A Scientology Front Group??????

[Concerned]

I've got a question for those of you who know this stuff better than I.

I've seen the stuff on Scientology in Wired, and read about it on the
Web. I'm in total agreement that Scientology is a cult, and a dangerous
one at that. For that reason, I haven't ever posted here until now- I
figured it was like sticking my hands into a bucket of snakes.

Anyway, my company recently hired a management consultant company to
help our very small company get organized. I didn't really give it much
thought, other than to think that it was a good idea, high time we got
our act together. The company we hired to do the training is called
'Executive Power', apparently based in the Atlanta area- for all
appearances, a very small outfit.

The first thing they did was give each and every manager in our company
a multiple-choice analysis, and I think I recall them calling it an
'Oxford Capacity Test', or somesuch. At that time, I had no
suspicions. Next, we managers were told we'd be attending one-on-one
training courses called 'modules'. I went up for my first one last
week.

Well, when I sat down in the room, I looked at the book on the table,
and alarm bells started to go off- in large lettering, it said: "based
on the work of L. Ron Hubbard". On the table was also a dictionary, and
a cup full of poker chips, paper clips, and little stones. The trainer
called it a 'demo kit'.

The first session was three hours, and covered 'the Barriers to
Learning' (mass, etc), and also such things as 'cognition', and
'conditions', which were (in order): non-existance, danger, emergency,
normal, affluence, power, and power-change. During the session, every
time a question would come up about the material, the trainer would hunt
down what she felt was a word that I'd misunderstood, calling it an
'MU', or 'misunderstood word'. We would then look it up in the
dictionary, and read all the definitions- she called this 'word
clearing'.

Now, just between you, me, and the fencepost, this smells like a
Scientology front. Since the session, I've gone back to the web and
read Fishman's book, and in the beginning where he describes his early
Scientology training, he describes my first management session
*perfectly*, down to the words, and the items on the table. Frankly,
I'm not sure I want to go back for the next session- when you hear a
rattlesnake shake his tail, you back off.

What I'm asking is this- has anyone heard of this company? Is it a
direct front for Scientology? If it's not a direct front, then what
company is likely just above it, so I can poke around and see what's
what?

Please reply via the newsgroup- I'd like answers, not harrassment from
cultists, thanks.

-C-

[Joe Harrington]

Concerned <do...@spam.me> wrote:
>I've got a question for those of you who know this stuff better than I.
>
>I've seen the stuff on Scientology in Wired, and read about it on the
>Web. I'm in total agreement that Scientology is a cult, and a dangerous
>one at that. For that reason, I haven't ever posted here until now- I
>figured it was like sticking my hands into a bucket of snakes.
>
>Anyway, my company recently hired a management consultant company to
>help our very small company get organized. I didn't really give it much
>thought, other than to think that it was a good idea, high time we got
>our act together. The company we hired to do the training is called
>'Executive Power', apparently based in the Atlanta area- for all
>appearances, a very small outfit.
>
>The first thing they did was give each and every manager in our company
>a multiple-choice analysis, and I think I recall them calling it an
>'Oxford Capacity Test', or somesuch. At that time, I had no
>suspicions. Next, we managers were told we'd be attending one-on-one
>training courses called 'modules'. I went up for my first one last
>week.

The Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA) is the standard "free personality
test" that the CofS uses to recruit new people. Did they try to
"find your ruin" by pointing out certain low areas of the graph?
Thats how they get people to sign up for training or auditing.
I believe the CofS has an organization in Atlanta. Find out who the
owners of the company are, or call the local org and ask about them..

>
>Well, when I sat down in the room, I looked at the book on the table,
>and alarm bells started to go off- in large lettering, it said: "based
>on the work of L. Ron Hubbard". On the table was also a dictionary, and
>a cup full of poker chips, paper clips, and little stones. The trainer
>called it a 'demo kit'.
>
>The first session was three hours, and covered 'the Barriers to
>Learning' (mass, etc), and also such things as 'cognition', and
>'conditions', which were (in order): non-existance, danger, emergency,
>normal, affluence, power, and power-change. During the session, every
>time a question would come up about the material, the trainer would hunt
>down what she felt was a word that I'd misunderstood, calling it an
>'MU', or 'misunderstood word'. We would then look it up in the
>dictionary, and read all the definitions- she called this 'word
>clearing'.
>

Yes, all of this is standard "study tech".

>Now, just between you, me, and the fencepost, this smells like a
>Scientology front. Since the session, I've gone back to the web and
>read Fishman's book, and in the beginning where he describes his early
>Scientology training, he describes my first management session
>*perfectly*, down to the words, and the items on the table. Frankly,
>I'm not sure I want to go back for the next session- when you hear a
>rattlesnake shake his tail, you back off.
>
>What I'm asking is this- has anyone heard of this company? Is it a
>direct front for Scientology? If it's not a direct front, then what
>company is likely just above it, so I can poke around and see what's
>what?
>

Since this company is also promoting a philosophy and materials that
the CofS considers their "Sacred Scriptures", your employer might be
violating some laws if he requires people to attend these sessions
since they are quasi-religious in nature and may be in conflict with
your religious convictions.

I believe Scientology front group, DBA "WISE" is behind the licensing
of Hubbard's admin "tech". They are controlled by the Church of
Scientology International. Check Scientology's web site and you can
probably find out more.

Allstate had a real nightmare when they used a Scientology-based
"consultant" organization. Perhaps someone can repost that story
if they still have it. Please keep this newsgroup posted.

>Please reply via the newsgroup- I'd like answers, not harrassment from
>cultists, thanks.
>
>-C-

Joe

[A. Student]

Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Allstate had a real nightmare when they used a Scientology-based
>"consultant" organization. Perhaps someone can repost that story
>if they still have it. Please keep this newsgroup posted.

Here it is. Reprinted with permission.

DOW JONES NEWS 03-22-95

Allstate applied Scientology methods to train its management
by Rochelle Sharpe
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

Copyright 1995 Dow Jones & Co., Inc. All rights reserved.

Two years ago, an Allstate agent stood up at Sears's annual
meeting to ask what then seemed a bizarre question.

"To what extent," he inquired, "are the teachings of L. Ron
Hubbard's Church of Scientology present today in Allstate and in
Sears?"

Edward Brennan, chairman of Sears, Roebuck & Co., and Wayne
Hedien, then-chairman of Sears's Allstate Insurance Co. unit, both
appeared bewildered. Mr. Brennan said he had no knowledge of any
relationship at all. Mr. Hedien said he didn't even know any
Scientologists. "I'm a Roman Catholic myself," Mr. Brennan added.
Shareholders laughed, and the board moved on to apparently more
serious concerns.

But today, the influence of Scientology at Allstate is no joking
matter. Between 1988 and 1992, it turns out, the Good Hands
company entrusted the training of workers coast to coast to a
consultant teaching Scientology management principles.

The consultant says more than 3,500 Allstate supervisors and
agents participated in the nearly 200 seminars conducted by his
firm, which was licensed by a Scientology institute to teach such
classes. The course materials -- which preached a rigorous, even
ruthless devotion to raising productivity -- were developed by Mr.
Hubbard, founder of the religion that some critics claim is a
cult.

One of the purposes of teaching Mr. Hubbard's management
program, a Scientology pamphlet states, is to instill "the ethics,
principles, codes and doctrines of the Scientology religion
throughout the business world."

Though the company recently banned and repudiated the courses,
their reverberations are still being felt -- and may even be
growing. Some employees continue to use Mr. Hubbard's techniques,
while other workers weave conspiracy theories about an alleged
Scientology plot to infiltrate the highest levels of the company.
Some agents believe they have been harassed and, despite repeated
denials, the insurance giant has been unable to put all the
speculation to rest. Recently, agents in Florida have launched a
drive to unionize the work force -- and they are using the
Scientology issue as a centerpiece of their attack on management.

Allstate employees who took the classes say an important,
although hardly exclusive, theme of the training was an
uncompromising commitment to the bottom line -- even if that meant
treating poor performers harshly. The course materials warned
managers never to be sympathetic to someone whose productivity
numbers, or "statistics," were down.

"We reward production and up statistics and penalize
nonproduction and down statistics. Always," the training booklet
said. "Don't get reasonable about down statistics. They are down
because they are down. If someone was on the post, they would be
up." The course underscored this point by advising that
"reasonableness is the great enemy in running an organization."

The program also taught psychological concepts such as the "tone
scale," which catalogs emotions and, Scientologists believe, can
be used to influence behavior. Illustrated with cartoon
characters, the scale contains 41 levels, ranging from death,
apathy and grief near the bottom to exhilaration, action and
"serenity of beingness" at the top. All of the levels are
numbered: Covert hostility is 1.1, boredom, 2.5.

Allstate managers learned to find a person's place on the scale
by analyzing the individual's favorite style of conversation. "If
you wish to lift the person's tone, you should talk at about half
a point above their general tone level," the course book advised.

A well-financed organization

While such ideas appealed to some employees, others were amused
or offended. David Richardson, who took the course in 1990,
remembers exchanging startled glances with a colleague and
muttering: "If they turn off all the lights and start singing John
Denver music, I'm walking out."

Allstate initially responded to questions from this newspaper
with a brief written statement: "There is absolutely no connection
between the Allstate Insurance Company and the Church of
Scientology." If any Scientology materials were included in
training sessions, it was "a blip on the screen . . . a very
inconsequential, one-shot situation," a spokesman said.

But later, Jeff Kaufman, a regional vice president who
participated in Allstate's decision to use the Scientology
consultant, acknowledged that the controversial courses were
taught to agents and managers nationwide. Mr. Kaufman described
the employment of the consultant as "an accident."

"I feel like our intentions were very honorable," Mr. Kaufman
says. But now, he adds, the matter "is biting at me personally."
He emphasizes that he didn't know at the time of the training that
Scientology principles were involved.

