filing
some kind of class-action suit demanding that the boards of CST and
other Scientology corporations be reconstituted, as were the boards
of the Pacifica Foundation.
>Ed
ptsc
Starshadow
ka...@wwwaif.net wrote:
Well said.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP5, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
and Goddess of Hypocrisy and Negativity,Queen of Mean,
Wicked Wiccan of the NW, and Ruler of Bullydom as crowned
by Shirley Wilson (Queen of Whingeing, Tantrums, And Foot
Stomping Web-Tv User).
"Scientology--Keeping Fraud Working"
www.xenu.net
Warrior
>
>I would find the idea very interesting of Scientology parishioners
>filing some kind of class-action suit demanding that the boards of
>CST and other Scientology corporations be reconstituted, as were the
>boards of the Pacifica Foundation.
>
It's certainly an interesting idea, but if anyone were to file a civil
suit against CST without first bringing the matter to the attention of
the international chairman _and_ receiving a reply, he/she would be
committing a "high crime" and a "suppressive act" according to Scientology
"ethics and justice" codes. In other words, if a member has a beef,
he/she is expected to use only Scientology-approved methods.
Also, the right to group petition is denied in Scientology.
"Parishioners" could certainly file a class-action suit, and by their
doing so they would all be promptly declared "suppressive persons".
Ed
Also, I know there is some legal case law that has been cited
in Scn cases, whereby the wog judicial system has no business judging
questions of religious doctrine. (The courts ~can~ judge matters of
conduct that breaks the law.) No court is going to touch any complaint
about how the C of S applied their ethics policies and procedures in a
dispute within the church.
Ed
Steve Plakos
Ed wrote:
This is an interesting question. If you visit some of the searchable web sites
that will give you case law citations, you'll find it isn't quite as black and
white as you might think. It is true that no religion is above the law, that
is, a religion cannot break the criminal statutes and claim immunity based upon
the U.S. Constitution. I have long thought the Cof$ to be highly vulnerable to
certain aspects of both criminal law and civil law. The one area where critics
could have the greatest impact is to attack the churches tax code status.
Steve
ptsc
>Warrior wrote:
>> In article <mi63buo8kr4q7ls06...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
>> >I would find the idea very interesting of Scientology parishioners
>> >filing some kind of class-action suit demanding that the boards of
>> >CST and other Scientology corporations be reconstituted, as were the
>> >boards of the Pacifica Foundation.
>> It's certainly an interesting idea, but if anyone were to file a civil
>> suit against CST without first bringing the matter to the attention of
>> the international chairman _and_ receiving a reply, he/she would be
>> committing a "high crime" and a "suppressive act" according to Scientology
>> "ethics and justice" codes. In other words, if a member has a beef,
>> he/she is expected to use only Scientology-approved methods.
>> Also, the right to group petition is denied in Scientology.
>> "Parishioners" could certainly file a class-action suit, and by their
>> doing so they would all be promptly declared "suppressive persons".
> Also, I know there is some legal case law that has been cited
>in Scn cases, whereby the wog judicial system has no business judging
>questions of religious doctrine. (The courts ~can~ judge matters of
>conduct that breaks the law.) No court is going to touch any complaint
>about how the C of S applied their ethics policies and procedures in a
>dispute within the church.
The cult itself cited that as an attempt to avoid the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles from examining the alter ego status of RTC/CSC/CSI.
This is a brief part of the Wollersheim case:
The court quoted Watson v. Jones, 13
Wall. 679 (1872), a diversity case decided before the First Amendment had
been rendered applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment,
for the guiding principles applicable to hierarchical churches.
"[T]he rule of action which should govern the civil courts. is, that,
whenever the question of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical
rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church
Judicatories to which the matter had been carried, the legal tribunals
must accept such decision as final, and as binding on them, In their
application to the case before them."
426 U.S. at 710, quoting Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. at 727.
This principle means that the court may not decide issues of
theological controversy, review determinations of church members'
moral standing , and similar issues. However, it is well recognized
that the courts may make decisions relating to church property, where
neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,
are applied, as opposed to having the issue turn on resolution of
controversies over religious doctrine and practice. Presbyterian Church
in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian
Church, 393 U.S. 440,449 (1969)
Note especially that magic word "ecclesiastical," which crops up in
the CST Bylaws as well as another attempt at an escape hatch.
However, note that this has nothing to do with property disputes.
Copyright and trademark law rule those, whatever attempts the cult
may make to squirm their way around that fact.
"b. In the event the Board of Trustees is unable to fill vacancies because
of the death or disqualification of the entire Board of Trustees or sole
remaining Trustee, then that person holding the senior ecclesiastical post
in this Church shall (and only in this unlikely event and only s a singular
circumstance) appoint individuals to fill all vacancies on the Board of
Trustees, who must themselves meet the qualifications of a Trustee as
provided in Section 3."
I assume this "Armageddon clause" in the Bylaws is intended to allow
some sort of massive coup by "that person holding the senior ecclesiastical
post in this Church" should it ever be necessary to SP Declare the Boards
en masse and/or overrule the Special Directors.
It is not necessary, incidentally, that anyone ever actually do this--the
mere ability to do it makes such a person very powerful. The question
is whether or not such a person even exists as anything other than a
Phantom of the Bylaws.
ptsc
Steve Plakos
ptsc wrote:
Not quite correct. The courts can, and will, intervene if the theological
controversy involves conduct that is contrary to public policy. You could not,
for example, through Helena Kobrin into a volcano as a human (is she?) sacrifice.
