Who Controls the CST?
ptsc
the posting of the By-laws of this organization, which clearly has ownership of
the entirety of the "Scientology scriptures." One of these, oft-cited, is the
definition of "control." "Control is defined as the ability to start, change
and stop something." In examining these By-laws, I will view "control" as just
these abilities.
Working assumptions:
1) CST is the true owner of the Scientology copyrights and, ultimately, has
absolute veto power over the licensing and even functional existence of any
other Scientology corporation. (Basis: http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas
analyzes this in great detail and the information therein is necessary to an
understanding of this post.)
2) CST has three Special Directors: Sherman D. Lenske, Stephen A. Lenske and
Lawrence E. Heller, as explicitly referenced in the By-laws.
3) The By-laws are substantially similar now to what they were when they were
drafted.
Altering or disproving any one of these would cast much or all of the
forthcoming conclusions into grave doubt. However, they seem to be good enough
for the present to make some preliminary analysis.
First, let's take up the subject of the Special Directors. Their purpose is not
as enigmatic as it may seem at first glance. Indeed, their stated purpose is
delineated in the By-laws:
d. Particular Functions of the Special Directors. The Special Directors,
acting by a majority of their authorized number are empowered to ensure the
following:
i. That the corporation attains tax exempt status, as soon as practical,
and that such status is maintained throughout the existence of the
corporation.
ii. That no part of the corporation inure to the benefit of any private
individual, firm or corporation.
iii. That the assets of the corporation are not subject to waste and/or
extravagance but are instead increased in value.
iv. That proper Scientology management is correctly applied to the end that
the purposes of the corporation are accomplished.
The Special Directors shall carry out their duties by approving or vetoing
every resolution, vote, or act of the General Directors which in any way
directly or indirectly affects the duties of the Special Directors set
forth above. In addition, Special Directors may by unanimous vote direct
the General Directors to consider any matter which comes within the scope
of their duties, as outlined above.
Now, this section would make it seem as if the Special Directors are, indeed,
very Special individuals, with near-absolute despotic power to approve or veto
anything done by the General Directors, and even to force them to address issues
whether or not they would do so on their own. It is, however, mitigated by the
following paragraph:
Any act of the Special Directors may be overridden by the unanimous vote of
the General Directors and Trustees at a meeting specially called by any
General Director in accordance Section 4 [sic] of this Article VII.
The unanimity required of both other Boards (the Board of Directors and the
Board of Trustees) would seemingly make the power of the Special Directors
nearly limitless without an extraordinary occurrence. Indeed, this is the
manifest meaning of this section of the By-laws, and the conclusion which the
author of the By-laws intends the casual reader to reach. Indeed, many if not
all examiners to look at this have, indeed, concluded as much.
Another thing which is Special about the Special Directors is that they are the
only human beings explicitly referenced by name in the By-laws themselves:
a. Initial Special Directors. The names of the persons who shall serve as
the corporation's initial Special Directors are:
i. Stephen A. Lenske
ii. Sherman D. Lenske
iii. Lawrence E. Heller.
There is also no provision whatsoever for the removal of the Special Directors
by any other Board or Boards. Indeed, their tenure is nearly limitless:
b. Tenure. Persons appointed as Special Directors shall Possess a lifetime
tenure, so long as they remain in good standing with the State Bar
Association of California. Should any Special Director fail to remain in
good standing, his position shall terminate and the vacancy created thereby
shall be filled in accordance with Paragraph (d) of this Section 4.
Only disbarment is fatal to tenure.
c. Resignation. Any Special Director may resign upon giving written notice
to all Directors. The notices may specify a later time for the
effectiveness of such resignation.
Special Directors may only be removed of their own volition by resignation.
d. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Board of Special Directors, whether caused
by death or resignation, may be filled by a majority of the remaining
authorized Special Director or by a sole remaining Special Director.
Only the Special Directors can appoint other Special Directors, should even so
many as one remain.
To the extent possible, vacancies shall be filled from members in good
standing of the California State Bar Association who are then employed by
the law firm of Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin, A Law Corporation, or its
successor ("LLH&M") and are familiar with the purposes of this corporation.
In the event the Special Directors are, or the remaining special Director
is, unable to fill the vacancy from employees of LLH&M, then the vacancy
may be filled from outside LLH&M, provided such appointee is a member in
good standing of the California State Bar Associa tion and is familiar with
the purposes of this corporation. All such appointments to fill vacancies
shall be made with the approval of a majority of the authorized General
Directors and Trustees.
Even in the case that Special Directors are replaced, only members of the
Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin firm (or its successor Lenske, Lenske & Heller
or future successors) may replace Special Directors except in the extreme case
that there is no successor to a firm with such a profitable and permanent
guaranteed client.
In the event the Board of Special Directors is unable to fill vacancies
because of the death or resignation of all of the Special Directors, then
the vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the authorized General
Directors and Trustees.
I will explain later why even the unanimity requirement for overriding a veto
from the Special Directors is meaningless, and a mere majority requirement is a
laughable wink at legal niceties.
e. Compensation. Special Directors shall be entitled to a fee based upon
the hourly rate then charged for their professional services.
Unlike the other two Boards, the Special Directors are paid. The section of the
By-laws concerning the Board of Trustees does not even make a glancing mention
of compensation, while the section concerning the Board of Directors states
unequivocally:
b. Compensation. General Directors shall receive no compensation for their
service as Directors, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses
incurred on behalf of the corporation, whether or not such expenses are
incurred in their capacities as Directors.
So this is the description of the Special Directors, charged with the task of
maintaining CST's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, as their duties clearly indicate
that they are to act as a policing force, to attain tax-exempt status, to
maintain it, and to prevent actions which would violate that status, and indeed
the clauses charging them with this responsibility mirror the language of tax
law.
It is also established that outside of extreme circumstances involving death or
gross incapacity to discharge their duties (disbarment), the Special Directors
can not be removed. To prevent even the slightest chance that the By-laws could
be changed in such a way as to eliminate the Special Directors, the By-laws
conclude with a one paragraph Article:
ARTICLE XIII
Amendments
Unless otherwise provided in these Bylaws, these Bylaws may be amended or
repealed and new Bylaws adopted by unanimous vote of the Boards; provided
that amended Bylaws or new Bylaws do not jeopardize the tax-exempt status
of this corporation, do not alter the purposes of this corporation or the
qualifications required of its Trustees and Directors, and do not
contravene the Scriptures.
This would remove the chance of changing the purpose of the Special Directors,
their qualifications (including being from the Lenske, Lenske & Heller firm), or
their existence as guardians of the tax-exempt status of the corporation.
Now the phrase in all this in which I am placing great stock is the following:
Any act of the Special Directors may be overridden by the unanimous vote of
the General Directors and Trustees at a meeting specially called by any
General Director in accordance Section 4 [sic] of this Article VII.
The rest of this post will go into why and how this might be done, and even why
and how it amounts to window-dressing, irrespective of the basic impossibility
of removing the Special Directors themselves or of even diminishing their powers
or purpose.
I have started, one might think perversely, by demonstrating that a plain
reading of the By-laws concerning the Special Directors shows that they are
ineradicable and their powers are granted irrevocably, and that they have not
only absolute veto power but can demand actions from other boards. This makes
them seem very powerful and indeed Special. They are nothing of the sort.
All of this is quite plainly written and easy to see. This might be seen as a
feeble stab at irony, however it is true. The mistake often made in reading
these By-laws is in foolishly starting at the beginning and then reading through
them. Obviously, however, you should read them out of order and seemingly
randomly follow them around here and there. So far we've read them forward, and
they say one thing. Let's see about when we read them backward.
There are two other Boards, the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors is covered directly before the Special Directors. They
are the Board which seems to be under the control of the Special Directors.
ARTICLE VII
Boards of Directors
Section 1. Function and Authority of the Boards.
a. Composition: The combined Boards of Directors ("Boards") shall be
composed of three (3) General Directors ("Board of General Directors") and
three (3) Special Directors ("Board of Special Directors"). The authorized
number of General Directors may be changed by a bylaw amending this Section
1(a) duly adopted by the unanimous vote of the General Directors; provided,
however, that the General Directors shall not have the power to reduce the
number of General Directors below three (3) or increase the number above
five (5).
Now the purposes of the Board of Directors, consisting of the General Directors,
is boilerplate. I am not even including it. They appear to be, and are
described as, a Board of Directors with everything pertaining thereto. My
concern is who controls them, that is to say, who can start, stop and change
them.
Here are things that can start them:
Section 2. Election and Tenure of General Directors.
a. Election. General Directors shall be elected by majority vote of the
Trustees of the corporation. Trustees may not cumulate votes in electing
General Directors. Regular elections of General Directors shall be held at
the annual meeting of the Trustees. Special elections may be held as
necessary to fill vacancies on the Board of General Directors. General
Directors may not be elected from among the Trustees. General Directors
shall hold office for one year or until the next annual meeting of the
Trustees, whichever period is shorter. General Directors may be reelected.
And later:
c. Qualifications. In order to serve as a General Director and in order to
continue to serve an such, each General Director shall be a person who
possesses and continues to possess the following qualities and attributes.
That is to say, a person may serve and continue to serve as a General
Director only so long as he is and remains:
i. Well-versed in the Scriptures;
ii. Well-versed in the Scientology Ethics and Justice system;
iii. A proven Scientology executive, evidenced by statistics;
iv. A duly ordained minister of Scientology in good standing with the
Mother Church; and
v. Has attained the age of majority.
Note especially iv. and the phrase "in good standing with the Church." Don't
stop me if you know where I'm going here, though I imagine you may be beginning
to get an inkling.
I'll come back to it. To continue, things that can stop them, that we have
already examined, include the Special Directors. The Special Directors can
start them. The Special Directors can not change them. That, as we can see
from another section of the By-laws, is reserved to the Board of Trustees (and
others we will soon see), in a section starting Article V, concerning the
Boards.
Section 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of the Board of Trustees shall be
to elect General Directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this
purpose the Trustees may remove a General Director who fails to meet the
qualification of such a Director or who conducts himself in a manner which
is contrary to the provisions of Articles I through IV of these Bylaws and
the survival of Scientology. In addition, the Trustees shall have the power
to change the number of Trustees, as provided in Section 2 below.
Let me just point out that Articles I through IV are, to put it bluntly, a load
of happy horseshit. Article I is a statement of churchiness. Article II is a
bit of word-clearing to clear you up if you do not know what "By-laws" are.
Article III is more maundering hogwash and Article IV is the creed. Hence,
being able to remove a Director for violating anything in Articles I through IV
amounts to being able to remove a Director at the sole discretion of the Board
of Trustees.
The Board of Trustees can change the Board of Directors essentially at will.
As if this weren't enough of an indignity for a purportedly independent Board of
Directors, they may be vetoed at the sole discretion of the Board of Special
Directors. The poor General Directors were bushwhacked in the first paragraph
of the By-laws concerning the Boards of Directors. They were also bushwhacked
near the end, by the Special Directors. As if this weren't enough, they are
also bushwhacked in their own section, which notes a second time that the
Trustees can remove them essentially at will or whim.
d. Removal. Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees, a
General Director may be removed, on the following grounds:
i. Failure to continue to meet the qualifications set forth in
subparagraphs (i) through (iv) of subsection (c) above;
ii. Failure to exercise the duties of a Director in pursuance of the goals,
aims and purposes of the corporation, the Church and Scientology, an set
forth in Articles I through IV of these Bylaws.
Articles I through IV are, of course, the happy horseshit, as if the other two
methods of removal were not otherwise sufficient. If the humiliation of the
General Directors had not been complete enough already, there is not even a
section noting that they are able to resign. They are, additionally, not even
granted the power to remove another of their number.
They are solely the creatures of the Board of Trustees, and as such, whatever
purpose they may be given explicitly in the By-laws is empty noise. They are a
Board of Shadows, Wax Figures and Phantoms. Their true purpose is to do
whatever they are told, or else to go away and be replaced with someone who
will.
It is, thus, the Board of Trustees which must unanimously override the will of
the Special Directors (if this is to happen), and which appoints, removes and
controls the Board of General Directors. The Board of General Directors can be
viewed as a nullity.
This leaves us with the Trustees.
Now, before we tackle the Trustees, one might wonder if this corporation has a
President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, or any other important positions. The poor
President and other such hapless waifs are dealt with contemptuously in a single
phrase.
Officers of the Corporation
Section 1. Required Officers. Officers of the corporation, as distinguished
from ecclesiastical posts, shall be elected by majority vote of the Board
of General Directors, and shall include a President, a Secretary, and a
Treasurer, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of such Board. Each of
said offices may be held by a person who is also a General Director. The
Board of General Directors may elect the same person to the offices of
Secretary and Treasurer.
All of these nullities serve "at the pleasure of such Board." In other words,
they are entirely vacuous positions. President of the Rubber Stamp, Secretary
of Sawdust, Treasurer of the Trash Bin. They serve "at the pleasure" of the
General Directors, whom we have already bushwhacked and disposed of quietly and
without sorrow. All positions save the Board of Trustees and the Special
Directors are at this point eliminated as ultimate points of control.
We turn now to the Board of Trustees.
ARTICLE VI
Trustees
Section 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of the Board of Trustees shall be
to elect General Directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this
purpose the Trustees may remove a General Director who fails to meet the
qualification of such a Director or who conducts himself in a manner which
is contrary to the provisions of Articles I through IV of these Bylaws and
the survival of Scientology. In addition, the Trustees shall have the power
to change the number of Trustees, as provided in Section 2 below.
The next section notes that there can be as many as 7 Trustees, but not below 3.
Section 3. Qualifications. In order to serve as Trustees of the corporation
whether as initial Trustees or successor Trustees, and in order to continue
to serve as a Trustee of the corporation, Trustees shall be persons who
possess and continue to possess, the following qualities and attributes.
That is to say, a person may serve and continue to serve, as Trustee of the
corporation only so long as he is and remains:
Qualifications Prior to Appointment:
a. A person who has a good uninterrupted track record of at least eight (8)
years as an ethical and loyal Scientologist;
b. A person who has experienced excellent case gain and has attained the
case level of OT III or above;
c. A person who is well versed in the technology of Dianetics and
Scientology and has applied this technology to help others, with excellent
results;
d. A person who is well versed in the administrative policy or
organizations affiliated with the religion of Scientology and has a track
record of demonstrated success in the utilization and application of such
policy;
I single this next one out.
e. A person who is an ordained Scientology minister, in good standing
pursuant to those principles set forth in the Scriptures;
Once again, I emphasize the phrase "in good standing" as I did with the Board of
Directors. I believe you will soon begin to see where I am going with this if
you have not already. (However, I'll also note that this paragraph e. appears
to be entirely irrelevant after qualification.)
Now we'll go on a brief digression to explain how the Trustees got there. If
you skipped ahead and read to the end of the By-laws already, you'll note that
no Trustees signed them. The six signatures at the end are of Special Directors
and General Directors.
The Trustees come in only after the By-laws are signed. Once, and only once,
the Board of General Directors gets to do something.
Section 4. Election. The initial Trustees of the corporation shall be
elected at the meeting next following the meeting of the Boards of
Directors (as hereinafter defined) adopting these Bylaws. The Trustees
shall have lifetime tenure, subject, however, to termination as provided in
Section 7.
Let's skip merriliy on to Section 7.
Section 7. Termination As Trustee.
a. A person's Post as Trustee shall terminate at his death or upon receipt
by at least one other Trustee of a written notice of his resignation.
b. Pursuant to the Scientology ethics and Justice system, a person's post
as Trustee may be terminated for actions deemed contrary to the provisions
of Articles I through IV of these Bylaws, by the unanimous vote of the
other Trustees.
c. A person's post as Trustee shall automatically terminate if he or she at
any time fails to meet the qualifications for Trustee which are stated in
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 3 of this Article.
Notably, with regard to Trustees, unlike General Directors, the section with
regard to being "in good standing" is apparently irrelevant. However, by
unanimous vote of the other Trustees, any individual Trustee can be removed due
to vague offenses categorized in Section 7, if their status as an "ethical and
loyal Scientologist" is no longer "uninterrupted," if they no longer have
"excellent case gain" or if they are no longer "OT III," if they are no longer
"well versed in the technology of Dianetics and Scientology" and no longer
"apply" it with "excellent results" or if they no longer have a "track
record of demonstrated success" with the "administrative policy." There is,
indeed, a veritable grab-bag of reasons why a Trustee could suddenly become
incapacitated to perform his or her duties.
In fact, unlike the unanimous disqualification requirement, failing to continue
to meet the qualifications requirement of (a) (b) (c) and (d) of Section 3 of
this Article "automatically" terminates their post with the resounding legal
word "shall." Not "may" or "will" or "should" or "could" or "can" but "shall."
Now, to go back out of order for a while, we'll note some other things about the
Trustees. As if the poor General Directors hadn't already come in for enough
abuse and humiliation, the Trustees have two sole purposes at their annual
meeting. Cruelly, the first of these purposes is, as you may have guessed, to
beat up on the General Directors some more:
b. Agenda at Annual Meeting. At the annual meeting of Trustees,
consideration shall be given only to the following matters:
i. Election or removal of General Directors.
The second purpose of this annual meeting is to cull their own numbers.
ii. Election or removal Of Trustees.
Now, as if there weren't enough opportunities for these Loyal Officers to be
"terminated" "automatically" or otherwise, and as if there weren't enough
reminders that they are merely dispensible, any Trustee can call a special
meeting at any time, presumably for the purpose of beating up on the General
Directors some more, or beat up on themselves.
c. Call of Special Meetings. A special meeting of the Trustees may be
called by any Trustee.
They don't even have to say why.
d. Notice of Meetings. When required, notice of a special meeting of the
Trustees shall be given to each Trustee in writing. A notice of meeting
need not specify the purpose of the meeting.
Now the Trustees may seem quite powerful at this point, if you do not consider
the threat they represent to each other. They can remove the General Directors.
They can even override the seemingly all-powerful Special Directors by unanimous
vote of themselves, and of course the General Directors can be replaced at will
should they not show the ethics necessary to rubber-stamp whatever the Trustees
tell them to do.
However, what would happen should every single one of the Trustees suddenly
become disqualified from their positions (this narrator will not consider less
savory possibilities)? Assume there are three of them, and one of them suddenly
interrupts their eight years as an "ethical and loyal Scientologist," then
another of them suddenly fails to evidence "excellent case gain" and the
remaining Trustee suddenly has a less than "excellent result" with the
"technology of Dianetics and Scientology?"
If these all occur sequentially, the answer is simple. The Trustees replace
vacancies of their own volition, even if only one remains.
Section. 5. Vacancies. A vacancy on the Board of Trustees shall be deemed
to exist in case of the death, resignation or termination of any Trustee as
provided in Section 7.
a. Vacancies on the Board of Trustees may be filled by a majority of the
remaining Trustees, though less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining
Trustee.
Suppose, however, these vacancies do not occur sequentially, but simultaneously.
Suppose, not to put too fine a point on it, the lot of them are Declared.
You might think the otherwise excellent Author of these By-laws has neglected
this possibility. There could be nothing further from the truth.
Here, we are coming very close to the conclusion, which will, unfortunately,
only raise more questions. In the case of the complete dissolution of the Board
of General Directors and Board of Special Directories, because, for example, by
some odd mischance they all simultaneously met with an SP Declare, an obscure
little clause hedged about with language seemingly indicating its extreme
unlikelihood kicks in.
Take a deep breath.
b. In the event the Board of Trustees is unable to fill vacancies because
of the death or disqualification of the entire Board of Trustees or sole
remaining Trustee, then that person holding the senior ecclesiastical post
in this Church shall (and only in this unlikely event and only s a singular
circumstance) appoint individuals to fill all vacancies on the Board of
Trustees, who must themselves meet the qualifications of a Trustee as
provided in Section 3.
Suddenly, these otherwise lucid and crystal clear By-laws spring an astounding
assault on the senses! What in God's name is this?
The "senior ecclesiastical post in this Church" has the power to recreate the
entire body of the Board of Trustees and the Board of General Directors ex
nihilo!
At this time, since I am limiting myself to what The Librarian might call HARD
FACTS, I am going to duck out from under this question and submit it to the
collective wits of the audience. This may appear to be the cheapest of ruses to
avoid a question which has suddenly gone from a simple matter of reading plain
language (which albeit is not in plain order), to an ecclesiastical matter which
I am not qualified to discuss.
I have already done a bit of research on this subject, however, I have reached
the end of what I can conclude by even a thorough examination of the By-laws of
the Church of Spiritual Technology, because when I track the flow of power to
its Source, as it were, it suddenly goes and gets all ECCLESIASTICAL on me!
Let the brickbats commence.
ptsc
ptsc
The inevitable error.
>Here, we are coming very close to the conclusion, which will, unfortunately,
>only raise more questions. In the case of the complete dissolution of the Board
>of General Directors and Board of Special Directories, because, for example, by
>some odd mischance they all simultaneously met with an SP Declare, an obscure
>little clause hedged about with language seemingly indicating its extreme
>unlikelihood kicks in.
I mean, of course, "complete dissolution of the Board of General Directors and
Board of Trustees." As I already pointed out, the Special Directors are not
subject to this treatment.
ptsc
Keith Henson
net> wrote:
>Who controls the CST? This has been a perplexing question for years, even since
>the posting of the By-laws of this organization, which clearly has ownership of
>the entirety of the "Scientology scriptures." One of these, oft-cited, is the
>definition of "control." "Control is defined as the ability to start, change
>and stop something." In examining these By-laws, I will view "control" as just
>these abilities.
snip point by point analysis to the end.
More like roses ptsc, this is a masterful analysis. It obviously puts
despotic power in the hands of "that person holding the senior
ecclesiastical post in this Church." I always wondered why this weird
turn of phrase was used and now I know.
The question at once comes to mind as to how this set of bylaws could
have been approved by the state because it clearly gives a single
person complete and un compromised power over the whole enterprise.
(Even if he never uses it, the threat would be effective in keeping
control.)
I rather imagine this could have been slipped through without the need
to blackmail anyone of the group that approves corporate bylaws. The
reason is that it takes special knowledge of scientology, particularly
the practice of declaring people, and a particularly devious mind to
grok the underlying control mechanism ptsc has deciphered.
Keith Henson
Magoo
"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3bf1f035...@news2.lightlink.com...
I say it simply means they are doing what they always do when they say
things: It means as much as is needed for the time. If they decide something
else is needed, there is a "clause". Hell, in Scientology, their very own
unchanging, totally
"Standard tech" has clauses and has been changed! So why should this be any
different?
However, I must say, of all this...ptsc you DID do an ~excellent~job :)))
Love to you!
Tory/Magoo~
roger gonnet
"Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3bf1...@news2.lightlink.com...
Indeed, it's probable. I'm even certrain that the tech has been squirelled
VOLUNTARILY in its translations.
Or otherwise; by instance, I discovered yesterday that some of confidential
issues like "Dead agent" policy, ex-PR series 24, had another PR Series 24
without any relationship. That renders easy for the scam to ridiculize any
attempt to expose what is inside the original 24.
roger
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>2) CST has three Special Directors: Sherman D. Lenske, Stephen A. Lenske and
>Lawrence E. Heller, as explicitly referenced in the By-laws.
What about Meade Emory, Leon C. Misterek, and Lyman D. Spurlock?
-- You love drugs! You love drugs, don't you?! You better
not say anything about my mother! Don't you DARE say anything
about my mother! -- Scientology's International President
ptsc
wrote:
>Xenu allowed ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> to write:
>>2) CST has three Special Directors: Sherman D. Lenske, Stephen A. Lenske and
>>Lawrence E. Heller, as explicitly referenced in the By-laws.
>What about Meade Emory, Leon C. Misterek, and Lyman D. Spurlock?
Meade Emory and Leon C. Misterek's current involvement with CST, if it exists,
is unknown, nor are they terribly interested in explaining it. They have the
plausible explanation of attorney/client privilege for this, though it is
reasonable that they might have other reasons as well for not wishing to discuss
their purposes in founding CST.
Lyman D. Spurlock was one of the initial General Directors. The Board of
Directors (including himself) also appointed him to the Board of Trustees, as
well as to the position of "President" (at one point). Another "President" of
CST has been Russell Bellin.
ptsc
Patricia Johnson-Holm
For the answer to that look to Mj12(includes Bush Sr)>Galactic Federation
= Hoover Institute > Hoovers Online = CST,RTC,ASI etc. The chain of Power
is more important.
ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:<lnl3vtkb7gtf4vu88...@4ax.com>...
dylan gill
for what it is worth.
Dylan
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message
news:nme5vtkl115el0hjt...@4ax.com...
ptsc
>I was the Estates Sec under Russ Bellin and Jim Issiacson.
>for what it is worth.
Isaacson seems to have been a rather mistreated individual.
The main thing I know about him (besides a string of positions he held) is this
story from Stacy Brooks:
Jim Isaacson was in charge of investing Ron’s money and he was expected to show
a profit every week. Miscavige would scream mercilessly at Jim every day. One
day Miscavige found Jim lost a large amount of money by investing incorrectly in
the gold market.
Miscavige and Starkey literally dragged Jim into a conference room. For the next
3½ hours Miscavige yelled at Jim, demanding who sent him to destroy Scientology.
Miscavige then told Stacy to get the information from Jim and to not let him
leave until he confessed everything.
When Stacy went in the conference room she found Jim collapsed on the table. His
eyes were glazed and he was shaking uncontrollably. She told him to go home and
get some sleep. Jim was sent to the RPF a few days later. His wife, Joyce
Isaacson, was already in the RPF for refusing to go along with Miscavige’s
brutal treatment of staff.
Russell Bellin is a total mystery to me. He appears to have come out of almost
nowhere to end up as "ranch manager" in a newspaper story, and then President of
CST. I have been told that the "ranch manager" title doesn't even exist and was
solely something to tell wogs. This seems to fit, because Ken Hoden has given
the "ranch manager" title in relation to Gold Base, though in fact he was also
listed at one time as "President" of Golden Era Studios.
According to the By-laws the "President" is to serve "at the pleasure" of the
Boards.
ptsc
James W. Glass
in my mind, is totally irrelevant (or is it "irreverent"?)
Jim
"Patricia Johnson-Holm" <RuPr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:628cb168.01111...@posting.google.com...
LronsScam
DOT net>>,
In article ID <lnl3vtkb7gtf4vu88...@4ax.com>,
On or about Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:07:00 -0500,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> says...
>All of this is quite plainly written and easy to see. This might be seen as a
>feeble stab at irony, however it is true. The mistake often made in reading
>these By-laws is in foolishly starting at the beginning and then reading through
>them. Obviously, however, you should read them out of order and seemingly
>randomly follow them around here and there. So far we've read them forward, and
>they say one thing. Let's see about when we read them backward.
Interesting analysis. RVY said that the Scn'gy corporations were created like
mirrors facing each other.
LronsScam
In article ID <RADI7.136266$IR4.43...@news1.denver1.co.home.com>,
On or about Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:00:49 GMT,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
James W. Glass says...
>OK, as a non-Scientologist, just WHAT are you writing about? Your equation,
>in my mind, is totally irrelevant (or is it "irreverent"?)
>
>Jim
Patricia is a nutty conspiracy theorist. Whether she is more nutty or more of
a conspiracy theorist is debatable.
Zinj
jwgl...@home.com says...
> OK, as a non-Scientologist, just WHAT are you writing about? Your equation,
> in my mind, is totally irrelevant (or is it "irreverent"?)
>
> Jim
>
Hmmm. It's probably mostly irrelevant. Patricia is 'Ruprose' whom, while
I appreciate her interest, tends toward the 'X-Files' interest.
Some of my best friends do that :)
Patricia isn't one of my best friends, but only because we don't talk
that much probably. And because I tend to discount conspiracy theories
based on the idea that 'Scientology works! But government agencies are
involved and if you think you're understanding Scientology as 'wacko'
you're a naive fool my young friend'.
One of the people I have had more contact with, Phil Scott, I find
intelligent, compassionate and fun, except for his 'bug up the butt' of
Hubbard tech being so useful that international power centers want to use
it.
