Call for Volunteer Chris Owen
Cambridge
a research project that has grown to proportions I could not have
anticipated. It concerns the clients of Michael Flynn.
I have been impressed by the copious cites you have made, in your own
research projects, to transcripts of testimony from the Gerald Armstrong
case and from the Julie Christofferson case.
In "Piercing the Corporate Veil," you say:
"In the following, 'GA' refers to the transcript in Church of Scientology
International v. Armstrong (Los Angeles Superior Court, decided June 1984),
preceded by the witness' name, and followed by the volume and page
numbers."
You then cite specific passages from the transcripts of the testimony of:
Laurel Sullivan
Gerald Armstrong
Jocelyn Armstrong
Howard Schomer
Lyman Spurlock
Terri Gamboa
James Morrow
Tom Vorm
The list above is presented as inclusive, not exclusive.
While your own selections from and interpretations of the transcripts have
their own value, the original records of testimony, in their pure and
unedited form, not only form an invaluable historical record themselves,
not only would be a fitting and treasured contribution to the storehouse of
public knowledge, but also, more specifically, would be of immeasurable
value to my fellow researchers and to me in our work on the Flynn cases.
Therefore I am making a public plea for you to place the transcripts from
the Armstrong and the Christofferson case this forum of public access for
the benefit of all.
You are to be commended for devoting so much of your own spare time to
public presentation of materials as you have. In doing so, you have
certainly demonstrated both your devotion to, and resources for, making
such documents public.
I pray that you will consider the publication of the transcripts as an
altogether justified extension of your public service calling, and will see
your way clear to helping us in the successful completion of our own
research efforts.
Thank you.
Cambridge
Cambridge
to my request? I reproduce it below, and have taken this opportunity to
correct my earlier omission of the word "in" in the paragraph beginning
"While your own selections... ."
I would be most appreciative of a response. Here is the original request:
the Armstrong and the Christofferson case in this forum of public access
Cambridge
responding to my good faith request for help with access to documents to
aid in research is that for one reason or another he isn't seeing my
messages.
That seems to make the most sense. I know of his dedication to historical
accuracy and abundant presentation of documentation, and I couldn't think
of a reason why he wouldn't respond, wouldn't be willing to help fellow
researchers in efforts similar to his own concerning the same sources and
events.
I know very little about the problems sometimes reported with propagation
to various new services, and have no way of knowing whether he has the
output of certain remailers blocked or what else might be a contributing
factor, but I wonder if anyone reading this would be willing to repost this
message to ensure that he receives it.
I would be very appreciative. I'd also like to take this opportunity to
state that the source legal records that Mr. Owen cites frequently in his
own work, and for which I am requesting his help, are difficult to come
into possession of, and form a crucial primary reference record for the
general pursuit of disclosure, candor, accuracy, and equity concerning a
host of people and events central to many of the issues frequently
discussed in this forum. His help in this matter would be of immeasurable
consequence and importance not only to us in our own efforts, but to many.
I feel certain he would want to contribute in any way he can.
Below is my third iteration of my request:
the Armstrong and the Christofferson case in this forum of public access
Shy David
> It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
> responding to my good faith request for help with access to documents to
> aid in research is that for one reason or another he isn't seeing my
> messages.
Conversely, perhaps Mr. Owen has a Real Life, and he's too damn busy
to read a.r.s. but only follows threads he initiated.
---
"So, that's why chirstians are so nutty!" -- LC, Scientology spokesperson
My humble web page about Narconon: http://holysmoke.org/narconon/narconon.htm
Dave Bird
<camb...@ivy.league> writes:
>It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
>responding to my good faith request for help with access to documents to
>aid in research is that for one reason or another he isn't seeing my
>messages.
Maybe, to put it blunlty, he regards you (Kathy or Steve) as idiots
and killfiles your articles. I can clearly see that you have posted
this stuff and he has not responded; which is his privilege, of course,
I highly doubt that he reads the whole of ARS anyway.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
Cambridge
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:39:08 GMT
in message <3e52...@news2.lightlink.com>
deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote:
>On 18 Feb 2003 23:23:36 +0100, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>
>> It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
>> responding to my good faith request for help with access to documents to
>> aid in research is that for one reason or another he isn't seeing my
>> messages.
>
>Conversely, perhaps Mr. Owen has a Real Life, and he's too damn busy
>to read a.r.s. but only follows threads he initiated.
I believe you may be right. That probably is the entire explanation. So in
addition to posting this, I am also mailing it to him to alert him to the
thread in a.r.s. Thank you for the excellent suggestion.
Here is the restored complete text of my previous message, which I will ask
Mr. Owen to respond to in this relevant thread in a.r.s.:
It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
responding to my good faith request for help with access to documents to
aid in research is that for one reason or another he isn't seeing my
messages.
That seems to make the most sense. I know of his dedication to historical
Shy David
> Posted & mailed to Chris Owen
> >On 18 Feb 2003 23:23:36 +0100, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
> >> It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
> >> responding to my good faith request for help with access to documents to
> >> aid in research is that for one reason or another he isn't seeing my
> >> messages.
> >Conversely, perhaps Mr. Owen has a Real Life, and he's too damn busy
> >to read a.r.s. but only follows threads he initiated.
> I believe you may be right. That probably is the entire explanation. So in
> addition to posting this, I am also mailing it to him to alert him to the
> thread in a.r.s. Thank you for the excellent suggestion.
For what it's worth: please blow it out of your ass in in hot, dry
chunks. You damn well know I "suggested" no such thing. If he is
ignoring you (i.e., intentionally not bothering to read--- let alone
answer--- your queries), that's certainly his right: your little
attempts at emotional coercion is, in any case, silly. If he is not
ignoring you, he'll get to you eventually. In either case, no one owes
you a reply and it is unfair and childish to expect one.
I douby there is one person in a hundred that reads every article in a
newsgroup: life's to goddamned precious and short to squander in such
a manner.
Shy David
wrote:
> In article<K7U2RXSV37...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, Cambridge
> <camb...@ivy.league> writes:
> >It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
> >responding to my good faith request for help with access to documents to
> >aid in research is that for one reason or another he isn't seeing my
> >messages.
> Maybe, to put it blunlty, he regards you (Kathy or Steve) as idiots
> and killfiles your articles. I can clearly see that you have posted
> this stuff and he has not responded; which is his privilege, of course,
> I highly doubt that he reads the whole of ARS anyway.
The "request" is comming from an anonymous remailer: a HELL of a lot
of people have anonymous remailers filtered out---- "Cambridge's"
articles may not be seen by Mr. Owen.
At a clange, "Cambridge" appears to be requesting research data from
Mr. Owen regarding issues of NarConon. It is entirely possible, nay
even likely, that Mr. Owen's web site narconon-exposed.org has the
desired information, and "Cambridge" has not put in the effort
required to fish for it.
Cambridge
in message <3e53...@news2.lightlink.com>
deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote:
>At a clange, "Cambridge" appears to be requesting research data from
>Mr. Owen regarding issues of NarConon.
My request had nothing whatsoever to do with NarConon. First being able to
read at primer level would be a very clever way for you to approach the
more advanced task of typing replies.
I am asking for court transcripts. Realizing that "transcripts" has two
syllables, I don't want to tax your skills to dangerous levels and possibly
send you into coma, but these are records of the actual testimony of
witnesses appearing before a court. Some of the known witnesses whose
testimony Mr. Owen has transcripts for, from at least two different cases
(Armstrong and Christofferson), include:
Laurel Sullivan
Was LRH Personal PRO which was under the office of LRH Pers Comm.
Gerald Armstrong
No introduction necessary. Mr. Owen has his testimony from Armstrong's own
case concerning the contested Hubbard documents, as well as Armstrong's
testimony in the Christofferson case.
Jocelyn Armstrong
Gerald Armstrong's wife at the time of her testimony in the Armstrong case.
Howard Schomer
Involved with "R Accounts" and then was in important financial position in
Author Services, Inc. (ASI) during its first year.
Lyman Spurlock
Founder of Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) along with Sherman Lenske,
Meade Emory, and Leon Misterek, trustee of RTC, senior executive of CST,
Corporate Affairs Director at ASI.
Terri Gamboa
Senior Commodore's Messenger from 1969 to 1981, then resigned from CSC and
was on the mission with Norman F. Starkey that hired the firm Lenske,
Lenske, Heller & Magasin in April 1981. Became a senior executive in ASI.
James Morrow
Became the "Tax Compliance Officer OSA Int" pursuant to tax exemption.
Tom Vorm
Was staff member of CST, also was named President of a separate Lenske
corporation, Media Storage, Inc.
Mr. Owen may even have transcripts of other important witnesses but these
are witnesses whose testimony he certainly has cited. I sincerely hope he
will be fully forthcoming with all of these immeasurably important records,
and I sincerely hope you can keep up.
Cambridge
Cambridge
>On 19 Feb 2003 04:47:17 -0000, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>
>> Posted & mailed to Chris Owen
>
>> >On 18 Feb 2003 23:23:36 +0100, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>
>> >> It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
>> >> responding to my good faith request for help with access to
>> >> documents to aid in research is that for one reason or another he
>> >> isn't seeing my messages.
>
>> >Conversely, perhaps Mr. Owen has a Real Life, and he's too damn busy
>> >to read a.r.s. but only follows threads he initiated.
>
>> I believe you may be right. That probably is the entire explanation.
>> So in addition to posting this, I am also mailing it to him to alert
>> him to the thread in a.r.s. Thank you for the excellent suggestion.
>
>For what it's worth: please blow it out of your ass in in hot, dry
>chunks. You damn well know I "suggested" no such thing.
I beg your pardon. Your quoted suggestion that "Mr. Owen has a Real Life,
and he's too damn busy to read a.r.s." still reverberates above. You may
want to look into short term memory loss as a symptom. Again I thank you
for the excellent suggestion, and I believe that my posting and mailing my
request to Mr. Owen addressed it.
>If he is
>ignoring you (i.e., intentionally not bothering to read--- let alone
>answer--- your queries), that's certainly his right:
Yes, I am not requesting that he surrender any rights, nor am I requesting
of you a recitation of human rights. I am asking for his help in providing
some valuable evidentiary source documentation in the form of court
trascripts that he has cited numerous times.
>your little
>attempts at emotional coercion is, in any case, silly.
The only emotion that has been injected into this thread to date has come
from you and Mr. Bird over a simple request for documents. I cannot imagine
a life so devoid of interests that one could get exorcised over such a
pedestrian request from one researcher to another for important records.
>If he is not
>ignoring you, he'll get to you eventually. In either case, no one owes
>you a reply and it is unfair and childish to expect one.
That point of view, I suppose, would arise out of your ignorance of the
importance of primary source documents, an ignorance that I know for a fact
Mr. Owen does not suffer from. Mr. Owen has emphasized this very point
repeatedly. He has said:
"The lesson I had drummed into me by my tutors at Oxford was, 'if it
can't be documented it isn't worth a damn'. That's why serious works of
history (and many other academic fields, for that matter) are festooned
with footnotes - so that other researchers can look at the same source
material and, the author hopes, come to the same conclusions. ...How
historians interpret the source material often varies; the key point is
that there *is* verifiable, referenced source material in the first
place."
Indeed he has festooned his works with footnotes and cites to source
material which he has available to look at. Unfortunately, those source
materials do not currently meet his other specified criterion, which is
that "other researchers can look at the same source material." Those court
transcripts he cites are currently extremely difficult to obtain. I am
asking for his help in making them available in this public forum so that
they can be accessed and looked at not just by him, but by all.
If you could express your objection to such a benign and rational request a
little more lucidly, or even coherently, perhaps I could be swayed away
from a desire to actually see the documents. But I doubt it.
Though you may not understand the importance of such primary source
documents, it should be clear to you now that Mr. Owen does, and so fully
understands my request for his help in this.
Mr. Owen himself has said, "...the first rule of historiography - the
primary sources are the ones which matter most."
The transcripts are the primary sources I am seeking. I hope Mr. Owen's own
epigrammatic quote above helps you to understand why.
And there is no compelling reason for him not to post them, as he has
pointed out himself:
"Quick rules of thumb: if this information is in public records, then it is
in the public domain. ...If it's in the public domain there is no real
reason why it shouldn't be publicised. ...[U]nless the information is
non-public there's no compelling reason not to post it, either."
The court transcripts certainly were in public records, which is how he has
them, and so are in the public domain.
I think he has made his case conclusively. I believe his case is
inarguable.
So since I cannot conceive of any possible objection Mr. Owen himself could
have to making these important documents public, I certainly, then, cannot
understand your own heated, disturbed, and overought posturing and
intervention in something that concerns you not at all, and is only
something that you, among all others, could also benefit from.
I think it is abundantly clear that Mr. Owen is capable of speaking for
himself, don't you agree?