Steve
Blue Xenu
What the hell is your 'thesis'? I have a hard time figuring out what the bottom
line here is. Is DM some figurehead with some non-scn lawyers actually pulling
the strings or what? Of course, I forgot--you don't give a damn.
>
>K
>
"Here's to absent friends--fuck 'em!"--Frank Sinatra
ptsc
>> "[T]he rule of action which should govern the civil courts. is, that,
>> whenever the question of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical
>> rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church
>> Judicatories to which the matter had been carried, the legal tribunals
>> must accept such decision as final, and as binding on them, In their
>> application to the case before them."
>> 426 U.S. at 710, quoting Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. at 727.
>> This principle means that the court may not decide issues of
>> theological controversy, review determinations of church members'
>> moral standing , and similar issues.
>Not quite correct. The courts can, and will, intervene if the theological
>controversy involves conduct that is contrary to public policy. You could not,
>for example, through Helena Kobrin into a volcano as a human (is she?) sacrifice.
That quote is directly from the filing. Incidentally, the Kobrin issue does
not actually involve the court involving itself in a theological controversy.
The court would not in such a case state that the idea of throwing Helena
Kobrin into a volcano is theologically invalid. It would merely rule on
the separate issue that the act of throwing Helena Kobrin into a volcano
would be illegal. This would leave untouched the theological merits
of the proposal, which are incontestable.
ptsc
Cambridge
message <jdavau06b6acg8mt2...@4ax.com>
Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net> wrote:
>I believe that the "documents" on which he bases his "platform" are
>Scientology's documents that the Miscavige intel apparatus wants
>"exposed." They would never have filed CST v. US if that was not the
>case. See recently posted to a.r.s. 1989 final adverse ruling.
I don't wish to be drawn in to the storm of invective and apparently harsh
feeling that seems to exist between you and CL but I would like to ask you
some questions about what you said so I can understand it better, and to
present a balancing view.
The first question is: How was the filing of CST v. US in the Claims Court a
vehicle for bringing about exposure for something that anyone involved wanted
exposed?
The balancing view is: wouldn't a press release have been much more direct and
easier? United States Claims Court rulings do not ordinarily enjoy wide public
circulation at all, even now with the growth of the internet, and they
certainly didn't in 1989 when the case was filed. Further, there was no
certainty that Bruggink would even mention, e.g., the names of the founders of
CST in his ruling, even though the names had been submitted to the court in
filings very unlikely to ever receive much public circulation if any.
As I understand it, such filings are a sometimes necessary legal ploy in order
to establish that certain key "disclosure" has been been effected, when, in
fact, it is a form of "disclosure" that is relied upon for being extremely
low-profile. In other words, it is a not-uncommon expediency for literal but
not moral or ethical disclosure that can be timely used to effectively gainsay
any subsequent accusations of non-disclosure.
A review of available Scientology-related promotion and literature seems to
argue against your postion: Scientology's own literature has uniformly
promoted RTC as the central and controlling organization and has uniformly
omitted any mention of CST at all except to rarely portray it as a harmless
and impotent and relatively unimportant archiving organization, something
which we all know only now to be quite a fraudulent presentation.
I fail to understand how the CST v. US case was intended as some springboard
to broad public disclosure as you seem to allege. Factually, no wide public
exposure did occur until nearly 20 years later and only when the Public
Research Foundation discovered that Meade Emory had been former Assistant to
Commissioner of IRS and published that and other related facts.
To pretend that this was not revelatory seems disengenuous. One only need
review the a.r.s. response to this announcement to know just how revelatory it
was and to grasp the incredulity and initial rejection with which it was first
received.
>I filed this in 1990 in the Armstrong I appeal. I cited to the Bruggink
>decision dozens of times in Armstrong II, III and IV between 1992 and
>1996.
While I don't question what you say, my next question is: can you tell us in
what context you filed and cited to the Bruggink decision, and tell us where
we can see the filings and cites you refer to? I would be very interested.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to post those as you have posted other legal
documents.
As a balancing view, I fail to see how this resulted in any broad public
exposure of the facts about the purpose and structure of CST, its principals,
and its relationship to the intellectual property and to the other
corporations.
Have the filings and cites you refer to ever been broadly and easily available
to the public anywhere, and what light do they shed on CST and its related
issues that reaches beyond Bruggink? Posting them would of course make them
publicly available and answer these questions of relevance.
Quite apart from your court filing of the Bruggink ruling, which was already
on file in the Claims Court but no more publicly known than your own filings,
I find of great value the very open and candid reports of the results of
investigation and research done by others which has led to the revelations
about Meade Emory's background and connections, about the fact of the transfer
of the copyrights to CST post-exemption and the Copyright Office records
proving that, about the retention of commercial rights in the trademarks by
Hubbard that then devolved to CST via probate, about the apparently fraudulent
co-use of the "L. Ron Hubbard Library" d.b.a. by both Norman Starkey and CST,
and many other facts and details and documents that far exceed the scope of
Bruggink. And of course the legal documents such as the bylaws of CST have
proved of great value as well.
>There was no exposure on a.r.s. of CST or the Lenskes or the
>special directors or anything of relevance whatsoever which would
>justify this op's vicious, insane attacks. There have been no
>"revelations" from CL or anyone else that justify or in any way
>support the lies CL and this idiot op tell about me.