CL/Veritas has a similar bug, although I don't know him as well.
He wants to prove that David Miscavige/RTC isn't the controlling interest
in Scientology because......
This is the common thread:
Scientology works! It's like magic! It's so good every intelligence
agency on the planet is using it! They want to hide that, and hide that
it has anything to do with Scientology!
For me, it's a half-way exit. After you've spent years dedicating your
life to something you have decided is evil.... how do you leave it
without admitting you were an idiot?
It's easy my friends. Just leave. Nothing you learned is right. Nothing
you replaced your own goals with is worth shit.
You are a child. Start over. It won't kill you.
Being a child is never bad, even if you feel old.
Zinj
CL
Hash: SHA1
First and foremost: Outstanding job! My unvarnished admiration for your
pluck in even daring to brave the task of hacking through the jungle of
Karno/Emory/Lenske legal language in the first place, and for then doing
such an exceptional job of separating the wheat from the chaff, and of
selecting and interpreting key passages in a way that anyone can
understand. Your analysis is a very impressive piece of work! Well done.
I'm not going to comment section-by-section on your analysis, because I
believe you have covered most of the sections you analyzed in a way that
brooks no meddling.
(Anybody reading this is hereby denied the right to read it further
without reading ptsc's excellent post, which is first in this thread.)
I have a few comments on a few of the sections you covered that may be
worthy of your consideration, but I mainly want to take up some passages
that I believe are crucial, ones that you chose not to take into account
in your analysis, or seemed to dismiss. The first is one of those:
1. You said: "Let me just point out that Articles I through IV are, to
put it bluntly, a load of happy horseshit. Article I is a statement of
churchiness." I beg to diametrically differ. Article I is a statement of
corporateness masquerading as a statement of churchiness, and is one of
the most archiveable examples of attorney-crafted circularity I have
ever seen. It needs to be savored, not ignored, and it is placed as
Article I ~not~ by happenstance of random order, but specifically
because it governs EVERY ENSUING ARTICLE. And it can only be fully
appreciated in its deviousness by removing the convoluted bullshit
attorney-smoke that they use to lull and hypnotize. Stripped of at least
most of its dunnage, with all emphasis added by me, it reads:
ARTICLE I
The Church
The corporation shall accomplish its purposes through and by
means of the operations and activities of a church... . THE
CHURCH shall adhere to the...policies...(AS HEREINAFTER
DEFINED). The Trustees, Directors, Officers and agents OF THE
CORPORATION shall be bound by and shall observe the
foregoing... SUBJECT, HOWEVER, AT ALL TIMES AND IN EVERY
RESPECT to the PARAMOUNT REQUIREMENT OF...COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
APPLICABLE LAWS, AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLES [OF
INCORPORATION] AND OF THESE [CORPORATE] BYLAWS.
Man, have we ever just been taken around the mulberry bush by masters of
the craft. The "applicable laws" had already been defined in the
PREAMBLE as "the laws of the State of California as the same relate to
Nonprofit Religious CORPORATIONS," but then the phrase "ALL applicable
laws" in Article I also includes, by such reference, the entirety of the
United States Code, particularly Title 26, Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
So ALL of what is commonly referred to as "the tech" has, at the outset,
immediately been placed "SUBJECT...AT ALL TIMES AND IN EVERY RESPECT" to
compliance with a body of codes and statutes that would stack to the
moon, e.g., IRC--which ONLY the Special Directors have understanding of
and province over in the organization.
2. I left the word "policy" in what I quoted above, which the CHURCH is
bound to adhere to, because "policy" is then defined, in Article II, in
the most endearing way. They knew damned well what they were doing, too,
because when they got around to entirely redefining "policy" as the
antithesis of what L. Ron Hubbard had defined it as, they tried to
soften the word with the extraneous adjective "Operating," and also
equated "policy" to mere "rules." This is another masterful universal
statement, placed in Article II, which then governs all that follows,
and so governs the entire management and operation of BOTH the
corporation and the "church" (which doesn't exist, anyway). I haven't
bothered to add emphasis, because the entire paragraph should be put in
30-foot-tall red neon letters to replace the "HOLLYWOOD" sign:
g. "Operating Rules" or "Operating Policy" shall mean that
code of rules, which shall always be subordinate in authority
to these Bylaws, to the Corporation's Articles, and to the
laws of the State of California governing nonprofit
corporations, which may hereafter be prescribed and
recognized by the Trustees for the further regulation and
management of the affairs of the Corporation.
Oh, Jesus. Where to start? I consider this to be one of the most, if not
THE most, critical paragraphs in the document. They just took ALL the
policy that L. Ron Hubbard had created over the span of his life for the
governance of Scientology organizations and esentially burned it. They
may as well have. I could write 30 pages on this subject alone, but I
won't. Simply put, this is an all-inclusive, open-ended, carte blanche
license to use ANYTHING as a "policy." Yet L. Ron Hubbard was adamant
about the importance of POLICY and its exact defintion in Scientology
organizations.
Again I don't want to reinvent the wheel, and the best treatise I have
seen on this crucial topic is contained in a lengthy "High Crime Report"
on David Miscavige presented by Operation Clambake in "The McDonald
Papers." The entire "High Crime Report" is at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7301/14-960307HC.html
I recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it as a very well-documented
account of someone trying to deal with the ~exact~ sort of thing that
these Bylaws--particularly Article II, Paragraph g--have brought into
being. But in the meantime I'm going to borrow from it the relevant
sections of the report on the subject of POLICY, because it is crucial
to an understanding of the scope and impact of Article II, Paragraph g,
above:
FELONY FRAUD AND EXTORTION:
SP DIRECTIVES
Scientology Policy Directives (SPDs) now number over two
hundred. None were authored by LRH, and no such issue is
mentioned by LRH in any HCO PL. Under Miscavige's
supervision, though, SPD's are approved for issue by RTC's
AVC division.
...Authors of these issues are often identified by titles
instead of their names so there is no source.
And yet, with Miscavige's approval, SPDs have been issued and
enforced under the fraudulent claim that they are policy for
Churches. This claim (by an unidentified "source") can be
found in the back of the current edition of OEC volume 0 as
follows:
"Scientology Policy Directive (SPD), its purpose is to
provide an issue type for policy for the Church of
Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH
which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative
issues except HCO PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH.
Its distribution is all staff unless otherwise designated.
Black ink on blue paper."
This seeks to negate all of the following LRH references:
"If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy."
L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 5 March 1965, Issue II,
Policy, Source Of
"If it isn't in an HCOB or an HCO Pol Ltr or recorded on
tape in my voice, it isn't tech or policy."
L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 16 April AD 15,
The "Hidden Data Line"
"A 'policy letter' is not Scientology org policy unless
written or authorized by L. Ron Hubbard and passed as a
resolution or covered by blanket resolution of the International
Board and issued or published by an HCO. It is not policy if any
of those steps are missing."
L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 5 March 1965, Issue II,
Policy, Source Of
"STANDARD ADMIN means the usual 'on-policy' procedure
applied.
"'Squirrel admin' means the departure or alteration of
standard admin. The use of the word 'squirrel' is long standing
because squirrels in their little cages go 'round and 'round and
get nowhere and they are also, a bad pun, 'nutty,' meaning a bit
crazy.
"The source of STANDARD ADMIN is an HCO Policy Letter.
"The main source of 'squirrel admin' is simply ignorance of
PL procedure or the neglect of reading and applying it--as
simple as that."
L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 4 June 1971, Standard Admin
The above references unequivocally, unquestionably,
incontestably SLAM THE DOOR ON any possibility of SPDs being
"policy," as is claimed. The outpoint is WRONG SOURCE.
McDonald laid the responsibility at Miscavige's doorstep, but we have
the benefit of having the Bylaws of CST (who owns ALL the policies AND
so-called "policies"), and we can therefore see the PRECISE SOURCE of
such non-Policy "policies": It's Article II, Paragraph g, as written by
Sherman Lenske or Meade Emory or Leon Misterek--one of the three.
But let's get real: let's take a look at how Article II, Paragraph g
actually gets put into real practice with disastrous results, and lets
use just one very real example from events that have been covered not
infrequently, and even very recently, in this newsgroup: let's look at
the subject of REFUNDS.
I take the liberty of quoting Warrior, quoting Hubbard, from the post
with message ID <9r5je...@drn.newsguy.com>:
In HCO Policy Letter 23 October 1963 "Refund Policy", L. Ron
Hubbard wrote:
"...I have always promptly and immediately caused to be
refunded every penny of the money paid by any person who was
dissatisfied with his or her processing."
and
"I have only worked then with these three policies:
"1. Refund at once in full any refund demanded; 2. Work hard
with tech staff to ensure good results; 3. Forbid the sale of
further processing to anyone receiving a refund and make the
case known to Scientologists."
and
"A tough refund policy injects aberrated stable data against
the confusion of bad or poor technical service. A mild refund
policy keeps [the] technical [division] on its toes."
and
"The new policy then is:
"1. Refund any fees when and as demanded whether for training
or for processing;
"2. Refuse further and all future training or processing to
anyone demanding a refund as the condition of refund;"
HCO Policy Letter of 31 July 1966 "Refund Notice", by Hubbard
says:
"It is IMPORTANT that every posted scale of fees and every
rate card bear the following notice prominently displayed at
the bottom:
"FEES PROMPTLY REFUNDED TO ANY DISSATISFIED STUDENT OR
PRECLEAR"
That's clear, right? Any drooling idiot can understand that, right?
Somebody wants their money back, GIVE IT TO THEM YESTERDAY, and send
them on their merry way!
But what has Article II, Paragraph g given us as controlling "policy"?
Let's find out. Well, first, there's this, from a "Service Agreement"
(<mike-3BC04F.1...@news-server.optonline.net>) that EVERYONE
taking ANY service in ANY Scientology organization now has to sign:
"10. I further understand, acknowledge and agree that the
Church is under no duty whatsoever to return any portion of
any religious donation received from me. However, I further
understand and acknowledge that under certain circumstances
provided for in the published ecclesiastical policies
specifically including Scientology Policy Directive 13 March
1996, Return of Donations, (which is available upon request)
and procedures of the Claims Verification Board, a return of
donations may be obtained through my strict compliance with
those published policies and procedures."
WTFF?!?!? (Third word = "Flying") This isn't just some minor
administrative detail--this is the INVERSE POLARITY of what Hubbard
wrote. It is knowing. It is willful. It is carefully thought out and
constructed to be the POLAR OPPOSITE of Hubbard's POLICIES.
Isn't ~that~ interesting: it's the exact adminstrative parallel to the
"reverse processing" for which there is so much evidence, and even to
NOTs (The "New" OT Levels!), which, from everything I can gather, is the
exact INVERSE POLARITY of the original OT Levels, the purpose of which
(according to the "abilities gained" on the grade chart at the time),
without exception, were to get the being's attention OFF the body,
whereas NOTs, by widely circulated and publically avaialble accounts and
descriptions, seems designed exclusively to rivet and weld the being's
attention ONTO the body. (This is ~not~ a commentary on the real or
imagined validity of either, so you can all ~drop~ it before you start;
it's an observation of diametrically opposed purposes, the point of
which would hold true if the topic were the formula for laundry soap
having been changed to include india ink.)
Back to the refund "policy" embodied in the "Service Agreement" above,
and the infinite trouble, antagonism, and lawsuits that have resulted
from such Article II, Paragraph g-sanctioned "policies" (whether they
had been perfected [legal term usage] as written "policies" or not):
Do you know that I cannot find one single lawsuit ever filed over a
refund in the 29 years from 1950 until 13 December 1979. Almost thirty
years without a single one that I can find.
But come 13 December 1979: well, that's the day that Michael Flynn filed
LaVenda Van Schaick's lawsuit against L. Ron Hubbard, et al., over a
lousy $12,800 that Flynn and Van Schaick claimed L. Ron Hubbard had
refused to pay. And that law suit was filed just TWO DAYS before the
Will empowering Norton S. Karno over all of L. Ron Hubbard's estate,
with now-CST Special Director Stephen Lenske lurking in Karno's shadow.
And within a few weeks L. Ron Hubbard had "disappeared forever." And his
estate was bombarded by one refund-based-suit after another from then
on, with Van Schaick seeking receivership, Wollersheim seeking
receivership, Christoffersen, then DeWolf seeking receivership, and...
It's incredible. Meaning it's simply not credible.
Now, I'm ~not~ claiming that in the 29 years from 1950 to the end of
1979 there never WAS a single refund-related suit, I'm saying that I
can't find one. And I sure would like to see the evidence if there were
any, how many, and what the results were.
Because it all sure as hell went off like a 20-megaton bomb with Michael
Flynn and his army of litigants while Karno and Stephen Lenske were
~definitely~ behind the scenes pulling strings, with L. Ron Hubbard
nowhere to be found. And the people who made out like bandits were the
attorneys. And the outcome? Oh, CST Special Director Lawrence Heller, at
the appropriate time, paid Flynn and all his clients off and everybody
went home.
And whether the destructive "policy" on refunds, quoted above from the
"Service Agreement," was actually in place in written form or not on 13
December 1979, it certainly was being APPLIED by ~someone~ to the most
disastrous possible effect. (Disastrous for the PR of Hubbard and
Scientology, an absolute gold mine for the attorneys.)
And NOW! Well, now it's so easy to accomplish the issuance of false and
destructive "policies" under the definition of "policy" in Article II,
Paragraph g. In fact under that clause, the very "Service Agreement"
itself ~IS~ "policy," and ~it~ now includes by reference a so-called
"policy" called "Scientology Policy Directive 13 March 1996" (hey, they
even used LRH's birthday to issue it on, how cute, how seditious), and
then they include by reference all "procedures" of something called the
Claims Verification Board, which "procedures" are no doubt defined only
by reference to 17 other SPDs. ("Yes, we meet on every full solar
eclipse that occurs in a leap year, unless it falls on a Monday,
Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Tuesday, in which case, the next
meeting is to be announced. Consult your local listings.")
Have I used up my 30 pages yet? Oh, I wasn't going to do that, was I?
I'll stop here. I feel you gave this crucial paragraph extremely short
shrift, yet it provides near-absolute sweeping power to create and
implement AND ENFORCE so-called "policies" at will, in almost any
conceivable form. And it is the "policies" which govern the day-to-day
activities of the organizations and their executives and staffs.
No, goddamnit, I ~won't~ stop here, because the idiotic phrase, "which
may hereafter be prescribed and recognized by the Trustees," from
Article II, paragraph g now has to be dealt with! (Why do people hate
lawyers, I wonder?)
Okay, let's address ~that~ phrase: Hell, how absurd can you get?! In the
first place, the Trustees have no such purpose, function, or power
granted to them anywhere in the Bylaws! So it's tantamount to sending it
all to "NULL." But let's just go with it for a moment, and accept that
there's some "good-ol'-boy" handshake-and-grin agreement that EVERYTHING
in the way of "policy" under the definition in Article II, paragraph g
will be laid on the Trustees' desks for their initials before being
implemented.
<COUNTING TO 100, CHECKING BLOOD PRESSURE>
<OKAY. PROBABLY SAFE TO GO AHEAD NOW>
Well, HOW, pray tell, can ANY Trustee initial it until it has been run
through the SPECIAL FUCKING DIRECTORS to make sure that it passes legal
and IRS muster? How could the legal contract hideously called a "Service
Agreement," above, have ever been implemented without being STAMPED
first, if not WRITTEN BY (~far~ more likely) the SPECIAL FUCKING
DIRECTORS? How can the SPECIAL FUCKING DIRECTORS cover their asses in
their fiduciary roles without microscopically inspecting, editing or
having edited to their satisfaction, and then approving for issuance and
enforcement, every single "operating policy" used in every single
organization that is licensed to use the intellectual property of CST
and their licensees (like RTC)?
They CAN'T! That's how they set themselves up in total control, and why
EVERYTHING of ANY consequence that gets issued in or by any of the
organizations now has to go to some mysterious and unknown "Uplines" in
sealed "mail packs," and has to get rejected and sent back from
"Uplines" 23 times before a sign saying "Child-Bearing-Capable Persons"
can now be put up on a bathroom door. And I'll guaran-fucking-tee you
that "uplines" includes Warner Atrium, Suite 315, 6400 Canoga Ave,
Woodland Hills, California 91367-2433
The SPECIAL FUCKING DIRECTORS are the ones who created and are
controlling the months or years of misery and red tape that anyone
now--NOW--has to go through in order to just get their money back.
The SPECIAL FUCKING DIRECTORS are the cowards who hide in their atrium
and send their golems like Starkey and Miscavige and Kobrin and Moxon
and Paquette and Rinder and Ingram out to hound and harass and generally
do their dirty work for them. Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" is a fitting
and acurate parable: the creators hide in the castle while the monsters
they have created terrorize the countryside.
But, hey, everybody's got to make a living doing something, and this is
just what their own God, in his infinite wisdom, has called the SPECIAL
FUCKING DIRECTORS to do as their holy life's work AT THE PAY RATE OF
THEIR HOURLY ATTORNEY FEE, WHICH COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE POCKETS OF
PAYING SCIENTOLOGY PRECLEARS AND STUDENTS SIGNING THE SPECIAL DIRECTORS'
FUCKING "SERVICE AGREEMENT." They're on a mission from Gahd, those
SPECIAL FUCKING DIRECTORS. Speak neither the name YAHWEH nor LENSKE.
A-fucking-MEN, and a nit kosher kaseer to them all.
All right, now I'm too pissed to even go on with this.
I can only take so much of these cowardly, low-life, parasitic,
blood-sucking, mortuary-escapee, living-dead attorneys and their
nest-of-leeches, writhing, twisting, legal language.
I had intended to address your apocalyptic vision of all Trustees
suddenly being transported to be eskimoes on Jupiter or whatever it was,
and the "senior ecclesiastical post in this Church" escape-clause
bullshit in the Bylaws, but I might pop a vein trying at this point.
No, veins be damned: as long as I don't start bleeding from the ears,
let me get this said as briefly as possible and I'll explore it in
detail with you later if necessary.
3. Embracing (but not necessarily agreeing with) everything you said
regarding the start-, change-, and stop-ability inherent in the powers
of the various Trustees, Directors, Officers, and Special Directors
[Jesus, you had to use a Scientology definition of "control"?], and your
conclusion that all roads lead back to an ephemeral and unnamed and
undefined "senior ecclesiastical post in this Church" in the event of
unimaginable calamity to all of the Trustees, I see a fatal flaw in your
conclusion: it is the SPECIAL FUCKING DIRECTORS who have the power to
recreate not ONLY the entire body of the Board of Trustees, AND the
entire Board of General Directors ex nihilo; they, and they alone, even
also have the power to recreate the "SENIOR ECCLESIASTICAL POST IN THIS
CHURCH" ex nihilo, ex post facto, and can't you see why:
"The Special Directors...are empowered to ensure...that...tax
exempt status...is maintained throughout the existence of the
corporation."
And tax exempt status cannot be maintained without the corporation being
whole, consistent with its composition detailed in the Bylaws, which is
the manner and form in which it ~obtained~ tax exempt status. Ergo, the
SPECIAL FUCKING DIRECTORS are INFINTELY empowered to restore any part or
portion of the corpus corporatum to their satisfaction, and to the
satisfaction of "The Service," to any degree necessary in order to
maintain tax exempt status. So in the dereliction or absence of ANY
part, portion, purpose, or function of the corporation being properly
constituted or properly conducted--for ANY reason, including sudden
magikal hocus-pocus OT disappearance of the responsible parties--the
SPECIAL FUCKING DIRECTORS are empowered to take ANY steps necessary to
restore ANY Bylaw-defined Trustee, Board of Trustees, General Director,
Board of Directors, or Officer OF THE CORPORATION, and EVEN the "senior
ecclesiastical post in this Church"--which non-existent "church" is:
"SUBJECT...AT ALL TIMES AND IN EVERY RESPECT TO THE PARAMOUNT
REQUIREMENT OF...COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS
[INCLUDING USC TITLE 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE], AND THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLES [OF INCORPORATION] AND OF THESE
[CORPORATE] BYLAWS."
The moebius band of CST is complete.
And why would it be otherwise: THEY--The Special Fucking Directors
themselves--are the ones, along with Meade Emory and Leon Misterek, who
created it to BE that way in order to ensure their control and power
over the corporation, ad initio, ad infinitum, ad exhaeredationem.
All roads lead to USC Title 26 and the Special Fucking Directors of the
CORPORATION. A-fucking-MEN, and three fingers of your best scotch,
straight up, for Henson. He'll need it.
CL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBO/KJ49AKsx0v8qcvEQKZuACfbNk9SDBpKbdXb39aUxF3cZCtbQEAn1Md
6RFLsaSGlINbko9TPL8qIOar
=znHp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
dylan gill
posted in Archives. ughh... I mean CST. Joyce was in Qual. They were and are
a great couple.
snip
> Russell Bellin is a total mystery to me. He appears to have come out of
almost
> nowhere to end up as "ranch manager" in a newspaper story, and then
President of
> CST.
he was in New Mexico as a "ranch manager" silly rabbit.
Russ is a great man. He was an up stat and very trusted that is why he was
made CO CST. But by who?
I have been told that the "ranch manager" title doesn't even exist and was
> solely something to tell wogs.
A shore story ?
This seems to fit, because Ken Hoden has given
> the "ranch manager" title in relation to Gold Base, though in fact he was
also
> listed at one time as "President" of Golden Era Studios.
>
> According to the By-laws the "President" is to serve "at the pleasure" of
the
> Boards.
are you trying to figure out who controls CST? or what CST controls?
--
salmonswimupstream
>
> ptsc
Susan
the future of Scientology lies soley
in the hands of Miscavige. It is Miscavige
who decides the continuance or dissolution
of Scientology.
Susan
"Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3bf1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
Patricia Johnson-Holm
MUCH relevant the equation is.
On this type of Newsgroup when people are quick to try to discredit
you,
is almost a compliment.
"James W. Glass" <jwgl...@home.com> wrote in message news:<RADI7.136266$IR4.43...@news1.denver1.co.home.com>...
Patricia Johnson-Holm
discover that my materials have been already verified or are in the midst
of being proven correct. By all means if you have further information to
share please do so. Until then surely you have something better to do than
display such a minuscule point of view.
LronsScam <n...@here.now> wrote in message news:<MPG.165cdf4cf...@news2.lightlink.com>...
Patricia Johnson-Holm
work. But you might use some of that time to look up and factually validate
the pertinent material. And please do share your data -
LronsScam <n...@here.now> wrote in message news:<MPG.165cdf4cf...@news2.lightlink.com>...
Patricia Johnson-Holm
> In article <RADI7.136266$IR4.43...@news1.denver1.co.home.com>,
> jwgl...@home.com says...
> > OK, as a non-Scientologist, just WHAT are you writing about? Your equation,
> > in my mind, is totally irrelevant (or is it "irreverent"?)
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
> Hmmm. It's probably mostly irrelevant. Patricia is 'Ruprose' whom, while
> I appreciate her interest, tends toward the 'X-Files' interest.
BTW my TV watching is minimal and X files is NOT included on the list. As
for talking this is an interesting comment. Have you tried to respond to
any of my posts. You see a great majority shows on my version as single
posts only.So if you have tried to respond but have not received an answer
from me, let me know OK.
> Some of my best friends do that :)
>
> Patricia isn't one of my best friends, but only because we don't talk
> that much probably. And because I tend to discount conspiracy theories
> based on the idea that 'Scientology works! But government agencies are
> involved and if you think you're understanding Scientology as 'wacko'
> you're a naive fool my young friend'.
>
That the "majical" 'powers' Scientology taps into is NOT the question. Do
you really understand WHERE those 'POWERS' come from? Don't kid yourself
into thinking that they are the 'powers' of good. Because Scientology powers
are the essence of evil. Whether you realize it or not. Of course evil has
some power but it is NOTHING in comparison to the REAL POWER of GOD.
> One of the people I have had more contact with, Phil Scott, I find
> intelligent, compassionate and fun, except for his 'bug up the butt' of
> Hubbard tech being so useful that international power centers want to use
> it.
>
> CL/Veritas has a similar bug, although I don't know him as well.
>
> He wants to prove that David Miscavige/RTC isn't the controlling interest
> in Scientology because......
>
> This is the common thread:
>
> Scientology works! It's like magic! It's so good every intelligence
> agency on the planet is using it! They want to hide that, and hide that
> it has anything to do with Scientology!
When Scientology powers are used that only means the person does not know
abou the REAL POWERS.
>
> For me, it's a half-way exit. After you've spent years dedicating your
> life to something you have decided is evil.... how do you leave it
> without admitting you were an idiot?
First no matter what you do leaving will take tremendous STRENGTH. When
evil gets ahold of you it is not simple to break that bondage. Only God
can do that for you. Being wise enough to see what is evil is by no means
admitting you were an idiot. Even Adam and Eve were fooled by evil.
Patricia Johnson-Holm
came out.
= Hoover Institute > Hoovers Online = CST,RTC,ASI etc.
In this group the Mj12 mirrored by the Galactic Federation, then the
Hoover Institute is mirrored by the CST,RTC,ASI and so on. Much the
same as the patterns of Modus Operandi in harassment etc. etc. etc.
Weishaupt = Lyman Spurlock = control of the Mj12
Did anyone else get to see the Threat to me pertaining to this info?
LronsScam <n...@here.now> wrote in message news:<MPG.165cde3ff...@news2.lightlink.com>...
Zinj
RuPr...@earthlink.net says...
Patricia, I do understand what you're saying, but also that I've
suggested it myself not all that long ago.
My 'theory' was that while Hubbard was engaged in his Babalon Rising
experiments with Parsons, he actually did manage to conjure an 'entity'
and that that entity is what we now 'see' as the 'Church of Scientology'
rather than a single individual.
Of course, after it was conjured it masticated Hubbard till he became
what he was in the end, then swallowed him whole.
It really doesn't matter though, because in 7 years of publicly opposing
the Church of Scientology, I have yet to see a *single* demonstration of
'power'; only things that any totally ruthless, totally corrupt, very
rich person could do.
By they way, and if you care; a book that is, after 1984, the best
description of 'Total Scientology' would be C.S. Lewis' 'That Hideous
Strength', which speaks directly to the 'powers', that if present, so
incompetently manifest themselves in Scientology.
Zinj
(I still don't think the CIA or anybody else gives a flying fuck about
Scientology 'powerz')
James W. Glass
Now one other question: Did Hubbard ever formally relinquish, transfer, or
resign, his position of "Senior Ecclesiastic?" Given the "knowledge" that
he will return, how would it be possible since there is no policy on how the
mantle of ecclesiastical authority would be passed to another and then
returned to Hubbard? Perhaps as a non-Scientologist I am just not familiar
with the policy, but Hubbard's dictates on policy itself, that only he can
promulgate, I see as confirmation that he is "Senior Ecclesiastic" for all
time. Li'l Poodle is nothing more than COB, the business manager.
Another reading between the lines of the corporate structure is that the IRS
had secretly taken over the church [sic] long before 1993 - possibly
contemporaneous with, or occasioned by, Hubbard's initial "disappearance",
death, house arrest, secret imprisonment, or incapacitation - and the
closing agreement is nothing more than returning the church [sic] to its own
control after IRS had finally extracted its financial penalties from the
church [sic]. Davey's "surprise" visit to the IRS would then be nothing
more than a meeting to confirm that the church [sic] had met its
requirements for paying IRS what was due and tax exemption followed by prior
secret agreement.
The restructuring of the church [sic] in the dictates of the "revised will"
was due to knowledge that Hubbard was long, long dead, etc., was about to be
exposed, and a formal and legal "shore story" was needed to assure IRS that
they could still control the payment of penalties if challenged by the
church [sic] or public religious activists. [This begs the whole issue of
who, where, when, he was visited by Messengers, the "biography", his
caretakers, and other purported incidents following his disappearance and up
to his "death". Are these people and incidents what have been assumed? Or,
just more carefully-crafted shore stories concocted by the government and
paid agents inside the church [sic]?]