Cambridge
Cambridge
Mr. Owen, I apologize that I somehow overlooked that fact that you have
also quoted from the transcript of Mary Sue Hubbard's testimony in CSC v.
Gerald Armstrong. Although I specified that my list of witnesses that you
have cited the transcripts for was inclusive, not exclusive, and although
I'm sure you would not have overlooked her testimony, still, because of its
importance I am resubmitting this request to add her name prominently to
the list.
Here is my original request, amended.
Mr. Owen: Would you be gracious enough to extend me the courtesy of a reply
to my request? I reproduce it below, and have taken this opportunity to
correct my earlier omission of the word "in" in the paragraph beginning
"While your own selections... ."
I would be most appreciative of a response. Here is the original request:
Mr. Owen, I have been engaged for a good many months, in my spare time, on
a research project that has grown to proportions I could not have
anticipated. It concerns the clients of Michael Flynn.
I have been impressed by the copious cites you have made, in your own
research projects, to transcripts of testimony from the Gerald Armstrong
case and from the Julie Christofferson case, including the testimony of
Mary Sue Hubbard in CSC v. Armstrong.
In "Piercing the Corporate Veil," you say:
"In the following, 'GA' refers to the transcript in Church of Scientology
International v. Armstrong (Los Angeles Superior Court, decided June 1984),
preceded by the witness' name, and followed by the volume and page
numbers."
You then cite specific passages from the transcripts of the testimony of:
[Mary Sue Hubbard--cited and quoted elsewhere]
Chris Owen
> On 18 Feb 2003 23:23:36 +0100, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>
> > It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
> > responding to my good faith request for help with access to documents to
> > aid in research is that for one reason or another he isn't seeing my
> > messages.
>
> Conversely, perhaps Mr. Owen has a Real Life, and he's too damn busy
> to read a.r.s. but only follows threads he initiated.
Amazingly enough, this is true... Real Life has the upper hand right
now and likely will do so for some months to come. I've not read ars
in depth for a long time, and these days I tend to dip in only once
every so often.
As for Cambridge's request - I do have some transcripts and a long
time ago I had a crack at OCRing them, but didn't get very far with
it. Frankly, I don't have the time or the interest right now to resume
that project. I do have quite a bit of material that's worth scanning
and webbing, but it'll have to wait - I have other fish to fry. In
other words, I'll do it when I do it.
No doubt CL and his various alter egos and sock puppets will denounce
me for not jumping to attention and joining his "masochistic addiction
to perusing eye-glazingly complex and tedious documentation", as Kady
once put it, but frankly I couldn't care less. CL/Ace of Spade/Kase
Ossifer (or whatever alias he's using today) is a malicious
propagandist as well as a loon. Don't for a moment think that he's
interested in truth; he's interested only in propping up his
conspiracy theories and attacking anyone who undermines those
theories. Having learned the hard way how unproductive it is to debate
him, I don't intend to do so again.
| Chris Owen - ronthe...@OISPAMNOyahoo.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| NARCONON EXPOSED: The full facts about the Narconon program |
| http://www.narconon-exposed.org |
Cambridge
Mr. Owen, pursuant to my request for you to be sure and include the
testimony of Mary Sue Hubbard when posting the Armstrong case transcripts,
it perhaps was inconsiderate of me not to take special notice that your
quotation from Mary Sue's testimony included the following cite: "[Church
of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong, 7 May 1984, p. 1083]"
Of course the page count of the transcript you have goes much higher than
p. 1083, as I somehow managed also to overlook, even after reading the
following exchange between you and Gerry Armstrong that took place In
message ID <5qoghq$io9$1...@due.unit.no> on 18 July 1997:
GERRY ARMSTRONG: "DM is immortalized for his famous gang bang sec check on
Homer Schomer in probably 1982. Homer testified about it in the Armstrong
I trial in 1984 (LASC No. C 420153). ...Does anyone know if these trial
transcripts have ever been webbed?"
CHRIS OWEN: "They haven't been, but I have a partial copy of the transcript
and have been scanning it. You'll see it on the Web soon... (and hopefully
the whole thing eventually, when I find a complete copy of the
transcript)."
Not until later did I fully realize that your essay, "Piercing the
Corporate Veil," contained the following cite regarding Schomer's
testimony: "(an ASI staff member, Schomer in GA25, p.4493)"
Now, whether you ever found a "complete copy" of the trial transcript or
not, I realize that posting over 4,400 pages of testimony into the
newsgroup would be a considerable chore to say the least, so I have what I
hope will be a helpful suggestion:
I'm aware that Andreas Heldal-Lund has webbed much of your work on
xenu.net, "Operation Clambake," as well as having webbed many extremely
valuable legal documents. Perhaps you could create .zip files of the the
transcripts that you have used to quote from anc cite, and Andreas would be
willing to host those .zip files for you so people around the world could
download the documents in manageable chunks.
I feel this would provide a very workable approach, and the over 4,000
pages of testimony of the people I list below would be of a value to the
historical record that simply cannot be overstated.
I hope my suggestion about webbing the transcripts as .zip files through
Andreas will help you finally realize your 1997 assurance that the trial
transcript you had would be "on the Web soon."
Here, again, is the list of witnesses in Armstrong I that you have
indicated you have transcripts for:
Mary Sue Hubbard
Laurel Sullivan
Gerald Armstrong
Jocelyn Armstrong
Howard Schomer
Lyman Spurlock
Terri Gamboa
James Morrow
Tom Vorm
The list above is presented as inclusive, not exclusive.
I realize you may have many things occupying your time, as do we all, so I
hope my suggestion of simply compressing the transcripts and putting them
on the web will be of help.
I would very much appreciate it if you would at last break your
considerable and perplexing silence on this and afford me, at the very
least, the courtesy of a public response.
Thank you.
Cambridge
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Cambridge" <camb...@ivy.league> wrote in message
news:26C0HOA73767...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
I think it's abundantly clear that Mr. Owen will never receive
diddly-frigging-squat from you in any kind of mail whatsoever.
--
Revd. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page
than has any publication since the invention of printing."
- Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
Not Grady Ward
>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:33:05 GMT
>in message <3e53...@news2.lightlink.com>
>deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote:
>>On 19 Feb 2003 04:47:17 -0000, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>>> Posted & mailed to Chris Owen
>>>>On 18 Feb 2003 23:23:36 +0100, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>>>>> It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
>>>>> responding to my good faith request for help with access to
>>>>> documents to aid in research is that for one reason or another he
>>>>> isn't seeing my messages.
>>>>Conversely, perhaps Mr. Owen has a Real Life, and he's too damn busy
>>>>to read a.r.s. but only follows threads he initiated.
>>> I believe you may be right. That probably is the entire explanation.
>>> So in addition to posting this, I am also mailing it to him to alert
>>> him to the thread in a.r.s. Thank you for the excellent suggestion.
>>For what it's worth: please blow it out of your ass in in hot, dry
>>chunks. You damn well know I "suggested" no such thing.
>I beg your pardon.
Hot dry chunks. <laughing> Amusing.
--- SCAMIZDAT -AB-
It is a woman's lot in life to be fornicated. - L. Ron Hubbard
Cambridge
Mr. Owen, thank you for your reply below, oblique and once removed though
it is. Before I received it I had posted and mailed another message in this
thread that I titled "Re: Call for Volunteer Chris Owen--Helpful
Suggestion." I make reference to it below, and will refer to it just as
"Helpful Suggestion."
On 19 Feb 2003 14:45:00 -0800
in message <f758becc.03021...@posting.google.com>
ronthe...@yahoo.co.uk (Chris Owen) wrote:
>deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote in message
>news:<3e52...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> On 18 Feb 2003 23:23:36 +0100, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>>
>> > It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
>> > responding to my good faith request for help with access to
>> > documents to aid in research is that for one reason or another he
>> > isn't seeing my messages.
>>
>> Conversely, perhaps Mr. Owen has a Real Life, and he's too damn busy
>> to read a.r.s. but only follows threads he initiated.
>
>Amazingly enough, this is true... Real Life has the upper hand right
>now and likely will do so for some months to come. I've not read ars
>in depth for a long time, and these days I tend to dip in only once
>every so often.
Since you recently had issued a call for volunteers in a.r.s., I thought
that perhaps you might be checking rather more frequently. Be that as it
may, I presume that you have been receiving my posted & mailed messages, is
that correct?
>As for Cambridge's request - I do have some transcripts and a long
>time ago I had a crack at OCRing them, but didn't get very far with
>it.
As I quoted in "Helpful Suggestion," you said in a 1997 message to Gerry
Armstrong regarding your scanning of the trial transcript that it would be
"on the Web soon," so I had the impression that you were fairly far along.
Also in "Helpful Suggestion," I quoted from "Piercing the Corporate Veil"
where you had cited testimony of Homer Schomer as "Schomer in GA25,
p.4493."
Also, in a message <8VYFFjA$nR44...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> as recently as
28 March 2000, you quoted a paragraph from Mary Sue Hubbard's testimony
specifying that it had come from "Church of Scientology of California v.
Gerald Armstrong, 7 May 1984, p. 1083."
So when you say you "didn't get very far with it," specifically how far did
you get? How many pages did you get OCRed?
>Frankly, I don't have the time or the interest right now to resume
>that project.
Surely you realize that any portion that you have completed would be
invaluable. Is there anything that would prevent you from making public the
parts you have done?
>I do have quite a bit of material that's worth scanning
>and webbing, but it'll have to wait - I have other fish to fry. In
>other words, I'll do it when I do it.
All right, that's understandable. Then if you would be kind enough to post
or web what you have done, and would also be kind enough to advise me of
exactly where you obtained your transcript and its cost, I am certain that
I can arrange for the financing to purchase a complete transcript and get
finished the job that you started in 1997. There is a group of voluteers I
have available to me who are willing to do whatever is necessary to get
these invaluable records fully published and disclosed.
We feel (as it seems you also must have in 1997 to embark on such a large
project), that these are immeasurably important documents and that they
should be fully published.
While I fully understand that you, personally, no longer feel the keen
interest in the transcripts that you exhibited in 1997 by embarking on such
an imposing task as OCRing them, there is yet intense interest in several
quarters right now about what was said by whom in court in the Armstrong
and Christofferson cases, especially in light of so much other data that
has come to view since then.
I realize that your recent call for volunteers was in relation to another
project that you currently consider more important, and though I can't help
you with that, I am offering a team of volunteers that can complete the
other project, the Armstrong trial transcript publication project, that in
1997 you felt was important enough to do.
That will free you from the burden of finishing that long-unfinished
project so you can concentrate on your current interests.
As soon as you can provide me with information on where and how you
acquired the transcripts, and what they cost, someone will obtain a copy
and get started on it who has all the facilities and resources required to
get the job that you were attempting done fairly rapidly. That way everyone
will have access to the data contained in the trial testimony, including
you, which I fully understand was your desire and intention in starting
your OCR project on the transcript in 1997 to begin with.
If that's the way this is going to work out, I also would appreciate it if
you could advise me of the same information regarding the Christofferson
transcript(s) that you cite: where you got the transcript(s) and the cost.
That way the same group can get the actual testimony from that case
published as well.
Thanks again for your help on this.
Cambridge
Cambridge
in message ID <b31apb$6ss$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <noteart...@removehotmail.com> wrote:
>I think it's abundantly clear that Mr. Owen will never receive
>diddly-frigging-squat from you in any kind of mail whatsoever.
On the contrary, I'm quite confident that every message I have posted
and mailed to Mr. Owen has, indeed, arrived at his email address of
ronthe...@yahoo.co.uk because with each mailing of these messages to
his email address, a BCC: has gone simultaneously to a control mailbox,
and each has arrived without fail.
Is there anything else?
Cambridge
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Cambridge" <camb...@ivy.league> wrote in message
ANY kind. Evasive answers are not answers. FLUNK! START OVER.
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
- LRH's "Creation of Human Ability" p251
Cambridge
Mr. Owen? Can't you please help me?
For five days now I've been attempting in good faith, in every way I have
available to me, to solicit your assistance in getting some valuable
primary source documents, the Armstrong and Christofferson trial
transcripts, made public. In doing so I had no reason to expect anything
but your enthusiastic support in this effort, having familiarized myself
with your forceful and admirable writings on the subject of the sui generis
importance of source documents.
I've attempted to minimize any burden on you in any way I could, having
suggested merely compressing the transcripts as .zip or .tgz files and
putting them on the web space afforded to you by Andreas Heldal-Lund.
I've now also offered assistance to you, informing you that I have the
resources necessary to finish the project you started in 1997, that of
publishing the trial transcripts, with no further burden on you, asking
only some information about where and how you obtained the files and their
cost so I can arrange to get a set purchased.
I now am at a nonplus in the face of what seems to be deliberate artifice,
equivocation, and pertinacious silence for which I cannot conceive reason.