Many Allstate employees, though, did know the connection. For
one thing, the introduction to their course book declared the
materials "were researched and written entirely by" Mr. Hubbard,
who died in 1986. Some trainees recognized the name instantly;
others learned who he was from colleagues taking the course.

Mr. Hubbard is best known not as a management guru but as the
science-fiction writer who founded the Church of Scientology
International in 1954. Since its earliest days, the church has
been a target of anticult activists who say it exploits its
members and harasses opponents. Church members counter that their
organization has been systematically misrepresented, even
persecuted, by the media and government. Scientology, they say, is
"an applied religious philosophy" that helps people develop
spiritual awareness. Members seek perfection by exorcising bad
memories, or "engrams," from past lives through a counseling
process called "auditing."

Over the years, Scientology has been aggressive in its efforts
to attract new members -- including such celebrity adherents as
Lisa Marie Presley, Tom Cruise and John Travolta -- and to build
an efficient, well-financed organization. Along the way, members
credit Mr. Hubbard with developing a comprehensive management
system for church operations using Scientology principles.

The system came to Allstate through a circuitous route that
began in 1979, when church members formed a not-for-profit
religious group, the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises,
to market Mr. Hubbard's techniques to business. In its book, "What
Is Scientology?" the organization boasts that its courses have
been taught at a number of the nation's largest companies,
including General Motors Corp., Mobil Corp., Volkswagen AG -- and
Allstate. Except for Allstate, all these companies say they can't
find any evidence that their workers took such seminars.

Many Allstate employees would come to rue the Scientology
connection and to blame it on the company's top executives. Yet,
ironically, it was a group of agents, rather than anyone in top
management, who sought out Scientology management training in the
first place. The impetus was a companywide restructuring of
agents' jobs in the mid-1980s. Under the new system, agents had
more responsibility to run their own businesses, hire staff,
manage expenses and attract new clients.

The Hubbard management system

The change put enormous new pressure on employees, many of whom
had previously sold insurance in Sears stores and had no
entrepreneurial experience. (Sears, which once owned all of
Allstate, sold a 20% stake to the public in 1993 and plans to spin
off the rest of the company later this month.) The pressure
prompted a group of about 10 agents from the Sacramento area to
band together in late 1987 to search for ways to sharpen their
business skills.

One member suggested at a monthly meeting in early 1988 that the
group consider hiring outside consultants to help in the effort.
Karen O'Hara, a relatively new agent based in the tiny town of
Galt, Calif., replied that she had a client who was a management
trainer, three people at the meeting recall. But they say Ms.
O'Hara didn't point out that she knew the trainer, Donald Pearson,
through a Scientology communications class she had taken. Ms.
O'Hara confirms she took such a class but won't comment further.

Soon Mr. Pearson, then 39 years old, was meeting with the group
to present his ideas. Before long, he was lecturing on
organizational development to more than 40 Allstate employees
gathered at the Sheraton Hotel in Sacramento. Agents say Mr.
Pearson didn't hide his religion or the origin of the training
program but stressed that the sessions had nothing to do with
Scientology.

"It was a management program, not a religious promotional
program. . . . They didn't buy Scientology, they bought courses,"
Mr. Pearson says now. "What's my religion got to do with whether
I'm a good consultant?" A Scientology spokeswoman adds that the
same principles that are religious within the church can be viewed
as secular when applied outside the church.

Mr. Pearson, though, was a top trainer for a firm called
International Executive Technology Inc., which was devoted to
teaching the Hubbard management system. Materials Mr. Pearson
distributed in his classes included Mr. Hubbard's copyright notice
at the bottom of many pages. And all of Mr. Hubbard's written
words, including his management pronouncements, are considered
religious scripture by the church, according to the Scientology
pamphlet, "The Corporations of Scientology."

One Scientology brochure predicts that as businesspeople use the
L. Ron Hubbard technology and "win with it, they will reach for
and apply LRH technology in other aspects of their lives and may
become Scientologists."

Mr. Pearson steered clear of these issues in his Sheraton talk,
agents say, and hewed to the subject of how insurance agents and
managers could do a better job of running their businesses. By all
accounts, he was a huge success; agents later described the tall,
sandy-haired speaker as confident, direct, down to earth and
authentic. The employees who heard him were so impressed that they
invited him to deliver the keynote address that fall at a meeting
of Northern California managers, held at a posh Lake Tahoe resort.
After that presentation, requests poured in from managers for
further assistance from Mr. Pearson.

One high-ranking Northern California manager says he persuaded
executives at Allstate headquarters in Northbrook, Ill., to pay
for intensive seminars for his employees. For more than two months
in late 1988 and 1989, about 50 managers and agents in the region
spent two to three days each week in classes at Mr. Pearson's
Sacramento office, which was decorated with Mr. Hubbard's vivid
paintings of spaceships and moonscapes.

Tips on office organization

The seminars gave loads of tips on office organization and goal-
setting. Filled with Mr. Hubbard's special terms, the materials
discussed ways not to waste "attention units"; what "hats," or
duties, workers had; and how to construct an "org board," a chart
of the organization's functions. The classes also showed how
employees could be divided into three categories: "the willing,"
"the defiant negative" and "the wholly shiftless."

To help managers understand their own personalities, consultants
administered a 200-item questionnaire similar to the ones
Scientologists pass out on street corners. The Allstate employees
got back graphs that rated them on 10 counts, including stability,
certainty and composure. They also practiced staring at colleagues
and examining their facial features in an effort to like the co-
workers more.

But the seminars focused mostly on management by statistics, a
concept that involved charting income and production on weekly
graphs. Employees who produced so-called up statistics weren't to
be questioned, no matter how they behaved. "Never even discipline
someone with an up statistic. Never accept an ethics report on one
-- just stamp it `Sorry, Up Statistic' and send it back," Mr.
Pearson's materials advised.

Workers with declining production had to be investigated
immediately, the course taught. "A person with low statistics not
only has no ethics protection but tends to be hounded," the
training manual said. It also quoted Mr. Hubbard's writings
blaming the Depression, the failure of communism and even the
decline of ancient Greece on people's willingness to reward or
excuse so-called down statistics. The Allstate classes included
Mr. Hubbard's statement that about 10% of the population was
"nuts" and that "2 1/2% are the chief nuts."

Rather than resist the course, many who took it appeared
grateful for the lessons and eager to apply them. "It was
invaluable," says Edmund Kramer, who took the classes when he was
a marketing sales manager in California. "I know some people are
afraid of it because they think it has religious connotations. But
once you touch it, you're going to carry something with you from
it forever. It's very powerful in its simplicity."

The first wave of managers to try the course, all from
California, appear to have focused primarily on how to chart their
business fortunes -- and to react quickly to any downward trend.
It is unclear whether any of the California managers followed Mr.
Hubbard's harsh rhetoric on poor performers. In any event, by the
end of the year, sales and profits were up significantly, managers
say.

So many managers outside the region clamored for information
about the training program that Mr. Pearson and Allstate manager
Lindal Graf were invited to promote it in Southern California,
Tennessee and Kentucky. Mr. Pearson also spoke to 130 Allstate
managers from all over California who had gathered in the city of
Ontario for a conference. Six weeks later, in November 1988, he
had his debut at Allstate's corporate office, leading a seminar
for 30 sales managers from throughout the country.

Within months, corporate executives who had heard the favorable
reviews were seeking Mr. Pearson's participation in a series of
three-day sessions for managers nationwide.

Before they offered him that pivotal assignment, though, they
asked him to conduct a tryout session at corporate headquarters
for visiting managers. That is when executives first heard
complaints about Scientology, says Kenneth Rendeiro, a former
sales manager who was in charge of setting up the training
programs. Two California managers, scheduled to participate in the
sessions, refused to take part because, they explained, Mr.
Pearson was affiliated with Scientology.

Advanced-Management seminars

Corporate executives then convened a series of meetings to discuss
whether it was a mistake to hire a Scientologist, and Mr. Pearson
reassured officials that his training program was separate and
distinct from the religion. As a result, William Henderson, then
vice president of sales, decided to give Mr. Pearson the job, Mr.
Rendeiro says. However, Mr. Henderson, now retired, denies any
involvement. He says the company is trying to blame it "on the old
guy who retired."

There's no dispute, however, that Mr. Pearson ended up traveling
around the country with two other trainers unaffiliated with
Scientology, giving seminars to managers in about half the
company's 28 regions. Mr. Pearson says these seminars, for which
Allstate paid him $4,500 per three-day session, were given from
1989 to 1992. The classes became so popular that many regional
managers invited Mr. Pearson back, at $5,000 a day, to do special
sessions geared toward agents.

Allstate's Mr. Kaufman says he had specifically forbidden
trainers from selling any books at the advanced-management
seminars. But once Mr. Pearson began teaching large numbers of
agents, questions arose about whether he was abiding by the rules.

"He snuck in about a half-hour on the promotional literature,"
says John Softye, a New York agent who took Mr. Pearson's Agent
Prosperity Seminar in 1989. "He said: `You buy these books and you
can see how to benefit yourself and improve your thinking.'" The
seminar materials also advertised a series of books available from
Mr. Pearson and his company: Mr. Hubbard's "Science of Survival"
for $50, his "How to Live Though an Executive" for $31.25, and a
three-pack of his "Money and Success" tapes for $145.

By this time, several other consultants who worked with Mr.
Pearson were also training Allstate agents in Scientology
management practices. At least one of the consultants pitched
another book to agents: "Dianetics," Mr. Hubbard's seminal book on
Scientology. Mr. Pearson says he told the consultant to stop the
practice, since Allstate had banned the sale of religious
materials at the seminars. Mr. Softye claims, though, that Mr.
Pearson also sold copies of "Dianetics" at his seminar, an
allegation that Mr. Pearson denies.