While Hubbard was "alive" in "hiding", IRS used the Hubbard scheme
successfully for control. With Hubbard "dead", continued secret control
would be problematic, especially if the public were to become aware of the
government's high-handed secret takeover of a "religion". The process
required in the "will" provided for continued IRS control of church finances
until the penalties were satisfied. Once the balance due IRS was satisfied,
IRS had assurance that the tax-exempt church [sic] would have a permanent
corporate structure which is defined, auditable, and under continued threat
of IRS takeover if it returned to Hubbardian-style management, through the
oversight of the "Special Directors" and the ownership and "licensing" of
the tech by CST. CST now functions only as a secret IRS clearing agency for
the church's [sic] tax returns, with IRS's costs paid through the license
fees, and the directors permanently under IRS control. The threat to the
church [sic] by CST still exists, but probably cannot be exercised owing to
the public relations debacle which would most certainly follow.
This theory might explain why the Snow White episode, while dramatic in the
imprisonment of GO officers, was seemingly limited in scope: the government
essentially confiscated the church [sic], but could not do so publicly for
fear of a huge public outcry about attacking a "religion", and needed a
method for punishment and control just short of liquidating its assets,
which was given to IRS to handle and, eventually, to CST to implement
permanently. Hubbard's "disappearance" was a supporting part in the
takeover scheme. Both the government and the church eventually won. The
only loser was Hubbard, who had control forcibly wrested from him, and he
either became totally demented or ended cycle shortly thereafter, but in any
event, long before his final "death".
So while I am engaging in what some probably think is X-files speculation:
The entire issue of Davey's gaining control of the church [sic] is most
amazing to me. How the hell someone at his station managed it without
significant outside help is a mystery. Or, perhaps not, if the government
manipulated his takeover with help from inside agents (in place for many
years), and he started out as nothing more than a convenient
government-controlled figurehead with his strings pulled by others. The
purges of the "old Scientology hands" take on a different light than simple
disaffection. Purging anyone who might come into and divulge secret
knowledge about the government's control of the church would be paramount
following Hubbard's "demise" and loss of the "disappearance" shore story.
Precipitously taking out an entire population of high-level administrators,
leaving only those under direct government control would expediently provide
for continued secrecy. The purged probably to this day have no clue about
what really happened to them or why, or at least are not talking.
Jim
"CL" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:2OMVOU4O3721...@frog.gilgamesh.org...
roger gonnet
"Susan" <enlighte...@cs.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
257899c6.01111...@posting.google.com...
> An OT IV person I used to know told me,
> the future of Scientology lies soley
> in the hands of Miscavige. It is Miscavige
> who decides the continuance or dissolution
> of Scientology.
It looks probable. But since this is a criminal and that soon or late, he'll
be jailed for his numerous crimes, (if it's not in USA whose Govt is also
partly criminal, it will be outside, when he'll be aboard some country which
does not like criminals).
What could happen then to the criminal maffia he is leadingh toward its
total destruction?
roger
CL
Hash: SHA1
"James W. Glass" <jwgl...@home.com> wrote:
>Thank you for your rebuttal.
You're welcome. And I am calmer now. :-] (Actually, I just enjoy
rattling certain cages. I will herein, too.)
>Now one other question: Did Hubbard ever formally relinquish,
>transfer, or resign, his position of "Senior Ecclesiastic?"
I never heard of such an asinine "position" or title in anything I've
come in contact with that Hubbard ever wrote or spoke, and I believe he
would have spat on it, then hacked up a loogie, and spat on it again.
It's just more lawyer-manufactured crap. It's part of their fraud, which
I cover in more detail below on the "religiosity" data.
>Given the "knowledge" that he will return, how would it be possible
>since there is no policy on how the mantle of ecclesiastical authority
I'm stopping you there on ~that~ subject, because I won't go into
metaphysics with Michael Reuss and his idiotic floating ashtrays, and I
don't intend to go into the "Second Coming of L. Ron Hubbard" with you,
either. I'll stick to facts. I don't know of Hubbard ever having
anything to do with any "mantle of ecclesiastical authority," and I
believe he would have puked on it if he ever heard anything about it.
That's my personal OPINION, based on my own research into just some of
Hubbard's works and the numerous encounters in those with his evident
consummate irreverence. The entire "eccliastical" line of bullshit and
calling his works "Scriptures" is utter crap that I don't believe he
would have tolerated for an instant if he had been able to do anything
at all about it. It's saccharine and too corny for words.
Which is more evidence that he was dead or incapacitated when that
claptrap was laid into the very corporate documents. So my OPINION
on that is aired and out of the way.
But if you want to discuss facts, here's a fact: ALL the heavy
"religiosity" trappings that were run in started AFTER L. Ron Hubbard
FIRST disappeared, for nearly a year, on 4 December 1972.
In fact, the Scientology cross trademark was first filed almost
~exactly~ one year later, on 3 December 1973. Serial #73007908,
registration #1012452 if you want to check it out for yourself. Just one
of the many little oddities fact-seekers find. And there are a lot of
little fact-seekers busier than you can imagine on all of this.
Almost at the exact same time as the cross trademark filing--first week
in December 1973--"Hubbard" supposedly laid a Harley on the ground in
Tenarife, broke an arm and ribs as a result, and then was supposedly
holed up in his cabin for months with nobody but a few of the "Inner
Circle" having contact with him. Meanwhile the RPF was being created by
Ken Urquhart and attributed to L. Ron Hubbard, then came the storm of
squirrel and utterly confusing "BTBs" and "BPLs" immediately on the
heels of the RPF--all within a week of each other, during January
1974--while "Hubbard" was supposedly holed up incommunicado. And who
were the people in key positions surrounding him then?
NORMAN F. STARKEY
Captain of the Apollo [ends up as Executor and
Trustee of Hubbard's Will and Estate, funneling
the entire estate to CST];
TERRI GILLHAM (later Armstrong, then Gamboa)
Messenger In Charge [Starkey and Gillham/Gamboa
being the dynamic duo claimed to have hired Lenske,
Lenske & Heller];
GERRY ARMSTRONG
Port Captain [became the "biography project in-charge"
and "Hubbard Archives" trustee who was "working
with Hubbard's lawyers in L.A.," and who later
was allowed to get away with conversion of
$5-million-worth of Hubbard's intellectual
property from Hubbard's estate, right out from
under Karno's and Lenske's noses, while Karno was
reigning as Hubbard's named "Personal
Representative," Lenske having been "engaged" to
handle "all aspects of estate planning"];
LAUREL SULLIVAN
"Hubbard's" "Personal PRO" [who just happend to be
the author of the "PR" on Hubbard that was later
able to be conveniently "disproved" by the "documents"
Armstrong supposedly made off with; are you ill yet?];
KIMA DOUGLAS
"Hubbard's" personal nurse and attendant
[with know-how to administer certain drugs.]
All the very best and very most loyal people he could hope to have
utterly surrounding him and controlling ALL of his incoming and outgoing
communication lines. [Want some more fun? They all were from
Commonwealth countries, along with Rinder, David Mayo, Jane Kember, the
Lenskes, and more. Just file it.]
So 3 December 1973--that's when "the Scientology cross" trademark was
filed, that's when "religiosity" started getting run in heavily on
Scientology organizations by the Guardians Office PR Bureau.
Oh, BTW, did I mention? Robert Vaughn Young started in the Guardians
Office PR Bureau in October 1973, as Establishment Officer, just about
two months before the Scientology Cross was trademarked and orders
started coming into the orgs from the Guardians Office PR Bureau to take
on all the trappings of a religion--crosses, priest collars, chapels,
"religious services," you name it, and the shore story was it was for
"legal reasons."
That's a fact. My personal OPINION is that if Hubbard had actually been
around then and able, he would have puked on it all and sent the lot of
jackals running.
But back to FACTS--I need to be sure and remember not to mention this
other fact: that this same time around October 1973--when Robert Vaughn
Young entered the Guardians Office PR Bureau--was a significant period
in the super-secret CIA remote-viewing program that was using Hubbard's
technology, smuggled in by CIA-funded OT VIIs Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann,
and Pat Price. In fact, 4 October 1973 was the "first formal test of
[the] 'outbound' protocol," a successful experiment with Pat Price,
leading to a major increase in CIA funding, as well as more DIA
involvement and funding. It ~is~ a fact, but I'm not going to mention it
because it triggers nightmarish hallucinations of floating ashtrays in
Michael Reuss's mind, and for some reason--paranoia, I guess--he will
immediately conjecture a connection in his own mind, and then try to
attribute that connection to ~me~, just because these events that I had
nothing to do with are coincident in time. Isn't that odd.
>Li'l Poodle is nothing more than COB, the business manager.
Ay'yup. But they don't even let the little runt manage anything. Even at
RTC, it's the Inspector General who "manages the day-to-day affairs of
the organization." Miscavige is Howdy Doody.
>Another reading between the lines of the corporate structure is that
>the IRS had secretly taken over the church [sic] long before 1993 -
>possibly contemporaneous with, or occasioned by, Hubbard's initial
>"disappearance", death, house arrest, secret imprisonment, or
>incapacitation -
I suppose you're referring to the 1980 disappearance, house arrest,
secret imprisonment, or incapacitation, but that's part of the problem:
that was only the ~last~ of several similar "disappearances," starting
at least as early as 4 December 1972. (Someday I or somebody may get
around to listing them all in sequence.) And when he wasn't completely
"disappeared" after December 1972, he was rarely seen in public, if so,
often in disguises, and was surrounded only by the same few "Inner
Circle" people--except for a few revolving-door pre-teen Messengers and
some hired help, none of whom seem to have ever met Hubbard pre-1972. He
also had been giving taped public lectures up until not long before his
4 December 1972 disappearance (he gave over 3,000 such lectures from
1950 until late 1972), but he never gave another single public lecture
after his 4 December 1972 disappearance.
These are just facts. Interpret them how you will.
>and the closing agreement is nothing more than returning the church
>[sic] to its own control after IRS had finally extracted its financial
>penalties from the church [sic]. Davey's "surprise" visit to the IRS
>would then be nothing more than a meeting to confirm that the church
>[sic] had met its requirements for paying IRS what was due and tax
>exemption followed by prior secret agreement.
Well, I can't say whether it went entirely that way, but you ~have~
opened what is perhaps the biggest can of worms in the whole impressive
warehouse of cans of worms.
Somebody has just ~got to answer THESE questions. (Not that I think they
will actually ~be~ answered short of a massive criminal investigation.)
But the questions have at least got to be asked; these have
stay-awake-at-night potential in them:
You brought up the Closing Agreement. You also go on, in your post, to
bring up many very good points and good questions on the ancillary
issues concerning the various wills, CST, the entire corporate
restructuring, and even the "Snow White" matter. So I'm going to snip
the rest of your post, if you will allow me, because I believe what I'm
about to go into addresses all of those matters. I'm not going to even
try to answer all the questions you posed, because I can't, but maybe
what I'm about to present will at least address them.
I'm going to have to borrow a page from the wonderful ARSCC Librarian,
and lay out what she calls "a little mini timeline" (MUCH more mini than
hers). I'm not going to do it just because it was so much fun to watch
Gerry Armstrong go into apoplectic fits when she laid out
incontrovertible facts in an orderly and understandable way; it's
because the ARSCC Librarian convinced me that it ~is~ an orderly and
understandable way to present important facts, and to see certain
relationships that simply don't emerge any other way. Armstrong's
hysterical hystrionics are just a fun by-product. So I'm going to use
the same format as she has used, and include the sources this time so
she won't scold me again.
This one has to do with the Church of Scientology of California (CSC),
L. Ron Hubbard, Norton S. Karno, and the IRS--all leading up to this
awful can of worms I mentioned, and ultimately to the Closing Agreement.
So here is this little mini timeline about absolutely crucial tax
issues--some of it, at least, information that I don't believe has ever
been collected and published anywhere in any organized way. (Oh, and if
you see some entries thrown in here that don't seem to have anything to
do with tax issues, ignore them--they're just some burrs to put under
Michael Reuss's saddle.) The timeline:
2 January 1957
IRS grants tax exemption to the Church of Scientology of California.
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
1 c. July 1962
L. Ron Hubbard PURPORTEDLY [see NOTE, below] sets up the "United States
Churches of Scientology Trust," of which he purportedly is the sole
trustee, the monies purportedly being variously kept in numbered Swiss
accounts, some later in an "L. Ron Hubbard Trustee Account." [NOTE: The
circumstances of the creation of this Trust--which plays a massive role
in events to follow--are peculiar in the extreme, because there is NO
TRUST INSTRUMENT "memorializing" such a Trust until over ten years
later--25 June 1973 (see entry). Of further interest, 1973 is the first
known involvement of Norton S. Karno (see entry for 15 November 1973.]
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
16 November 1964
Church of Scientology of California's (CSC) tax-exempt status is
reconfirmed by IRS.
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
1 c. August 1965
IRS audits the Church of Scientology of California (CSC), and concludes
that CSC is a church; that CSC receives income by selling books and
E-meters and by providing spiritual counseling and training; and that
CSC pays royalties to the L. Ron Hubbard Trustee Account for the use of
Scientology books and materials. After the examination, IRS confirms the
tax-exempt status of CSC.
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
14 December 1965
Stephen I. Abrams, the Director of the Parapsychological Laboratory,
Oxford University, England, under the auspices of CIA's Technical
Services Division (later to become the Office of Technical Services
[OTS]) and CIA's Project MKULTRA, prepares a review article entitled
"Extrasensory Perception" which claims ESP has been demonstrated, but is
not understood or controllable.
SOURCE: A report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal
Review and Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in
the Winter 1977 issue of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's
classified internal publication; report released to the
public in 1996
9 July 1966
The Moscow daily "Komsomolskaya Pravda" reports on long-distance
telepathy experiments conducted by the Moscow Laboratory of
Bio-Information, using the Soviet Union's Yuri Kamensky, a biophysicist,
and Karl Nikolayev. The experiments are reported to have
"...demonstrated the reality of the phenomenon and produced valuable
data, both positive and negative, which pointed up the need for
continued research." This trend is being closely monitored by US
intelligence agencies who feel, during intense times in the Cold War,
that they are lagging far behind the Soviets in this line of research.
SOURCE: "Amplified Mind Power Research In The Former Soviet
Union," by Martin Ebon
14 August 1966
The [confidential] materials for the first OT Level, a Solo-audited
action, are released to qualified Solo auditors on 14 August 1966.
[NOTE: For the first time, Hubbard's work isn't broadly and publically
available. Whatever he is doing, it is now out of public view.]
SOURCE: Book: "What is Scientology;" Complete list of books
and materials 1966
15 c. September 1966
The [confidential] written materials for OT II are released in September
1966, to auditors who have successfully completed OT I.
SOURCE: Book: "What is Scientology;" Complete list of books
and materials 1966
10 c. April 1967
Ingo Swann tenders his resignation from his permanent contract with the
United Nations Secretariat in New York, and enters Scientology just days
later. [NOTE: According to Swann, a two year advance notice was
required--meaning his employment with the United Nations will not
actually end until 10 c. April 1969. Also, it is believed, based on one
anecdotal account from one source, that Hal Puthoff enters Scientology
within approximately a month of Swann; pending confirmation.]
SOURCE: Ingo Swann, on-line book: "Remote Viewing--The Real
Story," Chapter 24
18 July 1967
IRS issues a formal letter of revocation repealing CSC's tax-exempt
status, naming three grounds: 1) the California Church's income was
inuring to the benefit of Scientology practitioners; (2) the Church's
activities were commercial; and (3) the Church was serving the private
interests of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology practitioners. "The record
does not disclose what concerns prompted the examination."
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
31 December 1970
Total salary and all benefits for the entire Hubbard family for the year
1970 comes to $51,969.27.
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
13 May 1971
In an Oval Office conversation with Haldeman and Ehrlichman, Richard
Nixon talks about the kind of person he wants as Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (IRS): "I want to be sure that he is a ruthless son of
a bitch, that he will do what he is told, that every income-tax return I
want to see, I see. That he will go after our enemies and not go after
our friends. It's as simple as that."
SOURCE: Transcript of Oval Office recordings, posted on the
Internet
31 December 1971
Total salary and all royalties for the entire Hubbard family for the
year 1971 comes to $60,296.83.
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
1 October 1972
CIA Office of Technical Service Contract 8473 is dated 1 October 1972.
[NOTE: This date is a Sunday.] It is marked CONFIDENTIAL. According to
the referenced source, CIA's Dr. Kenneth Kress, it is a $50,000 research
contract with "the physicists at SRI" [OT VII Hal Puthoff, Russell Targ]
for an "expanded effort in parapsychology." OT VII Ingo Swann has
already been contacted by Puthoff to come on board the project. Kress
says that as of this date, he has been assigned as the CIA "Project
Officer" for the contract.
SOURCE: A report, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal
Review and Conclusions," by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress; appeared in
the Winter 1977 issue of Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's
classified internal publication; report released to the
public in 1996
4 December 1972
L. Ron Hubbard very abruptly disappears for nearly a year in the sole
company of a male nurse, Jim Dincalci, and a former Green Beret, Paul
Preston, supposedly because of threat of extradition to France on fraud
charges. [This is the first of a long series of Hubbard "disappearances"
in the company of only a few close "aides," culminating in a February
1980 "disappearance" that lasted approximately six years--until
Hubbard's announced "death" on 24 January 1986.]
Russel Miller, "Bare Faced Messiah," Chapter 19--Dincalci's
testimony
31 December 1972
Total salary and all royalties for the Hubbard family for the year 1972
comes to $220,298.03.
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
1 c. January 1973
Donald C. Alexander becomes Commissioner of IRS. Alexander later takes
on Meade Emory as Assistant to the Commissioner.
SOURCE: Donald Alexander bio on his law firms West's profile.
2 June 1973
The document formalizing the "United States Churches of Scientology
Trust" (The Trust) is drawn up by an unnamed attorney. According to the
refrenced source: "The Trust was first memorialized by Declaration of
Trust on June 25, 1973." [NOTE: Although this is the only known
reference to this "Trust Declaration," and no one else but Hubbard is
named in relation to it, it is extremely likely that this document was
drawn up by Norton S. Karno or someone at his firm, because they are the
attornies representing CSC against IRS in a crucial court appearance
just five months later (see entry for 15 November 1973), and by 25
November 1975 (see) Norton S. Karno is handling this very Trust. Also
note that at the time this "Trust Declaration" is perfected, L. Ron
Hubbard is still "disappeared;" his whereabouts are a closely guarded
secret, he is supposedly hiding out from possible extradition with
Preston and Dincalci.]
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
1 c. July 1973
The IRS begins a tax audit on L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard FOR
THE YEARS 1971 AND 1972. [Note the years.] Howard Rosen, a group manager
at IRS's Office of International Operations (OIO), is personally
supervising the audit. [NOTE: L. Ron Hubbard's whereabouts are unknown,
but he purportedly is living in New York City with Jim Dincalci and
former Green Beret Paul Preston, and is suposedly writing the "Snow
White" program at about this time.]
SOURCE: Stipulation of Evidence, U.S. District Court for
Washington, D.C., Criminal #78401, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS. MARY SUE HUBBARD, et. al.
15 November 1973
Norton S. Karno's law firm is representing CSC against IRS in "United
States of America and Robert H. Cluberton, Internal Revenue Agent,
Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners v. Church of Scientology of
California and Henning Heldt, Vice President, Respondents;" No.
73-2100-HP; United States District Court. The attorney is "James Q.
Fisher, a member of the law firm of Karno, Rudnick & Fisher, a
professional corporation."
SOURCE: United States of America and Robert H. Cluberton,
Internal Revenue Agent,Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners
v. Church of Scientology of California and Henning Heldt,
Vice President, Respondents;" No. 73-2100-HP; United States
District Court; Central District of California; 15th November
1973
1 c. January 1975
Meade Emory becomes Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS, Donald
Alexander. The tax audit of L. Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard is being
conducted in IRS's OIO.
SOURCE: Meade Emory biography, posted on the internet site of
his law firm
25 November 1975
Norton S. Karno is handling the "United States Churches of Scientology
Trust," and its "L. Ron Hubbard Trustee Account" [see entries for 1 c.
July 1962, and 2 June 1973, above], because Karno informs Henning Heldt
that "Trustee Funds totaled $3,372,000.00 at the end of 1974, nearly a
year ago."
SOURCE: "Operation Goldmine" documents posted to the newsgroup
a.r.s. on 23 December 1998, message ID
<36806e5f...@news.newsguy.com>
5 c. June 1976
L. Ron Hubbard pays an "adjustment tax" FOR THE YEARS 1971 AND 1972
[note the years], and the IRS tax audit that has been being conducted
out of OIO on him and Mary Sue Hubbard since at least 2 July 1973 is
closed. It has been being worked on by Thomas R. Crate in OIO, under the
supervision of Howard Rosen. Meade Emory is Assistant to the
Commissioner of IRS.
SOURCE: Stipulation of Evidence, U.S. District Court for
Washington, D.C., Criminal #78401, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS. MARY SUE HUBBARD, et. al.
Okay, before I give you the last entry in this "little mini timeline,"
let me interrupt to point out a few things of importance:
1. This is right before the very climax of the whole "Snow White"
debacle, only a matter of weeks before Meisner and Wolf will be stopped
by FBI agents in a government building, supposedly on one of their
document-copying runs--the beginning of the end for the Guardians Office
and Mary Sue Hubbard.
2. KARNO--Norton S. Karno is L. Ron Hubbard's tax attorney, and
obviously has the purse strings on the "L. Ron Hubbard Trustee Account."
And this is just a little over three years before the 15 December 1979
will putting Karno in the cat-bird seat over the Hubbard estate. So did
Norton S. Karno write the check to IRS for the Hubbard's "adjustment
tax"? Hubbard, at this very moment in June 1976, is ~supposedly~ hiding
out in a brownstone IN WASHINGTON D.C. (where the Snow White thefts are
supposed to be taking place!) with Kima Douglas and The Inner Circle.
You make sense of that; I can't. But you ain't seen nothin' yet.
3. Hubbard is ALL SQUARE with the IRS. The IRS has just conducted a
THREE YEAR AUDIT of him and Mary Sue, and he has squared everything up
with IRS with an "adjustment tax." (Somehow paid to IRS while he was
hiding out with Kima Douglas in Washington, D.C. But don't get hung up
in the details--you aren't supposed to. If fucks up "The Official Story"
concerning where L. Ron Hubbard was when and what he was doing if you
start asking too many questions.) And so now we come to the piece de
resitance, the final verdict of the case that I have quoted much of this
mini-timeline from, the landmark case known as CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Docket No. 3352-78. United States Tax Court. So let's leap the time
barrier, let's leap over all the court cases destroying Mary Sue Hubbard
and the GO, and let's leap over the subsequent creation of all the new
corporations, and even over Meade Emory's fine work with the Karno and
Lenske crowd to set up CST in 1982, and just land feet-first right in
the crucial 1984 Tax Court ruling:
24 September 1984
The United States Tax Court issues their landmark ruling in the case
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Docket No. 3352-78. The court clearly
states, regarding its ruling, that "Only [CSC]'s 1970-1972 tax years are
before us." [NOTE THE YEARS.] The United States Tax Court upholds the
REVOCATION of CSC's tax exempt status. Why? Because DURING THE YEARS
1970-1972, CSC purportedly had "diverted millions of dollars THROUGH A
BOGUS TRUST FUND [emphasis added--referring to the "United States
Churches of Scientology Trust"] and "because it is operated for a
substantial commercial purpose and because its net earnings benefit L.
Ron Hubbard, his family."
SOURCE: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Docket No.
3352-78. United States Tax Court. Filed September 24, 1984.
WTFF?!?!?!?!
Excuse me? What happened to the 1976 "adjustment tax" for the years 1971
and 1972 that the IRS accepted from L. Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard after a
THREE YEAR AUDIT of them for the years 1971 and 1972?
Why was THAT left out of this much-ballyhooed, much quoted
"authoritative" ruling by the UNITED STATES FUCKING TAX COURT?!?!
What about the fact that the SAME RULING listed the entire combined
Hubbard family income for 1971 and 1972 as $280,594.86--INCLUDING
ROYALTIES FROM HIS BOOKS?!?!? (Of course it would have been higher, but
the CIA WASN'T PAYING HIM ROYALTIES FOR THEIR USE OF HIS MATERIALS!)
What about the fact that "the bogus trust" (well, fuck, they at least
got "bogus" right) wasn't even CREATED until 25 June 1973, probably by
Norton S. Karno--WHILE L. RON HUBBARD'S WHEREABOUTS WERE UNKNOWN, WHILE
HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY HIDING OUT IN NEW YORK FOR A YEAR, SUPPOSEDLY WRITING
THE "SNOW WHITE" PROGRAM, SPENDING ALL HIS TIME IN THE PLEASANT COMPANY
OF A MALE NURSE AND A GREEN BERET?!?!
This is just about the lyingest bunch of fucks I've ever run across! ALL
of them! United States Tax Court included!
Just what the hell is going on here?
But we haven't even GOTTEN to my REAL question, the one about the
Closing Agreement, the one with all the stay-awake-at-night potential,
and that, now, is just this:
GIVEN the government's constant, droning story--which has just been
proven to be a completely manufactured pile of dung--but GIVEN that the
rational for denying and keeping denied CSC's tax exemption is that
these "untold millions" were "inuring" to Hubbard and his family (the
exact same story told by Miller in BFM, by Douglas, Mayo, DeWolf, et
al., by the way, and the story that they AND the govenment absolutely
DRENCHED the press with), GIVEN that this was also the rational for the
ENTIRE restructuring of Scientology in a way that would please and
satisfy the IRS and the government that these horrible (and false)
inurements could no longer occur: then WHY, for the love of God, did the
IRS, in the CLOSING AGREEMENT, not penalize or assess in ANY WAY the
ESTATE of L. Ron Hubbard, the ESTATE to which the alleged inurements
surely would have to have flowed, the $26 million ESTATE, which
$26-million evaluation did "NOT INCLUDE MONEY HUBBARD PUT INTO TRUST
FUNDS FOR HIS WIFE, FOUR OF HIS FIVE CHILDREN AND THE CHURCH OF
SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY" (The San Diego Union-Tribune, April 16, 1987,
"Hubbard estate valued at $26 million; Listed assets don't include
private trusts"), the ESTATE that the IRS, instead of PENALIZING for
DECADES of PURPORTED "inurement," ordered be poured over
entirely--INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED TRUST AMOUNTS--into the control of CST?
WHY? Why was the full $12.5 million tax burden assessed against the
johnny-come-lately and Karno-Lenske-created corporation known as "Church
of Scientology International" (CSI), if the entire decades-long "war"
was over the now-proven-phoney issue of "inurement to Hubbard"? WTF did
CSI have to do with it? NOTHING!
The fucking IRS, in its Closing Agreement, made L. Ron Hubbard's one
actual successor--CST--A MAJOR BENEFICIARY TO THE CLOSING AGREEMENT,
ORDERING--~O R D E R I N G~--Norman F. Starkey to "effectuate the
transfer of substantially all of the corpus and income in Author's
Family Trust B, including all the shares of Author Services, Inc.
('ASI') as permitted under the will of L. Ron Hubbard to the Church of
Spiritual Technology ('CST') WITHOUT CONSIDERATION [emphasis added]."
Meaning they didn't pay a fucking DIME for $26-million in intellectual
property and investments, PLUS AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT IN AN UNDISCLOSED
TRUST FUND SPECIFICALLY FOR CST, the name of which trust fund we don't
even know, and which was secretly set up somewhere in the Author's
Family Trust (-B?) documents!
No WONDER all these lying fucks were keeping their fucking "Closing
Agreement" such a tightly guarded secret. No WONDER somebody got spooked
and leaked it within two weeks of Meade Emory's involvement being blown
open around the world in a press release. The entire IRS/Scientology
"war" had been absolutely manufactured starting precisely on 18 July
1967 when IRS issued its precipitous revocation of tax exemption, and
couldn't even "disclose what concerns prompted the examination." Of
course they couldn't: look at the record and you'll discover that NO
EXAMINATION WAS DONE! There was no audit preceeding it. There's just
another "shore story" from the September 1984 Tax Court ruling that
instantly falls apart like wet toilet paper the moment it is questioned
in the least:
"In 1966 [IRS] again reviewed [CSC]'s tax status by examining
[CSC]'s Annual Information Returns (Forms 990-A) for 1964 and
1965. The record does not disclose what concerns prompted the
examination."