You have yet even to respond to me directly, even since I began posting and
mailing my requests for your help.
Therefore here is yet another appeal to you for your unique assistance in
this matter, and I would beg your indulgence for at least the courtesy of a
direct and responsive reply.
Surely I needn't repeat here the nature and content of my several and
amended requests, since you have received them via e-mail and they are
available in the archives of this alt.religion.scientology thread.
Won't you please respond in some relevant and meaningful way and advise me
of your specific intention.
Cambridge
Shy David
> Posted & mailed.
> Mr. Owen? Can't you please help me?
Here.... let me introduce you to my twit file.
Nut, meet twit file. Twit file, meet nut.
*PLOINK!*
---
"Cowboys make better lovers: Ask any cow." -- E Abbey
Warrior
>
>Won't you please respond in some relevant and meaningful way and advise
>me of your specific intention.
>
>Cambridge
Chris responded on ars. Here's part of his response:
"I do have quite a bit of material that's worth scanning
and webbing, but it'll have to wait - I have other fish
to fry. In other words, I'll do it when I do it."
You can read his whole post here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=off&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=f758becc.0302191445.6c82edc6%40posting.google.com&lr=&hl=en
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
CL
Hash: SHA1
ronthe...@yahoo.co.uk (Chris Owen) wrote:
>No doubt CL and his various alter egos and sock puppets will denounce
>me for not jumping to attention and joining his "masochistic addiction
>to perusing eye-glazingly complex and tedious documentation", as Kady
>once put it, but frankly I couldn't care less.
Now, now, Private Owen: don't be that way. I'm not going to denounce
you. I'm taking the high road on this one. I'm very glad to see
Cambridge is back, very glad to hear that he's working on the Flynn
cases, and really looking forward to seeing those transcripts.
>CL/Ace of Spade/Kase Ossifer (or whatever alias he's using today) is a
>malicious propagandist as well as a loon.
<Phff!> Yeah, yeah, yeah. You and Armstrong and Reuss and your pathetic,
redundant, stale, threadbare, broken-record cluster fixations.
That stillborn clump was D.O.A. when Armstrong dragged it out into the
middle of the floor and started beating it, and now it's just getting
green and moldy and smelly. Can't you come up with ANYTHING original or
clever or effective? It seems that the anonymice have ~REALLY~ gotten
under your piped choker collar, Private Owen. I think you might pop a
fucking vein at this rate.
So, why ~are~ you sitting on the Armstrong case docs? You trying to
hatch them or something?
(I know, I know, I said I was going to take the high road, but then I
realized I had abandoned that course in the very act of responding to
~you~ at all. So ~fuck~ it: I changed my mind. It's my time of the
month.)
You're not SUPPRESSING anything in those Armstrong trial transcripts,
are you, Private Owen? And your SUPPRESSING the transcripts wouldn't
have anything to do somehow with what's on the Veritas site, would it?
I ask that question for several reasons: one, because of your propensity
to sqwawk "Veritas loons!," two, because of your dripping, venomous,
sarcastic, vicious, vitriolic hatred of ALL the anonymice who have
methodically published and exposed more of the same kind of FULLY
documented material as the data that's on the Veritas site, and three,
because, as a result of something that Cambridge posted in his requests
to you, I did one quick check on a hunch, and that led to another, and
that led to another, and suddenly I found that I had tripped over THIS
interesting little timeline:
18 July 1997
GERRY ARMSTRONG: "DM is immortalized for his famous gang
bang sec check on Homer Schomer in probably 1982. Homer
testified about it in the Armstrong I trial in 1984 (LASC
No. C 420153). ...Does anyone know if these trial
transcripts have ever been webbed?"
CHRIS OWEN: "They haven't been, but I have a partial copy
of the transcript and have been scanning it. You'll see it
on the Web soon... (and hopefully the whole thing
eventually, when I find a complete copy of the transcript)."
Source: Message-ID <5qoghq$io9$1...@due.unit.no>
14 September 1997
The web site "Veritas" is announced for the first time in
a.r.s. in message <342d5a9c...@news.snafu.de> from
Tilman Hauser. It charts, for the first time, the real
Scientology corporate structure, demonstrating and
documenting the seniority of Church of Spiritual Technology
(CST) and CST's ownership of the copyrights. Veritas also
reveals and documents that CST is operating behind the
fictitious business name "L. Ron Hubbard Library." Veritas
also reveals and documents that CST was created by and is run
by non-Scientologist tax attorney Special Directors. It also
exposes the involvement of former Assistant Commissioner of
IRS, Meade Emory.
Source: Message-ID: <342d5a9c...@news.snafu.de>
See: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/index.htm
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/cst/copygrab.htm
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/cst/power.htm
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/cst/cstdba.htm
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/secret/index.htm
5 November 1997
Chris Owen publishes "Piercing the Corporate Veil," a
convoluted distortion of the actual Scientology corporate
structure. The essay is filled with falsehoods and seeks to
convince the reader that "The Church of Scientology is
controlled by the Religious Technology Center under the
absolute direction of David Miscavige," attempting to support
the lie with another lie, claiming that "RTC has de facto
control by means of licenses regarding trademarks and service
marks." Nothing could be further from the truth, except
perhaps another blatant lie Owen puts into the introductory
material, claiming falsely that "Norman Starkey (under the
registered 'doing business as' or dba 'The L.Ron Hubbard
Library') has control of the copyrights with the exception of
the 'OT levels', which are supposedly registered to RTC."
Owen's essay is a patchwork of such blatant and proven
falsehoods, and is directly contrary to what is published and
fully documented on the Veritas site. "Piercing the Corporate
Veil" appears to have been created specifically as a hasty
disinformation attempt to counter and discredit the very
facts that Veritas has published and documented. In his lies,
particularly about CST, Owen cites the Armstrong trial
transcripts (see 18 July 1977, above).
Source: Message-ID: <63ofql$kas$1...@due.unit.no>
5 December 1997
The Las Vegas, Nevada-based Public Research Foundation's
(PRF) press release "Hidden Ties Between IRS and Scientology
Revealed" is published in a.r.s. It lays out and documents
the connections between the Lenskes and Meade Emory and the
IRS, and documents CST's ownership and control over all the
copyrights and over the most important trademarks, as well as
CST's controlling supremeacy over RTC.
Source: Message-ID: <2E8h0Mdl...@islandnet.com>
15. c. December 1997
Gerry Armstrong has travelled to Nevada and contacted PRF,
professing an interest in "helping" them in their
investigations. They blow him off.
Source: Message-ID: <34c522e1....@news.dowco.com>
And then: no Armstrong trial transcript webbed by Private Owen! And
after you and Armstrong had set it up so cleverly, too! What a let-down!
You know, that's a pretty revealingly ugly little timeline right there,
Private Owen. It DOES look like you slammed out your "Piercing the
Corporate Veil" package of lies SPECIFICALLY as a knee-jerk
disinformation response to the facts that Veritas had documented--which
STILL stand up completely, over five years later, while your lies have
been absoultely shredded.
Say, Private Owen, just between you and me: it didn't happen to work out
that Veritas and PRF blew yours and Armstrong's and the Lenskes' little
game into fucking confetti, did it? Is THAT why you have such a red,
raw, blister on your dick about Veritas all the time?
Is THAT why Armstrong went rushing off to Nevada to swoop down like a
vulture on the Public Research Foundation a few months later, in
December 1997, when PRF ~also~ published material about Meade Emory and
the Lenskes and CST all those connections?
It didn't just so happen to work out that the information that Veritas
and Public Research Foundation suddenly exposed to the world about CST
and Meade Emory and the Lenskes ALSO exposed the entire Armstrong case
dog-and-pony show as a complete Lenske/Spurlock/Flynn/Armstrong
engineered fraud, did it?
Is THAT why you abandoned webbing the Armstrong trial transcripts, and
instead quickly devoted your time to cranking out that stank piece of
disinformation shit, "Piercing the Corporate Veil," only CITING the
carefully-selected lies from the Armstrong trial that YOU and ARMSTRONG
and the Ministry ~wanted~ pushed forward?
You know, that sure as ~FUCK~ is the way it looks from where I sit,
Private Owen
You're not actually SUPPRESSING the testimony from that case
specifically because it would FURTHER expose the connections and the
actual roles of the Lenskes and Emory, are you Private Owen?
Come on, speak up, Private Owen!
<REMOTE VIEWING MODE>
I'm sort of getting this hazy picture of summer, 1997, and a slick,
highly stylized web site with the Armstrong transcripts--page after page
after page of utterly DAMNING testimony, with what they call around your
office "high production values"--just having the final finishing "Chris
Owen[TM]" touches put on it, just getting absolute RAVES from your
superiors at British Ministry of Defence (BMD), and JUST about ready to
go public when-- WHAM! Veritas hits the web!
And suddenly ~all~ that FUCKING work on the Armstrong transcripts
appears to be going ~directly~ to HELL. And all those years of the
Lesnkes and Armstrong and Spurlock laying the groundwork for it appears
to be going ~directly~ to HELL.
And Private Owen has to be soothed and calmed and medicated, and THEN,
after much cursing and storming heard from on high at the BMD, the
decision is made and the orders come down: Private Owen is to SET ASIDE
the Armstrong Trial web site, and Private Owen is to concentrate ALL his
attention first on RAPIDLY creating "Piercing the Corprate Veil" (PCV)
to counter those GODDAMNED facts that were not supposed to have gotten
out, but that have gotten out! That way, PCV, with enough lies, can
"re-establish" Miscavige as the "supreme leader over all of
Scientology," and the Armstrong trial transcripts can then be salvaged.
And, being the good little sailor he is, Private Owen says, "Yes, Sir!
Right away, Sir! May I suck your dick first, Sir!"
And Private Owen sweats over his word processor and cranks out lie after
lie after lie, making sure that each and every lie is backed up by some
of the other paid liars like Stacy Brooks and Gerry Armstrong and Lyman
Spurlock, and names it "Piercing the Corporate Veil," and rushes it out
the door. And a.r.s. morons fawn all over the work product of the
Ministry's "Oxford scholar" and lap up the lies.
And Private Owen and the Ministry have no sooner breathed a sigh of
relief when-- WHAM! the Public Research Foundation press release hits.
And then-- WHAM! the ARSCC Librarian appears and starts further
DOCUMENTING all that data.
And suddenly ~all~ that FUCKING work on the Armstrong transcripts goes
~directly~ to HELL. And all those years of the Lesnkes and Armstrong and
Spurlock laying the groundwork for it goes ~directly~ to HELL. All those
years of propping up and grooming David "Particle Board" Miscavige goes
~directly~ to HELL.
Armstrong goes flying off to Nevada to see if he can infiltrate PRF and
mark targets to be brought down--which is his specialty.
Waiting and fretting to hear word from Armstrong, Private Owen has to be
soothed and calmed and medicated, and then Armstrong gets TOTALLY
air-dried in public for his attempted infiltration of PRF.
So THEN, after much cursing and storming heard from on high at the BMD,
the decision is made and the orders come down: Private Owen is to
ABANDON that Armstrong Trial transcripts project ENTIRELY, and Private
Owen is to concentrate ALL his attention on staking out the territory of
the 1930s thourgh the 1940s, and produce "Ron the War Hero" instead, and
get everybody's attention ONTO that, and OFF of the goddamned bloody
CST/Lenske/Emory mess, while Emory works behind the scenes to get the
"Closing Agreement" leaked to the Wall Street Journal to let some STEAM
out of the ~FUCKING~ pressure cooker.
So Private Owen is ordered to RUN, don't WALK, and get fully onto the
"Ron the War Hero" project, and get onto it right away! And, being the
good little sailor he is, Private Owen says, "Yes, Sir! Right away, Sir!
May I suck your dick for you first, Sir!"
</REMOTE VIEWING MODE>
How am I doing, Private Owen? Is your fucking OFFICE bugged? Your PHONE
tapped? Your e-mail being intercepted? You BETTER have the ENTIRE
fucking area swept AGAIN. I bet you have the almost-complete Armstrong
Trial web site still on your hard drive, don't you? (Look out your
window and see if you can spot the reflection of binoculars anywhwere.)
Okay, let me go do a quick RV verification check and see how I did. Hang
on... Googling... Working... And... BINGO!
From: Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: "Ron The War Hero"
Date: 18 June 1998
LMAO! L M F A ~O~!!!!!!
Jeeeezus, Private Owen: it's REALLY looking now like you have been
ACTIVELY suppressing the Armstrong trial testimony now for, what,
something over FIVE ~FUCKING~ YEARS?!?
I mean, if that IS what's going on here, if you HAVE been suppressing
the testimony in the Armstrong case, that's going to look really, REALLY
ugly, Private Owen, ESPECIALLY if somebody ELSE now publishes it. Then
how the ~FUCK~ are you ~ever~ going to recover ANY tattered shred of
integrity?