In this phase of the training program, reports from the field
began to grow less favorable. In Arizona, for example, workers say
they noticed a disturbing change in a key supervisor's management
style after their Hubbard training in July 1990.

After taking the classes, territorial-sales manager Jeffrey
Swanty talked constantly about management by statistics, says
David Richardson, the former Allstate manager who attended the
course with him. To apply the ideas, Mr. Richardson says, Mr.
Swanty developed a system under which the worst-performing agent
and the worst-performing manager in his territory would be
required to reach a series of daily, weekly and monthly goals.
Frequently, Mr. Richardson says, the goals were unreachable,
requiring that business be doubled or tripled within a short
period.

"It allowed management by intimidation. It was vindictive -- a
way to try to remove people," Mr. Richardson says. "We would
harass agents" by calling them constantly and visiting them
repeatedly. (Mr. Richardson had his own run-ins with Mr. Swanty
and was reprimanded at least once.)

One incident that employees still talk about involved William
Wesler, a 35-year-old Phoenix manager, who was suffering from
lymphatic cancer in 1990. Everyone in the office knew about Mr.
Wesler's condition and his efforts to reduce stress as part of his
treatment, Mr. Richardson says. Nonetheless, a month after taking
the Hubbard training course in July, Mr. Swanty placed Mr. Wesler
on a rigorous program to improve his performance.

The Hubbard course materials

During the following 120 days, Mr. Wesler was supposed to double
his district's sales, hire at least one female and one minority
agent, attend public-speaking classes and enroll in a college
course on interpersonal skills, his August 1990 job evaluation
states. He also had to meet with Mr. Swanty every other week to
receive an evaluation of his progress.

"It was a workload for three people," says Mr. Wesler's widow,
Sherry Scott. She says her husband completed most of the work but
quit in October 1990. He died in May 1992. "When I saw Jeff Swanty
at the funeral, I turned and walked away," says Greg Peterson, who
had worked for Mr. Wesler and says he watched Mr. Swanty's
behavior change after the management classes. "I feel his actions
worsened Bill Wesler's health," he adds.

Mr. Swanty acknowledges that he was impressed with the Hubbard
course materials but says he didn't implement much of the program
because he feared it would create too much paperwork. He says he
didn't know at the time that Mr. Hubbard was connected to
Scientology. He knew Mr. Wesler was ill, Mr. Swanty adds, but
denies he treated him unfairly in light of his declining
performance.

"We treat people with dignity," says Edward Moran, an in-house
Allstate lawyer who also denies that Mr. Swanty was unfair. He
says Mr. Wesler was having serious problems with managing and
communicating with agents for some time before he received his
negative evaluation in August 1990. In addition, Mr. Moran says,
Mr. Swanty began drafting the evaluation in June, before he took
the Hubbard lessons. However, the performance review is dated Aug.
14.

Across the country, a number of agents were making complaints
similar to those voiced in Arizona. Lawsuits and Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission complaints were proliferating; more than
two dozen have alleged fraud, harassment or discrimination by
Allstate, often in connection with wrongful-discharge cases. One
manager joked about forcing so many to quit that they would have
to bring in "body bags" to cart them away, while others described
agents with low productivity as below the "scum line," workers
said in pretrial statements related to these lawsuits.

The company says the number of suits isn't unusual for a firm
its size. The allegations reflect the failure of some agents to
prosper under the more entrepreneurial system Allstate set up in
the mid-1980s, it adds. The agents are falsely blaming Scientology
and company officials for their own shortcomings, Allstate says.
"Bless their hearts, they wish it were still 1965," says Michael
Simpson, Allstate's recently retired vice president of sales.

The company would never condone harassment, Mr. Simpson says,
though he adds the firm couldn't be aware of the actions of every
single worker. "Allstate has always been extremely ethical and
right-treating of its employees," he says.

Yet given the philosophy espoused in the Hubbard training
program, many agents became convinced, rightly or wrongly, that
the hardball tactics they saw many managers adopting were inspired
by the Scientologists' training methods. Many knew that the church
has been accused repeatedly of spying on and harassing its
opponents.

Under its "Fair Game Law," written by Mr. Hubbard in 1967, an
enemy of Scientology is "fair game" and can "be deprived of
property or injured by any means by any Scientologist, without any
discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to
or destroyed." The church says Mr. Hubbard rescinded this law in
1968, although critics contend that only the term, not the
concept, was discontinued.

Many agents were concerned

By 1990, many agents were concerned enough to confront their
supervisors about the use of the Hubbard materials. In some
instances, employees protested the implementation of management-by-
statistics programs in Allstate offices. In South Florida, a
Catholic agent balked at participating in a program linked to
another religion. His opposition caused such a furor that the
Hubbard-inspired program was curtailed, agents say.

In 1992, without acknowledging any past problems, the company
scaled back its reliance on Mr. Hubbard's teachings. By 1993, Mr.
Pearson had stopped giving any seminars at the company. But fear
of Scientology persisted at Allstate, and the brief Scientology
discussion at Sears's 1993 annual meeting did little to ease
agents' concerns about the Scientology link.

One reason was that agents were still finding elements of Mr.
Pearson's training program in Allstate management seminars. That
fall, for example, some agents participating in a new training
program, the Agency Development Process, noticed two pages, titled
"Statistics Graphs, How to Figure the Scale," that were identical
to those found in the Scientology material. The references to L.
Ron Hubbard had been deleted.

Allstate's new companywide Better Prospecting Seminar also had
some similarities to Mr. Hubbard's program, focusing on
statistical analyses of performance and describing employees'
various tasks using the Scientology term "hats." The new program
offended some agents, who say they felt they were being taught to
deceive and confuse their customers.

In May 1994, New York agent Mr. Softye, who describes himself as
a devout Catholic, refused to take a test that preceded
participation in the Agency Development Process, which he believed
was related to Scientology training. He initially received a "job-
in-jeopardy" reprimand, though it was rescinded when he complained
to corporate headquarters that the test conflicted with his
religious values. The incident fueled agents' drive to uncover
their company's apparent links to Scientology.

The National Neighborhood Office Agents Club, NNOAC, a group of
Allstate agents who are critical of management, began printing
special reports outlining what it knew about the Scientology
connection. In addition, the group sent Hubbard training materials
that had been used at Allstate to each member of the board of
directors. Someone also mailed an anonymous letter to the
company's investment bankers at Lehman Brothers Inc. claiming a
Scientology connection. These actions finally grabbed the
attention of top management.

Allstate senior vice president Robert Gary flew three NNOAC
agents to Atlanta last August and met with them in a tiny Delta
Air Lines conference room at the airport. Mr. Gary says he
acknowledged the company's involvement with the Hubbard management
training. He told the agents the seminars were "initially embarked
on in innocence," but he agreed they were a mistake. The senior
vice president promised the company would write to employees
admitting the error and would order that all the Scientology
material be deleted from Allstate's training books.

Complete review of the process

Later that month, Allstate President Jerry Choate wrote the three
agents a letter disavowing the Hubbard management materials. "The
inclusion of these materials was unfortunate because the ideas and
views expressed in them were clearly inconsistent with Allstate's
values," Mr. Choate wrote. "The people who were responsible for
screening the consultant's training materials failed to recognize
that they were inappropriate and remove them."

He promised a complete review of the process that led to the
hiring of Mr. Pearson. He also said the Hubbard materials hadn't
been distributed for several years and that, in March 1994, he had
ordered instructors to stop using any of the old texts, even if
they weren't objectionable.

But last October, an incident in Florida showed that speculation
among Allstate agents about the influence of Scientology on the
company is far from dead. On Halloween, 16 agents from Orlando
were called into a brief meeting, where territorial-sales manager
Daryl Starke reprimanded agents for failing to sell enough life
insurance. "This is serious business, folks; wake up!" one agent
quoted Mr. Starke as saying. He told workers that unless they
produced six life-insurance policies within 90 days, their jobs
would be in jeopardy, three employees at the meeting say.

Within a few weeks, many of these workers happened to hear about
the Scientology issue for the first time. They suspected that Mr.
Starke had taken the Hubbard course, as Allstate now says he had.
One agent was so disturbed that he talked to his priest about the
matter. In recent months, he and another agent filed religious-
discrimination claims with the EEOC. Allstate denies the charges.
The cases are pending.

[Joe Harrington]

Here is some info on WISE:

Joe

http://www.scientology.org/goodman/wise.htm
> WORLD INSTITUTE OF SCIENTOLOGY ENTERPRISES
>
> A RELIGIOUS FELLOWSHIP
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> In addition to Dianetics and Scientology auditing technology, L. Ron
> Hubbard also developed administrative and ethics technologies for
> use in Churches of Scientology. Grounded in fundamental laws and
> principles of life, these technologies can be more broadly applied
> by anyone to organize and improve his or her own life or to any
> group-- social club, sports team, business, or even a government
> agency. Many Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike utilize
> these technologies in their daily lives.
>
> The World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (WISE) is a
> non-profit religious membership organization for Scientology
> comprised of business leaders and professionals in many fields. It
> helps assure that Scientology churches remain distraction-free,
> instills religious ethical principles in business, and licenses
> marks associated with the religion and Mr. Hubbard to appropriate
> individuals.
>
> As an additional matter, WISE members recognize that the
> organizational principles Mr. Hubbard developed have a broad
> application to any group, to improve both their own organizations
> and society at large through the application of Scientology
> administrative and ethics technologies.
>
> WISE furnishes arbitration services to its members to help them
> quickly and equitably settle business disputes. By utilizing
> Scientology ethics and justice principles and procedures, such
> disputes are kept out of an overloaded and sometimes capricious
> legal system. Further, WISE ensures that high ethical standards are
> maintained by its members, which contributes to the overall creation
> of a more ethical business environment.
>
> WISE also provides a way for businesspeople to network by publishing
> a directory of members and giving them opportunities, such as
> conventions, to meet.
>
> In response to the growing demand for Mr. Hubbard's administrative
> technology, WISE established the Hubbard College of Administration
> in 1991 to provide instruction in the theories and application of
> the administrative technology to the general public. There are
> currently nine such colleges in the United States and abroad,
> including in Russia.
>
> To continue reading, click here: ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND
> EDUCATION
>
> Click to return to the home page.
>
> From: The Church of Scientology: 40th Anniversary. Copyright 1994
> CSI. All Rights Reserved. Dianetics and Scientology are trademarks
> and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center and are used
> with its permission. Scientologist is a collective membership mark
> designating members of the affiliated churches and missions of
> Scientology. WISE is a trademark and collective membership mark
> owned by World Institute of Scientology Enterprises.