What horseshit! The SAME RULING says that in August of 1965, the very
year before, IRS had done an AUDIT of CSC for tax year 1963, and had
"concluded that [CSC] was a church; that [CSC] received income by
selling books and E-meters and by providing spiritual counseling and
training; and that [CSC] paid royalties to the L. Ron Hubbard Trustee
Account for the use of Scientology books and materials. After the
examination, [IRS] again confirmed the tax-exempt status of the
California Church."
We're supposed to believe that in early-mid 1966, less than a year
later, without even any stated "concerns" that "prompted the
examination," much less a new audit, IRS suddenly concluded by sitting
on their asses in their office chairs looking at forms that by 1964 the
whole thing had turned around so suddenly and dramatically that ten
years of several-times-confirmed tax exemption should be summarily
revoked?
NO! ~Something~ "prompted the examination," something they wouldn't
commit to writing. And it's now proven that the entire "Hubbard
inurement" excuse was a complete crock--for the proof of which we have
to thank the government's own "Stipulation of Evidence," stipulating to
evidence of the Hubbards' 1976 "adjustment tax," which is recorded
nowhere else in known evidence.
And the IRS's 18 July 1967 precipitous act of revocation led inevitably
and directly to the entire "Snow White" debacle, to the destruction of
the Guardians Office, and to the subsequent set-up of CST by Meade Emory
and his cronies to receive and control ALL the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard,
not the least of which was Hubbard's intellectual properties.
And CST--the proven successor to the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard--not only
got off scott free in the Closing Agreement, they, and the tax attornies
who run it, benefitted to the tune of untold millions, and secured the
utter and eternal control over all of L. Ron Hubbard's works, in order
to bury those works in underground titanium vaults.
And I hope you won't spend too many sleepless hours trying to figure out
why. I will sleep like a lamb.
CL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBO/VVPdAKsx0v8qcvEQK9mQCeOThxYjNDIlxXwhy7kO8fsJUeeFAAoKJP
5znP9hCGYr7QT94N7HbVVPFm
=F9xS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Susan
Great question. My first impression is that of
the plight and response of the Taliban at the moment.
To be perfectly honest, it makes me chuckle :-) although,
desperate madmen are of course, something to be wary of.
Susan
"roger gonnet" <roger....@worldnet.fr> wrote in message news:<9t2obu$25n1$9...@news5.isdnet.net>...
Keith Henson
(CL) wrote:
Snip
CL, a few comments. For one thing, remote viewing is neither more nor
less remarkable than floating ashtrays. Neither can be understood
within the current understanding we have of the physical world.
With that said, I also don't have any problem believing the US
government would rip off valuable technology. For that I have the
Inslaw/PROMS software example.
My problem is that I understand how LRH "technology" "works."
That understanding is of how people fool themselves that LRH brand
endorphin releasing technology is doing anything except making them
feel good.
I can even believe the people who were involved in the "remote
viewing" experiments fooled themselves into thinking scientology had
something useful when it did not. So you might have had government
people ripping off something worse than useless.
One thing I think you should add to your time line is the dates when
Starshadow saw LRH and his silly wig at Westercon.
I might take another whack at your post. There are a lot of thing
which are fairly obvious reasons why they went the way they did.
Keith Henson
Michael Reuss
>> "James W. Glass" <jwgl...@home.com> wrote:
>You're welcome. And I am calmer now. :-] (Actually, I just enjoy
>rattling certain cages. I will herein, too.)
Good for you! That's the spirit!
>>Now one other question: Did Hubbard ever formally relinquish,
>>transfer, or resign, his position of "Senior Ecclesiastic?"
>I never heard of such an asinine "position" or title in anything I've
>come in contact with that Hubbard ever wrote or spoke, and I believe he
>would have spat on it, then hacked up a loogie, and spat on it again.
>It's just more lawyer-manufactured crap. It's part of their fraud, which
>I cover in more detail below on the "religiosity" data.
So, you're claiming that most Scientologists, if asked who their
"ecclesiastical leader" was, would NOT point the finger at the (*)?
See, it's this kind of thinking that undermines the conclusions you
draw from your various facts.
>>Given the "knowledge" that he will return, how would it be possible
>>since there is no policy on how the mantle of ecclesiastical authority
>I'm stopping you there on ~that~ subject, because I won't go into
>metaphysics with Michael Reuss and his idiotic floating ashtrays, and I
>don't intend to go into the "Second Coming of L. Ron Hubbard" with you,
>either. I'll stick to facts.
Oh, come on, now. Don't be like that. You love to tear down the logic
and theories of others (that's fine, btw), but when it comes to your
own theories and logic, you dance around and spin like Bill Clinton.
You make many tacit claims, and then when someone criticizes them, you
pretend that this has nothing to do with what you were saying.
Be honest. You're claiming that the Special Directors of the CST are
running Scientology, right? You also seem to be hinting that these
directors are intentionally destroying Scientology's credibility and
it ability to deliver tech training. They do this in order to
discredit Scientology, because they are really government agents who
wish to bogart the all-valuable tech for themselves and their secret
psi-spooks. All of which means that you believe the tech (as the CIA
practices it) really works to develop psi-powers.
Is that a fair representation of your main premise? I think it is. You
keep running away every time we start to talk about this. C'mon, CL,
confront us, confront your own theory. Lay your cards on the table,
please.
But in case you don't (again), let me just say that this theory of
yours vitally depends upon actual, demonstrable psi-powers being
developed in CIA operatives, using stolen LRH Hubbardspew Dreknology.
Without these psi powers, the government has no motive to take over
Scientology.
I just want to see a real psi power in action, scientifically tested.
I think that a belief that other guys are doing it in secret is just
too damned convenient and fishy-smelling. I want YOU or some other
Scientologist to show me that a psi-power can be causally developed
using (pre-spook tainted) Hubbardspew. I really don't think that's
asking for too much.
[snip]
>But back to FACTS--I need to be sure and remember not to mention this
>other fact: that this same time around October 1973--when Robert Vaughn
>Young entered the Guardians Office PR Bureau--was a significant period
>in the super-secret CIA remote-viewing program that was using Hubbard's
>technology, smuggled in by CIA-funded OT VIIs Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann,
>and Pat Price. In fact, 4 October 1973 was the "first formal test of
>[the] 'outbound' protocol," a successful experiment with Pat Price,
>leading to a major increase in CIA funding, as well as more DIA
>involvement and funding. It ~is~ a fact, but I'm not going to mention it
>because it triggers nightmarish hallucinations of floating ashtrays in
>Michael Reuss's mind, and for some reason--paranoia, I guess--he will
>immediately conjecture a connection in his own mind, and then try to
>attribute that connection to ~me~, just because these events that I had
>nothing to do with are coincident in time. Isn't that odd.
Paranoid? Me?
Hell, CL, I'm not paranoid about remote viewing psychic supermen. I
laugh at them. In fact I DARE them to strike me down with their
psi-powers! Come-on Ingo, come on you unnamed CIA BASTARDS! HIT ME
WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!
[wait, wait, wait]
See, I'm still here. Ingo and your CIA trained boys can't do shit.
Anyone who believes they can remote view and move objects with their
thoughts are nothing but a bunch of brainwashed, gullible idiots.
YOU'RE the one who thinks people can actually see through walls and
shit like that.
Of course the ashtray lifting challenge I always make comes right out
of Scientology training. Scientologists have been lifting ashtrays
(with their muscles) since almost the very beginning. Only thing is,
at first the raw meat probably doesn't realize they're being softened
up, being slowly implanted with a hypnotic suggestion that someday
they'll be able to lift the ashtray via mental powers and/or occult
magic.
But sooner or later, these beliefs are implanted in those members who
stay in the mental processing program long enough. We have all seen
big win stories from OT Scientologists who claim to fixing their cars,
psychically, and shit like that. I'm not making these things up.
And so I ask you, CL, in all seriousness, where are the old timers who
learned from Hubbard between 67 and 72? Why don't some of them step up
and show us their psi powers? They should be easily able to perform
magical psi feats, no?
They don't step up because they don't exist. No one ever learned
anything from Hubbardspew except how to delude themselves. The money
the CIA spent on Swann and Puthoff was a waste.
Wake TF up, CL. Hubbard scammed and brainwashed you all. There are no
OTs. There never were. Not in Scientology. Not in the CIA. There
aren't even any Clears.
[snippage]
>This one has to do with the Church of Scientology of California (CSC),
>L. Ron Hubbard, Norton S. Karno, and the IRS--all leading up to this
>awful can of worms I mentioned, and ultimately to the Closing Agreement.
>So here is this little mini timeline about absolutely crucial tax
>issues--some of it, at least, information that I don't believe has ever
>been collected and published anywhere in any organized way. (Oh, and if
>you see some entries thrown in here that don't seem to have anything to
>do with tax issues, ignore them--they're just some burrs to put under
>Michael Reuss's saddle.)
HEY! ;-)
Go ahead and joke about magical psi-powers you all you want. I know I
certainly will.
But if magical, occult, psi powers create the supposed motivation for
the U.S. government intelligence community to take over Scientology in
your theories and mental models, then I wish you would stop blowing
smoke about it, and just explain your theories and beliefs openly and
honestly and simply, without all the bullshit and misdirection.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
CL
Hash: SHA1
hkhe...@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) wrote:
>On 16 Nov 2001 20:29:08 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
>(CL) wrote:
>
>Snip
>
>CL, a few comments. For one thing, remote viewing is neither more nor
>less remarkable than floating ashtrays. Neither can be understood
>within the current understanding we have of the physical world.
If you and Michael Reuss could ever get through your Cro-Magnon skulls
that I don't give a happy flying fuck about the remarkableness or
unremarkableness of ~either~ remote viewing ~or~ floating ashtrays ~or~
firewalkers ~or~ crystal balls, and take your vapid metaphysical musings
over to alt.paranormal where they belong, then it would free up
bandwidth for people with enough intelligence and discernment to at
least be able to recognize what was being discussed: the material,
provable historical facts of what actually, IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, took
place vis a vis SCIENTOLOGY (the topic of this newsgroup) and its
principals and organizations, and the federal government that first
granted, then revoked, then granted it tax exemption. All of which goes
directly to the subject of this thread, "Who Controls the CST."
If either of you could ever get off of your carousel-horses of "you have
to prove metaphysics are real before any history happened" long enough
to even be able to SEE a real physical world where real, physical world
CIA contracts were written and signed by real, physical world
individuals, and where real Federal Reserve tax dollars changed hands to
pay for stolen property, and where a real former IRS official fattened
his wallet with Scientology money to set up a real, physical universe
corporation with real corporate papers and corporate laws that entire
state government agencies are set up to ENFORCE, a corporation that has
real, physical world titanium holes in the physical world ground, there
might be some hope of having a discussion.
But there isn't; you are both loons off in some la-la land deluding
yourselves that you can order me to prove to you that Scientology works:
otherwise, history didn't happen. Then, while tippy-toeing around the
facts like they were land mines, you insist that ~I~ should believe in
the same halucinatory fairy tale that you got suckered into by your
lying, criminal heroes: that a wet-behind-the-ears high-school drop-out
out-smarted and out-bullied some of the highest-paid tax attorneys in
the land, the entire IRS, the entire Justice Department, and the entire
FBI, and did it all with undated letters of resignation. Fuck you,
moron, and the carousel horse you ride round and round on. You're both
too stupid to even understand what the topic of discussion is. So just
keep riding your merry-go-round. Watch out for floating ashtrays, and
don't sign any undated letters of resignation.
>With that said, I also don't have any problem believing the US
>government would rip off valuable technology. For that I have the
>Inslaw/PROMS software example.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but, let me guess: Scientology technology ~doesn't~
work, therefore it ~isn't~ valuable, therefore the hundreds of millions
of Scientology dollars that the IRS snarled and whined and litigated
with Scientology and Hubbard about for three decades never really
existed in "the real world," and so of course the government wouldn't
steal it. Right? So history didn't happen. Right? Fuck you, moron.
>My problem is that I understand how LRH "technology" "works."
Your problem is that you're a moron.
* PLONK *
CL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBO/YU7NAKsx0v8qcvEQLfdQCeMaaSjGB1L/WihEK5BRXYaOuI/pgAniCJ
21gJwK/jCRTlossfVeFBa8LN
=4gJQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
> On 16 Nov 2001 20:29:08 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
> (CL) wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> CL, a few comments. For one thing, remote viewing is neither more nor
> less remarkable than floating ashtrays. Neither can be understood
> within the current understanding we have of the physical world.
Yeah, but remote viewing isn't used as an illusionary "win" to convince cult
dupes to come deeper into its folds, is it?
ptsc
>"James W. Glass" <jwgl...@home.com> wrote:
>>Thank you for your rebuttal.
>You're welcome. And I am calmer now. :-] (Actually, I just enjoy
>rattling certain cages. I will herein, too.)
>>Now one other question: Did Hubbard ever formally relinquish,
>>transfer, or resign, his position of "Senior Ecclesiastic?"
>I never heard of such an asinine "position" or title in anything I've
>come in contact with that Hubbard ever wrote or spoke, and I believe he
>would have spat on it, then hacked up a loogie, and spat on it again.
>It's just more lawyer-manufactured crap. It's part of their fraud, which
>I cover in more detail below on the "religiosity" data.
The word "ecclesiastical" started cropping up more and more after the
Missionholder Conference of 1982. That was when International Hubbard
Ecclesiastical League of Pastors (IHELP) was founded, as well as when phrase
like this started being tossed around. The phrase "senior ecclesiastical post"
was first applied apparently around 1981.
This is the first and only company with "Ecclesiastical" in its name, although
about every corporation from then on had "ecclesiastical" practically dripping
from its bylaws.
NAME: INTERNATIONAL HUBBARD ECCLESIASTICAL LEAGUE OF PASTORS
TYPE OF CORPORATION: ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION (DOMESTIC)
CORPORATE CLASSIFICATION: RELIGIOUS
CORPORATE STATUS: ACTIVE
DATE OF INCORPORATION/QUALIFICATION: 11/24/1982
MAILING ADDRESS: 6331 HOLLYWOOD BLVD #901
LOS ANGELES, CA 90028
REGISTERED AGENT: MARIE-CHRISTINE JANZEN
REGISTERED OFFICE: 6331 HOLLYWOOD BLVD #901
LOS ANGELES, CA 90028
PRESIDENT: MARIE-CHRISTINE JANZEN
6331 HOLLYWOOD BLVD #901
LOS ANGELES, CA 90028
According to Jon Atack, the phrase "senior ecclesiastical post" had been used as
early as 1980, but it is not certain whether Atack is paraphrasing, or whether
the phrase, as cited, actually existed as such.
A much larger Mission Holders Conference was held at Flag in December 1981. Bill
Franks arrived late with a CMO escort. Up to this point, no Policy Letter had
been issued concerning the seniority of WDC to Franks, and HCOPL 11 Dec 80RA
"The ED Int" states that the ED Int is the senior ecclesiastical post in the
Church. Consequently, Mission Holder Brown McKee assigned a condition of
Confusion to CMO Int for their assumption of supremacy over Franks. The
condition was upheld by many of those at the meeting (Mission Holders, SO and GO
crew).
http://www.freezone.org/reports/e_atack.htm
That post is held currently by Guillaume Lesevre, who is rather a bop-clown.
Additionally, his website on the Scientology servers indicate that he has the
"senior management post" of CSI (alleged to be the "Mother Church") and
ecclesiastically superior to other "Churches."
>>Given the "knowledge" that he will return, how would it be possible
>>since there is no policy on how the mantle of ecclesiastical authority
>I'm stopping you there on ~that~ subject, because I won't go into
>metaphysics with Michael Reuss and his idiotic floating ashtrays, and I
>don't intend to go into the "Second Coming of L. Ron Hubbard" with you,
>either. I'll stick to facts. I don't know of Hubbard ever having
>anything to do with any "mantle of ecclesiastical authority," and I
>believe he would have puked on it if he ever heard anything about it.
>That's my personal OPINION, based on my own research into just some of
>Hubbard's works and the numerous encounters in those with his evident
>consummate irreverence. The entire "eccliastical" line of bullshit and
>calling his works "Scriptures" is utter crap that I don't believe he
>would have tolerated for an instant if he had been able to do anything
>at all about it. It's saccharine and too corny for words.
It's also too 501(c)(3) for words.
>Which is more evidence that he was dead or incapacitated when that
>claptrap was laid into the very corporate documents. So my OPINION
>on that is aired and out of the way.
>But if you want to discuss facts, here's a fact: ALL the heavy
>"religiosity" trappings that were run in started AFTER L. Ron Hubbard
>FIRST disappeared, for nearly a year, on 4 December 1972.
However, Hubbard himself incorporated the first Church of Scientology in Camden,
NJ in 1953, as well as establishing a Church of Spiritual Engineering. While he
may have never exploited the possibilities to the hilt earlier, he certainly had
at least the germs of the idea. This is not even mentioning the numerous people
who heard the notorious "If you want to make a million dollars, start a
religion" rant. Those who claim to have heard it include some questionable
characters; however, of two who stand out, L. Sprague de Camp and Theodore
Sturgeon were noted not only for excellent memory but impeccable honesty.
Nobody has ever placed any credible doubt on the memory or honesty of Theodore
Sturgeon about any issue, ever, and certainly not about this. In my opinion, if
Sturgeon said it was so, it was so.
Obviously, there were many other people aboard the ship at this time. Was every
single one of them a liar? Why is there not a single witness questioning the
veracity of the Hubbard motorcycle accident. Are you? Is there any evidence
any of these individuals somehow manufactured a motorcycle accident while
simultaneously suppressing dozens of people who were aboard the ship at the
time?
>All the very best and very most loyal people he could hope to have
>utterly surrounding him and controlling ALL of his incoming and outgoing
>communication lines. [Want some more fun? They all were from
>Commonwealth countries, along with Rinder, David Mayo, Jane Kember, the
>Lenskes, and more. Just file it.]
>So 3 December 1973--that's when "the Scientology cross" trademark was
>filed, that's when "religiosity" started getting run in heavily on
>Scientology organizations by the Guardians Office PR Bureau.
Again, Hubbard had incorporated two corporations with the name "Church" in them
as early as 1953, twenty years previous to this.
>Oh, BTW, did I mention? Robert Vaughn Young started in the Guardians
>Office PR Bureau in October 1973, as Establishment Officer, just about
>two months before the Scientology Cross was trademarked and orders
>started coming into the orgs from the Guardians Office PR Bureau to take
>on all the trappings of a religion--crosses, priest collars, chapels,
>"religious services," you name it, and the shore story was it was for
>"legal reasons."
RVY was nowhere to be seen twenty years prior to this when Hubbard first
incorporated Churches.
>That's a fact. My personal OPINION is that if Hubbard had actually been
>around then and able, he would have puked on it all and sent the lot of
>jackals running.
>
>But back to FACTS--I need to be sure and remember not to mention this
>other fact: that this same time around October 1973--when Robert Vaughn
>Young entered the Guardians Office PR Bureau--was a significant period
>in the super-secret CIA remote-viewing program that was using Hubbard's
>technology, smuggled in by CIA-funded OT VIIs Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann,
>and Pat Price. In fact, 4 October 1973 was the "first formal test of
>[the] 'outbound' protocol," a successful experiment with Pat Price,
>leading to a major increase in CIA funding, as well as more DIA
>involvement and funding. It ~is~ a fact, but I'm not going to mention it
>because it triggers nightmarish hallucinations of floating ashtrays in
>Michael Reuss's mind, and for some reason--paranoia, I guess--he will
>immediately conjecture a connection in his own mind, and then try to
>attribute that connection to ~me~, just because these events that I had
>nothing to do with are coincident in time. Isn't that odd.
>>Li'l Poodle is nothing more than COB, the business manager.
>Ay'yup. But they don't even let the little runt manage anything. Even at
>RTC, it's the Inspector General who "manages the day-to-day affairs of
>the organization." Miscavige is Howdy Doody.
The "President" of CST is allegedly has "general supervisory responsibility"
according to the Bylaws, however he serves "at the pleasure of the Boards" and
his only responsibility is to "perform all other acts and duties which the Board
of General Directors shall direct." In other words, he's a flunky.
Same with the vaunted "Inspector General." The current holder of this post is
Marty "Mark" Rathbun, who blew Scientology and was even allegedly in the RPF.
If you want me to tell you who the leader of Scientology is, if they're in the
RPF, they aren't leader.
(Of course the same report from Bob Minton also listed Norman Starkey as
potentially in the alleged secret RPF aboard the Freewinds. So I'd take that
with a grain of salt, while still reiterating that if you wish to eliminate
potential leaders of Scientology, anyone who gets sent to RPF *isn't that guy*.)
However, despite that, I can't take these ideas of body doubles for Hubbard
seriously in the least without some serious corroborative evidence. It's all
too similar to equally silly stories such as the idea that Paul McCartney was
secretly killed and replaced with a double. Unless the Reptoids are around and
really can shift shapes, I don't see how this could happen, and, having
happened, how it could conceivably pass without notice.
ptsc
ptsc
>Jim Issiacson was the DCO/I (Deputy Commanding Officer Internal) while I was
>posted in Archives. ughh... I mean CST. Joyce was in Qual. They were and are
>a great couple.
>snip
Archives is the main (stated) purpose of CST.
A recent letter purportedly from the Grant Thornton CPA office included the
following statements on the purpose of CST:
CST has two functions as follows:
1) Recording all original LRH documents to ensure their
preservation, and;
2) To store such documents and recordings to preserve them for
future generations.
A portion of second function discussed above is of a HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL nature and is only known by a select small group of
scientologists (nor is it made known to the general public). DUE
TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE MATTER, IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED
IN GENERAL DURING OUR ENGAGEMENT, ASIDE FROM THE CST OFFICES.
(November 11, 1987)
As for Jim & Joyce, they were both RPF'ed during the
"Jim Isaacson was in charge of investing Ron’s money and he was expected to show
a profit every week. Miscavige would scream mercilessly at Jim every day. One
day Miscavige found Jim lost a large amount of money by investing incorrectly in
the gold market.
"Miscavige and Starkey literally dragged Jim into a conference room. For the
next 3½ hours Miscavige yelled at Jim, demanding who sent him to destroy
Scientology. Miscavige then told Stacy to get the information from Jim and to
not let him leave until he confessed everything.
"When Stacy went in the conference room she found Jim collapsed on the table.
His eyes were glazed and he was shaking uncontrollably. She told him to go home
and get some sleep. Jim was sent to the RPF a few days later. His wife, Joyce
Isaacson, was already in the RPF for refusing to go along with Miscavige’s
brutal treatment of staff."
(Listed as September 1982 on the "Criminal Time Track" document.)
Joyce was at one point listed as "Org Officer" of CST while Jim was listed as
"Investments." I am, however, skeptical of the gold market story without
corroboration. Gold almost always depreciates, yet Scientology has often
investment in large quantities of it. I wonder how he could have lost "large
amounts of money" doing so, though, since it rarely depreciates drastically.
Unless he were investing in strange futures or some kind of exotic derivatives,
I don't get it.
As far as I know, CST continues to possess significant (but hardly large)
precious metals holdings, though this may have increased (for some doubtless not
very bright reason). As far as I know, their main use for gold has been to
produce silly-ass "Clear and OT jewelry" and other such nonsense, and sell it,
drastically marked-up, to rubes and suckers.
ptsc
ptsc
>1. You said: "Let me just point out that Articles I through IV are, to
>put it bluntly, a load of happy horseshit. Article I is a statement of
>churchiness." I beg to diametrically differ. Article I is a statement of
>corporateness masquerading as a statement of churchiness, and is one of
>the most archiveable examples of attorney-crafted circularity I have
>ever seen. It needs to be savored, not ignored, and it is placed as
>Article I ~not~ by happenstance of random order, but specifically
>because it governs EVERY ENSUING ARTICLE. And it can only be fully
>appreciated in its deviousness by removing the convoluted bullshit
>attorney-smoke that they use to lull and hypnotize. Stripped of at least
>most of its dunnage, with all emphasis added by me, it reads:
I'll consider this, as well. I frankly think a lot of the statements in these
Articles that are not intended to bolster the manufactured severability of
various attributes of the Scientology organization ("Scientology religion"
"Scientology Brand Applied Religious Philosophy" "ecclesiastical" "corporate"
"Church" "Scriptures" "management"), are intended to be as vague as humanly
possible, to provide a multitude of bogus reasons to get rid of people based on
allegations of violations of Articles I through IV.
Like the pseudo-legalistic fiction of "SP Declares" for "Crimes" and "High
Crimes" so vaguely defined that no member can possibly escape committing some
action that would qualify, should they get in "ethics trouble" by pissing off
the wrong person, Articles I through IV (including by reference "Scriptures")
allow Directors to be removed based on any sort of quasi-Scientological fiction.
That's why I consider them "horseshit," although I don't doubt they contain
interesting material of their own. Other areas of the Bylaws, including the
provisions for removal for failure to be "in good standing" or "automatic
termination" of Trustees for losing their certs for OT III, are so clear and
unambiguous they can easily be explained, and are all that is necessary to
explain how easy it is to dissolve these phantom boards at will, and to
reconstitute them (except the Special Directors) by anyone who can plausibly
claim to hold "the senior ecclesiastical post of this Church."
I've also written another post on that issue of the "senior ecclesiastical
post." It seems it's set up so that it can be claimed or disclaimed at will,
because it doesn't seem to exist, as such, on any documents I've seen.
Does someone (Miscavige? Starkey?) have a "signed undated" declaration of Grand
Poohbah-dom? I'm disinclined to rely on imaginary, or at least hypothetical,
documents that I haven't seen, much less to make up new ones I've never even
heard of.
Like the much-ballyhooed "signed, undated letters of resignation" it seems too
much like a cheap shuck-and-jive ruse. The Bylaws provide quite adequately to
explain the rubber-stamp nature of the Trustees and General Directors, as well
as any puppet "Officers" they appoint and dismiss.
I can't see a reliance on "signed, undated letters of resignation" as being the
primary mechanism of control, especially since the Bylaws provide "entirely
legal" methods of dissolving the Boards (other than the Special Directors) at
will.
Anyone coming in to court with nothing but "signed, undated letters of
resignation" might prove to be dreadfully disappointed if their adversary in
court were to demand testing of the ink to determine its age and then cry fraud
on the court.
ptsc
Beverly Rice
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
> >"James W. Glass" <jwgl...@home.com> wrote:
> >>Thank you for your rebuttal.
> >You're welcome. And I am calmer now. :-] (Actually, I just enjoy
> >rattling certain cages. I will herein, too.)
> >>Now one other question: Did Hubbard ever formally relinquish,
> >>transfer, or resign, his position of "Senior Ecclesiastic?"
> >I never heard of such an asinine "position" or title in anything I've
> >come in contact with that Hubbard ever wrote or spoke, and I believe he
> >would have spat on it, then hacked up a loogie, and spat on it again.
> >It's just more lawyer-manufactured crap. It's part of their fraud, which
> >I cover in more detail below on the "religiosity" data.
> The word "ecclesiastical" started cropping up more and more after the
> Missionholder Conference of 1982. That was when International Hubbard
> Ecclesiastical League of Pastors (IHELP) was founded, as well as when phrase
> like this started being tossed around. The phrase "senior ecclesiastical post"
> was first applied apparently around 1981.
Well, I don't really know anything . . .
but look to all that was involved in the reasons for the
Missionaires Fiasco, like I've mentioned before, and a key
will be found to some of what went down before.
CL, DM actually does play a larger role with things than
you may think, but DM/C$T may seem like what this is all
about . . .
but it is beyond even them.
and it is more than just Hubbard and "the tech".
Of course, I don't know anything, this is my own opinion.
A word comes to mind . . .
obnosis.
hahahahaha :-)
When one finally stops seeing another, or group, as what
they want to believe he/she/it is . . .
it's amazing what you finally begin to see of that
person/group that you wouldn't allow yourself to see
before.