Oh, well, that's YOUR problem, and I guess ONE way or another we'll find
out the truth when the transcripts get published. I, for one, can't
hardly fucking WAIT!
But you weren't through ranting and sputtering about me:
>Don't for a moment think that he's interested in truth;
Yeah, yeah, yeah. (Wipe your chin, Private Owen.) Yes, everyone: please,
whatever you do, DON'T think that, not even for a moment. Continue to
NOT THINK the thought, "CL is interested in truth." Keep carefully NOT
THINKING that "CL is interested in truth." Keep that thought about NOT
THINKING THAT uppermost in your mind at ALL TIMES! This is URGENT! Your
very sanity may depend on it.
Okay, Private Owen, I think they got the message.
I ~am~, however, ~very~ interested in these court transcripts now! Your
lame fucking excuses on this have REALLY piqued my curiosity. Not that
the transcripts are ~truth~, you understand; I wouldn't want to imply
that, because if they were, of course I wouldn't be interested in them,
right? But, after all, it IS the actual testimony from the lying fucking
crooks Armstrong, Sullivan et al. I can't hardly fucking WAIT!
Waiiiiiit a goddamned minute. Armstrong? Sullivan? I think I'm having an
"IQ test" epiphany. I guess the question would be:
What do all of these people have in common:
Chris Owen
Gerry Armstrong
Laurel Sullivan
Terri Gamboa
Norman F. Starkey
David Mayo
Kima Douglas
Russell Miller
Mike Rinder
I'll have to work on that one a bit, Private Owen.
I'm sorry I got sidetracked; you were saying something else nice about
me, weren't you:
>he's interested only in propping up his
>conspiracy theories and attacking anyone who undermines those
>theories.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. (Wipe your chin, Private Owen.) We've all heard it
over and over like a fucking broken record. But speaking of conspiracy
theories, Private Owen, the more I think about this, the more I realize
that I'm ~also~ REALLY interested now to find out how much you paid for
those 5,000 pages of court transcripts and where a lowly Private in the
British Ministry of Defence got THAT kind of fucking discretionary
scratch to throw away on his little "sideline hobby." Those things ain't
cheap, are they, Private Owen? You got yourself a sugar daddy? Are you a
kept Private, Private Owen?
But you weren't done praising me, were you:
>Having learned the hard way how unproductive it is to debate
>him, I don't intend to do so again.
LM ~F~ A ~O~!
You do have a way with words, Private Owen! You're giving me some of the
best belly laughs I've had in a long, long time. I ~will~ agree that it
sure as HELL has been "unproductive" for you to debate with some of the
anonymice, like Nigel, who so thoroughly sliced and diced your miserable
lying ass that the ONLY fucking thing you could do was slink away with
your tail tucked between your legs. I notice you don't mention Nigel in
your most recent cluster roll-call. I guess that would be because you
don't want to remind people how UTTERLY he humiliated your ass.
But you've never debated ME, Private Owen: you slink off and hide like
the phantom "L. Ron Hubbard" in "Bare-Faced Messiah" <SPIT!> every time
I come near you. You "clam" up, Private Owen. You're a chicken-shit
little fucking liar, which I proved with the E-meter embarrassment,
while you just sat there with a dick in your mouth and didn't answer up.
You were AWOL, Private Owen. A no-show. You skunked.
No, you don't debate me because you can't answer up to the FACTS,
Bare-Faced Owen. All you can do is shriek like a woman, "The anonymices!
EEEEEK! Bad anonymices! Bad anonymices!"
And in another thread, I've JUST finished dissecting your darling, the
Cinderella of "Bare-Faced Messiah" <SPIT!>, Kima Douglas, and nothing
fell out but squirming maggots. Why don't you trot over to my last
message in the thread "Where the hell was Starkey" and see if you can
find ANYTHING to salvage from all of HER fucking lies--which YOU
endorsed. (I made a special note of thanks to you for that, in that
message.)
Speaking of lies, what about THIS one you wrote, Bare-Faced Owen:
"Norman Starkey (under the registered 'doing business as' or
dba 'The L.Ron Hubbard Library') has control of the
copyrights."
Chris Owen
"Piercing the Corporate Veil"
5 November 1997
It was a ~FUCKING~ lie when you wrote it--FIVE YEARS AGO--and it's a
~FUCKING~ lie now, and you've done NOTHING to correct it or remove it.
You know where the PROOF was THEN, and is NOW, Bare-Faced Owen, the
PROOF that what you wrote was a lie? I KNOW you know where it is, you
debased scum. It was on VERITAS at the time, and it's on VERITAS
now--you know, the factual information web site that you and Armstrong
and the rest of your pack of mangy fucking hyenas have done everything
in your power to discredit. Here is the url to Veritas's PROOF of your
Bare-Faced Owen lie, just as it was THEN, in 1997, when you WROTE the
fucking lie above:
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/cst/copygrab.htm
And right there on that chart, big as you please, IN A RED BOX, at 29
November 1993, right after the "Closing Agreement, it says clearly:
16.
29 NOVEMBER 1993
Norman F. Starkey
transfers ALL
7,730 titles.
Transfer of
copyright
And then there's a BIG RED ARROW showing where the TRANSFER OF THOSE
7,730 COPYRIGHTS WENT, pointing over to "Church of Spiritual Technology,
doing business as the 'L. Ron Hubbard Library'". And right below that,
in the CST box, are the names of the founders: Meade Emory, Sherman
Lenske, Leon Misterek, Lyman Spurlock.
You'd have to be fucking BLIND to miss it. And it was ON THE WEB when
you wrote YOUR blatant fucking lie, above. And you KNEW it.
Veritas even had the DOCUMENTATION ~PROVING~ that at the time you wrote
your FUCKING lie above it was CST--~NOT~ Starkey--who was using the "L.
Ron Hubbard Library" d.b.a.
And here it is now, EXACTLY the way it was when you WROTE your fucking
lie that Starkey was using that d.b.a.:
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/cst/cstdba.htm
They ALSO had on their site the actual documentation PROVING that
Starkey's use of that phony d.b.a. had long ago ENDED when you wrote
your lie:
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veritas/newslant/starkeydba.htm
Why did you willfully lie, Bare-Faced Owen?
Why have you tried to discredit Veritas, when, plainly, THEY were
telling the truth, and YOU were lying through your fucking teeth?
Why, Bare-Faced Owen? What is YOUR fucking agenda? Who is setting it?
Well, you just continue to ignore me, Bare-Faced Owen. That suits me
JUST FINE. I'll just wait and see what's in the Armstrong transcripts
and see how I can weave them into my "conspiracy theory." Okay? At ease.
Now go shine your fucking shoes and polish your superiors' knobs while
you and they dream up some NEW fucking excuse not to reveal where and
how you got the 5,000 pages of Armstrong court transcripts (that you are
suppressing) to begin with. THIS should be interesting.
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.
=======================================================================
"In Wollersheim's case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."
--Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid
=======================================================================
"Your latest 'post' was longer than two paragraphs, so I didn't read it."
--booboo...@webtv.net (Tigger)
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPlbdetAKsx0v8qcvEQJycwCfSQVFVKdrgETx7RzI0rbX/SBgmoYAn2rM
03YXmZ75cjpXtvWyNfb6XmRO
=2Wq2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Cambridge" <camb...@ivy.league> wrote in message
> Posted & mailed.
>
> Mr. Owen? Can't you please help me?
>
> For five days now I've been attempting in good faith
Liar. RE-PLONK.
--
Revd. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
Cambridge
Mr. Owen? Can't you please help me?
For five days now I've been attempting in good faith, in every way I have
Won't you please respond in some relevant and meaningful way and advise me
Cambridge
in Message-ID: <b37a5...@drn.newsguy.com>
Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>In article <LVVX9R3Z3767...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, Cambridge
>says...
>>
>>Won't you please respond in some relevant and meaningful way and advise
>>me of your specific intention.
>>
>>Cambridge
>
>Chris responded on ars.
No, Mr. Owen did not respond. He latched onto an obstructionist excuse
provided for him by an interfering non-party to my request, a dysfunctional
desert hermit who styles himself as "Shy David," whose idea of purpose in
life appears to be haunting deserted mines and arroyos populated only by
insects and reptiles, there to carry out the vital mission of burying
secret caches of Scientology junk mail.
So not only was Mr. Owen's missive to Shy David non-responsive to my
request, it was a barely tolerable insult.
I have been attempting in good faith to make contact with Mr. Owen for the
purpose of making important court records of the Armstrong and
Christofferson trials available to all, and Mr. Owen chose to correspond
about my request not with me, but with a neurotic so detached from reality
that he could not even discern what the nature of my request was, suffering
under the sun-stroke delusion that it had something to do with Narconon.
So, no, Mr. Owen did not respond, and still has not responded. He made
oblique commentary about my request to a meddling, unstable recluse,
commentary that was exactly as I described: egregiously non-responsive
artifice and equivocation.
>Here's part of his response:
>
>"I do have quite a bit of material that's worth scanning
>and webbing, but it'll have to wait - I have other fish
>to fry. In other words, I'll do it when I do it."
Yes, I read his post, which you mischaracterize as a response. And despite
the fact that it was insufferably haughty, disdainful, and dismissive,
despite its obnoxious sanctimonious piety, despite the disturbing
pharisaism it betrayed, still, I responded to it evenly, including a
proposal providing a complete solution that would entirely forfend Mr.
Owen's hallowed frying fish.
Either you did not read my response to Mr. Owen, nor even the very message
you purport to be responding to, or your comprehension skills are on an
anthropoid par with Shy David's. I have said now, several times, including
in the message you were replying to, but in a part you snipped, that I have
available all the resources necessary to complete the project of putting
the trial transcripts on the internet. If Mr. Owen's consecrated fishcakes
are preventing him from finishing the project himself, all that is asked of
him is to say how many pages he got done, where he got the transcripts
from, and what their cost was so I can arrange to purchase a set and get
the OCRing done.
So far, on that request for a simple few sentences from him, there is only
and exactly what I described: pertinacious silence for which I cannot
conceive reason.
The entire matter could have been dispensed with by a single responsive
reply from Mr. Owen. Instead, he elected, after some time had elapsed, to
engage in public evasive discourse about the matter with an irrelevant,
antisocial, interloping bedlamite, much as I am doing now.
Of that class, there seems to be no shortage.
Cambridge
Beverly Rice
> The entire matter could have been dispensed with by a single responsive
> reply from Mr. Owen. Instead, he elected, after some time had elapsed, to
> engage in public evasive discourse about the matter with an irrelevant,
> antisocial, interloping bedlamite, much as I am doing now.
Hey, I would ~love~ to see that stuff posted . . .
I truly would.
but guess what?
Chris isn't interested, and that's the way it is and will
be.
Who knows, maybe one day we'll get a nice suprise, but in the
meantime, even though I am with you on really desiring to see
the transcripts he has posted . . .
and the most super patient human being that I am . . .
your getting just a bit repitious to the point of being rather
gnat-like.
If Chris wants to post them he will do so when he pleases . . .
if not . . . trust me, he's got your message and knows what
you want.
So please post about what you do have and know, it's an awful
lot, but trust me, your point with the repitious inquiry has
been made, you will get to the point that even the few that
do look foward to your posts are going to get tired of it.
Sometimes straining too hard only gives one a bad case of
hemmorhoids, with no "valuable work product".
Yeh, I know, you just value my opinion ~SO~ much. :-)
Hahahahahaha!!!
ARC = As-Ising the Real CST,
Beverly
Keith Henson
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Snip
CL, this is an honest question. Why does it matter if the whole
alphabet soup of scientology is controlled by space aliens, the US
government, a cabal of former IRS lawyers, or DM?
You can account for what scientology is using evolutionary psychology
--essentially it is a drug cartel based on addicting people to
attention rewards and charging them dope prices--without invoking
"remote viewing" or any other "OT" sort of powerz.
I have no doubt there are people in and out of scientology who fool
themselves and others into thinking they have such powerz, that's
human nature, but evidence for such actually existing is lacking.
But even if some super powerz like "remote viewing" could be developed
by those besotted with "the tech" why would it make the slightest
difference who was in control?
You may actually have a good answer to this question. I can think of
a few, but I don't think you have ever come out and told us.
Keith Henson
Michael Reuss
> ... I said I was going to take the high road, but then I
> realized I had abandoned that course in the very act of responding to
> ~you~ at all. So ~fuck~ it: I changed my mind.
In this little section of one paragraph, I think you've nicely summed up
your entire participation in this newsgroup, CL. Well done.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Cathy T.
Keith Henson wrote:
> CL, this is an honest question. Why does it matter if the whole
> alphabet soup of scientology is controlled by space aliens, the US
> government, a cabal of former IRS lawyers, or DM?