As I said, I have no desire to be embroiled in the heated conflict between you
and CL, but I do find disengenuous your characterization of "no
'revelations.'" I have named just some that I have found quite revelatory and
which the recorded reactions of many people in a.r.s. and in other forums seem
to indicate were quite revelatory, all of which exceed Bruggink, and all of
which exceed you own contributions on those subjects. The recent release of
the Author's Family Trust documents is yet another example. There are many
such examples. It seems to me that you could completly defuse and render null
any attacks by simply ignoring the invective from any source, and focusing and
expanding on the facts regarding CST and its principals from your unique
perspective, sharing whatever first-hand observations you have of the related
events you witnessed and of the people involved, such as the Lenskes and
Lawrence E. Heller and Norton S. Karno.
>The fact is that for no other reason than the Great Good Humor of God
>Himself I smoked this op out as soon as it appeared on a.r.s. I've
>told this story before, although neither the op nor its water carriers
>have responded.
I would have to join my voice to Kady's in expressing distaste for the "God is
on my side" argument, and for your tarradiddle that people interested in these
matters are "water carriers" for CL. Perhaps I shouldn't even characterize it
as "joining my voice to Kady's" for fear of fueling another conflagration of
accusations of collusion against you, and instead just offer it as my own, but
she did raise the issue and I believe her point has merit.
>One of the op's first actions was to provide a phone number to call,
>in Nevada, to their "public research" deal. Shortly thereafter, being
>in Nevada, I called the number, and left my name, and I'm sure my
>number. Since these folks claimed to be doing all this "research"
>about Scientology and CST and the Lenskes and Miscavige and maybe even
>Hubbard, I forget, and since I certainly knew something about the
>whole enterprise, I figured we'd have things to chat about, and they'd
>appreciate my making contact. But instead, back came this ugly, sick
>prose the op will forever be famous for.
My next question to you is: if you had, and therefore have, particular and
unique knowledge about CST and the Lenskes, subjects that PRF demonstrably and
unquestionably were investigating and reporting on, why didn't you make it
publicly available on a.r.s. and send PRF copies, so they, and everyone else,
would have the benefit of your knowledge, and in writing, so that it could be
subject to due corroboration and verification?
Surely you can understand that it might appear possibly suspect, to even the
most guileless, that you just happened to have other business in Nevada, where
PRF was, almost immediately after their first press release appeared, and that
you chose to give them the (still unrevealed) information you say you had for
them only in a non-public and unrecorded telephone call. The other question
that arises, for me at least, is why you were so axious to volunteer unique
first-hand information on these matters to an organization that had only
recently appeared on the scene and that you had no background information on.
If the volunteering of useful and unique information about CST and the Lenskes
was, in fact, your only motivation in contacting PRF, as you seem to be
stating, there was a FAX number and an address for PRF on at least the first
one or two of the original press releases, which I made a personal project of
collecting and republishing in a.r.s., misc.legal, and misc.taxes.
I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why you didn't just send PRF
written information, and also publish it in a.r.s., which you frequented, at
the same time, announcing that you were adding new information to the press
release that had recently appeared in a.r.s. I simply can't understand why you
were going to make this knowledge you had, certainly related to Scientology,
the exclusive property of an organization you knew nothing about, and not
mention this on a.r.s., where the PRF's press release had appeared. This seems
to stretch credulity. I can't find any logic in this.
Further, and perhaps even more perplexing: If this unique knowledge you say
you had, and therefore have, was important enough to personally contact PRF
about, why hadn't you made it publicly known long before as part of your own
court cases, and expert testimony and presentations in other court cases, and
in public forums on the subject of Scientology? Perhaps you have perfectly
sound reason for all of these questions I have raised related to the events
you are describing, but I cannot fathom what they might be and would very much
appreciate your reasonable address to them.
Had you gone to Nevada, on whatever other business you say you had, also
prepared with the documentation or evidence to support whatever you intended
to tell PRF orally? You allude to some knowledge you have that you felt
important enough to provide PRF with, but it seems you have never found it
important enough to impart to anyone else, anywhere else, under any
circumstances, if I am understanding what you are saying. I hope you can see
the confusion that this creates in the disinterested observer, and might be
willing to clarify it.
Finally, the most troubling aspect of all is why you have not since made
whatever information you say you had, and therefore have, on CST and the
Lenskes known in this forum.
This brings me to the argument that CL (and whoever else you think is
involved) is some cult op, and that this, if I understand you correctly, is a
justification for not answering questions or providing the information you
have about the Lenskes, CST, or Meade Emory.
This also seems disengenuous to me since a.r.s and all of usenet is a giant
fishbowl and there is no way at all to control who has access to any
information or facts presented in usenet. There is no way to assess how many
"OSA ops" or CST Special Directors or Communists or federal agents or
Marcabians (I am being intentionally ludicrous to make a point) are reading
a.r.s, or even if David Miscavige himself is reading the newsgroup, and we all
can be quite certain that OSA does monitor a.r.s. So my question is: so what?
If you have important and unique and provable facts about CST and the Lenskes,
what difference could it make who is asking the questions and who is providing
the answers? The answers don't go only to CL and his alleged ops, the answers
to out to everyone. The minute it is available on usenet it is being read by
untold numbers of people, probably the majority of whom are anonymous if only
by virtue of their never having made their presence known. I absorbed, in
complete anonymity, untold amounts of information from usenet long before I
ever posted at all. There is no way to selectively dole out information in
usenet only to those groups you deem worthy.
The important thing is the open and public flow and exchange of information.