A lot of times, you won't see it until the person/group
kicks you in the ass, not intending to wake you up, but
waking you up, nevertheless.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
Beverly Rice
> A recent letter purportedly from the Grant Thornton CPA office included the
> following statements on the purpose of CST:
>
> CST has two functions as follows:
>
> 1) Recording all original LRH documents to ensure their
> preservation, and;
>
> 2) To store such documents and recordings to preserve them for
> future generations.
>
> A portion of second function discussed above is of a HIGHLY
> CONFIDENTIAL nature and is only known by a select small group of
> scientologists (nor is it made known to the general public). DUE
> TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE MATTER, IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED
> IN GENERAL DURING OUR ENGAGEMENT, ASIDE FROM THE CST OFFICES.
> (November 11, 1987)
So this means, that C$T is well aware of the all of the
alterations of "The Tech" and policies and books, tapes
etc . . .
so therefore C$T approves of such alterations, correct?
Revisionism and changes for the sake of PR consumption, and
escape from responsibilities, in my opinion.
James W. Glass
1. Hubbard either believed he was coming back or concocted a Final Act in
the whole $cieno play to make it appear to $cienos that he believed he was
coming back
2. Hubbar constructed CST as answerable to and controlled by only the Senior
Ecclesiastic.
4. Hubbard, since he is coming back, remains the only and forever Senior
Ecclesiastic, the only and forever policy source, and the only and forever
control over CST.
5. When he returns, if the CST licensees have squirreled the tech, as the
only and forever Senior Ecclesiastic, he can direct his minions in CST to
revoke the licenses, terminating the squirreled religion, and Hubbard can
either start over or unsquirrel the religion via CST, revealing the
unsquirreled original materials preserved in the titanium vaults to restore
his orthodoxy.
CST is nothing more or less than Hubbard's once and forever proxy by law,
protecting the tech until he returns, with CST's legally permitted actions
constrained by law to preservation and protection of the tech (and, since
Hubbard was totally focused on money, accumulation and preservation of money
to be used by himself on his return. Look for some continuing very large
financial trust with CST as trustees.)
This is the simplest reason for CST, and doesn't depend on any other
conspiracy theories, except that Hubbard was either demented, crafty, or
both, leaving a religious [sic] mystery which can only be resolved by
himself on his return. Just like the cargo cults, the church [sic] must
wait patiently while adhering without deviation from Hubbard's tech, until
his eventual resumption of the post of Senior Ecclesiastic.
Cool and simple early 50's mystery religio-science fiction, or very cool and
simple financial rip-off by the Special Directors.
Davey remains just a business executive. He'd better hope that he ends
cylce before Hubbard returns, or he'll get his little ass kicked but good
for squirreling the tech. Better yet, maybe CST will revoke the licenses
before its too late for them too!! Right.
Jim
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message
news:iptcvt4e7rir8pffk...@4ax.com...
ptsc
>yet, the simplest analysis of the entire question of CST is:
>1. Hubbard either believed he was coming back or concocted a Final Act in
>the whole $cieno play to make it appear to $cienos that he believed he was
>coming back
>2. Hubbar constructed CST as answerable to and controlled by only the Senior
>Ecclesiastic.
"that person holding the senior ecclesiastical post in this Church."
It's actually not a quibble. The wording is very important.
ptsc
Keith Henson
(CL) wrote:
Oh, I have no problem that the legal battles happening.
>>My problem is that I understand how LRH "technology" "works."
>
>Your problem is that you're a moron.
Please consider that I liken what scientology does to dope, and the
dope trade is at least 100 times the income of scientology. I don't
have any more problem with the reality of scientology than I do of the
reality of the dope trade.
> * PLONK *
You clipped this, any reason why?
Steve Plakos
Hubbards genius was corrupted by the Fed's and their assorted
co-conspirators? The Cof$ taken over by virtue of that conspiracy and the
most valuable technology ever devised stolen away from the benefit of the
planet? Miss Cabbage has deliberately corrupted the tech and the
organization to obscure the truth while enriching those on the inside of the
conspiracy? Am I even close?
Steve
roger gonnet
"Susan" <enlighte...@cs.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
257899c6.01111...@posting.google.com...
>
> Great question. My first impression is that of
> the plight and response of the Taliban at the moment.
> To be perfectly honest, it makes me chuckle :-) although,
> desperate madmen are of course, something to be wary of.
Indeed. The more certain someone is to be always right despite the proofs he
could see, the more crazy he becomes. Sanity lies most into one's ability
top observe positive and negative effects.
ptsc
>> A portion of second function discussed above is of a HIGHLY
>> CONFIDENTIAL nature and is only known by a select small group of
>> scientologists (nor is it made known to the general public). DUE
>> TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE MATTER, IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED
>> IN GENERAL DURING OUR ENGAGEMENT, ASIDE FROM THE CST OFFICES.
>> (November 11, 1987)
>So this means, that C$T is well aware of the all of the
>alterations of "The Tech" and policies and books, tapes
>etc . . .
Of course, since they're the ones doing it.
>so therefore C$T approves of such alterations, correct?
>Revisionism and changes for the sake of PR consumption, and
>escape from responsibilities, in my opinion.
It's revision for the sake of creating a work sufficiently different from the
original that it qualifies for a new term of copyright protection.
Similar scams include the "revised" version of James Joyce's Ulysses, and
various "revised" Disney films.
Look at the front of any recent Scientology cult publication. In there you will
see that it is probably copyrighted by "L. Ron Hubbard Library." L. Ron Hubbard
Library is a fictitious name registered by the Church of Spiritual Technology,
or as I prefer to call it, the Church of Squirrel Technology.
ptsc
CL
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
X-Remailer-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net>
>Let me see I've got your position understood, you're one who believes
>Hubbards genius was corrupted by the Fed's and their assorted
>co-conspirators? The Cof$ taken over by virtue of that conspiracy and
>the most valuable technology ever devised stolen away from the benefit
>of the planet? Miss Cabbage has deliberately corrupted the tech and
>the organization to obscure the truth while enriching those on the
>inside of the conspiracy? Am I even close?
No.
CL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBO/fpGNAKsx0v8qcvEQKo4QCfR3A+MJRTxUrrRtwSwq67f+KqAFwAoNpV
K+NsSYpLnj3BLELauQbBoU3I
=Ri3/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CL
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
X-Remailer-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:58:24 GMT, Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net>
>wrote:
>
>>So this means, that C$T is well aware of the all of the
>>alterations of "The Tech" and policies and books, tapes
>>etc . . .
>
>Of course, since they're the ones doing it.
>
>>so therefore C$T approves of such alterations, correct?
>>
>>Revisionism and changes for the sake of PR consumption, and
>>escape from responsibilities, in my opinion.
>
>It's revision for the sake of creating a work sufficiently different
>from the original that it qualifies for a new term of copyright
>protection.
Scrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech! Whoa whoa whoa wait a minute, counselor.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
This is the same argument and CONCLUSION you proferred to the ARSCC
Librarian, iirc, that she spent God-knows-how-many pages documenting for
you how this whole "expired copyright " craze was raised, and by
whom--with similar absence of conclusive or pursuasive evidence,
resulting in the aborted appointment of a Special Master to find out.
>Similar scams include the "revised" version of James Joyce's Ulysses,
>and various "revised" Disney films.
Yeah, maybe (I haven't seen the actual records, but I'll stipulate it to
get where I'm going). But Joyce and Jiminy Cricket didn't have a
fraudulent "L. Ron Hubbard Library" (CST) spending hundreds of millions
to bury the works in titanium vaults, either. Nor did they have a
Starkey and a Lenske, Lenske & Heller to construct elaborate frauds and
corporations surrounding the selling of the works. Nor were they
intertwined in a dirty bed with IRS.
You made the following opening argument, above:
>It's revision for the sake of creating a work sufficiently different
>from the original that it qualifies for a new term of copyright
>protection.
You've asserted an affirmative and declarative conclusion based on NO
FACTS IN EVIDENCE to back it up!
But I can PROVE to you, by example, that your statement is false on its
face, and that it IS NOT and CANNOT be the SOLE motive for the
alterations, revisions, deletions, and wholesale squirreling that has
been documented.
Here is a perfect example: the book known informally as "Dianetics 55!"
Researching the records results in the following:
First, the original 1954 text BY LAFAYETTE RONALD HUBBARD (note that
"by" in there) that was published as the book "Dianetics '55" is found
in the Library of Congress (LoC) databases with an "RE" indicating
timely renewal 12 November 1982:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION (RENEWAL)
Registration Number: RE-144-224
Title: Dianetics, 1955. By acLafayette Ronald
Hubbard.
Claimant: L. Ron Hubbard (A)
Effective Registration Date: 12Nov82
Original Registration Date: 28Dec54;
Original Registration Number: A171677.
Original Class: A
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we find that SAME RENEWAL registration number (with a different
title, naturally, the sneaky motherfuckers) buried in the IRS-ordered
transfer of 7,731 titles from Starkey to CST on 29 November 1993:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER
LoC Volume Number: V2927
LoC Volume Page Numbers: P238 THRU 260
LoC Database: (COHD)
Date Recorded: 11/29/1993
Date Executed: 12/13/1993
Party 1 (Assignor) Norman F. Starkey, trustee, Author's
Family Trust-B
Party 2 (Assignee) Church of Spiritual Technology (Los
Angeles)
LoC Notes: Model of OT ship organization and
operation based on 7 division system &
7,730 other titles. Transfer of copyright.
FULL DOCUMENT RANGE: (In V2927 P238-724)
Titles Transferred: Dianetics 1955]
Identifying Number: RE-144-224
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, but then! THEN we find a "NEW! IMPROVED!" version of the book
"Dianetics 55!," this time with a snappy new subtitle, AND the words "L.
Ron Hubbard" IN THE TITLE (but no "by"), all the better to defraud you
with, dearie. The AUTHOR for "additional text" and "editing" is Church
of Scientology International (CSI), while Bridge Publications, Inc.
(BPI) chips in litho repro of the cover painting for this squirreled
"BOTWO" (Based On The Works Of) "Scientology religion" masterpiece:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
Registration Number: TX-2-701-402
Title: Dianetics 55] : a guide to effective
communication / L. Ron Hubbard.
Imprint: Los Angeles : Bridge Publications, c1989.
Description: 274 p.
Claimant: Norman F. Starkey, trustee of the Author's
Family Trust-B d.b.a. L. Ron Hubbard Library
Created: 1989
Published: 7May89
Registered: 5Dec89
Author on © Application: additional text, editing, compilation &
painting in cover artwork: Church of
Scientology International, employer for
hire; lithographic reproduction of painting
in cover artwork: Bridge Publications, Inc.,
employer for hire
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1982, RE144224; 1955, A171677.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "additional text, editing,
compilation, painting used for cover
artwork, lithographic reproduction of
painting used for cover artwork."
Special Codes: 1/B
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
It even references the ORIGINAL BOOK registration AND renewal numbers in
the "Previous Related Version" field.
And there are THREE transfers to CST of this schtickle drek, the first
of them from Starkey at the same time, in the same assignment
transaction, as the ORIGINAL version:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENT
LoC Volume Number: V2927
LoC Volume Page Numbers: P238 THRU 260
LoC Database: (COHD)
Date Recorded: 11/29/1993
Date Executed: 12/13/1993
Party 1 (Assignor) Norman F. Starkey, trustee, Author's Family
Trust-B
Party 2 (Assignee) Church of Spiritual Technology (Los Angeles)
LoC Notes: Model of OT ship organization and operation
based on 7 division system & 7,730 other
titles. Transfer of copyright. FULL DOCUMENT
RANGE: (In V2927 P238-724)
Titles Transferred: Dianetics 55]
Identifying Number: TX 2-701-402
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there are two, count TWO transfers referencing this same work on
the same day in 1996 to CST: one from Bridge Publications, Inc. (BPI),
one from Church of Scientology International (CSI). These have "(1989)"
after their titles:
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENT
LoC Volume Number: V3229
LoC Volume Page Numbers: P139 THRU 150
LoC Database: (COHD)
Date Recorded: 02/29/1996
Date Executed: 04/19/1996
Party 1 (Assignor) Bridge Publications, Inc.
Party 2 (Assignee) Church of Spiritual Technology
LoC Notes: The Academy lectures, level 0 & 154 other
titles; religious & fiction works. Author or
co-author: Bridge Publications, Inc., derived
from or based upon the literary works of L.
Ron Hubbard a.k.a. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard.
Copyright assignment.
Titles Transferred: Dianetics 55]
Identifying Number: TX 2-701-402 (1989)
COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENT
LoC Volume Number: V3229
LoC Volume Page Numbers: P151 THRU 163
LoC Database: (COHD)
Date Recorded: 02/27/1996
Date Executed: 04/19/1996
Party 1 (Assignor) Church of Scientology International
Party 2 (Assignee) Church of Spiritual Technology
LoC Notes: Scientology drug rundown auditor course &
1,030 other titles; religious works. Author or
co-author: Church of Scientology
International, derived from or based upon the
literary works of L. Ron Hubbard a.k.a.
Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. Copyright
assignment. FULL DOCUMENT RANGE: (In V3229
P151-220)
Titles Transferred: Dianetics 55]
Identifying Number: TX 2-701-402 (1989)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the above records are from the copyrights databases that the ARSCC
Librarian alluded to, and I ~think~ gave a url for (where you can
download them from the web), although I don't know where to find that
url right now and don't want to go looking for it. I think Ralph Hilton
is the one who have them webbed.
I haven't bothered to look up in the registrations exactly what Starkey,
CSI, and BPI were variously transferring to CST, and don't even know
what, if anything, useful it would further turn up.
But I do know that by example I have just eliminated any possibility of
"lapsed or flagging copyright" in the ORIGINAL work as being the ONLY
purported excuse for the squirreled versions. Here we have a work timely
renewed, and still a LOT of work has gone into creating a fraudulent,
altered version--complete with the words "L. Ron Hubbard" (a trademark
"owned" by RTC, by the way) entered into the title so it can be slapped
on the book covers to get the $$$$ out of the wallets of the buying
suckers.... uh, public.
So you're going to have to do better, or at least come up with
~something~ to support your claim, or it is nullified.
As for motives for the above, I make no assertions, and you can roll you
own. But the facts don't wish away, even in a Michael Reuss Crystal
Ball[TM]. (No... What is that he's always going on about? A monkey's
paw? No, no, no: it's something else... ...FLYING MONKEYS! ... No.
That's Oz. ...Well, I'll get it.)
>Look at the front of any recent Scientology cult publication. In there
>you will see that it is probably copyrighted by "L. Ron Hubbard
>Library." L. Ron Hubbard Library is a fictitious name registered by
>the Church of Spiritual Technology, or as I prefer to call it, the
>Church of Squirrel Technology.
>
>ptsc
Oh, I'll drink a toast to ~that~ with you, counselor. But it's NOT for
the reasons you made in your opening argument.
CIA!
.No no no! My key stuck: I meant to type "CIAO!"
CL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBO/lWBdAKsx0v8qcvEQKA3ACfR+dHeFBLnohSLuyDUJ788ISamsUAnR/x
4r8EwG8OK+7v7tHPxVdBtEjr
=S8bx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zinj
bst...@kudonet.com says...
> On 19 Nov 2001 20:16:24 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
> (CL) wrote:
>
> >GGW37212....@frog.gilgamesh.org>, <3BF73C5C...@concentric.net>
<snip obvious anon disclaimers>
> >Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net>
> >
> >>Let me see I've got your position understood, you're one who believes
> >>Hubbards genius was corrupted by the Fed's and their assorted
> >>co-conspirators? The Cof$ taken over by virtue of that conspiracy and
> >>the most valuable technology ever devised stolen away from the benefit
> >>of the planet? Miss Cabbage has deliberately corrupted the tech and
> >>the organization to obscure the truth while enriching those on the
> >>inside of the conspiracy? Am I even close?
> >
> >
> >No.
> >
> >
> >CL
>
> OK, then you summarize it in a short paragraph for us.
I want my own Veritas no! So, how bout *this* paragraph? :
As an intelligent person who found value in what in retrospect turned out
to be a cosmology designed to entrap my intelligence in spaghetti logic
type mind control, I prefer to deny that what was first appealing to me
turned out to be so horribly wrong because it would indicate I wasn't
nearly as intelligent as I think I am, therefore I will gladly accept any
convolutions of logic; be they world-wide conspiracy of the CIA or the
Masons or maybe Trystero, and spend my time looking for the obviously
evil geniuses who took the tech I still so desperately believe in and
must have spent billions making it look like this steaming turd we now
call Scientology.
Whew. (pardon my Joyceianism)
Not only one paragraph; one sentence.
Zinj
Steve Plakos
Zinj wrote:
That's *exactly* what I thought CL would say! :-)
Steve
Michael Reuss
>> ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
>>It's revision for the sake of creating a work sufficiently different
>>from the original that it qualifies for a new term of copyright
>>protection.
I agree that this is probably the purpose for *some* revisions of the
compilations "based" on the works of L. Ron Hubbard. There are other
reasons for changes as well. Some are probably innocent, and some more
nefarious.
Among the more innocent of motives: correcting typos.
Grammar motives: correcting Hubbard's sometimes atrocious grammar (no
big deal for me, but to a true believer, a high crime)
Squirreling the tech motives: Current management believes they can
improve on the "tech" as Hubbard spewed it, for any reason they like
(for example, maybe a certain course is too long, and they want more
people graduating sooner, so they delete segments to make it go
faster, so the mark can be "crush-sold" on the next level, sooner).
Dishonest altering of history: edits designed to protect Hubbard's
reputation from embarrassment, such as when the references to piltdown
man were removed from "History of Man" (as if that book wasn't
embarrassing enough, even without Hubbard's praise of the notorious
piltdown hoax).
Politically controlling: New Scientology policies called SPDs
(Scientology Policy Directives) which are squirrel issues on their
face to any strict constructionist Scientologist. These give
Scientologists NEW policy to follow, but the policies are not
according to Hoyle, er, I mean Hubbard.
Politically nefarious: Changes designed to confuse and obfuscate, in
order to further disenfranchising the Hubbard family, especially Mary
Sue, from making inheritance claims to the copyrighted works.
>This is the same argument and CONCLUSION you proferred to the ARSCC
>Librarian, iirc, that she spent God-knows-how-many pages documenting for
>you how this whole "expired copyright " craze was raised, and by
>whom--with similar absence of conclusive or pursuasive evidence,
>resulting in the aborted appointment of a Special Master to find out.
I'm comfortable with the ambiguity we'll probably be stuck with in
this area.
>>Similar scams include the "revised" version of James Joyce's Ulysses,
>>and various "revised" Disney films.
>Yeah, maybe (I haven't seen the actual records, but I'll stipulate it to
>get where I'm going). But Joyce and Jiminy Cricket didn't have a
>fraudulent "L. Ron Hubbard Library" (CST) spending hundreds of millions
>to bury the works in titanium vaults, either.
The "owners" of those pieces of intellectual property were trying to
do just what the CST and RTC are probably trying to do in some of the
squirrel cases. That is, they wish to extend their exclusive revenue
streams and exclusive control of IP that was about to enter the public
domain.
>Nor did they have a
>Starkey and a Lenske, Lenske & Heller to construct elaborate frauds and
>corporations surrounding the selling of the works.
Well Disney certainly has a couple of truckloads of their own crafty
IP lawyers.
>But I do know that by example I have just eliminated any possibility of
>"lapsed or flagging copyright" in the ORIGINAL work as being the ONLY
>purported excuse for the squirreled versions. Here we have a work timely
>renewed, and still a LOT of work has gone into creating a fraudulent,
>altered version--complete with the words "L. Ron Hubbard" (a trademark
>"owned" by RTC, by the way) entered into the title so it can be slapped
>on the book covers to get the $$$$ out of the wallets of the buying
>suckers.... uh, public.
I agree that there are other reasons for altering the H'spew that are
not related to making compilation type copyrights for lapsed works.
>So you're going to have to do better, or at least come up with
>~something~ to support your claim, or it is nullified.
No, it's not nullified. At least not completely. The wrapping of some
expired or invalid copyrighted LRH works into new copyrighted
compilation works is a perfectly good motive for some of the new works
that are not "By" LRH, but instead are "based" on the works of LRH.
IANAL, but from what I understand, a compilation work can only
copyright the form or sequence of the included components. It cannot,
by law, be used to change the copyrights of already copyrighted
materials and components which it includes. But the presence of *some*
form of copyright gives Moxon all he needs. He can sue people and then
try and trick the courts into believing that a copyright exists for
everything being quoted or copied.
>As for motives for the above, I make no assertions, and you can roll you
>own. But the facts don't wish away, even in a Michael Reuss Crystal
>Ball[TM].
For only $50,000(US), I will hear your questions, and look into my
M8B, which is infallible, and give you the answers you seek. ;-)
Cash, Checks, Money Orders, MC, Visa, Discover, Amex and Paypal all
gladly accepted.
>(No... What is that he's always going on about? A monkey's
>paw? No, no, no: it's something else... ...FLYING MONKEYS! ... No.
>That's Oz. ...Well, I'll get it.)
A dozen monkeys just flew out my butt, CL.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
ptsc
I'll look at these since I need to figure this out anyway, and might as well let
everyone else figure it out as well.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ22.html has information on how to
investigate the copyright status of an individual work, but every time I do
that, I shortly forget afterwards. It's no walk in the park. Here are the
basics, and it looks like this case only involves those.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html
> COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION (RENEWAL)
> Registration Number: RE-144-224
> Title: Dianetics, 1955. By acLafayette Ronald
> Hubbard.
> Claimant: L. Ron Hubbard (A)
> Effective Registration Date: 12Nov82
> Original Registration Date: 28Dec54;
> Original Registration Number: A171677.
> Original Class: A
This was registered right before 1954, and I believe before publication. On 28
Nov 1973 it would have automatically renewed, I believe, but they chose to file
a renewal anyway (which has certain advantages in litigation I'm led to
believe). If I'm correct, this would have been for a term of 47 years, meaning
that the copyright wouldn't lapse until 2029. This means that there was no
compelling reason to alter it and then file this:
> COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
> Registration Number: TX-2-701-402
> Title: Dianetics 55] : a guide to effective
> communication / L. Ron Hubbard.
> Imprint: Los Angeles : Bridge Publications, c1989.
> Description: 274 p.
> Claimant: Norman F. Starkey, trustee of the Author's
> Family Trust-B d.b.a. L. Ron Hubbard Library
> Created: 1989
> Published: 7May89
> Registered: 5Dec89
>Author on © Application: additional text, editing, compilation &
> painting in cover artwork: Church of
> Scientology International, employer for
> hire; lithographic reproduction of painting
> in cover artwork: Bridge Publications, Inc.,
> employer for hire
>Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1982, RE144224; 1955, A171677.
> Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "additional text, editing,
> compilation, painting used for cover
> artwork, lithographic reproduction of
> painting used for cover artwork."
> Special Codes: 1/B
This is also enhanced by the fact that Scientology's clown Sonny Bono extended
copyrights yet another 20 years, making the full term of copyright protection 95
years. (That is to say, they stole hundreds of billions of dollars of
intellectual property from the public domain and then promptly gave them away to
swindling, criminal intellectual property Mafias.)
ptsc
ptsc
[Dianetic 55! didn't need to be squirreled to be renewed.]
Hmm. Well, obviously there's some reason to be squirrelling these works, some
of them extensively. It appears at least in most cases I can find that there
was a healthy and even robust term of copyright remaining in the squirreled
works. (Especially so now, after the Sonny Bonehead Act robbed the public
domain of hundreds of billions of dollars in intellectual property by extending
copyrights for 20 years for no reason at all except the bribes.)
ptsc
ptsc
>The key point that seems to be missed here is that the ORIGINAL
>works (ie. the un-Squirreled versions) STILL have lost their
>copyright. It doesn't matter if there is a new (squirrel) version
>of the works with a copyright, the original works still go into the
>public domain.
Only some of them. Copyright protection has essentially been extended
indefinitely, with the bribed criminals in Congress renewing them any time they
appear to have a chance of expiring within the lifetime of anyone now living.
The last crook was Scientology's errand boy Sonny Bono.
Only a few Scientology works have lost copyright protection and of those only a
minuscule portion have been recognized legally as such. One of them is the
so-called "Manual of Justice" since it was published without copyright notice
before the law was changed so this didn't matter any more.
ptsc
A. Melon
Hash: SHA1
Brent <bst...@kudonet.com> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2001 20:16:24 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
>(CL) wrote:
>
>>Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net>
>>
>>>Let me see I've got your position understood, you're one who believes
>>>Hubbards genius was corrupted by the Fed's and their assorted
>>>co-conspirators? The Cof$ taken over by virtue of that conspiracy
>>>and the most valuable technology ever devised stolen away from the
>>>benefit of the planet? Miss Cabbage has deliberately corrupted the
>>>tech and the organization to obscure the truth while enriching those
>>>on the inside of the conspiracy? Am I even close?
>>
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>CL
>
>OK, then you summarize it in a short paragraph for us.
No.
And I'll tell you why I won't, and I hope you take no umbrage or
offense, because none is intended:
First, where does it say I'm required to have "a position"? I'm not
running for office. ("And if elected, I will not serve.") :-)
Look, if I observe the sun pass across the sky, am I required to
postulate and proclaim the existence of a god or gravity or both in
order to "explain" its passing, or do I have the freedom simply to
observe the passing of the sun across the sky, and comment on its
passing (or not) without declaring and embracing some "position" about
why and how it passed? It's a rhetorical question, because it still has
passed, whether I postulate and extemporize on the "reasons" for it
having passed or not. And I reserve and hold inviolable my right to have
or not have, state or not state a "position" on any topic, on any
subject, on any set or sub-set of data, whether anyone cares to grant me
a license or not.
You might note that I don't make a practice, myself, of demanding of
others that they state their "theory" or "position." I feel perfectly
capable of formulating my own theories or evaluations of data if and
when I feel the call, and I don't need to borrow any from anybody else.
I also respect others' ability to evaluate data for themselves, and to
draw conclusions for themselves from that data, without the "benefit" of
my own conclusions or speculations alloying the facts. I also respect
their right to put forth a theory or "position" if and when they feel
like it, or never. I don't have any compelling need to extract a
"position statement" from anyone, or to have someone else evaluate and
correlate data for me. So I have some trouble understanding why anyone
thinks they have a right to demand theories, "positions," evaluations,
or correlations from me.
They don't.
Yet there are people in this newsgroup (and elsewhere) who seem to
almost make a career of demanding "position statements" from others.
(That's not directed at you; I don't know anything about you.) I find it
amusing for several reasons.
In the first place, my own "position" on any given topic might change
minute-to-minute, depending on changing data. If I were to become so
fixated on a "position" in relation to something, that I was no longer
willing or able to change my viewpoint or "position" in relation to that
thing, that I was no longer able to impartially evaluate new data, I
don't believe that I could for very long derive any real joy or pleasure
from its pursuit. That sort of thing leads to the intellectually fatal
disease of constantly trying to bend or distort (or ignore) facts so
they will continue to fit the rigid and preconceived model. (In fact,
that's exactly what I have observed occuring in many people in this
newsgroup in relation to, e.g., the fixed and rigid--and utterly
false--"position" that David Miscavige was in complete dictatorial
control over all of Scientology. Rivers of factual, accurate, and
well-presented data have been completely sidestepped or ignored by a
majority of people posting here for several years, because their
"opinion leaders"--liars all--had told them an easy lie they wanted to
believe, and the more demanding data just didn't fit the myth.)
Sorry, that's nothing I have any interest in. I prefer the jigsaw puzzle
approach: continue to collect and organize pieces, and relish the joy
and surprise as more more and more of the picture emerges. If and when I
see a ~clear~ and functionally complete picture develop, to my
satisfaction, I have no compunctions about saying so, but I also don't
feel compelled to put forward half-baked conjecture on any subject where
I consider that there is insufficient, or possibly even false, data.