[Ex Mudder]

Yup, you have a clam front and you have just hired a religious
consulting service that misrepresented itself.
A coupla months ago someone posted to this newsgroup that they
alsmost sent their kid to a Scientology school. When they discovered
this, they were told "just because we teach L Ron Hubbards teachings
does not mean we are Scientologist"
Right. and just because all the teachers are Nuns doesn't mean the
school is Catholic.

Drop the course immediately. it is
a) fraudulent, for not admitting its links
b) Useless, becuase L Ron Hubbard's tech is a pile of crap
c) Illegal, because it involves making members of a business follow
Scientology's religious doctrines.

You might not be able to get your money back, and sueing / raising a
stink (as a company) might be more trouble that its worth.
Your choice. But get out before your someone gets converted and
starts trying to convert the rest of you, and draining the company of
assets to pay for additional religious indoctrination.
Did I sound too paranoid?

Concerned <do...@spam.me> wrote:

>I've got a question for those of you who know this stuff better than I.
>
>I've seen the stuff on Scientology in Wired, and read about it on the
>Web. I'm in total agreement that Scientology is a cult, and a dangerous
>one at that. For that reason, I haven't ever posted here until now- I
>figured it was like sticking my hands into a bucket of snakes.
>
>Anyway, my company recently hired a management consultant company to
>help our very small company get organized. I didn't really give it much
>thought, other than to think that it was a good idea, high time we got
>our act together. The company we hired to do the training is called
>'Executive Power', apparently based in the Atlanta area- for all
>appearances, a very small outfit.
>
>The first thing they did was give each and every manager in our company
>a multiple-choice analysis, and I think I recall them calling it an
>'Oxford Capacity Test', or somesuch. At that time, I had no
>suspicions. Next, we managers were told we'd be attending one-on-one
>training courses called 'modules'. I went up for my first one last
>week.
>

>Well, when I sat down in the room, I looked at the book on the table,
>and alarm bells started to go off- in large lettering, it said: "based
>on the work of L. Ron Hubbard". On the table was also a dictionary, and
>a cup full of poker chips, paper clips, and little stones. The trainer
>called it a 'demo kit'.
>
>The first session was three hours, and covered 'the Barriers to
>Learning' (mass, etc), and also such things as 'cognition', and
>'conditions', which were (in order): non-existance, danger, emergency,
>normal, affluence, power, and power-change. During the session, every
>time a question would come up about the material, the trainer would hunt
>down what she felt was a word that I'd misunderstood, calling it an
>'MU', or 'misunderstood word'. We would then look it up in the
>dictionary, and read all the definitions- she called this 'word
>clearing'.
>

>Now, just between you, me, and the fencepost, this smells like a
>Scientology front. Since the session, I've gone back to the web and
>read Fishman's book, and in the beginning where he describes his early
>Scientology training, he describes my first management session
>*perfectly*, down to the words, and the items on the table. Frankly,
>I'm not sure I want to go back for the next session- when you hear a
>rattlesnake shake his tail, you back off.
>
>What I'm asking is this- has anyone heard of this company? Is it a
>direct front for Scientology? If it's not a direct front, then what
>company is likely just above it, so I can poke around and see what's
>what?
>

[Tilman Hausherr]

In <330531...@spam.me>, Concerned <do...@spam.me> wrote:

>Well, when I sat down in the room, I looked at the book on the table,
>and alarm bells started to go off- in large lettering, it said: "based
>on the work of L. Ron Hubbard".

That's all you needed as evidence. Yes, it is a scientology front. The
company names change all the time, usually after a critical media
article.

They are only allowed to teach scientology if they turn over license
fees to the RTC, and I assume they are also WISE members.

This is a very serious matter. Inform all your co-workers and then go
directly to the boss and explain him that these courses are pure
scientology, just that there are not called so. Be careful i.e. don't
attack him but explain him that he was tricked. Bring him the Allstate
article and the one on Applied Materials, and explain him that you will
refuse to take these courses, as you are a member of the <insert here>
religion. (Scientology claims to be a religion in the US - forcing you
in the course is religous discrimination).

Lawsuit ties Applied Materials to Scientology teachings

The Business Journal - San Jose
March 30, 1992

By James S. Goldman

Three ex-employees claim company forced resignations after they refused to
take seminars on Hubbard doctrines

Trial is set to begin today in a civil case brought by three former employees
of Applied Materials Inc., who claim they were forced to resign from the
company when they refused to be trained under the doctrines of L. Ron Hubbard's
Church of Scientology.

The three former Applied workers filed suit against the company in May 1990,
after they had left the company. Steven Hunziker, Virginia Sanders and Kate
Schuchmann worked at the Santa Clara chip equipment maker at separate times, yet
all claim in the same suit that the company used Church of Scientology
teachings and dogma to train employees. They say in court papers that in order
to get ahead at the company, they would have been required to take Scientology
classes.

The ex-workers charge that they were routinely subjected to verbal harassment
because they would not take the courses. They claim that the verbal harassment
became so intense that they were forced to resign. They also charge breach of
employment contract, wrongful discharge, religious and political discrimination
and conspiracy. The trio have asked to be awarded unspecified damages.

Applied Chairman James Morgan and President James Bagley are also named as
defendants. Neither man is a proponent or associated with Scientology, sources
said.

Company spokesman Tom Hayes called the allegations "ridiculous," and said it
sounded like "a story out of the tabloids" to him. He denied the company used
Church of Scientology -based seminars in its training. However, several sources
at Applied confirmed that until recently, Scientology teachings were used
regularly by the company during "self-improvement" and confidence seminars led
by a company called Applied Scholastics, which regularly uses Scientology
techniques, according to the suit. Applied Scholastics is also named as a
defendant in the suit.

"It was actually really good training," said one source, "but we don't have
it anymore. When I read through all that stuff, I knew it was from the church,
that the classes were derived from Scientology. " But the origin of the
training was never clearly discussed, several Applied staffers said.

The three workers claimed in their suit that because they did not subscribe
to Scientology teachings, they not only were subjected to harassment at the
company, but they also feared "reprisals by followers of Scientology or L. Ron
Hubbard."

Critics claim Scientology is a cult-like organization that employs
brainwashing techniques. But proponents view it as a human-potential
organization designed to improve one's abilities through psychology and
religious teachings. In any case, the three plaintiffs claim the teachings were
inappropriate for Applied employees.

In fact, several companies not affiliated with the religious group use the
management system espoused by Mr. Hubbard, who developed it to run his extensive
organization. Other companies that are owned by members of the Scientology
church say the secular training helps motivate workers.

The Feshbach Brothers in Palo Alto, an investment group, bases its corporate
system on the L. Ron Hubbard Management System, said Joe Feshbach. He claims his
company has enjoyed tremendous growth, going from about $ 20,000 in revenues in
1982 to a projected $ 250 million this year, thanks in large part to
Scientology methods.

"It's a very common-sense approach that first focuses on an individual's
production and his overall contribution to the health and welfare of the
business," Mr. Feshbach said. "It organizes a business in an effective manner
that provides for a more efficient operation."

But he said key to the Scientology management system is that "it doesn't
work if you force someone to use it."

An attorney representing the three ex-Applied staffers, Nancy Miller of
Rummond & Mair in Aptos, would say only that her clients and Applied were
preparing for a settlement conference. She said, however, that the plaintiffs
are prepared to take the case to court this week.
A Case That Only L. Ron Hubbard Can Save?
Wrongful discharge case may turn on evidence of scientology -related training

The Recorder (San Jose?)
July 15, 1992, Wednesday

By MARK CURSI

Applied Materials Inc., a Silicon Valley behemoth, with some 2,500 employees
worldwide, normally doesn't blink when a few workers depart. But the
25-year-old semiconductor equipment manufacturer was shaken to its roots in
early 1989 when three workers departed amid allegations that management was
promoting the teachings of the Church of Scientology.

The three employees -- Steven Hunziker, Kate Schuchmann and Virginia Sanders
-- sued the company for breach of contract and wrongful discharge, alleging a
hostile work environment forced them to resign because they complained about
company-contracted training sessions that incorporated Scientology teachings.

If Santa Clara-based Applied Materials has its way, however, jurors will
never hear mention of Scientology or its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, when
Hunziker v. Applied Materials Inc., 692629, begins trial Monday before Judge
Frank Cliff in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

In one of her pretrial motions in limine, Applied Materials counsel Cynthia
Remmers argues that the source of the training materials is irrelevant to the
plaintiffs' employment claims, and that the company did not knowingly use
Scientology courses. Allowing the plaintiff to launch a full-scale "smear
campaign" on the controversial church, which isn't a party to the suit, would
bias the jury and force Applied Materials into the impossible position of
defending Scientology.

"This bias would be all the more likely because allowing such evidence would
place [the company] in the untenable position of putting on rebuttal evidence
and thereby appearing to defend the Church of Scientology, which it has
absolutely no interest in doing," wrote Remmers, a partner in the Sacramento
office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.