To try to control or restrict or set some arbitrary set of standards for who
should have access to relevant and important information and who should be
denied it, or who is "qualified" to ask reasonable and pertinent questions,
can only work to the benefit of those who would seek to keep information
hidden and unknown.
We all know that there have been OSA "ops," but if their existence or even
speculated existence is then used to justify the hoarding and withholding of
factual, truthful, and relevant information that would serve the greater
benefit of all, then it seems to become merely an excuse to keep that
information hidden, and a very poor excuse at that.
>It is altogether reasonable to acknowledge that the cult would dedicate
>decent literary and intel talent to this op.
Is it altogether reasonable to acknowledge that there is decent literary and
intel, or at least research, talent able to access a.r.s. that isn't in the
employ or under the control of OSA and David Miscavige? I have absolutely no
connection to either and never have, yet I have many questions that I have
posed here. I am also not a CL "water carrier," and though I may find his
rhetoric inflammatory at times, I feel he has asked some very legitimate
questions of you, the answers to which could not possibly play into the hands
of DM or OSA or anyone else that I can see. The answers would only expand the
storehouse of knowledge on these matters, matters which are of great
importance and interest to many people having nothing to do with CL.
>These "researchers" were not interested in research and never have
>been interested in it.
I must ask you: why not ignore any minority of "researchers" who you assert
are "not interested in research" and provide the information you have for the
majority who are? Many of us are interested in research. You have alluded to
information you originally were going to share with PRF, but they or someone
upset you somehow, and so you now aren't going to share your information with
anyone at all? This seems a very petulant attitude, and one that then works to
the great detriment of all by denial of information you say you have,
information you felt was important enough to provide to PRF. I find this to be
a very untenable position for anyone to long maintain. It is the denial of
information to the many because of the alleged misdeeds of a few.
>They already had the target of attacking the
>witnesses by "exposure" of what Scientology wants exposed, and one of
>the central targets gives them a call.
This is the most perplexing, if not nonsensical, thing I believe you have said
so far. The Public Research Foundation hadn't mentioned you at all in their
initial press release, the one you say you were responding to, which I will
attach at the end of this message for the reference of people new to this
topic. Their focus was entirely on CST and Meade Emory and Sherman Lenske. How
can you deduce that you were any kind of "target" for them? Not one of their
press releases ever mentioned you at all. This seems like an extremely vain
position for you to take, that their exposure of Meade Emory's former IRS and
Congressional connections, and of CST's ownership of the copyrights, and of
Sherman Lenske's involvement and positions in the corporations was somehow
targetted at you.
The only other explanation I can think of for such a statement from you is
that there is, indeed, an undercurrent of undivulged connection between you
and the parties named in the press release.
Otherwise, can you explain how you arrived at this outre conclusion?
I will leave this here with what I feel are reasonable questions outstanding
about your position and about your unique knowledge regarding CST and the
Lenskes that you allude to, and invite your reasonable address to these
questions and issues. I hope you will respond with a candid disclosure of all
of your knowledge about these topics, and thereby finally silence your critics,
since their criticism seems to be exclusively about your apparent
non-disclosure.
Cambridge
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here is the original PRF Press Release taken from my re-publication of it in
other forums:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Public Research Foundation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED
Meade Emory, former Assistant to the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service, co-founded Scientology's most senior
organization--Church of Spiritual Technology--according to
recently uncovered records of the United States Claims Court.
Emory is currently Director of the Washington State University
Law School's Graduate Program in Taxation in Seattle.
The Emory-co-founded Church of Spiritual Technology (CST),
doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library," now controls the
copyrights for all of L. Ron Hubbard's intellectual
properties--once valued at close to $100 million. CST also enjoys
ultimate authority over all Scientology-related trademarks,
including the name "L. Ron Hubbard."
Emory was Assistant to the Commissioner of the IRS from 1975
through 1977. Strangely, those were the same years in which an
IRS employee, Gerald Wolfe, was covertly passing IRS documents to
Scientology's Guardian's Office. In 1976, Wolfe even provided
forged federal I.D. to a Scientology staff member, Michael
Meisner, and together they used the forged credentials to pilfer
copies of documents from the IRS and other federal agencies.
Wolfe and Meisner's activities ultimately resulted in federal
criminal convictions against high-level Scientology executives.
Most notable among those was L. Ron Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue
Hubbard.
The fact that she was Hubbard's wife tended to overshadow
more important facts: Hubbard himself had disappeared in February
of 1980 under mysterious circumstances still not satisfactorily
explained, and Mary Sue Hubbard--with the aid of the Guardian's
Office--had been left with the duty and the power to safeguard
his copyrights and trademarks.
But in July of 1981, Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown,
losing her long-held control over Scientology's copyrights and
trademarks. Soon after, the Guardian's Office was disbanded. Then
by May of 1982--less than a year later--Emory had helped to set
up CST, the corporation that eventually assumed control of all
rights to L. Ron Hubbard's works.
According to the June 29, 1992 ruling in U.S. Claims Court
case No. 581-88T, CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY v. THE UNITED
STATES, "CST was founded in 1982 by Lyman Spurlock, Meade Emory,
Esq., Leon Misterek, Esq., and Sherman Lenske, Esq. CST...
subsequently sought tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue
Code."
That tax-exempt status was granted on October 1, 1993, in a
sealed, secret, 4"-thick agreement with IRS. None of the terms of
the agreement have ever been made known, either by CST or IRS.