In the second place, my observation about the people who seem most
determined to drag a "theory" or "position statement" out of me is that
they are, for the most part, people who are only looking for something
they can tear down, belittle, invalidate, make nothing of. When I simply
chronicle a series of "sun passed through the sky" observations on
documented and incontrovertible facts, it seems to nearly drive them to
a frenzy. They can be predicted as reliably as the sun passing across
the sky to utterly ignore and avoid the presented facts, because they
have no way of tearing the facts down. They generally just <snip> away
all the facts, and use the excuse of my post only as a springboard into
one of their own rambling and raving diatribes that is UTTERLY DEVOID of
a SINGLE fact. And they can be predicted just as reliably to manufacture
their OWN snickering and intentionally-flawed theory, and then try to
pin THAT to ME, for no other reason than so they can have something and
someONE to ridicule, partially in order to distract attention away from
the facts, which they cannot debate or negate.
In fact, that basic mechanism is ~exactly~ how so many informative,
well-conceived, well-constructed messages in this newsgroup degenerate
as threads, just the way this thread has--which started out as an
exceptional collection of facts and analysis by ptsc. Now it's "CL: You
Are Hereby Ordered to State Your Position." The vultures--who have
nothing substantive or productive to contribute--have congregated to
smother the pertinent facts and useful analysis with vulture dung.
It's downright funny, but far more funny-pathetic than funny-ha-ha.
In the third place, I feel that the matters that I choose to discuss and
research regarding Scientology are far too complex, and embrace ~far~
too much data, and are still ~missing~ far too many pieces, for me to
even consider being so presumptuous as to attempt some pompous, all
encompassing one-paragraph "theory" or "position statement" that would
pretend to embrace and "explain" it all. It's ludicrous.
I'm perfectly content to keep seeking and collecting pieces of the
puzzle, and whenever I find a new one, or suddenly see that one has a
heretofore unseen relationship to another (Hey, these two pieces FIT!),
I try to make it known. And if it reveals a polar bear claw when I
thought we were doing a desert puzzle--well, there's a polar bear claw,
isn't there? That doesn't mean I'm now ready to declare that the entire
puzzle will reveal penguins and vast expanses of ice: for all I know,
that polar bear is standing in front of a taxidermist's shack in the
desert. All I know is that it's a polar bear claw. And that's what I
say. And it sends some people clawing up their walls, for some reason.
Frequently, in evaluating a large and complex set of data, it's entirely
necessary to break down and compartment that data into subsets, and
resolve the subsets separately and individually. (In the subject to
hand, the trademarks, copyrights, IRS issues, actual corporate
relationships, government connections, e.g.--all these have had to be
segregated to a greater or lesser degree and analyzed separately because
of the enormous amount of data inherent in each.) Those subsets
potentially will interconnect to form a larger whole, but they also have
the potential to connect elsewhere, sometimes in surprising ways, or to
prove not to connect in any meaningful way at all.
That's why when I see a record of CIA contract, I do something really
annoying to some people: I point out that there was a CIA contract.
Automatically, at that point, for some reason, to some people, I am
expected to either immediately levitate an ashtray, or to retract my
statement that there was a CIA contract, or to forthwith and immediately
state my "theory." Why? I don't know. But to some minds that apparently
makes some kind of sense. Pity.
Meanwhile, I do and will go right on methodically collecting facts, and
organizing them, and analyzing them to the best of my ability where
analysis seems sensible, and asking questions of people who pretend to
know or should know the answers to those questions, and trying the best
I can to increase knowledge rather than reduce it or belittle it or
ridicule it. And I take great joy in sharing any knowledge I gain with
others, and receiving theirs, and even entertaining or discussing their
"positions" or "theories" when and if ~they~ feel like putting one
forward.
And when and if ~I~ ever feel like putting one forward, I won't be shy
or coy about it. Trust me.
CL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBO/oGFdAKsx0v8qcvEQKSbgCePcBzCAnkUuixORcre4TPtHvzKfMAoIqM
M45SjaqGDCFlcBjmC87YGHzF
=PEK9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jason SMiLeY Reynolds
Where the truth comes from!
www.scientology.org
A wonderful
site about a true hero, that I encourage all to visit.
www.lronhubbard.org
The Good Book
www.dianetics.org
ptsc
wrote:
>In the first place, my own "position" on any given topic might change
>minute-to-minute, depending on changing data. If I were to become so
>fixated on a "position" in relation to something, that I was no longer
>willing or able to change my viewpoint or "position" in relation to that
>thing, that I was no longer able to impartially evaluate new data, I
>don't believe that I could for very long derive any real joy or pleasure
>from its pursuit. That sort of thing leads to the intellectually fatal
>disease of constantly trying to bend or distort (or ignore) facts so
>they will continue to fit the rigid and preconceived model. (In fact,
>that's exactly what I have observed occuring in many people in this
>newsgroup in relation to, e.g., the fixed and rigid--and utterly
>false--"position" that David Miscavige was in complete dictatorial
>control over all of Scientology. Rivers of factual, accurate, and
>well-presented data have been completely sidestepped or ignored by a
>majority of people posting here for several years, because their
>"opinion leaders"--liars all--had told them an easy lie they wanted to
>believe, and the more demanding data just didn't fit the myth.)
This is interesting, because you go right from refusing to state a position to
an adamant and unyielding opinion that David Miscavige is NOT in control of
Scientology, or at least not in "complete dictatorial control."
If he is, indeed, entirely a puppet, one would expect to see the strings.
ptsc
CL
Hash: SHA1
ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
>This is interesting, because you go right from refusing to state a
>position to an adamant and unyielding opinion that David Miscavige is
>NOT in control of Scientology, or at least not in "complete dictatorial
>control."
What utter disengenuous horseshit.
~That~ position was inherent in the very first post I ever made in
a.r.s., and was one I had arrived at long before that post, based on the
EXTENSIVE research I had done over the course of several years into
FACTS vs. ASSERTIONS. I've already been through all this with you.
I have never been coy or shy about that position, either. It is well
supported by countless facts that I have posted repeatedly in this
newsgroup, and I don't intend to reproduce it all here because Google
has done the job better, and you have access to it.
And yes, I ~have~ always been adament about ~that~ position, AND about
the "rivers of evidence" I alluded to that support the position; but I
have never been "unyielding" on it, and when you say so you misrepresent
the truth. What's to yield to? The well-supported truth is that I have
~actively~ been seeking one, even ONE, tangible fact to support the
rampant CLAIMS of DM's "complete dictatorial control" that saturated the
literature.
In fact, the entire purpose of my VERY FIRST POST was to ask Gerry
Armstrong for that EXACT type of evidence. He still hasn't answered the
questions. Then I asked Stacy Young for the same thing. Flatline. And
I've been asking ever since, and the best ANYBODY has come up with is
that Miscavige has somehow done it all with "undated letters of
resignation." (Give me a minute to pick myself up off the floor.)
No, I haven't changed my position on THAT, and I won't until I see some
EVIDENCE, not just more blowhard anecdotal propaganda that is completely
unsupported by ANY of the numerous legal documents and incontrovertible
facts. So WTF is your point?
>If he is, indeed, entirely a puppet, one would expect to see the
>strings.
What a crock, Rob. See if you can follow this string:
"I have transferred my religious trademarks to the Religious
Technology Center, but I RETAIN FULL OWNERSHIP OF ANY
COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS OF THE MARKS as well as full
ownership of all my copyrights and patent rights, none of
which have been transferred. Contrary to the uninformed
allegations of the petition, MY TRADEMARK TRANSFER INVOLVED
NO MONETARY LOSS."
L. Ron Hubbard [purportedly]
15 May 1983 court-filed Declaration
"It is my intention to dispose of all property, whether real,
personal or mixed, of whatsoever kind and
character...including but not limited to the following:
"(a) My entire right, title, and interest in and to my
name, voice, signature, photograph and likeness, together
with any photograph and likeness, together with any
trademarks and servicemarks composed of and/or utilizing same
and all registrations and application for registration of
such trademarks and service marks.
"...(f) All property over which I may have any power of
appointment by Will;
"...I have this day previously established the AUTHOR'S
FAMILY TRUST-B...of which I am the Trustor and NORMAN F.
STARKEY is the Trustee.
"...I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and
remainder of my estate, whether real, personal or
mixed...including but not limited to the following:
"(a) My entire right, title, and interest in and to my
name, voice, signature, photograph and likeness, together
with any trademarks and service marks composed of and/or
utilizing same and all registrations and application for
registration of such trademarks and service marks;
"...(f) All property over which I may have any power of
appointment by Will;
"...to the then-acting Trustee, or Trustees, under the
AUTHOR'S FAMILY TRUST-B, earlier established this day by
written agreement bearing the date of this WILL."
L. Ron Hubbard [purportedly]
Will of 23 January 1986
"6. Norman F. Starkey, as Trustee of Author's Family Trust B,
shall, no later than December 31, 1993, effectuate the
transfer of substantially all of the corpus and income in
Author's Family Trust B...as permitted under the will of L. Ron
Hubbard to the Church of Spiritual Technology ("CST") without
consideration."
Internal Revenue Service
Closing Agreement of 1 October 1993
"LRH gave CST two options over the marks and technology which
he had given to RTC. The first option is to take control of
the trademarks on published LRH works and the insignia of
various organizations. The second option is over the Advanced
Technology. CST has the option, exercisable at its sole
discretion, to take over use and authority of the marks from
RTC... The CST bequest included the copyrights to LRH's
Scientology works... CST not only is positioned to support
BPI's for-profit activities by furnishing authentic copies
of archived materials, it stands to receive royalties from
the for-profit publishing companies, and, if it exercises its
options over RTC, will receive royalties from use of the
advanced technology. ...[I]f CST exercises its option over
RTC, it would be able to control those marks as well, thereby
completing its ownership of the publishing rights, the
advanced technology, and the marks."
Judge Eric G. Bruggink
United States Claims Court No. 581-88T
Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States
The entire purpose of the very extensive fraud and propaganda of
Miscavige's alleged "complete dictatorial control" has been to ~hide~
those very strings. But the evidence of that very fraud, and the proof
of the lies told by the chief promoters of it (CSI, RTC, IRS, Armstrong,
Sullivan, the Youngs, et al.), and the solid legal evidence of the very
strings you pretend not see has been dug up, exposed, and has grown to
flood proportions. And you've not only seen the evidence of the strings,
you've cited it in some of your own posts.
Maybe you ought to figure out for yourself what your ~own~ position is.
Mine has been made crystal clear and unequivocal on ~this~ point. It's
conclusive and incontrovertible as far as I'm concerned. In fact,
there's nothing BUT strings attached to Miscavige by CST, strings like
titanium hausers. Every single legal document available is a massive,
"sole discretion" string, and NONE of the "sole discretion" is on
Miscavige's end--it's all in the hands of the puppeteers at CST. THAT'S
my position on THAT. And ~you~ certainly haven't produced any evidence
to cause me to reconsider it. Yet I would if you did.
CL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBO/r/wtAKsx0v8qcvEQJ/rQCg5IAZrs8Ump9/RoWixFhPZdIOdS8AnjRJ
U/r1o+/Yow40HHXXo8XuVxrp
=NsUs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jason SMiLeY Reynolds
ptsc
[Re (*)]
>In fact, the entire purpose of my VERY FIRST POST was to ask Gerry
>Armstrong for that EXACT type of evidence. He still hasn't answered the
>questions. Then I asked Stacy Young for the same thing. Flatline. And
>I've been asking ever since, and the best ANYBODY has come up with is
>that Miscavige has somehow done it all with "undated letters of
>resignation." (Give me a minute to pick myself up off the floor.)
While it isn't really necessary to go into the weaknesses of "signed, undated
letters of resignation," the theory has several. One of these is that even if
an "executive" who has one of these is willing to go through with that farce,
obviously the executive in question isn't in charge anyway. Another is that
they're quite simply not necessary. The By-Laws of CST essentially makes
getting rid of Directors who aren't Special enough on a variety of trumped-up
offenses easy. The only persons who could override the Special Directors would
be a packed house of dittohead Trustees and General Directors unanimously
overriding a veto. The Trustees replace General Directors essentially at will,
so the power would be on the Board of Trustees and in the Special Directors
unless overridden. David Miscavige *was* and perhaps *is* on that Board of
Trustees.
As for the "doomsday clause" involving the "holder of the senior ecclesiastical
post of THIS Church," since there are no ecclesiastical posts listed, one
assumes such a post can be mocked up at will. Or, conceivably, unmocked.
That person could, or could not be, David Miscavige, but Miscavige has sworn
under oath NOT to be the "ecclesiastical leader" of the "Church" itself, but of
the "religion." (What does that mean exactly? Obviously it doesn't mean
nothing.)
>No, I haven't changed my position on THAT, and I won't until I see some
>EVIDENCE, not just more blowhard anecdotal propaganda that is completely
>unsupported by ANY of the numerous legal documents and incontrovertible
>facts. So WTF is your point?
Miscavige is certainly on the list of usual suspects.
>>If he is, indeed, entirely a puppet, one would expect to see the
>>strings.
>What a crock, Rob. See if you can follow this string:
> "I have transferred my religious trademarks to the Religious
> Technology Center, but I RETAIN FULL OWNERSHIP OF ANY
> COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS OF THE MARKS as well as full
> ownership of all my copyrights and patent rights, none of
> which have been transferred. Contrary to the uninformed
> allegations of the petition, MY TRADEMARK TRANSFER INVOLVED
> NO MONETARY LOSS."
> L. Ron Hubbard [purportedly]
> 15 May 1983 court-filed Declaration
Interestingly, RTC claimed otherwise to the IRS Appeals Branch.
" The Supplemental submission erroeously states in several
places that Mr. Hubbard retained a right of reversion in the
Advanced Technology. These statements were based on an
assignment agreement Mr. Hubbard proposed to enter into with
Religious Technology Center ("RTC") on May 10, 1982, the date
he granted CST the option to the Advanced Technology.
Paragraph 3 of this proposed assignment agreement provides that
Mr. Hubbard or his heirs, successors or assigns had a right of
reversion with respect to the Advced Technology Mr. Hubbard
assigned to RTC if RTC fails to obtain tax-exempt status under
section 501(c)(3). A copy of this proposed assignment
agreement was attached to CST's option agreement, which was
submitted in the record of this determination proceeding.
" In fact, Mr. Hubbard and RTC did not execute the
proposed agreement. In the actual assignment agreement, which
Mr. Hubbard and RTC executed on May 16, 1982, Mr. Hubbard
retained only a limited power of appointment over the Advanced
Technology. Paragraph 4 of the actual agreement provides that
if RTC does not obtain recognition of its exemption under
section 501(c)(3), it must transfer its rights to the Advanced
Technology "to another Scientology entity having such
tax-exempt status" as designated by Mr. Hubbard or his heirs,
successors or assigns.
" Thus, Mr. Hubbard did not retain a right of reversion
in the Advanced Technology; he retained only a limited power to
designate a section 501(c)(3) organization to receive RTC's
rights in the event RTC does not obtain tax-exempt status."
Someone was lying (what a surprise). Whether it was L. Ron Hubbard (or whoever
was signing L. Ron Hubbard's correspondence at this time), or the writer of this
letter.
Why, who wrote these lies? Lie-Man Spurlock!
" Reverend Lyman Spurlock
President"
(Letter to Mr. Marvin Friedlander, Internal Revenue Service, May 21, 1987)
Incidentally, the attached Assignment Agreement both confirms the original
Hubbard letter as well as Lie-Man's seemingly contradictory statements:
" Subject to the reservation of rights in Paragraph 3 here?
the option in Paragraph 4, and the transfer if tax exempt status ?
obtained in Paragraph 5, LRH hereby assigns to RTC all of his rights ?
title and interest in and to all oral and written licenses
which LRH has granted to others to use any of the marks in any
country on this planet, including the right to supervise and
control all licensed users, and to terminate all uses that are
not in accordance with the Scientology Scriptures. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, expressly excluded
from this grant are certain licenses between LRH and AOSH DK
Publications Department A/S of Copenhagen, Denmark, now known
as New Era Publications (hereinafter referred to as "NEP")
pursuant to which LRH has authorized NEP to use some of the
Marks on certain products, including products in the cate-
gories identified in Paragraph 3b, hereof. LRH retains the
right to maintain these agreements and other agreements of
this kind in effect, subject to the limitations that are
provided by this agreement."
So in other words, L. Ron Hubbard gave away his rights and "donated" them to his
Church. . .while at the same time keeping them.
Someone was doing magic here, and it sure wasn't David Copperfield.
The notary signatures on this are also interesting:
David Miscavige and Bev Mustard. DM is if nothing else, ubiquitous.
(Incidentally, this would be yet another entry in the notary logs which
DM has steadfastly refused to produce in court.)
Most of this had already been disposed of prior to the (alleged) 1986 Will,
which if I've read correctly has "signatures" of LRH that were at best shaky, as
he was on his deathbed after a stroke that caused significant brain damage.
However, the Bylaws of CST place great power in the Board of Trustees. David
Miscavige is, indeed, on that Board, and therefore can't be excluded from
consideration as a power in the Church.
He can, presumably, be eliminated and/or replaced, but only by some numinous
entity called the "holder of the senior ecclesiastical post." Who can claim
such a title?
>Maybe you ought to figure out for yourself what your ~own~ position is.
>Mine has been made crystal clear and unequivocal on ~this~ point. It's
>conclusive and incontrovertible as far as I'm concerned. In fact,
>there's nothing BUT strings attached to Miscavige by CST, strings like
>titanium hausers. Every single legal document available is a massive,
>"sole discretion" string, and NONE of the "sole discretion" is on
>Miscavige's end--it's all in the hands of the puppeteers at CST. THAT'S
>my position on THAT. And ~you~ certainly haven't produced any evidence
>to cause me to reconsider it. Yet I would if you did.
My "position" is far from crystal clear, but it doesn't involve eliminating one
of the main suspects before the trial has even started. It seems in many of the
most critical crime scenes here, one finds the fingerprints of David Miscavige
(or at least his naughty little notary seal). Then you have mysterious little
details like L. Ron Hubbard "donating" his trademarks to CST (while mysteriously
simultaneously keeping them), "business agreements" between Norman F. Starkey
and HIMSELF, disappearing Karnos, freak will revisions just prior to death, and
the sudden appearance of Lawrence Heller at the Missionholders Conference,
following which the Watchdog Committee went ecclesiastical on our asses.
(Speaking of which, the root of the squirreling may be a July 7, 1982
"Scientology Policy Directive," SPD 19, "The Integrity of Source," which states,
among other things:
"No one except LRH can revise his issues whereby changes are
incorporated into the text and then reissued. Any valid revisions
must hereafter be made in a separate issue stating the change and how
the revision is to be read. It must also state why the change is
being effected, for example, if there has been an ecclesiastical
change or a technical development."
(Signed by The Watchdog Committee. . .ruff ruff. Nary an L. Ron in sight.
In this SPD, the WDC effectively declares themselves Source.)
It also states that when these revisions are to be done, the original LRH issue
will remain unchanged. However, it will simply be ignored and cast aside.
The amazing hoot is the conclusion:
"This policy will allow the integrity of Source to be reinstated."
Hoo-haw. Those puppies had a sense of humor, indeed.
>CL
ptsc
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
Brent <bst...@kudonet.com> wrote:
No.
They don't.
In the first place, my own "position" on any given topic might change
minute-to-minute, depending on changing data. If I were to become so
fixated on a "position" in relation to something, that I was no longer
willing or able to change my viewpoint or "position" in relation to that
thing, that I was no longer able to impartially evaluate new data, I
don't believe that I could for very long derive any real joy or pleasure
from its pursuit. That sort of thing leads to the intellectually fatal
disease of constantly trying to bend or distort (or ignore) facts so
they will continue to fit the rigid and preconceived model. (In fact,
that's exactly what I have observed occuring in many people in this
newsgroup in relation to, e.g., the fixed and rigid--and utterly
false--"position" that David Miscavige was in complete dictatorial
control over all of Scientology. Rivers of factual, accurate, and
well-presented data have been completely sidestepped or ignored by a
majority of people posting here for several years, because their
"opinion leaders"--liars all--had told them an easy lie they wanted to
believe, and the more demanding data just didn't fit the myth.)
Sorry, that's nothing I have any interest in. I prefer the jigsaw puzzle
CL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBO/oGFdAKsx0v8qcvEQKSbgCePcBzCAnkUuixORcre4TPtHvzKfMAoIqM
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>L. Ron Hubbard
>Where the truth comes from!www.scientology.orgA wonderful
>site about a true hero, that I encourage all to visit.
>www.lronhubbard.orgThe Good Bookwww.dianetics.org
I can't seem to find anything about Xenu on any of those web sites.
Could you offer a URL which discusses Xenu, body thetans, and the
Marcabs from outerspace, please?
Thanks!
-- You love drugs! You love drugs, don't you?! You better
not say anything about my mother! Don't you DARE say anything
about my mother! -- Scientology's International President (Audio
files of this nutter at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice
"What is the name of scientology's secret books?" -- a.r.s. query
"Mein Kampf." -- David Rice
Beverly Rice
> ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
> >This is interesting, because you go right from refusing to state a
> >position to an adamant and unyielding opinion that David Miscavige is
> >NOT in control of Scientology, or at least not in "complete dictatorial
> And yes, I ~have~ always been adamant about ~that~ position, AND about
> the "rivers of evidence" I alluded to that support the position; but I
> have never been "unyielding" on it, and when you say so you misrepresent
> the truth. What's to yield to? The well-supported truth is that I have
> ~actively~ been seeking one, even ONE, tangible fact to support the
> rampant CLAIMS of DM's "complete dictatorial control" that saturated the
> literature.
Well, you are getting new light shed in your quest now . . .
and that ~is~ what it is all about, is it not?
You may or may not like what is being brought forth by others, just
as others here may or may not like what you have to bring forth.
The less ~emotive~ the data being brought forth is, the more effect
it has, in my own personal opinion.
I don't care about personalities, personally, because they are worthless
. . .
people can pretend to be something or care about something that is not
really true to them or about them quite easily if it forwards their own
agenda . . .
all I care about is finding out the truth, whether it is what I expected
or not, (and believe me, a lot of times the truth about certain things
is surely not what I expected) . . .
because all I really care about, as stated so many times, is the
copyright
issue that permits the fraud and abuse of CO$ to continue.
I believe that once the copyright issue is out of the way and the
real teachings and policies of HubTOAD, priorly available to
be kept secret so that the Co$ can continue their fraud is finally
expunged, . . .
a large portion of the abuse and fraud will be swept away because
the facts will be out there and the fraud impossible to continue, and
therefore the abuse and harassment and criminality done in order to
continue to keep it hidden will be a moot issue . . .
since what they are trying so hard to hide will be exposed.
I realize that the "conspiracies" contribute to this fact, so leave that
to you guys.
Here is my very basic and simple take on the entire thing . . .
Miscaviage is directly responsible for the lies and abuse no matter
what may come of who runs the show . . .
C$T is directly responsible for the lies and abuse no matter what
may come of who runs the show.
Each person in a position of any type of authority in C$T cannot claim
ignorance, and Miscaviage cannot claim ignorance.
I state this for a purpose . . .
Because some conspiracy theories state the possibility that . . .
1. Critics attack DM as being in control as a distraction from the fact
that it is C$T in control, so that DM will take the fall and C$T be
exonterated should it ever come to that . . .
or . . .
2. Veritas, you and others attacking C$T as being the ones that are in
control are a distraction from the fact that it is DM that is in
control,
so that C$T can take the fall and DM can be exonerated should it
ever come to that.
Like it is a game.
Personally, I am sick of the games from all sides . . .
those considered "good", and those considered "bad" . . .
My theory is far simpler . . .
They are ~ALL~ EF'in responsible . . .
but I realize the "prove it legally" thing comes in to play because
truth in the courts of the "Justice System Of America" <spit!!> means
nothing other than who has the most money and ability to manipulate
matters to have the outcome that is not factual, but is simply most
pliable.
> In fact, the entire purpose of my VERY FIRST POST was to ask Gerry
> Armstrong for that EXACT type of evidence. He still hasn't answered the
> questions. Then I asked Stacy Young for the same thing. Flatline. And
> I've been asking ever since, and the best ANYBODY has come up with is
> that Miscavige has somehow done it all with "undated letters of
> resignation." (Give me a minute to pick myself up off the floor.)
Okay, you state that you came in here looking for answers, and I believe
you . . .
~NOW~ . . .
but that didn't really fly back then when you first appeared because
you came in here seeming more like your purpose was simply making
outlandish accusations than really looking for answers.
Read that paragraph one more time before you go on, please, and
absorb what I'm trying to say, if for no other reason than I tell you
it is important to me.
Now, despite what some may say here about Co$'ers and others not
questioning Hubbard . . .
There ~are~ some, shall we say . . .
"Sacred COW's" of ars that are not allowed to questioned or attacked
without throwing up alarm bells,
and I will say this again for you to just kind of think back and
remember,
because a lot can be learned from hindsight and mistakes to gain wisdom
. . .
You did come in here originally appearing that you just were wanting
to bust balls rather than really get answers.
I am glad, however, that you are ~some~what toning down and getting
a bit more in tune with what you have to say (at least a little, but
every
little bit ~is~ progress, you do seem so grumpy at times, you know <g>)
. . .
And that you have brought others into the discussion who have brought
a great deal of insight, perspective, and new ways of looking at things,
and sorting through the multitudes of bullsh*t that
C$T/Co$/RTC/Miscavige
have managed to pile sky high . . .
> No, I haven't changed my position on THAT, and I won't until I see some
> EVIDENCE, not just more blowhard anecdotal propaganda that is completely
> unsupported by ANY of the numerous legal documents and incontrovertible
>facts. So WTF is your point?
Spazzing again here, CL? Take deep breaths. This has been a long time
in the making . . .
We both know (as well as a few others remaining silent) that this goes
back prior to establishment of C$T . . .
And is very complicated and lots of parties involved in the game, and
OH what a GAME it is, yes? :-)
Don't get frustrated, don't get your panties (or jockeys) in a snit,
just
keep plugging away, and you may finally get some answers you have
been looking for that you knew existed . . .
and some you didn't . . .
~soon~. :-)
> >If he is, indeed, entirely a puppet, one would expect to see the
> >strings.
> Maybe you ought to figure out for yourself what your ~own~ position is.
> Mine has been made crystal clear and unequivocal on ~this~ point. It's
> conclusive and incontrovertible as far as I'm concerned. In fact,
> there's nothing BUT strings attached to Miscavige by CST,
Okay, take a deep breath here, and realize that strings can be pulled
~BOTH~ ways.
Who is the puppet, and who is the puppeteer?
Hmmmm. Ever occur to you that it could be symbiotic?
Hey . . .
Ever occur to you that maybe they are all being controlled by some
unknown party so far kept discreetly out of the picture?
Or again, a party that was involved in the past, but now has no
more interest, other than hiding prior involvement, and has let a
monstrosity of insanity go unchecked for other reasons?
Or it could be something just as basic as self-interest on both sides.
But again, I just really don't know anything, darn it!! My out is that
I am just blathering because it is so much fun to blather with you.
:-)
> strings like
> titanium hausers. Every single legal document available is a massive,
> "sole discretion" string, and NONE of the "sole discretion" is on
> Miscavige's end--it's all in the hands of the puppeteers at CST. THAT'S
> my position on THAT. And ~you~ certainly haven't produced any evidence
> to cause me to reconsider it. Yet I would if you did.
Well, I think that a lot more "beef" is being added to this stew.
I thank you for sparking interest in it and bringing in more chefs.
And that ~ROB~!!! Now he is one heck of a nice addition in the
kitchen here, is he not? You may not like the "spices" he is adding
to the stew . . . but the truth is what we are after here, after all.
BTW, you are ~not~ the only one I have heard mention the magic
letters, C I A . . .
But then again . . .
Maybe you being left to look like a nut for bringing it up is a
desirable effect . . .
As well as, oh . . .
Nevermind. I am so far out of my league here it is not even funny. :-(
Just stirring the pot, that's all . . .
Just stirring the pot.