Let me answer,from my viewpoint.
I'm still catching up n' wading through the works of the Librarian
but,unless I got something wrong,it seemz like the
Cof$/CST..whatever..is
at least partly under the TOTAL control of some people (like Emory) who
have *never* bin Scientologistz.
Imagine how a Catholic might feel to find out that the Pope not only
wazzen't a Catholic but wazzent even a Christian????.
Regardless of the rightz n' wrongz of the Tech,how would you expect a
Scientologist to react upon finding out that it was controlled,not by
misguided Scientologistz..but by people who might not even believe in
it?
I'm still wading through alla CL's stuff but *I*,azza
Scientologist,wanna
know who is supposedly in control.If itz a non-Scientologist,I wanna
know
what the FUCK is going on.
I think alla the lurking Clamz might be interested too.
Carry on,CL :-)
Caffy T
Fluffygirl
"Michael Reuss" <michae...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:i9ff5vk75taf4lr43...@4ax.com...
CL has a bit of a temper and is passionate about his beliefs.
Anyway,it's a person's prerogative to change his or her mind.
I hope that CL continues to post more of his research.
I find it a bit complex but I'm hoping to get it eventually.
Maybe some CL cliff notes would help.
;->
C
Fluffygirl
"Shy David" <deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e57...@news2.lightlink.com...
> On 22 Feb 2003 08:18:21 +0100, Cambridge <camb...@ivy.league> wrote:
>
> > Posted & mailed.
> > Mr. Owen? Can't you please help me?
>
> Here.... let me introduce you to my twit file.
>
> Nut, meet twit file. Twit file, meet nut.
>
> *PLOINK!*
>
Hey, Ed! Somebody just publicly k/f'd somebody else on this forum.
Arentcha gonna criticize him?
C
Michael Reuss
>>> ... I said I was going to take the high road, but then I
>>> realized I had abandoned that course in the very act of responding to
>>> ~you~ at all. So ~fuck~ it: I changed my mind.
>> In this little section of one paragraph, I think you've nicely summed up
>> your entire participation in this newsgroup, CL. Well done.
> CL has a bit of a temper and is passionate about his beliefs.
> Anyway,it's a person's prerogative to change his or her mind.
You could not have missed my point more completely.
I'm not talking about CL's rudeness, temper, or anything else. I'm
talking about his inability to listen to, let alone to learn anything
from, those people he arbitrarily and unilaterally decides are part of
his imagined massive government conspiracy to figuratively "castrate"
the imagined power of Hubbardspew dreknology.
> I hope that CL continues to post more of his research.
Me too.
> I find it a bit complex but I'm hoping to get it eventually.
He makes it far more complex than it needs to be, because he is
essentially like a prosecutor making a case. He is building his case
based mainly on circumstantial evidence, and he must veer around all the
direct evidence that contradicts his loony conspiracy theory.
> Maybe some CL cliff notes would help.
Hey, maybe Nigel or Cambridge would volunteer to help write some up? ;-)
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
anima mundi
wrote:
Just because there's a lot of it, doesn't automatically grant some
mythical exemption from being crap.
anon...@anonymous.poster.comm
>
>Just because there's a lot of it, doesn't automatically grant some
>mythical exemption from being crap.
The CL-loon knows of the crap content-its intentional that way.
anon...@anonymous.poster.comm
>
>Hey, maybe Nigel or Cambridge would volunteer to help write some up? ;-)
>
He could get all the buddy bt's- veritoss, kase pukifer, ace of caca, and the
slut librarian to help also.
Shy David
wrote:
> "Shy David" <deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3e57...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> *PLOINK!*
> Hey, Ed! Somebody just publicly k/f'd somebody else on this forum.
I also filter out all of the anti-mental-health articles (er, as far
as I know---- is a.r.s. still being flooded with that nonsense?), and
a few dozen individuals. I'm damn sure I'm filtered by some 90% of
people who have and use filters (since I'm so plesant at times).
The issue isn't just that of "not worth reading." The issue also
includes "Too damn much to read."
> Arentcha gonna criticize him?
LOL!
> C
Ed
Shy David wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:55:47 -0800, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "Shy David" <deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e57...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> >> *PLOINK!*
>
> > Hey, Ed! Somebody just publicly k/f'd somebody else on this forum.
>
> I also filter out all of the anti-mental-health articles (er, as far
> as I know---- is a.r.s. still being flooded with that nonsense?), and
> a few dozen individuals. I'm damn sure I'm filtered by some 90% of
> people who have and use filters (since I'm so plesant at times).
>
None of that flooding for quite some time. That's easy to tell
because the obnoxious high-volume posters will always get someone to
reply, so then you have OHVP quoted at the beginning of a post.
Absence of that means the OHVP went silent.
Ed
Fluffygirl
"anima mundi" <ani...@yahoospam.com> wrote in message
news:h9pf5vcoa0l1d9a70...@4ax.com...
Soooo... then you're saying the cliff notes idea *would* work?
Dunno 'bout you, but I could use 'em.
C
>
CL
Hash: SHA1
"Fluffygirl" <csw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>CL has a bit of a temper
Moi? Why, I'm as cool as a cucumber, ~and~, unlike a cucumber, ~I~ take
out the trash.
>and is passionate about his beliefs.
I'm passionate mainly about two things:
1. Accuracy of facts--not "beliefs." I'll change my "beliefs" in a
heartbeat if the FACTS point somewhere new. And they do,
~frequently~. (It ~just~ happened with "WHQ" and "SHQ.")
2. Exposing willful liars for what they are, and DOCUMENTING their
lies ~as~ lies. Just belling the cat. :-)
>I hope that CL continues to post more of his research.
>
>I find it a bit complex but I'm hoping to get it eventually.
The complexity is inherent in the sheer number and variations of lies
that have been told. When there are a number of different "sources"
telling (essentially) the same lies, and when they have a lot at stake
to cover up with those lies, and when obviously a great deal of money
and effort has been invested in packaging and propagating those lies far
and wide in every medium known to man, and making those lies convincing
to a lot of people, it's not necessarily a two-paragraph job to document
and prove the fact of the lies ~being~ lies. It takes a lot of damned
hard work, often eye-bleedingly tedious work, by a lot of people.
(And the elves sing, "Amen!")
Even then, even with copious and repeated irrefutable documentation of
sufficient TRUE facts that prove that the lies ARE lies, people who've
bought into the lies, and BELIEVED IN the lies, and RELIED ON the lies,
who have even been duped into spreading the lies themselves, and,
especially, who have BELIEVED IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOURCES of those
lies, often have a VERY difficult time admitting to themselves that
they've been duped.
It's tough. I understand it. There ~is~ denial. And sometimes it's next
to impossible to overcome. People don't like to admit to ~themselves~
even, much less to the world, that they've been conned--ESPECIALLY by
people who they thought were their "friends" or "allies." Who can blame
them? It's hard to face up to. It's hard to believe. It's hard to admit.
In this newsgroup, it's often even tougher, because people who bought
into and FORWARDED the lies themselves then have their own posting
record sitting their to haunt them. It takes some guts to say, "Okay, I
was made a fool of, and I went along and bought it."
Of course it was only their own trust that was used against them, the
very same thing that's used by every con artist, so it isn't really
anything to be ashamed of--just something to learn from.
And ultimately they're going to have to face up to, and get PAST, the
fact that they HAVE been conned, and come to grips with the complexity
and viciousness of the lies that were used to con them, and with a
recognition of WHO the liars were (and are) who've been screwing them
over before they will ever have a ~prayer~ of getting to the truth.
That's why I have no qualms about rhetorically grabbing people by the
lapels and shaking them until their teeth rattle in their heads if
that's what it takes to get them to LOOK at the FACTS.
You may find this hard to believe, but on rare and extreme occassions
I've even been known to resort to use of a swear word. ;-)
>Maybe some CL cliff notes would help.
>
>;->
What do you want help with? Ask away. Don't be shy. I won't take your
head off. I won't bite. I won't even use a single Anglo-Saxonism.
The ONLY people you find me getting vicious with are knowing, willful
LIARS. And so far, on THAT count, I'm batting a thousand.
I ~welcome~ questions. I ~beg~ people to question the data, the facts,
the evidence. Hell, it was only their NOT asking tough questions that
allowed them to have the wool pulled over their eyes to begin with. I
~insist~ that nobody take what I post at face value or on my say-so. I
~insist~ that people look for THEMSELVES at the documented data, find
out for THEMSELVES what is fact and what is lie and who is telling the
truth and who is trying to ram lies down their throats. That's why I am
constantly referencing urls and sources that are accessible to EVERYONE.
So try me: what do you need "CL"iff notes on?
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.
=======================================================================
"In Wollersheim's case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."
--Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid
=======================================================================
"Your latest 'post' was longer than two paragraphs, so I didn't read it."
--booboo...@webtv.net (Tigger)
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPlhI9tAKsx0v8qcvEQLreQCfZZUP++tJFXTe2gcwS0pY/Oj6kyEAoJNy
rmBSKbbzSSFUyHxHmow/9ZYM
=oSkK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cambridge
in Message-ID: <3E578B...@mpinet.net>
Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>Cambridge wrote:
>
>> The entire matter could have been dispensed with by a single responsive
>> reply from Mr. Owen. Instead, he elected, after some time had elapsed,
>> to engage in public evasive discourse about the matter with an
>> irrelevant, antisocial, interloping bedlamite, much as I am doing now.
>
>
>Hey, I would ~love~ to see that stuff posted . . .
>I truly would.
Of course, as would any thinking person interested in truth.
>but guess what?
>
>Chris isn't interested
That would seem to say quite a lot.
>and that's the way it is and will be.
Yes, I believe that is clear now, which unfortunately for us all belies an
ingenerate hypocrisy in Mr. Owen that I never dreamed I could encounter,
particularly in such a vocal pulpiteer for the disclosure of important
source material.
I quote again from his own sermon:
"The lesson I had drummed into me by my tutors at Oxford was, 'if it
can't be documented it isn't worth a damn'. That's why serious works of
history (and many other academic fields, for that matter) are festooned
with footnotes - so that other researchers can look at the same source
material and, the author hopes, come to the same conclusions."
That's the creed Mr. Owen preaches but seems curiously indifferent to
practicing. The real lesson, I suppose, is that we all should do as Mr.
Owen says, not as he does.
My crime has been to take him at his word. My crime has been the
expectation that he responsibly would honor his words and not debar the
public from the reasonable opportunity to "look at the same source
material" that he has used to his own ends, and which he, alone, to my
knowledge, has in his possession. I have placed every conceivable resource
at his disposal to make public disclosure of the transcripts possible with
minimal, if any, inconvenience to him. His answer is the precise measure of
his perfidy.
>Who knows, maybe one day we'll get a nice suprise, but in the
>meantime, even though I am with you on really desiring to see
>the transcripts he has posted . . .
Yes, well, lamentably he has not posted them, which is the crux of the
matter. He hardly has quoted from them at all. He only has paraphrased them
to his own design, then typed cites to them, secure in the knowledge that
no relevantly independent or disinterested individual or group possessed a
copy of the transcripts against which to review his usage of them.
Of course this is the most dishonest approach to historiography possible.
He well knows the value and importance of the availability of such source
material. Again we have Mr. Owen's own angel food on this very subject:
"[T]he first rule of historiography - the primary sources are the ones
which matter most."
Yet he has elected to hide and hoard "the ones which matter most" and dole
out only his own evaluations and interpretations, knowing that these
vitally important materials are not currently available in any public or
easily accessible way to any other researcher for any sort of peer review,
or even lay review, of his version of "the truth."
So guarded and protective is he of what is contained in the materials that
he will not exhibit even the decency and courtesy to say where he got them
so that others can purchase a copy for the benevolent and philanthropic
purpose of making public what he will not.
In historiography, in investigative reporting, in any kind of honest
research, there is no more grievous offense. To defend it on any grounds is
to champion dishonesty, duplicity, and deceit.
If all of this weren't enough, it is further compounded, if that is even
possible, by the recognition that the only other people in the world who
might probably possess a copy of the transcripts are the attorneys who were
overseeing all Hubbard related litigation at the time of the Armstrong and
Christofferson trials: Lenske, Lenske & Heller. They, who created all the
existing Scientology related corporations, are curiously whitewashed from
Mr. Owen's treatise on the corporations, "Piercing the Corporate Veil," the
very essay in which he cites the Armstrong transcripts, using those cites
to support the most egregious misrepresentations concerning "Church of
Spiritual Technology" (CST). I don't suppose I need remind you that CST is
the one corporation where the very same attorneys just so happen to operate
in positions of highest authority as Special Directors, something that Mr.
Owen entirely omitted.