The only clue to any of the terms came at the event celebrating
the exemptions, when David Miscavige, head of Religious
Technology Center (RTC) and Scientology's highest-ranking
spokesperson, said, "There will be no billion-dollar tax bill
that we cannot pay!" Oddly, while proclaiming the long list of
Scientology entities that had received exempt status, Miscavige
made no mention of CST's inclusion--even though that is the
senior-most corporation of all, and the one that benefitted most
from the sudden IRS change of heart.
Other oddities have also surfaced:
1. According to the U.S. Claims Court ruling, "None of the
founders of CST, with the exception of Mr. Spurlock, has any
stated religious connection with Scientology."
2. The October 1993 IRS tax-exempt blessing on CST was
granted just months after Norman F. Starkey, executor of the
estate of L. Ron Hubbard, had finally secured control of every
intellectual property ever produced by L. Ron Hubbard.
3. On November 29, 1993, scarcely two months after CST had
been granted tax exemption, Starkey transferred the rights for
all 7,730 of L. Ron Hubbard's intellectual properties to CST.
Many questions remain regarding Meade Emory's possible role
in bringing about the tax exemption for CST, but questions also
surround Emory's fellow CST co-founder, attorney Sherman Lenske.
According to court records, "Lenske and two other
non-Scientologists have the status of Special Directors of CST."
The two others are Lenske's brother, attorney Stephen Lenske, and
another attorney, Lawrence Heller.
But Sherman Lenske's involvement goes all the way back to
1981. In a sworn declaration, Lenske says he was hired in April
1981 to be attorney "in all aspects of estate planning" for L.
Ron Hubbard.
Therein lies another strange coincidence: Lenske appeared on
the scene only after Hubbard had disappeared, and only three
months before Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown, then became a key
figure in every step that led to CST's take-over of the
multi-million-dollar intellectual properties she had previously
controlled, and to which she was rightful heir:
1. Lenske drafted all wills and trusts having anything to do
with final distribution of Hubbard's assets and intellectual
properties.
2. Lenske was a consultant in the corporate restructuring
that created CST.
3. Lenske represented Norman F. Starkey, the executor of
Hubbard's estate, right up through the point when Starkey
transferred the intellectual property rights to CST.
4. In addition to his role as a Special Director of CST,
Lenske is its Registered Agent, is Registered Agent for Religious
Technology Center (which currently licenses the trademarks under
CST's aegis), and is Registered Agent for Author Services, Inc.,
which represents Hubbard's fiction works.
5. Lenske created the fictitious business name, "L. Ron
Hubbard Library," filing it first for Norman F. Starkey's use as
executor, then filing it again in 1993 for CST, right after CST
received all the intellectual property rights from Starkey.
How did an attorney who does not even subscribe to the
religious philosophy of Scientology become its most influential
figure, with ultimate authority over the entire body of work?
What role did Meade Emory's inside-the-Beltway connections
have on the sudden, secret turn-around by IRS?
Is it possible, as one observer has speculated, that all of
Scientology went into receivership to IRS, and is now being
run--as a corporation--by the federal government?
Is that why the agreement is such a closely-held secret?
All these questions still wait for answers. But the
previously-suppressed connection to IRS may provide a new place
to look for them.
-END OF RELEASE-
Steve Plakos
ptsc wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 03:57:10 GMT, Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >> "[T]he rule of action which should govern the civil courts. is, that,
> >> whenever the question of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical
> >> rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church
> >> Judicatories to which the matter had been carried, the legal tribunals
> >> must accept such decision as final, and as binding on them, In their
> >> application to the case before them."
>
> >> 426 U.S. at 710, quoting Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. at 727.
>
> >> This principle means that the court may not decide issues of
> >> theological controversy, review determinations of church members'
> >> moral standing , and similar issues.
>
> >Not quite correct. The courts can, and will, intervene if the theological
> >controversy involves conduct that is contrary to public policy. You could not,
> >for example, through Helena Kobrin into a volcano as a human (is she?) sacrifice.
>
> That quote is directly from the filing.
Correct, it is describing the power of the civil courts. My comment was directed to
the fact that the criminal courts can, and do, involve themselves in matters of
theology if the theology contravenes criminal law. For example, Mormonism was
required to conform it's "theology" on polygamy, IIRC, in order to gain statehood for
Utah. Splinter groups have claimed protection from prosecution based upon theology,
but they've been sent to prison non the less.
> Incidentally, the Kobrin issue does
> not actually involve the court involving itself in a theological controversy.
> The court would not in such a case state that the idea of throwing Helena
> Kobrin into a volcano is theologically invalid.
Suppose the First Church of the Holy Volcano, a Cof$ splinter group, wanted to
sacrifice a virgin a month and wanted to start with Ms. Kobrin (I cannot imagine
anyone wishing to have sex with Helena, so I'm presuming her to be a virgin). Not
having much of a sense of humor, Ms. Kobrin calls the police. The police arrest the
leader of the FCHV, a pint sized little devil, and charge him with what? He claims
protection under the First Amendment. Is he going to get it?
The court would rule that the action violates the criminal statutes and is
impermissible conduct. They will have ruled out the conduct necessary to carry out
the theology, thereby rendering the theology moot.
> It would merely rule on
> the separate issue that the act of throwing Helena Kobrin into a volcano
> would be illegal. This would leave untouched the theological merits
> of the proposal, which are incontestable.
Maybe, if asked really nicely, she'd throw herself in?
Steve
>
>
> ptsc
CL
Hash: SHA1
Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>Wow, and you have the nerve to accuse others of "cruel"
>communication.