Michael Reuss
>If you and Michael Reuss could ever get through your Cro-Magnon skulls
Oh, how rude! We don't like to be called Cro-Magnons anymore. We
prefer to be called "otherly skulled, pre-Americans." ;-)
>that I don't give a happy flying fuck about the remarkableness or
>unremarkableness of ~either~ remote viewing ~or~ floating ashtrays ~or~
>firewalkers ~or~ crystal balls, and take your vapid metaphysical musings
>over to alt.paranormal where they belong
I keep asking you straight out, yet you continue to refuse to answer
my question.
Is it your theory that the motives of the CST special directors in
controlling Scientology, is really to control the all-valuable,
stolen, Hubbardspew, so that the CIA can have the only OT supermen in
the country?
That's a yes/no question. I'd like a yes or no answer. Then we'll all
be able to judge whether you do or do not give a flying fuck about the
issue of magical metaphysics.
>then it would free up
>bandwidth for people with enough intelligence and discernment to at
>least be able to recognize what was being discussed: the material,
>provable historical facts of what actually, IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, took
>place vis a vis SCIENTOLOGY (the topic of this newsgroup) and its
>principals and organizations, and the federal government that first
>granted, then revoked, then granted it tax exemption. All of which goes
>directly to the subject of this thread, "Who Controls the CST."
I am talking about who controls the CST. I'm advancing the theory that
it's the Poodleboy, David Miscavige (*). And I can't very well be
correct, if YOU'RE theory that the special directors of the CST are in
charge, is correct. So, I'm just discussing the dependencies of your
theory, so that we can all understand them better, and so that I can
invalidate your theory, so that my theory will carry the day.
And if you cannot demonstrate that there is a real motive for the
secretive special directors to behave as you imply, then I'm just
saying you have some additional 'splainin' to do.
I think the notion that the CST special directors are just the paid
legal mercenary whores of David Miscavige is a perfectly good
explanation for the verbiage in the CST articles. And that the general
directors could all very well be brainwashed, obedient yes-men, who
cower at the feet of the COB, and who could be coerced by the Poodle
(*) to vote unanimously against the special directors, should that
need ever arise, which, if my theory is correct, would seldom, or
never happen.
>If either of you could ever get off of your carousel-horses of "you have
>to prove metaphysics are real before any history happened" long enough
>to even be able to SEE a real physical world where real, physical world
>CIA contracts were written and signed by real, physical world
>individuals
Great. To you, "money spent" = "proof that magic happens."
>and where real Federal Reserve tax dollars changed hands to
>pay for stolen property
In this instance (the Stanford, Ingo Swann, Hal Puthoff psi tests) our
tax dollars paid for a research program that proved <ChrisFarley> JACK
SQUAT! </ChrisFarley>. No less an authority than Hal Puthoff admits
this very thing.
But does that admission persuade CL? Oh no, not in the least. To CL,
this statement by Puthoff is just interpreted as "proof" that Puthoff
is just another of the lying conspirators, seeking to spirit away the
invaluable Hubbardspew, on behalf of the gummint, forever to be hidden
from you and me, like Arc of the Covenant in the big warehouse at the
end of those Indiana Jones movies...
>and where a real former IRS official fattened
>his wallet with Scientology money to set up a real, physical universe
>corporation with real corporate papers and corporate laws that entire
>state government agencies are set up to ENFORCE, a corporation that has
>real, physical world titanium holes in the physical world ground
Money changing hands is not proof of anything (except that people,
especially lawyers, want and like money). The non-Scientology lawyers
who have helped prosecute the cases against Erlich, Wollershiem, Ward,
Penny, Henson, Spaink, Minton, et.al. have also fattened their wallets
with Scientology money. Money doesn't prove anything about the tech,
CL.
True believers who have been willing monetary victims of this
insidious scam for decades, in spite of the fact that no one has ever
turned into a psi-superman.
>, there might be some hope of having a discussion.
A better discussion might very well happen when you start explaining
your WHOLE theory, instead of just bits of it. A good discussion might
happen when you stop getting angry at us because, in the absence of
your full honesty, we are forced to make educated guesses at what
you're really saying.
>But there isn't; you are both loons off in some la-la land deluding
>yourselves that you can order me to prove to you that Scientology works:
That's crap. I'm not ordering you to do anything. I'm not even
"ordering" you to tell me your entire theory. But I am saying that
your continued reticence at doing so is frustrating to me, and I HOPE,
I ask, I BEG you to just lay all your goddammed cards on the table,
instead of playing your stupid "mine is the only possible way to
interpret the data" game.
>otherwise, history didn't happen.
That's just your angry and emotional projection onto what I'm saying,
CL.
Clearly, history has happened. Unfortunately, neither of us is privy
to the juiciest parts of that history that we're discussing here,
agreed?
And that's why we're discussing. You and I interpret the limited
evidence in vastly different ways. Your way depends on a theory that
presumes metaphysical feats of magic happen, and are therefore the
motive for all sorts of nefarious governmental conspiracies.
My way presumes that no metaphysical feats of magic are happening, or
have ever happened, and all the money the CIA gave to Ingo and Hal was
just money thrown down a rat hole. It certainly wouldn't be the first
time the gummint blew our tax money on stupid experiment.
>Then, while tippy-toeing around the facts like they were land mines,
I fear no facts. I'm only saying that you are interpreting the facts
badly. And you're saying the same thing about me. But of the two of
us, at least I am trying to disclose all of my thought processes and
reasoning.
>you insist that ~I~ should believe in
>the same halucinatory fairy tale that you got suckered into by your
>lying, criminal heroes:
I really don't give a crap what you believe. We're playing to the
audience, here.
>that a wet-behind-the-ears high-school drop-out
>out-smarted and out-bullied some of the highest-paid tax attorneys in
>the land,
Fuck no, that's not what I'm saying at all. A high-school drop-out
didn't outsmart that attorneys. He hired them. He bought them. They
set up the shells to be exactly what he paid them for.
>the entire IRS, the entire Justice Department, and the entire
>FBI, and did it all with undated letters of resignation.
I'm not relying solely on undated letters of resignation to control,
and we're not talking about strong-willed skeptics, here, in any case.
I believe that if there are current trustees, other than Miscavige,
that undated resignation letters probably exist. If so, I think such
letters do exert some level of control over people who signed them,
just as the fear of the immoral and legally invalid free-loader debt
controls Sea Org members. But we're talking about a group of people
who (if there even is a general board of directors in existence) that
are already well brainwashed to obey, and not question the authority
of the man who is I/C.
>Fuck you, moron, and the carousel horse you ride round and round on.
I'm detecting a little hostility here. HEY you suppose I'm a psychic?!
>You're both too stupid to even understand what the topic of
>discussion is. So just keep riding your merry-go-round. Watch out
>for floating ashtrays, and don't sign any undated letters of
>resignation.
My, my, what easily pressed buttons you have. If Scientology tech
works so well, as you continually imply, why are you so reactive? Or,
perhaps you just need a little refresh on your TRs? You get so hung up
on my little ridiculing taunts , you always miss the big picture.
Scientologists believe they are serving David Miscavige. That means
that, for all intents and purposes, they ARE serving him. He can order
them about, make them fear, declare them, kick them out. That means he
has all the tools he needs to browbeat an unanimous decision he needs
from a general board of directors. But he probably doesn't ever have
to do that. Because all the trustee and director shit is just a scam.
David Miscavige probably paid these legal whores to create those very
articles, and probably pays them handsomely to maintain the illusion
that there are "boards of directors" and "trustees" minding the CST
store.
>>With that said, I also don't have any problem believing the US
>>government would rip off valuable technology.
No, me either. I just don't believe that the Hubbardspew[tm] Brand[tm]
Dreknology[tm] has any value in the area that CL implies, that of
creating superhuman remote-viewing, psi-spooks.
CL, do you have a problem with the idea that some government research
money is spent badly?
Have you heard of the experiment done at an agricultural research
university some years back, in which a woman "scientist" tested the
tendencies of female sheep toward lesbianism? Her conclusion was that,
because when female sheep signal their receptivity to having sex, they
stand still to await being mounted. So, in this researcher's
judgement, there could very well be lots of lesbian sheep, only we
just wouldn't know it because they are just standing still, waiting
for it, like, er, sheep. God, you talk about your ego projection into
a so-called scientific study...
Is there no hope of convincing you that some experiments are truly bad
science? Does Utah Univ. cold fusion ring a bell? Lesbian sheep? What
if the Stanford psi experiments had the same value proposition as
those? Would that change your thinking about the motives of the CST
special directors?
Please don't get angry at me for asking, and just answer the question.
>Yeah, yeah, yeah, but, let me guess: Scientology technology ~doesn't~
>work, therefore it ~isn't~ valuable,
BINGO! I think he's got it. IT DOESN'T WORK! It didn't work at
Stanford for Puthoff and Swann, it doesn't work for CIA spooks today,
and it never worked for the old-timer Scientologists of yesteryear,
either (which was before CL says the CIA spooks stole and then
corrupted the tech).
That's why I keep asking you, CL, to just show me a psi-superman. Do
that, and I'll eat my words. You'd love that, wouldn't you, to see me
eat my words? So, all you have to do is just show me the psi sooPER
pOwerZ.
Simple, really.
>therefore the hundreds of millions
>of Scientology dollars that the IRS snarled and whined and litigated
>with Scientology and Hubbard about for three decades never really
>existed in "the real world,"
Damn, you're doing it again, arguing tacitly that money somehow proves
something. That's wrong. Money being spent could be proving lots of
different things. Like that you're a gullible fool, for example.
Of course money exists. You True Believing Scientologists have paid
out your poor, stretched sphincters for years to be trained in this
shit. But your collective expenditures do not, in and of themselves,
prove anything about the tech (except perhaps that it's a good scam).
Without solid, credible evidence of psi-supermen, I simply will not
accept the presumption that psi-supermen exist.
>and so of course the government wouldn't steal it. Right?
Your claim that the government has stolen something with value is
diminished by the fact that no secret CIA remote-viewing spooks knew
about anything that could have stopped the Sept. 11th attacks, nor
since have located Osama Bin Laden, nor anything else that I can see
which would hint at the their existence.
>So history didn't happen. Right? Fuck you, moron.
History did happen. But just not in the way you think.
You can call us morons till the cows come home, but in the end, you're
the one believing in remote viewers in spite of the fact that you've
probably been involved with Scientology for years, and yet YOU can't
remote view a goddamned thing (nor lift an ashtray, I might add).
>>My problem is that I understand how LRH "technology" "works."
>Your problem is that you're a moron.
> * PLONK *
The "Plonked by CL" club is born.
At least you didn't mention the term "chew toy." ;-)
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
CL
Hash: SHA1
Hope everyone had as nice a Thanksgiving holiday as I did.
I just know I was greatly missed.
ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
>On 21 Nov 2001 02:39:01 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
>(CL) wrote:
>
>[Re (*)]
>
>>In fact, the entire purpose of my VERY FIRST POST was to ask Gerry
>>Armstrong for that EXACT type of evidence. He still hasn't answered
>>the questions. Then I asked Stacy Young for the same thing. Flatline.
>>And I've been asking ever since, and the best ANYBODY has come up with
>>is that Miscavige has somehow done it all with "undated letters of
>>resignation." (Give me a minute to pick myself up off the floor.)
>
>While it isn't really necessary to go into the weaknesses of "signed,
>undated letters of resignation,"...
You obviously haven't talked to some of the goons who post here. (Almost
none of whom will come anywhere ~near~ any discussion of CST anymore, so
daunting and overwhelming are the facts of CST's domination and control
over Scientology. They're all huddled off in one corner of a.r.s.
clutching their CST-sanitized copies of the party-line "A.R.S. Week In
Review"--huddled together with its excuse for an "editor," Rod Keller,
whose "editing" seems to consist largely of microscopically expunging
every mention of CST and its Special Directors and any and all reference
to any legal documents about them [you know--while he's selecting his
"significant messages"], and he ~also~ won't come anywhere near any
discussion of CST--all of them desperately hoping against hope that
somehow Stacy and Gerry will rise like phoenixes to reassure them that
it really ~was~ just the boogeyman David Miscavige all along, and then
the whole embarrassing CST thing will all go away. It won't.)
>...the theory has several. One of these is that even if an "executive"
>who has one of these is willing to go through with that farce,
>obviously the executive in question isn't in charge anyway. Another is
>that they're quite simply not necessary. The By-Laws of CST
>essentially makes getting rid of Directors who aren't Special enough on
>a variety of trumped-up offenses easy.
Of course that's the case, and I applaud you for having the courage to
be a lonely voice of reason in a din of superstition and myth. But most
of the people here are so supersaturated with the paid-for fictions of
the Young/Armstrong/Wollersheim contingent--that the corporations were
just "meaningless shells"--that trying to get them to face the hard,
cold corporate facts of life is like trying to instill table manners in
hyenas. Good luck.
>The only persons who could override the Special Directors would be a
>packed house of dittohead Trustees and General Directors unanimously
>overriding a veto.
I believe that even this has a loophole, but I'm not prepared to support
it at this moment.
>The Trustees replace General Directors essentially at will,
>so the power would be on the Board of Trustees
But I think the point cannot be ridden too long or too hard that the
Trustees have no ~other~ power ~but~ to replace General Directors--who,
as you have pointed out, are already so boxed in they probably need hall
passes to pee.
>and in the Special Directors unless overridden.
Yes, every analysis from all directions leads to broadly worded and
virtually unlimited powers in the Special Directors--unless overridden.
Okay, NOW I'm ready to support the argument about that loophole in the
"override the Special Directors" clause. (I can get ready fast.) Let's
just open that up for some inspection and discussion.
Let's first establish the ONE TRULY OVERRIDING OF ALL FACTS CONCERNING
CST: The only way CST can keep possession of all the copyrights and
controlling interest in all the trademarks is to MAINTAIN TAX EXEMPTION.
ALL ASSETS OF CST are entirely dependent on MAINTAINING TAX EXEMPTION.
This is and has been fully covered in many legal documents already
posted here and available on the web, not the least of which is
Bruggink.
Now some facts about the "Special Directors":
0. The main purpose of the Special Directors is TO MAINTAIN TAX
EXEMPTION. (I should rest my case right there. I'll go on...)
1. The Special Directors are all attorneys, and tax attorneys.
2. The Special Directors set up ALL the corporations that are
licensees and sub-licensees of CST, AND wrote all the contracts
governing the relationships between CST and its licensees and
sub-licensees--RTC, CSI, BPI, ASI (now wholly owned by CST),
SMI, you name it--and governing those organizations' LICENSES to
use the ASSETS of CST: the copyrights and trademarks.
3. It was this very corporate and licensing structure--entirely set
up by the Special Directors, plus CST co-founder and former
IRS Assistant to Commmissioner Meade Emory--that won the hearts
and minds of Internal Revenue, and ultimately got tax exemption.
4. One of the Special Directors, Sherman Lenske, is a FOUNDER of
CST.
5. Sherman Lenske is also Registered Agent (operative term: agent)
for at least ASI, RTC, and "The Way to Happiness International."
6. Special Director of CST Lawrence E. Heller is Registered Agent
(operative term: agent) for BPI.
7. The IRS-approved CPA firm named in the Closing Agreement as
"First Qualified CPA"--Nanas, Stern, Biers, Neinstein and Co.--
is one floor below the office of CST Special Director
Lawrence E. Heller, at 9454 Wilshire Blvd. (He has suite #500,
along with Michael Stoller, et al.; the CPAs have the 4th
Floor.) Cute, huh? (This was just brought to my attention very
recently and I thought I ought to throw it in.)
8. The CST Special Directors have ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVELEGE
established separately with EACH of the corporations they
created!
Now let's review the "potential-override-of-the-Special-Directors
committee," made up of CST's Trustees and General Directors:
1. None are attorneys, much less tax attorneys.
2. None had anything to do with the legal "work product" that went
into the corporate structures, or into the licensing agreements
between CST and its licensees and sub licensees, listed above.
3. None had fuck-all to do with the negotiations with IRS or with
the Closing Agreement; the Special Directors did that while
hiding behind the skirts of Monique Yingling (POA for CST).
3. In other words, NONE of the Trustees or General Directors have
ANY qualifications upon which to base a foundation for override
of the tax attorneys, who are "safeguarding" the tax exemption,
and therefore "safeguarding" all of L. Ron Hubbard's
intellectual properties (as well as the squirrel drek they
have buried in vaults).
The whole ridiculous joke of some sudden uprising of all the Trustees
and all the General Directors, with all of them suddenly being
transformed UNANIMOUSLY into tax-code geniuses who can second-guess and
out-perform three tax-and-corporate attorneys on what's best for the
corporations that those very attorneys created, is just one more
flaccid, windy, legalistic chunk of ~nothing~ handed to the little dopey
Scientologist Trustees and General Directors of CST to make them believe
they can have and do something when they can't. There. I've stated
another position you can start swinging at. But I'll stay on this
position until evidence proves I ought to move off of it.
Here comes some "evidence" now, except it's setting off a...
~~~~~~~~~~~~FALSE STATEMENT ALERT! FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!~~~~~~~~~~~
>David Miscavige *was* and perhaps *is* on that Board of Trustees.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~END FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not true. That's just yet another false datum that's been injected into
the Great David Miscavige Mythology. Michael Reuss has helped spread
that false datum around. But that's part of his job. The SOURCE of that
FALSE STATEMENT is Zegel, in Tape #3, around July 1984. He is the only
source that I know of for it. The following quote from Zegel Tape #3 is
FALSE as regards the "trustee of Church of Spiritual Technology" part:
~~~~~~~~~~~~FALSE STATEMENT ALERT! FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Miscavige, trustee of the Church of Spiritual
Technology, trustee of the RTC and trustee of Author
Services, Lyman Spurlock..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~END FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not only does no verifiable record support that, there are in fact
several verifiable records that PROVE that it's false:
First, per the Bylaws of CST, the Trustees are appointed for LIFE.
We have a document (thank God for Tenyaka!) from 30 April 1984 that
lists these three Trustees:
For the calendar year 1983 or fiscal year beginning 1 May 1983
and ending 30 April 1984, the corporation Church of Spiritual
Technology EIN 95 378 1769 State registration number 107428730 pro
forma Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax...
Terri Gamboa Trustee
1404 North Catalina
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Marion Meisler Trustee
1404 North Catalina
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Gregory Wilhere Trustee
1404 North Catalina
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Those are the three CST Trustees as of 30 April 1984.
Then, there is the following, which I ~believe~ to be about November
1991. (Okay, here's why: it's an abyssmal Lermascan[TM] of a Claims
Court "Defendant's Proposed Findings" document in CST v. US that appears
to have the remnants of "November" at the top amidst a bunch of OCR
garbage. It PRECEEDS Bruggink's 29 June 1992 Claims Court ruling, but
comes AFTER an 8 July 1989 IRS adverse ruling letter to CST. So it must
be either November 1990 or November 1991.) So anyway, after all that
working around a Lermascan[TM], here is what the document says:
"CST identified Terri Gamboa as one of its Trustees. ...CST identified
Gregory Wilhere as one of its Trustees. ...CST identified Marion Meisler
as one of its Trustees."
United States Claims Court No. 581-88 T
Church of Spiritual Technology, plaintiff
v. the United States, defendant
Defendant's Proposed Findings of
Uncontroverted Fact
So the same three Trustees are named here as in the 30 April 1984
document, which makes sense because they were appointed for life.
Then comes Bruggink, and in his 29 June 1992 Claims Court ruling he also
names those same three Trustees, but ALSO says Lyman Spurlock is one.
These three documents span the date of the Zegel tape #3, so Zegel was
dead wrong when he said Miscavige was a Trustee of CST. (Just one more
wonderful example of the value of anecdotal "evidence." This FALSE Zegel
datum has been like a 4" bolt tossed into a meat grinder.)
(Complete BTW aside as regards Spurlock's Trusteeship, and getting back
to the "Special Directors override committee": If he is a Trustee--and
he is by June 1991, according to Bruggink--Spurlock is also a
"co-founder" of CST along with the Lenskes, Emory, and Misterek. As such
he is likely a secretely-compensated and GUARANTEED HOLD-OUT TO PREVENT
OVERRIDE. That last statement is pure, unadulterated, unsupported
guesswork, and I will not stand by it or be held to account for it, and
will deny ever having said it. :-) But I personally would put money on
that before I would put it into a U.S. Savings Bond.)
It ~is~ true that Miscavige ~was~ a Trustee of ~RTC~:
"I had served as one of the Trustees of RTC, since its inception. My
only duties as Trustee were to appoint or remove directors. We held no
other corporate power."
24 September 1999
Declaration of David Miscavige
Superior Court of the State of California
County of Los Angeles
Case No. C 332 027
Larry Wollersheim v. CSC
So let's please lay to rest once and forever the FALSE statement that
David Miscavige was ever a Trustee of CST, because there is absolutely
no verifiable evidence of any such thing. (No, I don't know who replaced
Gamboa when she left, but I will not stipulate even that it ~might~ have
been Miscavige unless some solid evidence is produced. It's just hopeful
thinking by the "Miscavige is the DevilGod of Scientology" nut cases.
The most likely scenario is that Gamboa wasn't replaced at all, because
with Spurlock on as Trustee--as in Bruggink, above--the minimum of three
Trustees was intact even with her leaving, and so there would be no need
to replace her.)
>As for the "doomsday clause" involving the "holder of the senior
>ecclesiastical post of THIS Church," since there are no ecclesiastical
>posts listed, one assumes such a post can be mocked up at will. Or,
>conceivably, unmocked.
I really try so hard to care, but nothing happens. The apocalypse is not
coming, and that clause will never be tested, so I just can't seem to
get around to giving much of a good goddamn. And even if it did happen,
the ONLY thing the person-of-glowing-ecclesiastical-aura could do is
appoint and annoint some more impotent Trustees. More feel-good legal
chunks of air to hand around.
>That person could, or could not be, David
>Miscavige, but Miscavige has sworn under oath NOT to be the
>"ecclesiastical leader" of the "Church" itself, but of the "religion."
>(What does that mean exactly? Obviously it doesn't mean nothing.)
No no no--Not just "the 'religion'": it's "the Scientology religion"
(a.k.a. "the religion of Scientology"). Hell no it doesn't just mean
nothing! It means everything! Go here:
http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/cstlegalpapers15.html
Read all about it.
>Miscavige is certainly on the list of usual suspects.
Oh, I stipulate entirely and completely that David Miscavige is "the
ecclesiatical leader of the Scientology religion." Completely! Freely!
No contest. See the above url. In fact, I only recently quoted Hogan
proclaiming it in court, in support of your analysis of this whole
"ecclesiastical leader" mulberry-bush-runaround.
It is a completely neutered and PR position in relation to ALL the
corporations, and especially CST. In fact, I don't think even
~Miscavige~ knows that his very title puts him "ecclesiatically" over
all the squirrel versions of "the tech," and insulates him from the
unsquirreled version. I think it's a great joke on him. The more I find
out about him, the stupider he seems.
>>>If he is, indeed, entirely a puppet, one would expect to see the
>>>strings.
>>
>>What a crock, Rob. See if you can follow this string:
>>
>> "I have transferred my religious trademarks to the Religious
>> Technology Center, but I RETAIN FULL OWNERSHIP OF ANY
>> COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS OF THE MARKS as well as full
>> ownership of all my copyrights and patent rights, none of
>> which have been transferred. Contrary to the uninformed
>> allegations of the petition, MY TRADEMARK TRANSFER INVOLVED
>> NO MONETARY LOSS."
>> L. Ron Hubbard [purportedly]
>> 15 May 1983 court-filed Declaration
>
>Interestingly, RTC claimed otherwise to the IRS Appeals Branch.
<Snip Spurlock's Squirrel Cage re: Advanced Technology Agreement>
Look, I'm snipping all that because it's about the Advanced
Technology--NOT about the trademarks. You took a sudden left turn from
the topic of "Hubbard's" Declaration and the point I was making about
"strings" attached to Miscavige, which was on the subject of TRADEMARKS.
(I'll be happy to go into the Advanced Technology Rights Swirling Cage
of Dizzying Death-Defying Duplicity with you, including Spurlock's
circular assertions to the IRS Appeals Branch--but another time, in
another thread. Not here. It's too much to cover.)
>Someone was lying (what a surprise). Whether it was L. Ron Hubbard (or
>whoever was signing L. Ron Hubbard's correspondence at this time), or
>the writer of this letter.
>
>Why, who wrote these lies? Lie-Man Spurlock!
:-)
>So in other words, L. Ron Hubbard...
.or somebody...
>gave away his rights and "donated"
>them to his Church. . .while at the same time keeping them.
>
>Someone was doing magic here, and it sure wasn't David Copperfield.
Well, now you've swung back to the trademarks "Assignment Agreement,"
so, yes, I agree with you. But, as I pointed out in a separate message
to Legal Archives, I think paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 are the most important
ones in this hysterically funny "Now you have it, now you don't" legal
trick, and you didn't quote those paragraphs. I'm just going to quote
part of paragraph 3 here, and leave it to Legal Archives bunch to really
take the whole damned thing apart, which I hope they do. But this has
got to be one of the greatest gags of all times:
3. Reservation of Rights.
a. LRH hereby reserves and retains, for himself and
his heirs, successors and assigns, the nonexclusive right to
sell products and to license and contract with others to sell
products, relating to the religion and organizations of
Scientology and bearing or embodying any or all of the Marks
assigned by this Agreement, and to make appropriate use of,
and to license and contract with others to make appropriate
use of, the Marks in connection with administrative
technology services based upon the secular applications of
the technology of LRH in non-religious fields all free of any
payment of compensation to RTC.
b. Without limiting the generality of the Reservation
of Rights in subparagraph 3(a), categories of products that
are expressly included within this reserved right include
books and other publications, recordings including films,
tapes and phonograph records, electrometers, emblems and
insignia, and jewelry.
God, I just laughed till I literally had tears! What a cruelty joke on
the real "marks": the rubes at RTC who actually signed this drek, and
the idiot Miscavige who notarized it!
Here is the very definition of "trademark," directly from the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (my emphasis added):
"A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is USED
IN TRADE WITH GOODS to indicate the source of the goods and
to distinguish them from the goods of others."
The "LRH" lawyers manufactured the whole scam for the benefit of
Hubbard's "heirs"--which they had set up to be THEMSELVES in their roles
at CST--and retained complete rights for THEMSELVES to use the marks IN
TRADE WITH GOODS!
LMAO! I Laughed till I fucking cried! What a cruelty joke!
And Lenske got little Davey Miscavige to NOTARIZE it?!
LMAO! What a lame fucking rube!
And the equally stupid rubes at RTC, Laura and Stephen Marlowe, signed
it, while Lenske, Lenske & Heller laughed up their sleeves.
>The notary signatures on this are also interesting:
>David Miscavige and Bev Mustard.
Yes. Put their statues right up at the entrance to the Idiots' Hall of
Shame, under the pigion roost.
>DM is if nothing else, ubiquitous.
Yeah, he is something else: DUMB.
And here's just how fucking dumb he is, and just how much of a
completely nullified fraud this whole document was. It's in paragraph 4:
4. Option. This assignment is subject to an option granted
by LRH to Church of Spiritual Technology, a California
corporation (hereinafter "CST"), to purchase all of the
rights assigned to RTC under and pursuant to this Agreement
for the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). This option
shall be exercisable by CST at any time if CST decides, in
its sole discretion and judgment, that RTC has failed to
preserve and maintain the ethical use of the Marks in
accordance with the Scientology Scriptures, or that RTC's
ownership of the Marks in any way places the Marks in danger
of appropriation by any entity that is outside or hostile to
the religion of Scientology, or that RTC has permitted and
is permitting use of the Marks in any way that is contrary
to the Scientology Scriptures and seriously damages the
religion of Scientology or the image or repute of LRH.
Okay, let's just skip any real, in-depth analysis of just what a carte
blanche option this ~really~ is for CST, and let's just skip the whole
question of whether this was signed by "Hubbard" in Los Angeles on 10
May 1982, or on 16 May 1982 (or, most likely, not at all), because it
doesn't matter WHICH of those dates is "accepted": they are BOTH prior
to 28 May 1982, and the "Church of Spiritual Technology, a California
corporation (hereinafter 'CST')" that paragraph 4. is giving the option
to didn't even EXIST until 28 May 1982, because that's when it was
incorporated!