The plaintiffs' tactic "would be a blatant attempt to subject [the company]
to undeserved ridicule by linking it with a religious belief the jurors will be
invited to distrust or may already fear."

Remmers declined further comment Tuesday afternoon.

But Hunziker's attorney, James Rummonds, counters that Scientology is very
much a part of the case, pointing out that the company contracted with
Scientology -affiliated groups as far back as 1987, despite protests from
employees other than the three who filed suit. While not accusing the company
of promoting Scientology, the plaintiffs say Applied Materials still had the
responsibility to investigate training courses offered to its employees.

The courses, offered by Applied Scholastics Inc. and Smith & Associates, were
nothing but church recruitment "dogma," said Rummonds, head of the three-lawyer
Rummonds, Williams & Mair in Aptos.

"Over years [the contractors] were promoting, in the guise of employee
development, programs of [ Scientology] scripture," Rummonds said.

Company middle managers were aware of employee complaints about the
Scientology content of the courses, which dealt with communication and
organizational skills, but did nothing, according to Rummonds and John C.
Elstead, co-plaintiffs' counsel representing Sanders and Schuchmann.

The courses weren't compulsory, but the message to the three plaintiffs,
according to Elstead, was: "You'd better take [the course] or else."

In a March settlement conference, Schuchmann and Sanders asked for $ 1
million each; Hunziger sought $ 550,000. No counteroffers were made at the
time, according to court papers.

A TROUBLING DISCOVERY

Hunziker, Sanders and Schuchmann were strangers to each other when they
joined Applied Materials.

Schuchmann was hired in August 1987 as a production planner. Hunziker joined
the training department in January of 1988, as international employee
development coordinator, teaching courses on company policy and protocol, and
Japanese language and custom for Japan-based employees. Sanders was hired into
the training department as an administrative assistant in March 1988.

All progressed in the company, according to both plaintiffs and defense,
until late summer of 1988. That was when Schuchmann learned an effective
communication course in which she was enrolled, put on by Applied Scholastics,
utilized materials authored by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

Schuchmann was allowed to withdraw from the course, but her supervisor
enrolled her in another one later in the year that she discovered also included
Scientology literature, according to Elstead, a Pleasanton solo practitioner.
That was a course offered by Smith & Associates.

Elmstead and Schuchmann didn't learn of Smith & Associates' Scientology
connection until her first day of training. Employees were encouraged never to
read past a word they don't understand, otherwise they would be lying to
themselves, subjecting their psyches to torment -- a basic Scientology tenet,
Elstead said. He said Schuchmann again objected, but was berated by her
supervisor to the point that she felt she had no other option but to continue
with the course.

Applied Materials maintains Schuchmann's supervisor merely told her the
course was voluntary and that she was not required to attend. The company
contends that was the message managers were instructed to convey to employees
after Schuchmann's initial objections.

Furthermore, the company argues that its managers saw no mention of
Scientology when previewing material provided by Smith & Associates for the
later course.

After attending the several-day Smith & Associates course, Schuchmann
complained to fellow workers, including Hunziker. Hunziker, in turn, contacted
the company's in-house legal department, which apparently brought the issue to
the company's senior management. In the meantime, Hunziker and Sanders refused
to attend an effective communication course in which they were enrolled by their
supervisor.

Applied Materials president James Bagley immediately banned all training
materials authored by L. Ron Hubbard. The vice president in charge of human and
physical resources placed a memo in Schuchmann's personnel file supporting her
concerns and promising Church of Scientology literature would never be used
again.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs' lawyers said, the three workers were singled out
-- subjected to the "silent treatment" or given work below their capabilities.

Schuchmann was the target of "several verbal assaults by her supervisor,"
Elstead said. She took stress disability and eventually resigned in April
1989.

Sanders didn't suffer verbal abuse, but her immediate supervisors "began to
turn on her and found ways to insinuate that her work was below standard,"
Elstead said.

Hunziker, Rummonds said, was portrayed by his managers as a troublemaker who
went about the company complaining that Scientologists had infiltrated Applied
Materials. He resigned in February 1989, a month after Sanders. An arbitrator
found that Hunziker was indeed a troublemaker, but awarded him $ 250,000 on the
ground that Applied Materials interfered with Hunziker's attempt to get another
job.

The same arbitrator found in favor of Applied Materials on Sanders' and
Schuchmann's claims, but the decision was non-binding.

Remmers, the company's attorney, argues in court documents that the three
chose to leave Applied Materials on their own. If anything, Applied Materials
is a victim, she says, because the three were collecting and copying company
memoranda months in advance of their resignations in preparation for the pending
legal action.

"There is not one shred of evidence in the largely undisputed facts to show
any bad faith or wrongful conduct by Applied Materials," Remmers wrote. "To the
contrary, the evidence shall show that Applied Materials acted in good faith to
accommodate and work with plaintiffs."

Despite Remmers' insistence that Applied Materials is on solid legal ground
on the employment claims, Elstead isn't surprised that the company is fighting
any effort to link it to Scientology:

"They know well enough if this Scientology is in [at trial], which I'm sure
it will be, they're in a lot of trouble."
Scientologizing

Forbes
September 14, 1992

By DYAN MACHAN

APPLIED SCHOLASTICS, INC., the management consulting group, bases its work on
the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology cult (FORBES, Oct.
27, 1986). Based in Fremont, Calif., the firm boasts a client list that
includes IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Memorex. Among its least satisfied recent
clients is $ 639 million (sales) Applied Materials, which makes the equipment
used to manufacture computer-chip wafers.

In 1987 the Santa Clara-based company hired Applied Scholastics to conduct
training seminars for its employees. Three employees subsequently sued Applied
Materials, claiming that they were driven out of the company after they
complained about the courses.

Applied Materials settled out of court with the three ex-employees on Aug. 12
for an estimated $ 600,000 or more. In a press release, the company admitted it
"lacked sensitivity with regard to the controversial nature of L. Ron Hubbard."
Says Applied Scholastics: "In ten years of business, we've never had anything
Applied, Ex-Employees Settle Suit

The Business Journal-San Jose
August 17, 1992
By James S. Goldman

An embarrassing lawsuit between Applied Materials Inc. and three former
employees who claim they were forced to resign after not taking
company-sponsored Church of Scientology courses was settled out of court last
week.

That settlement flew in the face of an earlier stance by Applied executives
who proclaimed they did nothing wrong, and that they would fight the case to the
end. But a hefty $ 750,000 in potential legal bills, and the possibility of
having to pay the losers' court costs as well, led the company to seek to settle
the case, sources said.

In a 1-1/2-page statement, Applied acknowledged its "insensitivity" regarding
using a corporate training firm so closely tied with L. Ron Hubbard's Church of
Scientology. But the company denied any wrongdoing and said it did not force
any of the three employees to quit their jobs.

The three former employees who sued, Steven Hunziker, Virginia Sanders and
Kate Schuchmann, who first filed a complaint in 1990, claimed they were harassed
and feared reprisals from the company and the church if they did not go ahead
with the training. But in the settlement statement, "the plaintiffs acknowledge
that Applied Materials was not attempting to force them to take any particular
course."

The three plaintiffs collectively were suing the company for $ 42 million,
but sources said the case was settled for about half the $ 750,000 the case
would have racked up in attorneys' fees for Applied. The prepared statement did
not list any settlement figures and it barred both sides from discussing the
settlement beyond the statement issued by Applied and the court.

The Business Journal first reported on the bizarre case in March. Three
former employees claimed that mandatory corporate training seminars were, in
essence, recruitment courses for the Church of Scientology. When the three
employees refused the training, they claimed they were harassed and intimidated
by Applied higher-ups who eventually drove them to quit.

The suit named not only the company as a defendant, but also Chairman James
Morgan and President Jim Bagley. The suit, however, said that no connection
between the church and Messrs. Morgan and Bagley was ever made.

In March, company sources said they were aware of the Scientology
connection. Apparently the company handling the training, Applied Scholastics in
Fremont, regularly uses Scientology teachings in its classes.

At that same time, a corporate spokesman called the whole story "ridiculous,"
and denied any connection with the church. Later, he said the company was
unaware of a connection between the church and Applied Scholastics. Last week,
he had no comment.
Case Centering on Scientology In the Workplace Settles
The Recorder (San Jose?)
August 14, 1992

By Mark Cursi

A trial that promised to explore the teachings of the controversial Church of
Scientology ended quietly late Wednesday with a confidential settlement.

The case, Hunziker v. Applied Materials Inc., 692629, was brought by three
former employees of Santa Clara-based Applied Materials who claimed they were
the targets of workplace retaliation for complaining about company-contracted
training courses incorporating the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the
Church of Scientology. A hostile work environment, the plaintiffs claimed,
forced them to resign in 1989.

The company maintained it was not aware of the ties between the training
companies and Scientology until the employees complained, and that the
training courses were dropped immediately.

The case had been scheduled for trial July 22 before Santa Clara County
Superior Court Judge Frank Cliff.

A joint statement announcing the settlement that the company "recognizes that
prior to these employees' concerns in 1988, the company lacked sensitivity with
regard to the controversial nature of L. Ron Hubbard." But the statement was
also clear that Applied Materials believed the training courses did not promote
a religion.

In a March settlement conference, Schuchmann and Sanders sought $ 1 million
each while Hunziker demanded $ 550,000.

James Rummonds, a partner with Aptos-based Rummonds, Williams & Mair
representing Steven Hunziker, could not be reached for comment. John Elstead, a
Pleasanton solo practitioner representing Kate Schuchmann and Virginia Sanders,
said he was bound by the confidential agreement.

Applied Materials attorney Cynthia Remmers, a partner with the Sacramento
office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, said the joint release would be the
defense's only public comment on the case.

[Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine]

In article <330531...@spam.me>, Concerned <do...@spam.me> writes:
>I've got a question for those of you who know this stuff better than I.
>
>I've seen the stuff on Scientology in Wired, and read about it on the
>Web.

You're lucky to get fair warning about it these days :-)

> The company we hired to do the training is called
>'Executive Power', apparently based in the Atlanta area- for all
>appearances, a very small outfit.

(anyone know about the specific company?)

>
>The first thing they did was give each and every manager in our company
>a multiple-choice analysis, and I think I recall them calling it an
>'Oxford Capacity Test'

[................]

>'MU', or 'misunderstood word'. We would then look it up in the
>dictionary, and read all the definitions- she called this 'word
>clearing'.
>
>Now, just between you, me, and the fencepost, this smells like a
>Scientology front.

Yes. Hubbard, OCR, conditions, MUs -- straight scientology stuff.

>Since the session, I've gone back to the web and
>read Fishman's book, and in the beginning where he describes his early
>Scientology training, he describes my first management session
>*perfectly*, down to the words, and the items on the table. Frankly,
>I'm not sure I want to go back for the next session- when you hear a
>rattlesnake shake his tail, you back off.

Definitely steer clear of it. Why did your company get into it?
Can you convince them, and others, it is ineffective??

>What I'm asking is this- has anyone heard of this company? Is it a
>direct front for Scientology? If it's not a direct front, then what
>company is likely just above it, so I can poke around and see what's
>what?

|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on alt.religion.scientology *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |___&_http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk_________________________|/_______| L
_________/clam/faq/woofglug.html________________________________________
(Lisa McPherson Memorial Page,http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm)

[Bev]

Boy did your compnay ever step in some doodie :-)

Yes, this is a scientology front group. These are like scientology
schools that operate under Applied Scholastics which operates
under ABLE (Association for Better Living and Education)

Only these groups are a division of WISE (World Institute of Sci-
entology Enterprises) which is a "Religious Fellowship" according
to sci's own web pages.

These "consultant" companies fall under WISE's EMC's - Effective
Management Centers. They are all licensed by WISE and use the
boooks and teachings of scientology granted by permission of RTC.

This is what WISE says about EMC's - Effective Management Centers-
as per a Prosperity Magazine from 1994.

* * * * * * * *

An EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT CENTER (abbreviation EMC) is an association
of WISE members in a local area that form a group and operate on
their own to expand WISE membership and deleiver Hubbard Management
Technology (written up and often referred to as "HUBBARD policy"
to the local business community.

EMC's create interest for HUBBARD Administrative Technology

WISE members, by operating an EMC, be it par or full time therefore
are an important stabilizing influence in society. The more businesses
are introduced to HUBBARD Policy, the more businesses have a chance
to untangle themselves from the many falsehood or arbitraries
connected with their running, their purposes, etc.

NEW YORK

On the other side of the states, in Westchester, New York, is the site
of an Effective Management Center run by Jay Spina and Moshen Zargar,
two of the most successful chiropractors in New York State.

Jay and Moshen have also started a new consulting company called
MERIDIAN CONSULTANTS. They just recently held a meeting with over
78 people attending. 50 of these heard about HUBBARD Policy for
their frist time.

They have been disseminating to people of all walks of life. And
they actively use the possibilities they see, e.g. they were invited
to the 7th Day Adventist Church where they presented a seminar to over
300 people. This seminar went so well that Jay and Mosen were
invited to speak to another group, this time not to the congregation
but to 25 of their disctrict's Pastors.

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY

A similar success was a seminar held for Prudential Insurance Company.
Starting off with a seminar to 55 staff members of a District
Manager lead to an additional siminar for 25 District Managers.

YOUR HELP IS NEEDED - AND YOU CAN HELP

You can start up slow and build from there until you can afford to
do it full time. We need all members of WISE to give a hand in
the spreading of HUBBARD Administrative Technology for the sake of
this society - and our own lives too.

It's more enjoyable to do business with WISE members who follow the
same policy"
* * * * * * *

In other words, let's all think the same, be the same, believe the
same. Ron is SOURCE.

Tell your company welcome to the world of scientology.

Beverly

Concerned wrote:
>
> I've got a question for those of you who know this stuff better than I.
>
> I've seen the stuff on Scientology in Wired, and read about it on the

> Web. I'm in total agreement that Scientology is a cult, and a dangerous
> one at that. For that reason, I haven't ever posted here until now- I
> figured it was like sticking my hands into a bucket of snakes.
>
> Anyway, my company recently hired a management consultant company to
> help our very small company get organized. I didn't really give it much
> thought, other than to think that it was a good idea, high time we got

> our act together. The company we hired to do the training is called

> 'Executive Power', apparently based in the Atlanta area- for all
> appearances, a very small outfit.
>

> The first thing they did was give each and every manager in our company
> a multiple-choice analysis, and I think I recall them calling it an

> 'Oxford Capacity Test', or somesuch. At that time, I had no
> suspicions. Next, we managers were told we'd be attending one-on-one
> training courses called 'modules'. I went up for my first one last
> week.
>

> Well, when I sat down in the room, I looked at the book on the table,
> and alarm bells started to go off- in large lettering, it said: "based

> on the work of L. Ron Hubbard". On the table was also a dictionary, and
> a cup full of poker chips, paper clips, and little stones. The trainer
> called it a 'demo kit'.
>
> The first session was three hours, and covered 'the Barriers to
> Learning' (mass, etc), and also such things as 'cognition', and
> 'conditions', which were (in order): non-existance, danger, emergency,
> normal, affluence, power, and power-change. During the session, every
> time a question would come up about the material, the trainer would hunt
> down what she felt was a word that I'd misunderstood, calling it an

> 'MU', or 'misunderstood word'. We would then look it up in the
> dictionary, and read all the definitions- she called this 'word
> clearing'.
>
> Now, just between you, me, and the fencepost, this smells like a

> Scientology front. Since the session, I've gone back to the web and

> read Fishman's book, and in the beginning where he describes his early
> Scientology training, he describes my first management session
> *perfectly*, down to the words, and the items on the table. Frankly,
> I'm not sure I want to go back for the next session- when you hear a
> rattlesnake shake his tail, you back off.
>

> What I'm asking is this- has anyone heard of this company? Is it a
> direct front for Scientology? If it's not a direct front, then what
> company is likely just above it, so I can poke around and see what's
> what?
>

[st...@swhitlat.com]

It is scientology through and through, complete, %100.
All I can do is tell you that.

scientology is insidious. It will creep up like a disease
and brainwash you.

You should at least be aware that the "management training"
you are involved with is scientology.

Search the WWW for "Allstate" and "scientology". You will
find some very good reasons why companies should not use
scientology.

Steve Whitlatch
swhi...@aimnet.com

In article <330531...@spam.me>, Concerned <do...@spam.me> writes:

--
Honesty cures scientology.

[Nico Garcia]

In article <330531...@spam.me>, Concerned <do...@spam.me> wrote:
>I've got a question for those of you who know this stuff better than I.
>
>I've seen the stuff on Scientology in Wired, and read about it on the
>Web. I'm in total agreement that Scientology is a cult, and a dangerous
>one at that. For that reason, I haven't ever posted here until now- I
>figured it was like sticking my hands into a bucket of snakes.
>
>Anyway, my company recently hired a management consultant company to
>help our very small company get organized. I didn't really give it much
>thought, other than to think that it was a good idea, high time we got
>our act together. The company we hired to do the training is called
>'Executive Power', apparently based in the Atlanta area- for all
>appearances, a very small outfit.
>
>The first thing they did was give each and every manager in our company
>a multiple-choice analysis, and I think I recall them calling it an
>'Oxford Capacity Test', or somesuch. At that time, I had no
>suspicions. Next, we managers were told we'd be attending one-on-one
>training courses called 'modules'. I went up for my first one last
>week.
>
>Well, when I sat down in the room, I looked at the book on the table,
>and alarm bells started to go off- in large lettering, it said: "based
>on the work of L. Ron Hubbard". On the table was also a dictionary, and
>a cup full of poker chips, paper clips, and little stones. The trainer
>called it a 'demo kit'.

Sounds like a front group. You need to take a look at the Allstate
lawsuits, such as this one, to bring to your managers' attention
the danger of following $cientology based policies.

Coyne v. Allstate Insurance Co., supra, 771 F.Supp. 673

>The first session was three hours, and covered 'the Barriers to
>Learning' (mass, etc), and also such things as 'cognition', and
>'conditions', which were (in order): non-existance, danger, emergency,
>normal, affluence, power, and power-change. During the session, every
>time a question would come up about the material, the trainer would hunt
>down what she felt was a word that I'd misunderstood, calling it an
>'MU', or 'misunderstood word'. We would then look it up in the
>dictionary, and read all the definitions- she called this 'word
>clearing'.

Definitely front group. You need to bring a full copy of the
appropriate web pages, and pointers to the NOTS, the e-meter stuff,
and the criminal history of the cult.

>Now, just between you, me, and the fencepost, this smells like a
>Scientology front. Since the session, I've gone back to the web and
>read Fishman's book, and in the beginning where he describes his early
>Scientology training, he describes my first management session
>*perfectly*, down to the words, and the items on the table. Frankly,
>I'm not sure I want to go back for the next session- when you hear a
>rattlesnake shake his tail, you back off.

Bring the baseball bat of "A Piece of Blue Sky" and the other books,
and copies off the web of Mary Sue Hubbard's criminal recommendations,
and the recent death of Ms. McPherson.

>What I'm asking is this- has anyone heard of this company? Is it a
>direct front for Scientology? If it's not a direct front, then what
>company is likely just above it, so I can poke around and see what's
>what?