>
>That was very ~covert~ of you, and ~very~ cruel.
Bev, are you okay? I haven't seen you post since this exchange.
I didn't repeat what you were responding to because it was one of the
coldest, most calculatingly gratuitous and brutal verbal assaults I've
ever had the misfortune to be witness to. I'm genuinely very sorry that
you had to be on the receiving end of that, and would have much
preferred that any such viciousness had come to me, especially since I'm
the one who has been the catalyst for his venom and would have happily
absorbed the brunt of his blind-side attack.
Wave some fingers or something, would you?
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPLOfXdAKsx0v8qcvEQI5NgCg8n6iCyy/1o5RnUu8U9P8kkbGJdYAnigq
Mk2NE1r1K4UanaDbRlW3CYsk
=lf35
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CL
>
yet more bullshit
>
>CL
>
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "CL" is a shit-washed propaganda mouthpiece whose excuse
for "facts"--Scientology propaganda--uses extreme bullshit and dub-in
to convey slanted "conclusions" to anyone relying on him. CL sits in a
deep state of delusion regarding the control of the corporation known
as the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing business as the "L.
Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three stooges who once were the special
directors of it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller.
slants his "conclusions" and "facts" regarding the reality of the CST
and the attorneys fronting for DM. Anyone in pursuit of actual truth
and integrity should ignore the bullshit written by "CL". Discard his
innuendo and leaps of "logic" in his posts and learn the actual truth.
=======================================================================
CL
>
>CL
>
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "CL" is a shit-washed propaganda mouthpiece whose excuse
for "facts"--Scientology propaganda--uses extreme bullshit and dub-in
to convey slanted "conclusions" to anyone relying on him. CL sits in a
deep state of delusion regarding the control of the corporation known
as the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing business as the "L.
Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three stooges who once were the special
Garry
>
>>Wow, and you have the nerve to accuse others of "cruel"
>>communication.
>>
>>That was very ~covert~ of you, and ~very~ cruel.
>
>Bev, are you okay? I haven't seen you post since this exchange.
>
>I didn't repeat what you were responding to because it was one of the
>coldest, most calculatingly gratuitous and brutal verbal assaults I've
>ever had the misfortune to be witness to.
Gerry Armstrong showed his true colors when he used the tragic and unfortunate
death of Beverly's husband against her in his post.
Irrespective of the differences of opinions, Gerry's remarks were pathetic and
sick.
Even more pathetic are the many critics who post on ARS who claim to care about
others, but do nothing and say nothing when their washed-up hero commits an act
of deliberate cruelty on another.
Yep, you guys are a great example of what it means to be a non-Scientologist.
<puke>.
If Gerry had any balls to speak of, he'd make a public apology to Beverly.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
How about if I didn't do whatever you say I did?
I saw what you posted here, and saw that you were attacking me, but
didn't make the connection you made until an hour or two later. I
mention that to show how disconnected I was from the connection you
are making.
You wrote: "Again, the most important thing is to bring ~ALL~
the heads of the Hydra in the open, and that way
one knows what they are dealing with."
And I responded: "Well certainly this is important. But you're
implying it hasn't been done. So you must know some hydra heads which
have not been brought in the open. Who are these folks?
Oh, and don't go shooting at the heads of the people trying to do what
you think is this most important thing to do."
What the "Again" refers to, or what I took it to refer to, is your
earlier statement in the same post: "and the only real relevance is
that the next time RTC decides to bring a lawsuit against anybody for
copyright or any other infringement that the party involved be aware
of every entity the Hydra known as the Co$ has so they can have the
opportunity to set ~all~ the heads of the Hydra on the chopping block,
that is the only way to reach the "heart" of the matter."
When I thought of "heads" it was in response to your image of chopping
off Scientology's heads. And my comment about being shot in the head
was because you had been, as I said, sniping at me, when I had been
doing exactly what you thought was so important to do. What you
likened to getting the Scientology heads on the block.
Not for one second before or after writing what I wrote did I connect
it to Dave's death, and I do not now. I am truly sorry that you made
such a connection yourself, and that others are using this connection
that never existed for their own black PR purposes.
Can you therefore forgive me for what never happened?
And that is why forgiveness works at all. Because that which is
forgiven didn't happen, and that which needs to be forgiven didn't
happen.
If you can forgive me for this thing which never happened, perhaps you
can forgive me for the other things which didn't happen. Knowing what
really happened, it can only be misinterpretations of what happened
(which misinterpretations would be things which never happened), for
which you can't forgive me. That's why forgiveness works.
In any event, as I said, at no time did I connect it to Dave's tragic
death, and I do not now.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>Beverly
Cambridge
message <3cb3...@news2.lightlink.com>
x <naa...@vhost.shocking.com> wrote:
>Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>> But Sherman Lenske's involvement goes all the way back to
>> 1981. In a sworn declaration, Lenske says he was hired in April
>> 1981 to be attorney "in all aspects of estate planning" for L.
>> Ron Hubbard.
Actually you were quoting from the Public Research Foundation's first press
release.
>....actually no. At least if sherman lenske did not lie in his signed
>declaration under penalty of perjury. He says there that:
>
>"3. Lenske, Lenske & Heller was retained in the early part of 1981, to
>represent the business interests of L. Ron Hubbard. I and one other
>principal of the firm, namely Stephen A. Lenske, have represented
>various business interests of Mr. Hubbard since 1977."