If you can tolerate this kind of blatant and wholesale assault by Mr. Owen
on honesty and disclosure, if you can defend the kind of insufferable
hypocrisy he has posed, then I believe you should be nominated for
sainthood for your patience alone.
>and the most super patient human being that I am . . .
"La patience est amä¿Še, mais son fruit est doux." --Rousseau
(Patience is bitter but its fruit is sweet.)
He has had the transcripts in his private hoard and kept them secret from
the public for over five years. Is this what you describe as patience?
>your getting just a bit repitious to the point of being rather
>gnat-like.
Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur.
(The judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted.)
>If Chris wants to post them he will do so when he pleases . . .
And since Mr. Owen wants not to post them, perhaps CST will make room for
Mr. Owen to hide his recherche transcripts of the Armstrong and
Christofferson trials in their titanium vaults.
>if not . . . trust me, he's got your message and knows what
>you want.
Pro bono publico, probum non poenitet.
(For the public good, the upright man does not repent.)
>So please post about what you do have and know
The study of the Flynn clients will be posted regardless of whether Mr.
Owen elects to remain in his self-appointed Sophist Office of Censorship or
not. Of course the transcripts he is hoarding, quite in addition to their
intrinsic catholic value and interest, would be a welcome addition to our
own study, and I won't pretend otherwise. Mr. Owen is in a unique position
to help us expedite the completion and publication of our study a great
deal, itself pro bono publico, while also greatly enriching the public
storehouse of available sources. I had no reason to expect that he would do
otherwise. The very thought that he could conduct himself in such a cheap
and odious manner was beyond any conceit I could have conjured up before
being witness to it.
But, as you have observed, for reasons known only to him, he apparently
does not want to help at all, even with the simple courtesy of advising us
where to find the transcripts so that we can obtain our own copy and make
them public for the public good.
Therefore efforts are being made independently of the abject reprobate to
learn who the court reporters were so the transcripts can be obtained and
published pro bono publico despite his hypocritical obstructionist
stonewalling and unpardonable suppression of the data.
>it's an awful
>lot, but trust me, your point with the repitious inquiry has
>been made, you will get to the point that even the few that
>do look foward to your posts are going to get tired of it.
Those who pretend to be the voice of the many have no voice of their own. I
welcome your own personal view, but your pretense that you have the
faintest idea about, or even means of knowing, how many people read my
posts or not is tiresome, irrelevant, and false on its face. You might put
that over on a credulous child but it is wasted on me.
All of your flogging is wasted on me, because I'm not the one withholding
the trial transcripts from you, am I? Why didn't you invest your time
writing instead to chastise Mr. Owen for his flagrant hypocrisy?
Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur.
>Sometimes straining too hard only gives one a bad case of
>hemmorhoids, with no "valuable work product".
I believe it would be a stretch to embellish your moving analogy.
>Yeh, I know, you just value my opinion ~SO~ much. :-)
>
>Hahahahahaha!!!
In fact I do value your opinion, as I value the opinion of anyone with a
receptive and inquisitive mind.
On the other hand, I find your censure in the instant matter to be very
badly misguided indeed.
Cambridge
Beverly Rice
> >> The entire matter could have been dispensed with by a single responsive
> >> reply from Mr. Owen. Instead, he elected, after some time had elapsed,
> >> to engage in public evasive discourse about the matter with an
> >> irrelevant, antisocial, interloping bedlamite, much as I am doing now.
> >Hey, I would ~love~ to see that stuff posted . . .
> >I truly would.
Well, to my knowledge, none of the transcripts that you mentioned
have ever been posted, unless I just missed them, have they?
Have they even been seen by anyone else, or are they sealed?
If they are sealed I could understand it.
> That's the creed Mr. Owen preaches but seems curiously indifferent to
> practicing. The real lesson, I suppose, is that we all should do as Mr.
> Owen says, not as he does.
I feel your frustration. <g> I guess I have just learned
to live with the fact that there are many things in the world
I would like but know I'm not going to get. But yes, I know,
one still tries.
> So guarded and protective is he of what is contained in the materials that
> he will not exhibit even the decency and courtesy to say where he got them
> so that others can purchase a copy for the benevolent and philanthropic
> purpose of making public what he will not.
Can it be that hard to find where they were obtained from?
Aren't transcripts kept in the districts where the hearings took
place?
Where specifically did the hearings take place?
> If you can tolerate this kind of blatant and wholesale assault by Mr. Owen
> on honesty and disclosure, if you can defend the kind of insufferable
> hypocrisy he has posed, then I believe you should be nominated for
> sainthood for your patience alone.
I don't believe in Saints.
> >and the most super patient human being that I am . . .
> "La patience est amä¿Še, mais son fruit est doux." --Rousseau
> (Patience is bitter but its fruit is sweet.)
Ooooohhhhh! No fair speaking French to me, you take an unfair
advantage by bringing out the girlie in me and making me all
fluttery.
Ummmm, now ~what~ were we talking about again. :-)
> He has had the transcripts in his private hoard
Oh NO!!! A ~Hoarder~ to boot!! (That's probably lost on anyone
here under 50).
>and kept them secret from the public for over five years. Is this
> what you describe as patience?
No, that's what I call the reality of the present situation and
I just don't want to expend what little energy I have left
getting torqued about it.
> >If Chris wants to post them he will do so when he pleases . . .
> And since Mr. Owen wants not to post them, perhaps CST will make room for
> Mr. Owen to hide his recherche transcripts of the Armstrong and
> Christofferson trials in their titanium vaults.
I am concerned about CST because they are too quiet.
I believe that there will be more to come out over the next
few months, maybe not what you would like when you would like
it . . .
but in a puzzle, every piece helps.
> >So please post about what you do have and know
> The study of the Flynn clients will be posted regardless of whether Mr.
> Owen elects to remain in his self-appointed Sophist Office of Censorship or
> not.
Now, ~THAT~ is something I am really looking forward to seeing.
There's a lot there that is ~NOT~ there.
Do you have a list of who all the Flynn clients are?
If so, could you list them at least?
> Therefore efforts are being made independently of the abject reprobate to
> learn who the court reporters were so the transcripts can be obtained and
> published pro bono publico despite his hypocritical obstructionist
> stonewalling and unpardonable suppression of the data.
Okay, that's good.
> >lot, but trust me, your point with the repitious inquiry has
> >been made, you will get to the point that even the few that
> >do look foward to your posts are going to get tired of it.
> Those who pretend to be the voice of the many have no voice of their own. I
> welcome your own personal view, but your pretense that you have the
> faintest idea about, or even means of knowing, how many people read my
> posts or not is tiresome, irrelevant, and false on its face.
Okay . . . ya got me, and I'm busted . . .
what can I say other than let me rephrase . . .
I just fear losing any audience at all re CST, that's bascially
it in a nutshell . . .
it has taken so long and ~SO~ much pounding.
I know there are a few here that discount anyone and all that even
utter the forbidden acronym . . . "CST".
I also know from observation that people get tired of watching
a dead horse get beat.
I really look forward to your posts, and others on CST, even if I
don't believe or agree with a little or much of what gets posted . .
I don't discount an entire amount of information just because I
find some of it to be either offensive, or off the mark from what
I see, or even conspiracy laden. You can still learn.
My concern is simply that I don't want to see any audience be lost
at all.
Especially since more and more people actually ~ARE~ beginning
to pay attention, even if they are staying silent on the NG about
it. :-)
> >Yeh, I know, you just value my opinion ~SO~ much. :-)
> On the other hand, I find your censure in the instant matter to be very
> badly misguided indeed.
No censuring intended.
I just think the reality of the situation is that the only way
those transcripts will ever get posted is if, as you said above,
you find some way of getting them and doing it yourself.
Would I like for Chris to post them? Yes I would. I just don't
see it happening.
I'm still waiting for all the McPherson/Co$ transcripts to get
posted.
There is lot's of missing data all over the place.
If you could get the stuff that was revealed in the Erlich case,
that would be fantastic, but those ~ARE~ under seal.
It's kind of like my budget . . .
I do my best to make due with what I've got . . .
I strive to get more and bonuses are always nice . . .
but for now, you only have what you have to stretch to
the max.
I know one thing for sure, the CST thing is going to have
some things in it that are going to be very interesting if
it all ever comes out.
Do you think it will come out . . . ever?
Cambridge
in Message-ID: <3E597B...@mpinet.net>
Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>Well, to my knowledge, none of the transcripts that you mentioned have
>ever been posted, unless I just missed them, have they?
Not to my knowledge. I felt I addressed that in my last message, the one
you are replying to.
>Have they even been seen by anyone else,
Not to my knowledge, other than perhaps by the parties and their attorneys,
which certainly would include Lenske, Lenske & Heller since they were
controlling all litigation concerning Hubbard at the time.
And of course Mr. Owen has a set.
>or are they sealed?
>
>If they are sealed I could understand it.
No, they are not sealed.
>Can it be that hard to find where they were obtained from?
So far we haven't determined who the court reporters were for the trial. It
was twenty years ago. That's what I asked Mr. Owen for help with, since the
court reporters are identified in the transcripts he has. He won't respond.
>Aren't transcripts kept in the districts where the hearings took place?
Transcripts are not part of the case files. They are made by court
reporters and sold by court reporters.
>Where specifically did the hearings take place?
Armstrong I took place in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Judge John J.
Cole originally presiding. Not being in Los Angeles is part of the handicap
in getting the information we need to track down a copy of the transcripts.
If anyone interested in seeing the Armstrong transcript published is in or
near Los Angeles and can help us locate a copy, we will acquire and publish
them as quickly as possible.
The Christofferson trial took place in Portland, Oregon. We are hindered by
the same handicap of being in a different location. Christofferson was not
a Flynn client, but the Flynn cases and the Christofferson case were all
settled at the same time, on 5 and 6 December 1986, all negotiated by
Lawrence E. Heller of Lenske, Lenske & Heller, and many of the Flynn
clients and witnesses testified in Christofferson. We believe that there
are many interlocking connections between the Flynn cases and the
Christofferson case.
Mr. Owen obviously has transcripts from both cases because he gives the
following references in "Piercing the Corporate Veil":
Schomer in Christofferson:
pp.3597-8, 3605-11, 3621, 3718, 3791, 3628-9, 3718, 3773-4
CSI v. Armstrong:
volume and page numbers -
GA4, pp. 511, 519.
GA5, pp.639-43.
GA10, pp.1588-90 (ff), 1651.
GA11: pp.1777, 1781-2
GA12: p.1991
GA14: p.2236
GA18: pp.2859-60
GA19A: pp.3047, 3069, 3121, 3126, 3130
GA19: pp.3365, 3386
GA20: pp.3430-5, 3448-9, 3455, 3457-8, 3478, 3490
GA21: pp.3689, 3699-3702, 3689
GA24: pp.4228-9, 4237, 4263-4
GA25: pp.4492-3, 4496, 4512-4, 4530-1
I believe the page numbers that he cites says all that need be said.
>> The study of the Flynn clients will be posted regardless of whether
>> Mr. Owen elects to remain in his self-appointed Sophist Office of
>> Censorship or not.
>Now, ~THAT~ is something I am really looking forward to seeing.
Depending on the difficulty in obtaining the Armstrong and Christofferson
transcripts, we may publish our study without benefit of them, then expand
it on it once the transcripts have been made public.
It's something I can't answer at the moment. We would much prefer to have
the transcripts before completing and publishing the study because all
indications are that they will answer many important questions currently
outstanding in our research.
Even when we get the transcripts, our first priority will be to publish
them pro bono publico, and then we will have access to them for expanding
our study at the same time that everyone else has them.
>Do you have a list of who all the Flynn clients are?
That is one of the first questions we tried to answer and has proved to be
among the most difficult. The short answer is no. The list has changed over
the course of our research and there are still question marks. You may find
this difficult to understand, as we certainly did, but apparently there was
a good deal of effort expended, and not just by Flynn, to keep the exact
number of cases and clients he had unknown, or at least uncertain, and
likely inflated. We found one person suggesting that Flynn had something on
the order of 50 clients engaged in anti-Scientology litigation, a number
for which we can find no foundation or evidence whatsoever, but it's
indicative of the urban legend quality of what passes for information on
the subject.
>If so, could you list them at least?
Because of the factors I just stated above, I, personally, am loathe to do
that at this stage. But having conferred with and secured the agreement of
the people I am doing the research with, yes, I will. We certainly are not
in the business of suppressing information, even though we feel the study
is woefully incomplete.
I will post it separately if you don't mind, because I can't post it
responsibly without some exposition and explanation of the inherent
difficulties in attempting to answer your question and provide such a list.
I also want to include at least a brief overview of the study so people
will know how the list came about, and will understand the caveats with
which it should be approached pending further research and verification.
I will title the separate post "The Clients of Michael Flynn." It's
pedestrian and utilitarian but descriptive.