I dunno. Bring the data, ask them where they trained, and *go straight
to your company managers and the company president*.

In particular, if Steve Fishman's book described the sessions in such
detail, bring it to your manager's attention with all the details.

Now, if you were willing to risk screams from cult lawyers, you could
also bring a copy of SCAMIZDAT and the full NOTS from the Sweden
parliament. Particularly be careful to do only *fair use* quotation,
and do not publish the stuff commercially, of course.

--
Nico Garcia
ra...@tiac.net
<PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>

[Nico Garcia]

Bless Ron Newman:
http://www.cybercom.net/users/rnewman/scientology/media/wsj-allstate-3.22.95
http://www.cybercom.net/users/rnewman/scientology/media/boston-globe-5.23.95

Also, bringing up the critics' web pages such as Ron Newman's, Dave Touretzky,
Modemac's, etc., and how $cientology and L. Ron Hubbard's tech can't deal

[Nico Garcia]

In article <3307522b...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,

Ex Mudder <dke...@best.com> wrote:
> Yup, you have a clam front and you have just hired a religious
>consulting service that misrepresented itself.
> A coupla months ago someone posted to this newsgroup that they
>alsmost sent their kid to a Scientology school. When they discovered
>this, they were told "just because we teach L Ron Hubbards teachings
>does not mean we are Scientologist"
> Right. and just because all the teachers are Nuns doesn't mean the
>school is Catholic.

You are making a bad mistake here. Giving the cult the *credit* of
being a religion is not wise. Take them apart on their actual beliefs
and claims: Bring along the better stuff that L. Ron Hubbard wrote,
like using the lawsuit to harass, how reading about Xenu will make you
catch cold and die, and how snapping your fingers will restimulate
your clam engrams and lock your jaw.

Giving them religious status is cooperating with their attempts to
cloak the cult's mind control and financial shell games under the
Americal religious tolerance.

> You might not be able to get your money back, and sueing / raising a
>stink (as a company) might be more trouble that its worth.

Public exposure, especially if you can talk to other companies they've
worked with or plan to work with and share the information, would be
*wonderful*.

[Future808]

He he he....wait till they ask you to go to a "seminar" and you find out
it's a Dianetics workshop....

BTW - this management group that your company hired pays a portion of it's
income directly to WISE. So in effect, your company is indirectly funding
the CoS.

I'm not sure how much it is applied, but the Scientology companies that
belong to WISE also maintain their own "ethics courts". How would you like
to wake up someday and find that your company is being subject to
Scientology's views on ethics and justice? I think not.

It's up to you to see if the tech is "workable" or not - but realize that
at some point there will be CoS recruitment, etc., etc.,.

Future

[Joe Harrington]

No, I think it is VITAL that it be made known that the IRS has
determined that the CofS and its many front groups are considered
to be non-profit and organized for religious purposes. Thus, when
groups operating under the auspices of WISE try to entice company
owners to allow them to train employees, employees will have recourse
in the court since their employers can not compel them to participate
in a quasi-religious activity that might be repulsive to them or
their own religious beliefs.

I also believe it is vital that all Scientology front groups that
are trying to become entangled into govt affairs at the local, state,
or federal level be clearly identified. In particular, the materials
of NARCONON or CRIMINON could be considered religious in nature, and
any govt entity or court that is involved in promoting participations
in these types of activities may be in violation of the establishment
clause of the First Amendment.

When a Scientology front group becomes active in some aspect of the
community, with the approval of any govt entity, its time to start
filing complaints regarding First Amendment violations.

Joe

[Tilman Hausherr]

In <330531...@spam.me>, Concerned <do...@spam.me> wrote:

>Anyway, my company recently hired a management consultant company to
>help our very small company get organized.

http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/foster07.html

EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE

ED 1040 INT

FRANCHISE ... Suggested plan for an area.

15th April, 1968.

A plan for setting up Scientology in businesses and taking
responsibility for this area.

1. Take a business that is already doing fairly well
on the basis that you reward the up-stat.

2. Approach the highest executive and disseminate Scientology
to him. Offer to make his business make more money for him
at no cost to him. Your two demands:

(a) Total Control of the business during the time you're
operating within the organization.

(b) 50 per cent of the additional profit your actions
will produce.

3. Next action is to put in Ethics. Locate the SP's in the org
and fire them.

4. Audit the Execs ... show them what its all about. This will
then start the cycle of getting in tech in the
organization. Execs will push their juniors and other staff
to have auditing.

Start in the organization would be interested anyway as a
result of suppressives out of the way thereby making the
environment a safer place to work in ... seeing
Scientologists in operation ... and also seeing the case
gains on their seniors.

5. Admin: Set up Central org board and get organization worked
out on this system.

Comm system, comm stations, hat write ups.

Result of above will be that organization will get smaller
staff-wise as putting in the org board will show up what posts etc.
are dev-t and can be disbanded. Also any additional SP's or PTS's
will have blown off staff as a result of ethics, tech and admin
going in. All this - much increased production - expansion - Gross
income increase.

You would approach the executive of the organization with a copy of
some of our production graphs as evidence, etc. You would do this
alone. When moving into the organization to set it up, you would
take as many people as needed, depending upon the size of the org,
to set this up. Naturally each person would be thoroughly
expertised on the area he was handling.

IRENE DUNLEAVY

Staff LRH Comm.

for

L. RON HUBBARD

Commodore."

[Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine]

In article <gh4LPnAh...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes

>> The company we hired to do the training is called
>>'Executive Power', apparently based in the Atlanta area- for all
>>appearances, a very small outfit.
>

>(anyone know about the specific company?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lurker wrote me,
|
| Here's what the Bellsouth Book has to say:
|
| Executive Power:
| 2625 Cumberland Parkway NW 770-436-6766
|
| Calling the number tells us that it has been changed to
| 770-850-0850
|
| Which yields, after hours, a simple Bellsouth Memorycall voicemail box
| for Executive Power.
| (if you call, I'd suggest *67 to block caller ID... in case you're
| paranoid.. )

[jbwebb]

>
> No, I think it is VITAL that it be made known that the IRS has
> determined that the CofS and its many front groups are considered
> to be non-profit and organized for religious purposes. Thus, when
> groups operating under the auspices of WISE try to entice company
> owners to allow them to train employees, employees will have recourse
> in the court since their employers can not compel them to participate
> in a quasi-religious activity that might be repulsive to them or
> their own religious beliefs.

I posed this question on the ng and no one answered me. Are Narconon and
Criminon considered tax exempt religions? This is just beyond my
comprehension. Is this true? WISE is a tax exempt religion? Is this
true? How can this be? Are you sure about this?
Take care.
Joni Webb

[Martin Hunt]

In article <5e5jle$o...@news-central.tiac.net>,

ra...@tiac.net (Nico Garcia) wrote:
}In article <3307522b...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
}Ex Mudder <dke...@best.com> wrote:
}> Yup, you have a clam front and you have just hired a religious
}>consulting service that misrepresented itself.
}> A coupla months ago someone posted to this newsgroup that they
}>alsmost sent their kid to a Scientology school. When they discovered
}>this, they were told "just because we teach L Ron Hubbards teachings
}>does not mean we are Scientologist"
}> Right. and just because all the teachers are Nuns doesn't mean the
}>school is Catholic.
}
}You are making a bad mistake here. Giving the cult the *credit* of
}being a religion is not wise. Take them apart on their actual beliefs
}and claims: Bring along the better stuff that L. Ron Hubbard wrote,
}like using the lawsuit to harass, how reading about Xenu will make you
}catch cold and die, and how snapping your fingers will restimulate
}your clam engrams and lock your jaw.
}
}Giving them religious status is cooperating with their attempts to
}cloak the cult's mind control and financial shell games under the
}Americal religious tolerance.

I'd argue that this too is not the most effective form of criticism.
The best route is to point out their criminal nature, what they
actually *do* to people as opposed to their whacky beliefs. It's
too easy to write scn off as just another harmless group of kooks
that way, when really they are much more sinister than that. Tell
them about Lisa McPherson, about the RPF, the overboardings from
the Apollo, Snow white, the French case and more. There's a ranking
of the effectiveness of criticism:

1. pointing out they are a religion, so their claims to be a technology
or a management training system are crap.
2. pointing out that they are not a religion, and that Hubbard only
used this as a tax dodge.
3. pointing out that their beliefs are insane, Xenu, clams, etc.
4. pointing out that scn abuses its members and breaks the law in
hiding child molesters, witnesses to a suspicious death, and so
on. pointing out how scn harasses its critics, abuses the legal
system, silences journalists, sues media, etc. *actions*.

4 is probably the most effective tack; I'm certain it's the one that
freaks out scientology the most. It's actions speak louder than words.

--
Scientologists wanted for questioning concerning the mysterious death
of Lisa McPherson by the Clearwater Police: Ms. Ildiko Cannovas (possibly
Konyves), may be living in Hungary, and Laura Arrunada, may be working
in the medical field in Mexico. Please contact Detective Sergeant Wayne
Andrews at albr...@cftnet.com or (813) 462-6085. See the Lisa McPherson
Memorial Page at: http://www.primenet.com/~cultxprt/lisa.htm

[Joe Harrington]

Criminon, Narconon, WISE, and dozens of others front groups were set
up as non-profit corporate shells which are micromanaged by the CofS
International, and ultimately the RTC. They are a part of the
Scientology corporate maze. These shells are not "religions" but
they are controlled by a organization deemed by the IRS to be involved
exclusively in the carrying out of "religious" activitites. The shells
use "religious" materials in the conduct of their activities.

Joe

[Diane Richardson]

jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:

>>
>> No, I think it is VITAL that it be made known that the IRS has
>> determined that the CofS and its many front groups are considered
>> to be non-profit and organized for religious purposes. Thus, when
>> groups operating under the auspices of WISE try to entice company
>> owners to allow them to train employees, employees will have recourse
>> in the court since their employers can not compel them to participate
>> in a quasi-religious activity that might be repulsive to them or
>> their own religious beliefs.