Of course you are quite right if you are referring to the fact that the Lenske
brothers were involved earlier than 1981: in 1977. It would appear that the
PRF didn't have access to Mr. Lenske's 4th February 1986 declaration where the
1977 date is given, and were relying on Sherman Lenske's 12th November 1995
declaration, where Mr. Lenske gives the 1981 date. It seems that Mr. Lenske
states things to be as they are convenient for his purposes.
We now have the benefit of his 4th February 1986 declaration to determine that
he and his brother were, in fact, as you point out, involved with Hubbard's
business affairs as early as 1977, itself a very significant year.
>> Therein lies another strange coincidence: Lenske appeared on
>> the scene only after Hubbard had disappeared, and only three
>> months before Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown, then became a key
>> figure in every step that led to CST's take-over of the
>> multi-million-dollar intellectual properties she had previously
>> controlled, and to which she was rightful heir:
Again you are quoting from the Public Research Foundation's 1997 press
release.
>....not if he didn't lie in his signed declaration.
Again, you are quite right, having the benefit of Sherman Lenske's 4th
February 1986 declaration, which, to my knowledge, has only become broadly
available rather recently, long after the publication of the PRF press release
you are quoting from, which itself was quite revelatory at the time of its
release.
This is the primary reason I assayed to attempt a timeline of the available
knowledge about the Lenskes and Norton Karno and their associates and
involvements: to bring the available information up to date and organize it
chronologically. Perhaps you could look at that and even improve upon it.
Cambridge
Garry
>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>>My God, you really are an asshole, and on purpose, too.
>>
>>
>>Wow, and you have the nerve to accuse others of "cruel"
>>communication.
>>
>>That was very ~covert~ of you, and ~very~ cruel.
>>
>>You have just demonstrated once and for all to me just how
>>low you will go when you are taken off your pedestal.
>>
>>I am done with you, nothing more needs to be said.
>
>How about if I didn't do whatever you say I did?
Hey, Gerry, how about demonstrating some maturity and common decency when
posting to ARS? Given the circumstances of Dave Rice, is it any wonder that Bev
may have mistook what you were saying out of context? And why did it take almost
a week for you to clear the air?
>
>I saw what you posted here, and saw that you were attacking me, but
>didn't make the connection you made until an hour or two later. I
>mention that to show how disconnected I was from the connection you
>are making.
Bev was not attacking you. She was responding to what she thought was a cruel
remark. Obviously, narcissists like yourself that are so wrapped up on
themselves, fail to see the obvious.
>
>You wrote: "Again, the most important thing is to bring ~ALL~
>the heads of the Hydra in the open, and that way
>one knows what they are dealing with."
>
>And I responded: "Well certainly this is important. But you're
>implying it hasn't been done. So you must know some hydra heads which
>have not been brought in the open. Who are these folks?
>
>Oh, and don't go shooting at the heads of the people trying to do what
>you think is this most important thing to do."
Irregardless, this last remark was in very poor taste.
>
>What the "Again" refers to, or what I took it to refer to, is your
>earlier statement in the same post: "and the only real relevance is
>that the next time RTC decides to bring a lawsuit against anybody for
>copyright or any other infringement that the party involved be aware
>of every entity the Hydra known as the Co$ has so they can have the
>opportunity to set ~all~ the heads of the Hydra on the chopping block,
>that is the only way to reach the "heart" of the matter."
>
>When I thought of "heads" it was in response to your image of chopping
>off Scientology's heads. And my comment about being shot in the head
>was because you had been, as I said, sniping at me, when I had been
>doing exactly what you thought was so important to do. What you
>likened to getting the Scientology heads on the block.
>
>Not for one second before or after writing what I wrote did I connect
>it to Dave's death, and I do not now. I am truly sorry that you made
>such a connection yourself, and that others are using this connection
>that never existed for their own black PR purposes.
>
>Can you therefore forgive me for what never happened?
Can you bring yourself to apologize for making a remark that reminded Beverly of
her husband's suicide? Do you have any common decency to feel for Beverly and
apologize to her, even if she misunderstood the context of what you said, or are
you too good for that?
>
>And that is why forgiveness works at all. Because that which is
>forgiven didn't happen, and that which needs to be forgiven didn't
>happen.
Save your prophetic babble for someone who follows that crap...like Warrior.
>
>If you can forgive me for this thing which never happened, perhaps you
>can forgive me for the other things which didn't happen. Knowing what
>really happened, it can only be misinterpretations of what happened
>(which misinterpretations would be things which never happened), for
>which you can't forgive me. That's why forgiveness works.
Babble..babble...babble..babble. Poor Gerry...can't even bring himself to
apologize, but has to take every opportunity to justify his bad behavior...real
pathetic.
>
>In any event, as I said, at no time did I connect it to Dave's tragic
>death, and I do not now.
Wow...impressive. :-(
>
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
Birgitta
>Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>
>>>Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
(big snip)
>
>...i have read it, and as k pointed out it's a good one. There's one thing all of you
>reaserchers can do when you post your findings, especially if they are long. Add
>explanations of abbreviations in the beginning of the post and references of documents
>in case they are available on net. Prefereably original documents.
>
>It would make them be more readable to newbies and foreigners. It's pretty damn hard
>to figure out an abbreviation of some american instance because the abbreviations are
>diffirent in every country. For example if i'd refer to a document in KHO's archive,
>where would that document be? It's easy to find from the web, but if there's be a short
>list on the beginning of post it would be easy to check it while reading.
Very good suggestion Lex.