Cambridge
Birgitta
about?
Bid
CL
Hash: SHA1
Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>Cambridge wrote:
>>Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>>>Cambridge wrote:
>
>
>>>>The entire matter could have been dispensed with by a single
>>>>responsive reply from Mr. Owen. Instead, he elected, after some
>>>>time had elapsed, to engage in public evasive discourse about the
>>>>matter with an irrelevant, antisocial, interloping bedlamite, much
>>>>as I am doing now.
>
>>>Hey, I would ~love~ to see that stuff posted . . . I truly would.
>Well, to my knowledge, none of the transcripts that you mentioned have
>ever been posted, unless I just missed them, have they?
He said they hadn't, Bev, and you snipped it. He said:
CAMBRIDGE:
>>Yes, well, lamentably he has not posted them, which is the crux of
>>the matter. He hardly has quoted from them at all. He only has
>>paraphrased them to his own design, then typed cites to them, secure
>>in the knowledge that no relevantly independent or disinterested
>>individual or group possessed a copy of the transcripts against
>>which to review his usage of them.
His Holiness Bare-Faced Owen has thrown out greasy, gristly little
scraps to the unwashed throngs in narrow support of his own beslimed
agenda of lies.
>Have they even been seen by anyone else
Jesus, girl, is your newsreader skipping or something? He said:
CAMBRIDGE:
>>If all of this weren't enough, it is further compounded, if that is
>>even possible, by the recognition that the only other people in the
>>world who might probably possess a copy of the transcripts are the
>>attorneys who were overseeing all Hubbard related litigation at the
>>time of the Armstrong and Christofferson trials: Lenske, Lenske &
>>Heller.
So the functional and relevant answer to your question is "NO," the
transcripts haven't been seen by anybody else. That's the point: Chris
"Tricky Dicky" Owen is sitting on the Gerrygate transcripts making sure
that he and Armstrong and the crime-boss Lenske Bros. are the only ones
who know what's actually in them.
(Somebody wipe the sweat off of Richard M. Owen's upper lip so he can
look with furrowed brow into the camera and low: "I am not a crook!")
You can bet your ~ass~ that "personal attorneys of L. Ron Hubbard"
Sherman and Stephen Lenske have a copy of the Armstrong trial and every
OTHER fucking trial. Here's how they were described at the time when
they were running around like interns for the U.S. Treasury Department
dropping U.S. Treasury Department-approved letters from "L. Ron Hubbard"
off at the Armstrong and DeWolf courts:
"Hubbard's attorneys, Sherman and Stephen Lenske, called the
letter 'an important piece of evidence.' Sherman Lenske said
experts told him they could determine if prints came from a
dead man because a body decomposes rapidly. One of the
experts who validated Hubbard's letter, retired U.S. Treasury
fingerprint and document expert Howard C. Doulder, said he
probably could not tell the difference if fingerprints were
from a carefully preserved body, but added that he had been
shown 'boxes and boxes' of recent manuscripts in Hubbard's
handwriting and was certain he was alive."
The Washington Post
March 7, 1983, Monday, Final Edition
Sect's Missing Founder Leaves Legal Morass
By Jay Mathews, Washington Post Staff Writer
Well, gee, I wonder where the ~FUCK~ "retired" U.S. Treasury mule Howard
C. Doulder got to see "boxes and boxes" of RECENT manuscripts "in
Hubbard's handwriting." (OMIGOD! I wonder if Doulder is DORIAN!) (Look,
it was a fucking joke, for chrissake. Don't you DARE look at me that
way.)
THE LENSKES are the ones who delivered the first purported letter from
the missing "L. Ron Hubbard" to the ARMSTRONG court:
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1983-02-03threeletters.html
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1983-02-10-1stletter.html
You know: the letter from the missing "L. Ron Hubbard," the
"authenticity" of which was holy-watered by TWO employees of the United
States Treasury Department, using special U.S. Government-only inks for
"L. Ron Hubbard" to sprinkle it with. You remember the Treasury
Department I'm talking about, right? That's where Meade Emory and Howard
M. Schoenfeld worked. (There is ~NO~ fucking connection, though. Check
with Michael Rawass if you don't believe me. I mean, check with him if
you can whistle him down from the trees.)
Of course the court record of that little Lenske-conducted dog-and-pony
show of the first "fingerprinted letter" from "L. Ron Hubbard" is in the
Armstrong transcripts that Owen is keeping suppressed, too. Did you
realize that?
And now a word from Chris "Stonewall" Owen:
"Whatever may appear to have been the case before, whatever
improper activities may yet be discovered in connection with
this whole sordid affair, I want the American people, I want
you to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that...justice will
be pursued fairly, fully, and impartially, no matter who is
involved. This office is a sacred trust and I am determined
to be worthy of that trust."
Chris Owen
Wait...
No, ~I'm~ sorry: that was Richard Milhouse Nixon, 30 April 1973, just as
"Snow White" was being written. No, no--I mean just as Watergate was
coming apart at the seams. No, wait--that ~IS~ almost EXACTLY when "Snow
White" was being written. (Damn, this history shit isn't as easy as
Private Owen makes it look.)
So here are three parties united in the common purpose of making sure
that none of us get to see what's in the transcripts: Chris Owen, Gerry
Armstrong, and Lenske, Lenske & Heller. Hmmmmmmmmm. Strange bedfellows,
wouldn't you say?
>or are they sealed?
>
>If they are sealed I could understand it.
Hell no, the transcripts aren't sealed except being sealed in His
Holiness Bare-Faced Owen's bottom left drawer. (No... Wait... That
was... Ah, ~FUCK~ it.) They're only sealed up Private Owen's ass. It was
the 30,000 documents Armstrong had stolen that were placed under seal
during the trial. I'm sorry, I misspoke: the $5 million worth of 30,000
documents that THE LENSKES stole out of the archives they were supposed
to be protecting for the missing Hubbard, and then had Armstrong be the
bag man to take across the country and deliver to their accomplice,
Michael Flynn, which stolen property the city of Clearwater provided
some rent-a-cops to guard for Armstrong and Flynn:
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1986-06-09vanschaick.html
>Can it be that hard to find where they were obtained from?
>
>Aren't transcripts kept in the districts where the hearings took place?
Bev, it ain't like coupons you cut out of the Sunday paper; court
transcripts are SOLD for an arm and a leg. That's why it's so ~FUCKING~
odd that Private Bare-Faced Owen, who does all this as a little "hobby,"
don'cha know, somehow has several THOUSANDS of dollars worth of court
transcripts in his private collection, which he has been SUPPRESSING for
FIVE ~FUCKING~ YEARS or more.
Here's what we're supposed to believe now: Bare-Faced Owen spent
THOUSANDS of dollars on the transcripts so he could put about 8 cites in
"Piercing the Corporate Veil" <SPIT!>. Why? Because it's his FUCKING
HOBBY.
Bare-Faced Owen is HEAVILY funded by ~somebody~. Hmmmm. Now I just
wonder who the ~FUCK~ might be bankrolling the boy...
>Where specifically did the hearings take place?
It's all right here:
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1983-02-10-1stletter.html
"It was on 10 February 1983 that the world first learned
anything at all about the three letters purportedly written
on 3 February 1983 by the missing L. Ron Hubbard, and it only
found out about one of them.
"...Below are relevant excerpts from the first known media
reports about the first letter, delivered on Friday, 10
February 1983 to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge L. John
Cole, presiding over the trial of Gerald Armstrong concerning
30,000 original documents and manuscripts belonging to
Hubbard (later valued at $5 million) that Armstrong had
stolen. (The second letter purportedly written by Hubbard on
3 February 1983 goes to a different court four days later, on
Monday, 14 February 1983. The third letter doesn't turn up
until 20 February 1983, in the Rocky Mountain News.)
"It is not mentioned in these stories, but it is certain from
media reports about the companion second and third letters
that this first letter came through Hubbard's attorneys
Sherman and Stephen Lenske. Both were already Special
Directors of CST at the time."
Cole is the judge who put the 30,000 Lenske/Armstrong-stolen documents
under seal on 24 September 1982: "21 boxes of personal letters and
journals of the sect's reclusive founder L. Ron Hubbard," as the Lenskes
made sure a UPI story of 26 April 1983 put it.
Bare-Faced Owen is the only one who has sealed the transcripts. Why
don't we have just one more moment of Chris Owen zen:
"In these folders that you see over here on my left are more
than 1,200 pages of transcripts... . I realize that these
transcripts will provide grist for many sensational stories
in the press. Parts will seem to be contradictory with one
another, and parts will be in conflict with some of the
testimony... . I have been reluctant because the principle of
confidentiality is absolutely essential... . In reading the
raw transcripts of these conversations, I believe it will be
more readily apparent why that principle is essential and
must be maintained in the future."
Chris Owen
Wait...
No, THAT wasn't Chris, either! <HEAD SMACK!> No, that was Richard
Milhouse Nixon, TOO, on 29 April 1974, just a few months before Gerald
Wolfe got hired as a clerk typist at IRS! Doh!
I better leave this history stuff to the Oxford scholar. <g>
>>The study of the Flynn clients will be posted regardless of whether
>>Mr. Owen elects to remain in his self-appointed Sophist Office of
>>Censorship or not.
>Now, ~THAT~ is something I am really looking forward to seeing.
Okay, I'm going to "me, too" that one. :-)
>Do you have a list of who all the Flynn clients are?
>
>If so, could you list them at least?
I'll "me too" that one, too, Cambridge, if it won't compromise your
final presentation.
>I just fear losing any audience at all re CST, that's bascially it in a
>nutshell . . .
>
>it has taken so long and ~SO~ much pounding.
I wouldn't lose a WINK of sleep over it if I were you. Despite what
Bare-Faced Owen and Team Armstrong (kudos to whoever coined that one)
and their various sock-puppets try to put over, there is PLENTY of
audience for the information on CST and the Lenskes, and there ain't one
of them going ANYWHERE. I guaran-fucking-TEE you that while Private Owen
might not know the SIZE of the audience, he sure as HELL knows some of
the more important parties with front-row seats who have been extremely
interested in all this material. Why do you think the British Minsistry
of Defence has an "Oxford scholar" <SPIT!> on this FULL TIME? Why do you
think there have been SO MANY Commonwealth people at the very CENTER of
ALL this, ALL of them lying their asses off trying to keep "The Official
Story" afloat?
Do you have ANY idea how many international boundaries and governments
and alliances all this stuff has crossed during the past few decades?
Do you have ANY idea how many neutral countries and American and British
ALLIES have been USED like whores and played as fucking PAWNS, played as
SUCKERS in that game, a decades-long game that led DIRECTLY to huge
holes being drilled out in the Californa and New Mexico wastelands?
Some of the a.r.s. POSTERS may be most concerned with what's happening
behind their neighbors' curtains, or with picketing the local
Scientology bookstore and sniggering up their sleeve because they
mangaged to bully and harrass one of those subhuman "clams" enough to
get a reaction, and so can go home and post it on a.r.s. and feel like
something more than the complete loser they are, but it's time to grow
up, kiddies: Scientology is an INTERNATIONAL issue, and has been for
DECADES.
YOU may not know everything that's riding on Chris "Tricky Dicky" Owen
keeping that information in the Armstrong transcripts suppressed, but I
guaran-fucking-TEE you that HE does, and his superiors do. Right now
they are sweating fucking BULLETS over the issue of these transcripts.
That's why His Holiness Bare-Faced Owen has now slinked off again to go
ask somebody what to do.
Having sat here and watched what happened when Cambridge just lightly
touched ~that~ fucking hot spot, I'm virtually CERTAIN now that at one
time--when these lying fucks like Owen and Armstrong and Brooks and
company COMPLETELY controlled the entire PR arena on behalf of the
Lenskes with "The Official Story"--the Armstrong trial transcript was
their "Little Boy" that Owen was going to drop on the entire world. And
then suddenly a "Veritas" came whistling in out of NOWHERE and blew that
entire 5000 pages into fucking parade confetti.
With what Veritas and others exposed, ALL of that material in the
Armstrong transcripts was NOW going to be seen and evaluated in an
~entirely~ different light. Now all that fucking finger-pointing at
their David "Particle Board" Miscavige cut-out standee was going to be
entirely exposed for the fucking FRAUD that it was.
That's why Bare-Faced Owen sat down and worked his poor little blistered
Private Owen fingers to the bone hacking out "Piercing the Corporate
Veil" to try and muddy the waters some more and regain control of the
playing field. It was MASSIVE damage control, and of course was a pack
of lies, but it was no sooner done than a "Public Research Foundation"
missive came whistling in out of the Nevada desert and blew THAT fucking
pack of lies into a cloud of floating, spinning confetti.