>I posed this question on the ng and no one answered me. Are Narconon and
>Criminon considered tax exempt religions? This is just beyond my
>comprehension. Is this true? WISE is a tax exempt religion? Is this
>true? How can this be? Are you sure about this?

Narconon and Criminon are tax-exempt *charitable*, not religious
institutions according to the IRS. An analogy that comes to mind is
Catholic Charities, a tax-exempt, church-related charitable
organization associated with the Roman Catholic Church, or the
American Friends Service Committee associated with the Quakers.

Of course, outside of the organizational relationship between
charitable organization and religious organization, I can't think of
much else that Catholic Charities or AFSC hold in common with Narconon
or Criminon.

Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

[Bev]

I'm familiar with Catholic Charities because they helped my friend
from ending up homeless after her husband left her and she lost her
job (she is doing very good now).

But to my knowledge they do not CHARGE money for their services.
Do you know if AFSC charges money for their services. I know that
Narconon charges money for their services. That is a glaring
difference that I see.

Beverly

[Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine]

In article <3307E4...@gramercy.ios.com>, jbwebb
<jbw...@gramercy.ios.com> writes

>>
>> No, I think it is VITAL that it be made known that the IRS has
>> determined that the CofS and its many front groups are considered
>> to be non-profit and organized for religious purposes. Thus, when
>> groups operating under the auspices of WISE try to entice company
>> owners to allow them to train employees, employees will have recourse
>> in the court since their employers can not compel them to participate
>> in a quasi-religious activity that might be repulsive to them or
>> their own religious beliefs.
>
>I posed this question on the ng and no one answered me. Are Narconon and
>Criminon considered tax exempt religions? This is just beyond my
>comprehension. Is this true? WISE is a tax exempt religion? Is this
>true? How can this be? Are you sure about this?

Sigh. They may be tax-exempt because nonprofit. And, separately,
they may be considered religious in nature, so the state can't fund
them or impose them on people. The above judgement refers to them
being religious (rather than "nonprofit") in nature.

[Al]

Bev wrote:

> Yes, this is a scientology front group. These are like scientology
> schools that operate under Applied Scholastics which operates
> under ABLE (Association for Better Living and Education)

ABLE? Please tell me more about ABLE. We have something like that at
the college I work for. Is Co$ actually operating in higher education???

[Bev]

Al wrote:

> Bev wrote:

> > Yes, this is a scientology front group. These are like scientology
> > schools that operate under Applied Scholastics which operates
> > under ABLE (Association for Better Living and Education)

> ABLE? Please tell me more about ABLE. We have something like that at

> the college I work for. Is Co$ actually operating in higher education???

ABLE - Association for Better Living and Education.

From a pamphlet put out by ABLE titled INROADS INTO SOCIETY
printed in 1992 (Dont have more current stuff because for
some reason I don't get Co$ mailings anymore :-) )

"ABLE was founded in 1989 to see to it that L. Ron Hubbard's
Social Betterment Technology is put into wide, wide use and
recognized as THE workable solution.

In carrying out this purpose, ABLE works with and through various
organizations that deliver LRH Social Betterment Technology. These
are Narcono, Applied Scholastics, Criminon and The Way to Happiness.

ABLE sponsors broad promotional and public realations campaigns that gain recognition
for the Social Betterment Technology and open new areas to the Technology.

Applied Scholastics 20th Anniversary Gala Event the extensive publicity for Kirstie
Alley's support of the Narconon Chilocco New Life Center as the Internations
Spokesperson, the launching of The Way To Happines into Russia - are all examples of
these type of activities

ABLE raises funds from corporations, governments, institutions, foundations and
individuals to support the campaigns and further the dissemination of the Cocial
Betterment programs ABLE supports. [All are Co$ front groups]

Beverly

[Diane Richardson]

Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:

[snip]

>I'm familiar with Catholic Charities because they helped my friend
>from ending up homeless after her husband left her and she lost her
>job (she is doing very good now).

>But to my knowledge they do not CHARGE money for their services.
>Do you know if AFSC charges money for their services. I know that
>Narconon charges money for their services. That is a glaring
>difference that I see.

I remember reading (or hearing) recently that Catholic Charities
receives more U.S. federal funding for its charitable works than any
other "nongovernmental organization."

Oftentimes charities are reimbursed by the government for services
provided free of charge to its clients.

Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

[Ron Newman]

In article <330848...@iag.net>, Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:

> Diane Richardson wrote:

> > Narconon and Criminon are tax-exempt *charitable*, not religious
> > institutions according to the IRS. An analogy that comes to mind is
> > Catholic Charities, a tax-exempt, church-related charitable
> > organization associated with the Roman Catholic Church, or the
> > American Friends Service Committee associated with the Quakers.

> I'm familiar with Catholic Charities because they helped my friend

> from ending up homeless after her husband left her and she lost her
> job (she is doing very good now).

> But to my knowledge they do not CHARGE money for their services.
> Do you know if AFSC charges money for their services. I know that
> Narconon charges money for their services. That is a glaring
> difference that I see.

The nature of AFSC's work is such that they don't charge money
for their services -- most of their work is overseas aid.

However, Jewish Vocational Services is a charity and it charges
money for some of its services here in Boston. Many hospitals are
formally organized as charities, and they certainly charge for
their services.

--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html

[David Gerard]

On 16 Feb 1997 01:09:58 GMT, Future808 (futu...@aol.com) wrote:

:I'm not sure how much it is applied, but the Scientology companies that

:belong to WISE also maintain their own "ethics courts". How would you like
:to wake up someday and find that your company is being subject to
:Scientology's views on ethics and justice? I think not.
:It's up to you to see if the tech is "workable" or not - but realize that
:at some point there will be CoS recruitment, etc., etc.,.

Apparently the Pancake Parlour, Melbourne, is no longer using the
stuff. I know someone who got a job there and was rather displeased
when I informed him of his new employers having previously applied
Hubbard Management Tech; he says they haven't tried anything of the
sort so far. Perhaps losing a lot of employees and having troubles
with the Industrial Relations court changed their minds.

--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/ ***
"The test of a workable technology is not: 'Would it work if everybody applied
it in an hypothetical unreal world?' The test is: 'Does it work in practice?'"
(Ralph Hilton)

[Number 3]

In article <cbwillisE...@netcom.com>, cbwi...@netcom.com (C. B.
Willis) wrote:

[clip]
>
> There are a lot of misunderstandings about non-profit
> organizations/corporations. Anybody can incorporate a non-profit
> religious/charitable/public-benefiting organization. Non-profit doesn't
> mean they can't charge money for products and services, it just means that
> the individuals involved (e.g., staff) cannot make profits beyond the
> normal compensation for the kind of services they provide. It's
> understood that corporate profits (excess after expenses) funds are used
> for expansion, special projects, building funds, and reserves. So a
> director of a non-profit organization such as a large museum could make
> over $100,000/year for such high-level executive services.
>
> Tax exempt status is something on top of incorporation and takes much
> longer to get, normally at least a year after incorporation (which can be
> done in one day in CA). There is much more government scrutiny involved
> in acquiring tax-exempt status. Such an organization does not pay taxes on
> its profits (excess after expenses), gets special bulk mailing privileges
> (a form of govt subsidy), and its donors can deduct donations off their
> personal taxes - donations in excess of the cost of products/services they
> purchase.
>
> For example, at a $500/plate fundraising dinner for the tax-exempt
> non-profit, the dinner cost $50, so the patron can deduct $450. I expect
> that COS members doing fixed donations for auditing services would be
> allowed to deduct whatever would be in excess of the going cost of therapy
> (which is something like $50-$150/hour).

no, Co$ claims that its services have no value (ie are worthless),
and that *all* fees are deductible donations.

If this secular analogy and
> spirit-of-the-law are not factored in, the govt is losing revenues in what
> could otherwise be a valid tax-exempt religious non-profit organization.
> The analogy breaks down somewhat in religious organizations, as most
> religious orgs are set up - contingently, not necessarily - in a tithing
> mode - 10% of annual income is recommended to be donated to the church, so
> pastoral counseling may be no-cost or additional ad-lib donation to
> tithing parishioners. Because of fixed rates for auditing, I think the
> secular therapy analogy is more applicable, even though the content of
> auditing may be religious.
>
-- see...@ix.netcom.com

[Jerome Wong]

jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com> writes:

}}
}} No, I think it is VITAL that it be made known that the IRS has
}} determined that the CofS and its many front groups are considered
}} to be non-profit and organized for religious purposes. Thus, when
}} groups operating under the auspices of WISE try to entice company
}} owners to allow them to train employees, employees will have recourse
}} in the court since their employers can not compel them to participate
}} in a quasi-religious activity that might be repulsive to them or
}} their own religious beliefs.

}I posed this question on the ng and no one answered me. Are Narconon and
}Criminon considered tax exempt religions? This is just beyond my
}comprehension. Is this true? WISE is a tax exempt religion? Is this
}true? How can this be? Are you sure about this?

}Take care.
}Joni Webb

Oh yeah, it's true: Narconon, Criminon, and WISE are definitely tax exempt religions, since they are proven organizations within the Church of Scientology. Just check out the web links section of the Scientology home page--you know, that section where the clams list links to sites that are related to Scientology, including Bridge Publications and ABLE--and you can see the links to all three of these organizations right there. Don't worry too much, though, Concerned; you would have a better chance of getting rid of the Scientology influence within your company if you do cite religious conflict, which wouldn't be possible if you weren't first willing to admit that Scientology, and all other organizations which are proven part of the Church, are tax exempt religious organizations.

SYA,
The Dragon's Ghost