Bid
Beverly Rice
> >> Oh, and don't go shooting at the heads
> >Wow, and you have the nerve to accuse others of "cruel"
> >communication.
> >That was very ~covert~ of you, and ~very~ cruel.
> >You have just demonstrated once and for all to me just how
> >low you will go when you are taken off your pedestal.
> How about if I didn't do whatever you say I did?
But you did.
Don't play any of your little mind games with me anymore,
I know better because I know you.
However, all you write is a good attempt for the benefit of
others on the NG to CYA.
I don't forget that you were Intel, and that you were the
one that Hubbard relied on to straighten out "shore flaps"
or "make things go right."
You are very good with your sleight of hand, deflection and
smooth tongued blather.
> I saw what you posted here, and saw that you were attacking me, but
Oh god, poor Gerry, always seeing "attacks" when being
called on the carpet.
I wasn't "attacking" you, I was directly addressing what
you said.
> didn't make the connection you made until an hour or two later. I
> mention that to show how disconnected I was from the connection you
> are making.
The only thing you are disconnected from is any reality
that you don't want to see or that isn't beneficial for
you.
Snip to Gerry's creation of a good shore story to correct
a shore flap.
> When I thought of "heads" it was in response to your image of chopping
> off Scientology's heads. And my comment about being shot in the head
> was because you had been, as I said, sniping at me,
Oh, boo hoo. I disagree with you on certain issues, and I'm
tired of you making every issue into an issue about your
"persecution". I addressed you the same way I have others
I think are FOS.
You actually used to ~like~ that same tone of my posts
when they were for ~your~ benefit, you said you admired
my directness.
And BTW, you have never anywhere even come close
to using that expression before, no matter what excuse you
create now for using it.
> when I had been
> doing exactly what you thought was so important to do. What you
> likened to getting the Scientology heads on the block.
No, you weren't, you continue to turn CST threads into
attention that they are ops against you, and have not addressed
questions that have been put to you. You make an issue that
others should answer your questions, but aren't willing to
do the same yourself.
> Not for one second before or after writing what I wrote did I connect
> it to Dave's death, and I do not now.
Liar, but I know that you do, after all, have your reputation
of being "humble" to protect.
You know from the many talks we have had, and the many
times I have broken down and cried with you, the effect
of seeing anything talking about anything to do with
"shooting" at "heads" has at tearing me apart.
You know, because I shared this with you so many times,
and also shared with you for years about the special
therapy I was getting for the trauma of my husbands
suicide, and the picture that was burned in to my mind
of him after shooting himself in the head with all the
blood and other horrible visual memories around it . . .
not even to mention the talks we had about the mental
and emotional impact and devastation it had on me.
Don't even try to play innocent with me here on this one,
although I know your replay is more for the NG than for
me, because we both know that was an intentional, added,
low blow from you
I know full well the mind games that you play, but hey,
I was the one that allowed it. No more.
> I am truly sorry that you made
> such a connection yourself, and that others are using this connection
> that never existed for their own black PR purposes.
No, you are truly sorry that you got busted and that I
called you on the carpet openly.
The hell with others black PR purps, black PR on ars is
like breathing air, it's unavoidable. I don't let it
dictate my life anymore, had enough of it, and learned
that you just have to let it fall off your back.
However, it is so typically Very Gerry for you to use
what others may do to again deflect from your own
cruelty.
> Can you therefore forgive me for what never happened?
This has nothing to do with forgiveness.
And don't try to deflect away what you did by implying
that it never happened. I'm all too familiar with your
playing on words to get sucked up in to that anymore.
Gerry blather follows:
> And that is why forgiveness works at all. Because that which is
> forgiven didn't happen, and that which needs to be forgiven didn't
> happen.
>
> If you can forgive me for this thing which never happened, perhaps you
> can forgive me for the other things which didn't happen. Knowing what
> really happened, it can only be misinterpretations of what happened
> (which misinterpretations would be things which never happened), for
> which you can't forgive me. That's why forgiveness works.
No, that's the way your holier-than-thou bullshit works.
All this "it never really happened" crap you continually
spew forth is merely a self-contrived out you have constructed
for your own self for when you hurt others or need to
avoid responsibility.
You sure don't apply it when you refer to what you claim
others have done to you, you keep hold of that stuff. Plus
you even have written to others that you expect or want
apologies. Hypocrite.
> In any event, as I said, at no time did I connect it to Dave's tragic
> death, and I do not now.
Liar, see above.
I'm tired of you playing things off as either being ignorant,
innocent, unintentional, other peoples "misinterpretations",
or just joking.
You don't get it, it doesn't work anymore.
Beverly
Garry
Alright, Beverly!! I didn't think you had it in you! Thank you for showing us
the real Beverly, with all her heart & mind.
And get ready... No doubt Warrior is looking for the words now to defend his
dumbass prophet Gerry.
In article <3CBA32...@mpinet.net>, Beverly says...
Garry
Say Tory... sounds like Beverly drummed up the courage to say what's on her mind
and what's in her heart....
and blows your apologist, kiss-Gerry-on-the-ass-no-matter-what scheme right out
the door....
>STOP IT>>>>>
>this sick kind of *crap* needs to stop.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones....
Eat that crow, Tory...
>Honestly folks....there is a person here with much deeper feelings to deal
with than any of this insensitive trashing.
>It is sick, not nice, and only hurts someone
who is a very kind girl, that both Gerry, Warrior, and I love...that being
Beverly.
>Strange way of showing it.
In article <3CBA32...@mpinet.net>, Beverly says...
>