So they sent Armstrong in to Nevada on a black bag search-and-destroy
mission to infiltrate PRF, and for probably the first time in his life
the smooth, glib, covert, smiling fucking criminal double-talking prick
got his hat handed to him and a big invisible boot in his skinny lying
ass that landed him back in Canada, and the size of his Pinocchio nose
was probably the only thing that kept him from biting off his own
fucking lying tongue when he landed on his face.
Time to grow up, kiddies. Scientology is an INTERNATIONAL issue.
Why do you think all these elaborate lies and expensive Hide-the-Hubbard
frauds have been being played out for DECADES? Why do you think a former
IRS Assistant Commissioner was involved? Why do you think it was United
States Treasury Department personnel who were running the entire Lenske
dog-and-pony show to "prove" that "L. Ron Hubbard" was alive in 1983?
Why do you think there has been so much State Department meddling
overseas? Why do you think it's non-Scientology tax attorneys now
running all of Scientology?
'Cause "L. Ron Hubbard" wanted it that way? Can you ~really~ keep
falling for such an idiotic fucking cock-and-bull story? The actual
AUDIENCE for all this information, TRUST me, is NOT that stupid.
Armstrong knows it. Owen knows it. Rinder knows it. Stacy Brooks Young
and Robert Vaughn Young knew it. Why do you think they and their minions
have gone to such ENORMOUS lengths to try and discredit Veritas and PRF?
Didn't you notice that was the ONE thing that the superstar "critics"
~AND~ the ~known~ OSA (meaning Lenske) sock-puppets like wgert and Rod
Fletcher (Bill Howdy Yaude) were UNITED in doing? Didn't you notice that
BOTH "sides" were completly bent on DISCREDITING those sources of
information, and that NEITHER "side" would EVER address even ~ONE~
SINGLE ~FUCKING~ FACT that Veritas and PRF et al. were presenting?
Time to grow up, kiddies, and learn how the real world really works.
Just because K-Mart off-the-shelf twerps like Rawass Reuss and desert
rat Shy David and Barking David Bird run around flapping and sqwuawking
"conspiracy theory" and "Veritas loons" like the dimestore crackpots
they are, DON'T fret over there being any "loss of audience." There is a
RAPT audience reading ALL of this, ALLLL around the small, small world.
Of course, it ~is~ regretably true that some of them, the ones with
ostentatious little flags on their cars, may be missing out on the
sublime pleasure of actually reading my own unexpurgated poetic
expressions, but they are ~defintely~ having Executive Summaries plopped
on their mahogany desks next to their O.J.
They, though, don't conduct their bid'ness in a.r.s. They conduct
~their~ bid'ness ~elsewhere~.
>I know one thing for sure, the CST thing is going to have some things
>in it that are going to be very interesting if it all ever comes out.
>Do you think it will come out . . . ever?
~COUNT~ on it.
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.
=======================================================================
"In Wollersheim's case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."
--Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid
=======================================================================
"Your latest 'post' was longer than two paragraphs, so I didn't read it."
--booboo...@webtv.net (Tigger)
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPltI9dAKsx0v8qcvEQL6pACdGyefU5QwY4jFI5Cavy5sQrYKavEAn2Uz
tSRvjqbtOSSEObz9596AHRSf
=Lp5o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cambridge
in Message-ID: <u6mm5vs7oevvulaip...@4ax.com>
Birgitta <birgittah...@yahoo.se> wrote:
>Sorry, I can't follow .... exactly WHAT transcripts are you talking
>about?
>
>Bid
I'm the one who should be sorry, Birgitta; I didn't mean to ignore your
question or slight you. Please forgive me. Somehow I missed your post
originally.
The two transcripts I was asking Mr. Owen for his help with are the court
transcript for Church of Scientology International v. Armstrong (Los
Angeles Superior Court, decided June 1984), as well as the court transcript
for the Julie Christofferson trial in Portland, Oregon. It seems that Mr.
Owen has at least 3,374 pages of transcript from the Christofferson court,
and at least 4,531 pages of transcript from the Armstrong court.
That's 7,905 pages, and that represents only the pages that he cited from
in "Piercing the Corporate Veil," which Mr. Owen wrote in 1997. Prior to
that, he had said in a message in a.r.s. to Gerald Armstrong the he, Mr.
Owen, was in the process of OCRing the transcripts. It appears that he got
that done, and was able to search the OCRed versions of the transcripts for
cites that he used in writing "Piercing the Corporate Veil."
I asked him if he kindly would be willing to make this invaluable research
resource available to everyone by putting it on the web. It would certainly
help us in our research on the Michael Flynn cases, because Armstrong
himself was a Flynn Client, other Flynn clients (e.g. Laurel Sullivan,
Howard D. [Homer] Schomer) testified in Gerald Armstrong's trial, and
Armstrong, Sullivan, and other people connected with Michael Flynn
testified in the Christofferson trial.
Also, the Christofferson case was settled by Special Director of CST
Lawrence E. Heller, of the law firm Lenske, Lenske & Heller, at the same
time that Heller settled the Armstrong case and all of Michael Flynn's
other cases in a "global settlement" on 5 and 6 December 1986.
I'm sure you can imagine how much information there must be in the evidence
Mr. Owen has OCRed. Not only would it be valuable to anyone interested in
these subjects, it would be of enormous help to our own research, which we
will be publishing broadly. It would save us an indescribable amount of
time and expense involved in obtaining and OCRing the transcripts ourselves
if he would make these public, which I had fully, and perhaps, it seems,
foolishly, expected he graciously would do.
Cambridge
Birgitta
>On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:52:43 GMT
>in Message-ID: <u6mm5vs7oevvulaip...@4ax.com>
>Birgitta <birgittah...@yahoo.se> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I can't follow .... exactly WHAT transcripts are you talking
>>about?
>>
>>Bid
>
>I'm the one who should be sorry, Birgitta; I didn't mean to ignore your
>question or slight you. Please forgive me. Somehow I missed your post
>originally.
>
>The two transcripts I was asking Mr. Owen for his help with are the court
>transcript for Church of Scientology International v. Armstrong (Los
>Angeles Superior Court, decided June 1984), as well as the court transcript
>for the Julie Christofferson trial in Portland, Oregon.
(big snip)
>
>Cambridge
Well ... I have not seen anything regarding Julie Cristofferson, but I
have this one:
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles
No. C 420153 Memorandum of Intended Decision
dated June 20, 1984
Church of Scientology vs. Gerald Armstrong
signed by Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr.
it is 12 pages plus appendix of 15 pages
I don't know if this is the one you are thinking of, in any case it is
webbed on Gerry's page here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html
There was also an interesting article in The New York Times on July
11, 1984, written by Robert Lindsay. Page 1 and 10.
I guess you can find it in their archives and perhaps Lindsay still
have some research material.
Bid
Cambridge
in Message-ID: <ft646vsib6atdli41...@4ax.com>
Birgitta <birgittah...@yahoo.se> wrote:
Thank you Birgitta. We do have those documents. No, the transcript of the
trial runs to thousands of pages. It is the actual record of the trial, of
all the testimony of Mary Sue Hubbard, Gerry Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan,
Lyman Spurlock, and many other witnesses who took the stand and gave
testimony. Many of them, including Gerry Armstrong, were clients of
attorney Michael Flynn. We are doing a comprehensive study of the Flynn
cases.
>There was also an interesting article in The New York Times on July 11,
>1984, written by Robert Lindsay. Page 1 and 10. I guess you can find it
>in their archives and perhaps Lindsay still have some research material.
I believe you're referring to a story entitled "Scientology Chief Got
Millions, Ex-Aides Say," by Robert Lindsey (it is Lindsey with an "e" by
the way). Yes, it does cover the trial and Breckenridge's ruling. It also
relies on information from Michael Flynn's clients and consultants who
testified in the trial, and whose testimony is in the transcripts that Mr.
Owen has.
For example, from the article:
"Mr. Armstrong and the other former Scientologists who were interviewed,
each of whom had spent at least a decade in the church, said they were now
willing to talk about its inner workings."
That refers to their testimony in the trial, all of which is in the many
thousands of pages of the transcripts that Mr. Owen has. The article goes
on to say:
"Laurel Sullivan, 34 years old, left the organization in 1981 after serving
15 years as a senior official, the last eight as Mr. Hubbard's public
relations adviser. She said in an interview that from 1972 to 1981 she was
in charge of a secret operation to transfer church assets to Mr. Hubbard
through a 'corporate shell,' the Religious Research Foundation,
incorporated in Liberia. She said the foundation's accounts were in
Luxembourg and Liechtenstein."
Ms. Sullivan, as you may know, had been the head of Mission Corporate
Category Sort-Out, working closely with Gerald Armstrong on that. The
"Religious Research Foundation," which according to other information
actually was incorporated in what is now known as Ghana, was incorporated
by Kima Douglas, on a mission to the Gold Coast (Ghana) with Fred Hare in
November of 1972, as has been documented recently in this newsgroup.
Kima Douglas is also a witness in the Armstrong trial, so her testimony is
also in the transcripts that Mr. Owen has:
"Kima Douglas, Mr. Hubbard's personal medical officer until she left
Scientology in 1980, testified at the trial here that she had helped
establish '14 or 15' corporations, including the Religius Research
Foundation, and had 'couriered hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the
United States' for the Church of Scientology in violation of Federal laws
requiring cash amounts over $5,000 to be disclosed to Customs officials.
.She also said she had ferried money, 'in large bundles' of Swiss francs,
to banks in Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, for accounts listed in the names
of the church and Mr. Hubbard.'"
Edward Walters, another Flynn client, also testified in the trial:
"Edward Walters, a Las Vegas casino executive, said in an interview that as
a Guardian's Office 'intelligence agent,' he had routinely 'culled' files
for information about Scientologists, many of them deeply emotionally
troubled, he said, and used it to intimidate them. ...Mr. Walters said he
was concerned by what he construed as the 'extreme paranoia' of Mr. Hubbard
and his closest aides. 'I'm telling you, there's a potential there for
another Jonestown,' he said."
In addition to all the above, there is the testimony of Mary Sue Hubbard
herself, Howard D. Schomer (Homer Schomer), who had been part of "R
Accounts," then handled the finances and investments in the first year of
Author Services, Inc. (ASI), and many other important witnesses.
All of this and much more is in the many thousands of pages of court
transcripts that Mr. Owen has had in his possession, apparently, since
summer of 1997, as has been pointed out several times.
I'm sure you can understand how important we feel it is for these
transcripts to receive the widest possible publication, and why we are so
perplexed not only by Mr. Owen's failure to publish them before, but by his
seeming unwillingness to cooperate or participate in any way to get them
published now.
Cambridge
grouchomatic
As a researcher you really are the pits. I've now told you and your
alter ego (CL) 3, three, III, 3x ... times that it took me all of 20
minutes to locate the person to contact to get copies of CSI vs
Armstrong. Anyone with the smallest knowledge of the courts can do the
same.
Christopherson was a little bit harder. It took just over an hour to
find the location and contact to produce a copy.
You must be one hell of a researcher, not.
Grouch
Birgitta
wrote:
Grouch,
do you have any idea how much it would cost to get the copies
including postage to Sweden? And .... could you get them?
Bid
grouchomatic
I have *no* personal interest in getting them, but I can give you some
idea about availability and cost. To find the case file is easy. What
remains in the case file requires a personal visit to the Los Angeles
County Archives. The really tricky part is determining exactly what is
*in* the file. A court reporter takes down the proceedings in what
amounts to short hand. IF someone paid to have the transcripts typed up
(someone would have had to do this because I believe the original case
went to an appellate court - although I'm certain on this point ... I
haven't really followed all the cases very closely). Assuming that a
transcription exists the copying fee is $0.57 per page (there are at
least 7000 pages probably a lot more) in Armstrong (1984). That does
not include a transcription description of all evidence and exhibits (I
have no idea how many there might have been).
It is also possible that only a partial transcription was performed. As
CL & Cambridge have noted Chris Ownen quotes from specific pages of the
transcript. He may well have gotten them (either personally or through
a party to the case) by looking at the "Pink Sheets" which are the
minute orders (they tell you who testified in each session of the
court). So, if you were looking only for the testimony of particular
witnesses you could get transcriptions of just those pages.
I am assuming from the available evidence that a transcript was made and
that it is either in the file or on microfilm and copyable. However, it
is also possible that the CofS obtained an order from the court to
expunge the entire record of the case save the findings and case record
which cannot be destroyed. To obtain such permission would have required
both sides to agree. Although I know exactly were to look, I cannot
tell you for certain that the transcript is there.
I am willing to make the trip into Los Angeles to find out. I am not
willing to go to Oregon to research Christopherson. Someone else will
have to do that, but the procedure is very similar in Oregon from what
the Court Archivist's office told me on the phone.
Bid, you can do the math, if you think someone would be willing to bear
the cost I'll look into it further.
Grouch