And the lawyers who engineered this whole shameless fraud KNEW it,
because THEY were the ones incorporating CST! But apparently they didn't
let "L. Ron Hubbard" in on their little joke before "he" "signed." LMAO!
>(Incidentally, this would be yet another entry in the notary logs which
>DM has steadfastly refused to produce in court.)
Oh, believe me, I've studied all the flaming hoops the lawyers have
jumped through to keep ~that~ entire issue out of discovery or
examination. Nobody has ever been allowed to ask David Miscavige point
blank, "Were you in the physical presence of L. Ron Hubbard when he
signed the document, and when you notarized his signature or not?" No,
they won't ~ever~ allow him to be asked that question. And of course if
Miscavige had been in the physical presence of L. Ron Hubbard at the
notarization, then there would be NO REASON for all the flaming hoops to
keep Miscavige and the notary logs out of any discovery or examination,
would there. The protest and defense exposes the lie.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "most of this had already been
disposed of." Most of ~what~ had been disposed of, and how? In addition
to the things named in the Lenske-written Will--which had specifically
NOT been disposed of (and this issue of use of his name and likeness
being transferred to CST is not a small one at all)--there are the
Grand-Canyon-sized lawyer-holes to hide endless things in: "including
but not limited to...All property over which I may have any power of
appointment... ." These are giant non-specific catch-alls.
<Snip rehash of Closing Agreement>
>However, the Bylaws of CST place great power in the Board of Trustees.
Huh? Please cite this "great power" from the Bylaws. You seem to be
arguing against your own analysis of the Bylaws. The only power the
Trustees have is to appoint wind-up-toy General Directors. What is this
"great power"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~FALSE STATEMENT ALERT! FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!~~~~~~~~~~~
>David Miscavige is, indeed, on that Board, and therefore can't be
>excluded from consideration as a power in the Church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~END FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, Miscavige is ~not~ on the Board of Trustees for CST. Even with you,
Zegel, AND Reuss all chanting it, it doesn't make it come true. Even if
you invoke the name "Armstrong" three times while stroking a Stacy Young
cat, it ~still~ won't come true. See the court and corporate records
above. He never has been, and I'm quite sure never will be.
>My "position" is far from crystal clear, but it doesn't involve
>eliminating one of the main suspects before the trial has even started.
Well, scratch Miscavige off of your "Trustee of CST" list of suspects.
Now what have we got left? "Ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology
religion?"
>It seems in many of the most critical crime scenes here, one finds the
>fingerprints of David Miscavige (or at least his naughty little notary
>seal).
How many? And who drew up those (two) documents that Miscavige got duped
or ordered into put his naughty little notary seal on? (Hint: rhymes
with "Lenske.") And how many more documents are there drawn up by that
same person, but that David Miscavige is neither in, on, or anywhere
around?
Where is David Miscavige in the CST Articles or Bylaws? Nowhere.
Where is David Miscavige in the final Will? Nowhere.
Where is David Miscavige in the Author's Family Trust-B? Nowhere.
Where is David Miscavige in the transfer of 7,731 copyrights? Nowhere.
Where is David Miscavige in the trademarks wholly owned by CST--like all
the fiction titles and "The Way to Happiness?" Nowhere.
He's a real Nowhere man.
The only thing he's got to play with is what RTC "got" in the <snort>
"Assignment" above--THAT THE LAWYERS HAD MISCAVIGE "NOTARIZE!" LMAO! Oh,
what practical jokers those Lenske Bros. are! You just gotta' love 'em.
They must have been blowing their sodas out of their noses at the
restaurant afterward over ~that~ one.
In fact, I have to say that I don't understand why Sherman Lenske,
Stephen Lenske, Lawrence E. Heller, Norton S. Karno, Meade Emory, and
Leon Misterek aren't the absolute heroes and darlings of you
self-created and self-styled Scientology critics. Every single one of
them is a "good Wog[TM]," and they completely made laughing-stocks out
of the Scientologists who stupidly trusted them or did what they said,
and they have absolutely trashed the name of L. Ron Hubbard and
Scientology, and they stole the entire Hubbard estate and all of
Scientology away from his wife and children, and have completely ruined
whatever Scientology ever was by replacing almost all of it with
squirrel tech.
I mean, I don't know why you people don't have these attorneys' names up
in lights, and celebrate their birthdays, and lionize and praise them:
they have done exactly what it seems every one of you ~wanted~ with all
your hearts and souls to see done to L. Ron Hubbard and his literary
works and his wife and children. Haven't they? How much more awful PR
and misery and destruction and vandalism would they have to generate to
satisfy the blood thirst?
That's why I just cannot understand why you all resist so much the idea
that they are in charge, when they provably are, and when they have done
such a magnificent inside job on bringing to ruins everything that L.
Ron Hubbard ever stood for.
>Then you have mysterious little details like L. Ron Hubbard "donating"
>his trademarks to CST
I think you must have meant "RTC."
>(while mysteriously simultaneously keeping them)
Yeah, but who did "he" "keep" them for the ultimate benefit of?
CST--which is the same as saying FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE VERY LAWYERS WHO
DREW UP EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT DOCUMENT BEING DISCUSSED. Look, these tax
lawyers did a brilliant inside job. They pulled it off. Give them
credit. And they are raking it in for themselves as a result. (What was
the figure? $30 million in one year, wasn't it, for legal fees?)
>"business agreements" between Norman F. Starkey and HIMSELF,
I think you must have meant between Norton S. Karno and himself. (Of
course, in one view, the only "himself" involved was Norton S. Karno
himself.) Those were also some business arrangements in which Miscavige
was the original Real Nowhwere Man...
>disappearing Karnos
Lots of magic tricks surrounding these fucking lawyers, aren't there.
>freak will revisions just prior to death,
Yeah, I still would like to know the whereabouts of Sherman Lenske while
he was cobbling together that last Will and Author's Family Trust-B,
supposedly in the last week before the reported expiration of L. Ron
Hubbard. Why is Hubbard's PERSONAL ATTORNEY, Sherman Lenske, kept
completely out of ANY mention in ANY of the media surrounding Hubbard's
purported demise? Why did Earle Cooley have to be transplanted from the
East Coast urgently to be the front man? Why was Sherman--who had been
handling "every aspect of estate planning" since 1981--so shy?
>and the sudden appearance of Lawrence Heller
."CST Special Director Lawrence E. Heller." They went to such lengths
to get their little smarmy titles over stolen property, we should pay
the little worms their proper homage and respect... No, no--I'm sorry:
these heroes.
>at the Missionholders Conference, following which the Watchdog
>Committee went ecclesiastical on our asses.
LOL!
>(Speaking of which, the root of the squirreling may be a July 7, 1982
>"Scientology Policy Directive," SPD 19, "The Integrity of Source,"
>which states, among other things:
>
>"No one except LRH can revise his issues whereby changes are
>incorporated into the text and then reissued. Any valid revisions
>must hereafter be made in a separate issue stating the change and how
>the revision is to be read. It must also state why the change is
>being effected, for example, if there has been an ecclesiastical
>change or a technical development."
>
>(Signed by The Watchdog Committee. . .ruff ruff. Nary an L. Ron in
>sight. In this SPD, the WDC effectively declares themselves Source.)
>
>It also states that when these revisions are to be done, the original
>LRH issue will remain unchanged. However, it will simply be ignored
and cast aside.
>
>The amazing hoot is the conclusion:
>
>"This policy will allow the integrity of Source to be reinstated."
>
>Hoo-haw. Those puppies had a sense of humor, indeed.
>
>ptsc
I can think of no more fitting closing than that.
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientolgist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBPANCL9AKsx0v8qcvEQK0rQCfVEQWHrPbav0QKzujuQm0cu22gcYAnivX
lSVCAbC6bj7HRDXSUJ4ypukf
=bsPo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Bird
<pt...@AT.nym> writes:
>Who controls the CST? This has been a perplexing question for years, even since
>the posting of the By-laws of this organization, which clearly has ownership of
>the entirety of the "Scientology scriptures." One of these, oft-cited, is the
>definition of "control." "Control is defined as the ability to start, change
>and stop something." In examining these By-laws, I will view "control" as just
>these abilities.
Actually your analysis makes a great deal of sense: what the CST
bye-laws do, although they carefully hide it, is make CST dependent
on the "highest ecclesiastical authority" --- that is, whoever
exercise REAL power as the current captain of the Sea Org. Any and
every post of APPARRENT power within CST can be taken away with a
simple S.P. Declare and, if ALL posts of power are vacated, then it
is the Captain of the Sea Org who takes over to appoint replacements.
He is not likely to do this "OFTEN": just the mere THREAT that he could
do it once is enough to keep them all in line.
Thanks again for this very perceptive analysis.
>
>Working assumptions:
>
>1) CST is the true owner of the Scientology copyrights and, ultimately, has
>absolute veto power over the licensing and even functional existence of any
>other Scientology corporation. (Basis: http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas
>analyzes this in great detail and the information therein is necessary to an
>understanding of this post.)
>
>2) CST has three Special Directors: Sherman D. Lenske, Stephen A. Lenske and
>Lawrence E. Heller, as explicitly referenced in the By-laws.
>
>3) The By-laws are substantially similar now to what they were when they were
>drafted.
>
>Altering or disproving any one of these would cast much or all of the
>forthcoming conclusions into grave doubt. However, they seem to be good enough
>for the present to make some preliminary analysis.
>
>First, let's take up the subject of the Special Directors. Their purpose is not
>as enigmatic as it may seem at first glance. Indeed, their stated purpose is
>delineated in the By-laws:
>
> d. Particular Functions of the Special Directors. The Special Directors,
> acting by a majority of their authorized number are empowered to ensure the
> following:
>
> i. That the corporation attains tax exempt status, as soon as practical,
> and that such status is maintained throughout the existence of the
> corporation.
>
> ii. That no part of the corporation inure to the benefit of any private
> individual, firm or corporation.
>
> iii. That the assets of the corporation are not subject to waste and/or
> extravagance but are instead increased in value.
>
> iv. That proper Scientology management is correctly applied to the end that
> the purposes of the corporation are accomplished.
>
> The Special Directors shall carry out their duties by approving or vetoing
> every resolution, vote, or act of the General Directors which in any way
> directly or indirectly affects the duties of the Special Directors set
> forth above. In addition, Special Directors may by unanimous vote direct
> the General Directors to consider any matter which comes within the scope
> of their duties, as outlined above.
>
>Now, this section would make it seem as if the Special Directors are, indeed,
>very Special individuals, with near-absolute despotic power to approve or veto
>anything done by the General Directors, and even to force them to address issues
>whether or not they would do so on their own. It is, however, mitigated by the
>following paragraph:
>
> Any act of the Special Directors may be overridden by the unanimous vote of
> the General Directors and Trustees at a meeting specially called by any
> General Director in accordance Section 4 [sic] of this Article VII.
>
>The unanimity required of both other Boards (the Board of Directors and the
>Board of Trustees) would seemingly make the power of the Special Directors
>nearly limitless without an extraordinary occurrence. Indeed, this is the
>manifest meaning of this section of the By-laws, and the conclusion which the
>author of the By-laws intends the casual reader to reach. Indeed, many if not
>all examiners to look at this have, indeed, concluded as much.
>
>Another thing which is Special about the Special Directors is that they are the
>only human beings explicitly referenced by name in the By-laws themselves:
>
> a. Initial Special Directors. The names of the persons who shall serve as
> the corporation's initial Special Directors are:
>
> i. Stephen A. Lenske
>
> ii. Sherman D. Lenske
>
> iii. Lawrence E. Heller.
>
>There is also no provision whatsoever for the removal of the Special Directors
>by any other Board or Boards. Indeed, their tenure is nearly limitless:
>
> b. Tenure. Persons appointed as Special Directors shall Possess a lifetime
> tenure, so long as they remain in good standing with the State Bar
> Association of California. Should any Special Director fail to remain in
> good standing, his position shall terminate and the vacancy created thereby
> shall be filled in accordance with Paragraph (d) of this Section 4.
>
>Only disbarment is fatal to tenure.
>
> c. Resignation. Any Special Director may resign upon giving written notice
> to all Directors. The notices may specify a later time for the
> effectiveness of such resignation.
>
>Special Directors may only be removed of their own volition by resignation.
>
> d. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Board of Special Directors, whether caused
> by death or resignation, may be filled by a majority of the remaining
> authorized Special Director or by a sole remaining Special Director.
>
>Only the Special Directors can appoint other Special Directors, should even so
>many as one remain.
>
> To the extent possible, vacancies shall be filled from members in good
> standing of the California State Bar Association who are then employed by
> the law firm of Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin, A Law Corporation, or its
> successor ("LLH&M") and are familiar with the purposes of this corporation.
> In the event the Special Directors are, or the remaining special Director
> is, unable to fill the vacancy from employees of LLH&M, then the vacancy
> may be filled from outside LLH&M, provided such appointee is a member in
> good standing of the California State Bar Associa tion and is familiar with
> the purposes of this corporation. All such appointments to fill vacancies
> shall be made with the approval of a majority of the authorized General
> Directors and Trustees.
>
>Even in the case that Special Directors are replaced, only members of the
>Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin firm (or its successor Lenske, Lenske & Heller
>or future successors) may replace Special Directors except in the extreme case
>that there is no successor to a firm with such a profitable and permanent
>guaranteed client.
>
> In the event the Board of Special Directors is unable to fill vacancies
> because of the death or resignation of all of the Special Directors, then
> the vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the authorized General
> Directors and Trustees.
>
>I will explain later why even the unanimity requirement for overriding a veto
>from the Special Directors is meaningless, and a mere majority requirement is a
>laughable wink at legal niceties.
>
> e. Compensation. Special Directors shall be entitled to a fee based upon
> the hourly rate then charged for their professional services.
>
>Unlike the other two Boards, the Special Directors are paid. The section of the
>By-laws concerning the Board of Trustees does not even make a glancing mention
>of compensation, while the section concerning the Board of Directors states
>unequivocally:
>
> b. Compensation. General Directors shall receive no compensation for their
> service as Directors, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses
> incurred on behalf of the corporation, whether or not such expenses are
> incurred in their capacities as Directors.
>
>So this is the description of the Special Directors, charged with the task of
>maintaining CST's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, as their duties clearly indicate
>that they are to act as a policing force, to attain tax-exempt status, to
>maintain it, and to prevent actions which would violate that status, and indeed
>the clauses charging them with this responsibility mirror the language of tax
>law.
>
>It is also established that outside of extreme circumstances involving death or
>gross incapacity to discharge their duties (disbarment), the Special Directors
>can not be removed. To prevent even the slightest chance that the By-laws could
>be changed in such a way as to eliminate the Special Directors, the By-laws
>conclude with a one paragraph Article:
>
> ARTICLE XIII
>
> Amendments
>
> Unless otherwise provided in these Bylaws, these Bylaws may be amended or
> repealed and new Bylaws adopted by unanimous vote of the Boards; provided
> that amended Bylaws or new Bylaws do not jeopardize the tax-exempt status
> of this corporation, do not alter the purposes of this corporation or the
> qualifications required of its Trustees and Directors, and do not
> contravene the Scriptures.
>
>This would remove the chance of changing the purpose of the Special Directors,
>their qualifications (including being from the Lenske, Lenske & Heller firm), or
>their existence as guardians of the tax-exempt status of the corporation.
>
>Now the phrase in all this in which I am placing great stock is the following:
>
> Any act of the Special Directors may be overridden by the unanimous vote of
> the General Directors and Trustees at a meeting specially called by any
> General Director in accordance Section 4 [sic] of this Article VII.
>
>The rest of this post will go into why and how this might be done, and even why
>and how it amounts to window-dressing, irrespective of the basic impossibility
>of removing the Special Directors themselves or of even diminishing their powers
>or purpose.
>
>I have started, one might think perversely, by demonstrating that a plain
>reading of the By-laws concerning the Special Directors shows that they are
>ineradicable and their powers are granted irrevocably, and that they have not
>only absolute veto power but can demand actions from other boards. This makes
>them seem very powerful and indeed Special. They are nothing of the sort.
>
>All of this is quite plainly written and easy to see. This might be seen as a
>feeble stab at irony, however it is true. The mistake often made in reading
>these By-laws is in foolishly starting at the beginning and then reading through
>them. Obviously, however, you should read them out of order and seemingly
>randomly follow them around here and there. So far we've read them forward, and
>they say one thing. Let's see about when we read them backward.
>
>There are two other Boards, the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors.
>The Board of Directors is covered directly before the Special Directors. They
>are the Board which seems to be under the control of the Special Directors.
>
> ARTICLE VII
>
> Boards of Directors
>
> Section 1. Function and Authority of the Boards.
>
> a. Composition: The combined Boards of Directors ("Boards") shall be
> composed of three (3) General Directors ("Board of General Directors") and
> three (3) Special Directors ("Board of Special Directors"). The authorized
> number of General Directors may be changed by a bylaw amending this Section
> 1(a) duly adopted by the unanimous vote of the General Directors; provided,
> however, that the General Directors shall not have the power to reduce the
> number of General Directors below three (3) or increase the number above
> five (5).
>
>Now the purposes of the Board of Directors, consisting of the General Directors,
>is boilerplate. I am not even including it. They appear to be, and are
>described as, a Board of Directors with everything pertaining thereto. My
>concern is who controls them, that is to say, who can start, stop and change
>them.
>
>Here are things that can start them:
>
> Section 2. Election and Tenure of General Directors.
>
> a. Election. General Directors shall be elected by majority vote of the
> Trustees of the corporation. Trustees may not cumulate votes in electing
> General Directors. Regular elections of General Directors shall be held at
> the annual meeting of the Trustees. Special elections may be held as
> necessary to fill vacancies on the Board of General Directors. General
> Directors may not be elected from among the Trustees. General Directors
> shall hold office for one year or until the next annual meeting of the
> Trustees, whichever period is shorter. General Directors may be reelected.
>
>And later:
>
> c. Qualifications. In order to serve as a General Director and in order to
> continue to serve an such, each General Director shall be a person who
> possesses and continues to possess the following qualities and attributes.
> That is to say, a person may serve and continue to serve as a General
> Director only so long as he is and remains:
>
> i. Well-versed in the Scriptures;
>
> ii. Well-versed in the Scientology Ethics and Justice system;
>
> iii. A proven Scientology executive, evidenced by statistics;
>
> iv. A duly ordained minister of Scientology in good standing with the
> Mother Church; and
>
> v. Has attained the age of majority.
>
>Note especially iv. and the phrase "in good standing with the Church." Don't
>stop me if you know where I'm going here, though I imagine you may be beginning
>to get an inkling.
>
>I'll come back to it. To continue, things that can stop them, that we have
>already examined, include the Special Directors. The Special Directors can
>start them. The Special Directors can not change them. That, as we can see
>from another section of the By-laws, is reserved to the Board of Trustees (and
>others we will soon see), in a section starting Article V, concerning the
>Boards.
>
> Section 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of the Board of Trustees shall be
> to elect General Directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this
> purpose the Trustees may remove a General Director who fails to meet the
> qualification of such a Director or who conducts himself in a manner which
> is contrary to the provisions of Articles I through IV of these Bylaws and
> the survival of Scientology. In addition, the Trustees shall have the power
> to change the number of Trustees, as provided in Section 2 below.
>
>Let me just point out that Articles I through IV are, to put it bluntly, a load
>of happy horseshit. Article I is a statement of churchiness. Article II is a
>bit of word-clearing to clear you up if you do not know what "By-laws" are.
>Article III is more maundering hogwash and Article IV is the creed. Hence,
>being able to remove a Director for violating anything in Articles I through IV
>amounts to being able to remove a Director at the sole discretion of the Board
>of Trustees.
>
>The Board of Trustees can change the Board of Directors essentially at will.
>
>As if this weren't enough of an indignity for a purportedly independent Board of
>Directors, they may be vetoed at the sole discretion of the Board of Special
>Directors. The poor General Directors were bushwhacked in the first paragraph
>of the By-laws concerning the Boards of Directors. They were also bushwhacked
>near the end, by the Special Directors. As if this weren't enough, they are
>also bushwhacked in their own section, which notes a second time that the
>Trustees can remove them essentially at will or whim.
>
> d. Removal. Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees, a
> General Director may be removed, on the following grounds:
>
> i. Failure to continue to meet the qualifications set forth in
> subparagraphs (i) through (iv) of subsection (c) above;
>
> ii. Failure to exercise the duties of a Director in pursuance of the goals,
> aims and purposes of the corporation, the Church and Scientology, an set
> forth in Articles I through IV of these Bylaws.
>
>Articles I through IV are, of course, the happy horseshit, as if the other two
>methods of removal were not otherwise sufficient. If the humiliation of the
>General Directors had not been complete enough already, there is not even a
>section noting that they are able to resign. They are, additionally, not even
>granted the power to remove another of their number.
>
>They are solely the creatures of the Board of Trustees, and as such, whatever
>purpose they may be given explicitly in the By-laws is empty noise. They are a
>Board of Shadows, Wax Figures and Phantoms. Their true purpose is to do
>whatever they are told, or else to go away and be replaced with someone who
>will.
>
>It is, thus, the Board of Trustees which must unanimously override the will of
>the Special Directors (if this is to happen), and which appoints, removes and
>controls the Board of General Directors. The Board of General Directors can be
>viewed as a nullity.
>
>This leaves us with the Trustees.
>
>Now, before we tackle the Trustees, one might wonder if this corporation has a
>President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, or any other important positions. The poor
>President and other such hapless waifs are dealt with contemptuously in a single
>phrase.
>
>Officers of the Corporation
>
> Section 1. Required Officers. Officers of the corporation, as distinguished
> from ecclesiastical posts, shall be elected by majority vote of the Board
> of General Directors, and shall include a President, a Secretary, and a
> Treasurer, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of such Board. Each of
> said offices may be held by a person who is also a General Director. The
> Board of General Directors may elect the same person to the offices of
> Secretary and Treasurer.
>
>All of these nullities serve "at the pleasure of such Board." In other words,
>they are entirely vacuous positions. President of the Rubber Stamp, Secretary
>of Sawdust, Treasurer of the Trash Bin. They serve "at the pleasure" of the
>General Directors, whom we have already bushwhacked and disposed of quietly and
>without sorrow. All positions save the Board of Trustees and the Special
>Directors are at this point eliminated as ultimate points of control.
>
>We turn now to the Board of Trustees.
>
> ARTICLE VI
>
> Trustees
>
> Section 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of the Board of Trustees shall be
> to elect General Directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this
> purpose the Trustees may remove a General Director who fails to meet the
> qualification of such a Director or who conducts himself in a manner which
> is contrary to the provisions of Articles I through IV of these Bylaws and
> the survival of Scientology. In addition, the Trustees shall have the power
> to change the number of Trustees, as provided in Section 2 below.
>
>The next section notes that there can be as many as 7 Trustees, but not below 3.
>
>Section 3. Qualifications. In order to serve as Trustees of the corporation
>whether as initial Trustees or successor Trustees, and in order to continue
>to serve as a Trustee of the corporation, Trustees shall be persons who
>possess and continue to possess, the following qualities and attributes.
>That is to say, a person may serve and continue to serve, as Trustee of the
>corporation only so long as he is and remains:
>
> Qualifications Prior to Appointment:
>
> a. A person who has a good uninterrupted track record of at least eight (8)
> years as an ethical and loyal Scientologist;
>
> b. A person who has experienced excellent case gain and has attained the
> case level of OT III or above;
>
> c. A person who is well versed in the technology of Dianetics and
> Scientology and has applied this technology to help others, with excellent
> results;
>
> d. A person who is well versed in the administrative policy or
> organizations affiliated with the religion of Scientology and has a track
> record of demonstrated success in the utilization and application of such
> policy;
>
> I single this next one out.
>
> e. A person who is an ordained Scientology minister, in good standing
> pursuant to those principles set forth in the Scriptures;
>
>Once again, I emphasize the phrase "in good standing" as I did with the Board of
>Directors. I believe you will soon begin to see where I am going with this if
>you have not already. (However, I'll also note that this paragraph e. appears
>to be entirely irrelevant after qualification.)
>
>Now we'll go on a brief digression to explain how the Trustees got there. If
>you skipped ahead and read to the end of the By-laws already, you'll note that
>no Trustees signed them. The six signatures at the end are of Special Directors
>and General Directors.
>
>The Trustees come in only after the By-laws are signed. Once, and only once,
>the Board of General Directors gets to do something.
>
> Section 4. Election. The initial Trustees of the corporation shall be
> elected at the meeting next following the meeting of the Boards of
> Directors (as hereinafter defined) adopting these Bylaws. The Trustees
> shall have lifetime tenure, subject, however, to termination as provided in
> Section 7.
>
>Let's skip merriliy on to Section 7.
>
> Section 7. Termination As Trustee.
>
> a. A person's Post as Trustee shall terminate at his death or upon receipt
> by at least one other Trustee of a written notice of his resignation.
>
> b. Pursuant to the Scientology ethics and Justice system, a person's post
> as Trustee may be terminated for actions deemed contrary to the provisions
> of Articles I through IV of these Bylaws, by the unanimous vote of the
> other Trustees.
>
> c. A person's post as Trustee shall automatically terminate if he or she at
> any time fails to meet the qualifications for Trustee which are stated in
> paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 3 of this Article.
>
>Notably, with regard to Trustees, unlike General Directors, the section with
>regard to being "in good standing" is apparently irrelevant. However, by
>unanimous vote of the other Trustees, any individual Trustee can be removed due
>to vague offenses categorized in Section 7, if their status as an "ethical and
>loyal Scientologist" is no longer "uninterrupted," if they no longer have
>"excellent case gain" or if they are no longer "OT III," if they are no longer
>"well versed in the technology of Dianetics and Scientology" and no longer
>"apply" it with "excellent results" or if they no longer have a "track
>record of demonstrated success" with the "administrative policy." There is,
>indeed, a veritable grab-bag of reasons why a Trustee could suddenly become
>incapacitated to perform his or her duties.
>
>In fact, unlike the unanimous disqualification requirement, failing to continue
>to meet the qualifications requirement of (a) (b) (c) and (d) of Section 3 of
>this Article "automatically" terminates their post with the resounding legal
>word "shall." Not "may" or "will" or "should" or "could" or "can" but "shall."
>
>Now, to go back out of order for a while, we'll note some other things about the
>Trustees. As if the poor General Directors hadn't already come in for enough
>abuse and humiliation, the Trustees have two sole purposes at their annual
>meeting. Cruelly, the first of these purposes is, as you may have guessed, to
>beat up on the General Directors some more:
>
> b. Agenda at Annual Meeting. At the annual meeting of Trustees,
> consideration shall be given only to the following matters:
>
> i. Election or removal of General Directors.
>
>The second purpose of this annual meeting is to cull their own numbers.
>
> ii. Election or removal Of Trustees.
>
>Now, as if there weren't enough opportunities for these Loyal Officers to be
>"terminated" "automatically" or otherwise, and as if there weren't enough
>reminders that they are merely dispensible, any Trustee can call a special
>meeting at any time, presumably for the purpose of beating up on the General
>Directors some more, or beat up on themselves.
>
> c. Call of Special Meetings. A special meeting of the Trustees may be
> called by any Trustee.
>
>They don't even have to say why.
>
> d. Notice of Meetings. When required, notice of a special meeting of the
> Trustees shall be given to each Trustee in writing. A notice of meeting
> need not specify the purpose of the meeting.
>
>Now the Trustees may seem quite powerful at this point, if you do not consider
>the threat they represent to each other. They can remove the General Directors.
>They can even override the seemingly all-powerful Special Directors by unanimous
>vote of themselves, and of course the General Directors can be replaced at will
>should they not show the ethics necessary to rubber-stamp whatever the Trustees
>tell them to do.
>
>However, what would happen should every single one of the Trustees suddenly
>become disqualified from their positions (this narrator will not consider less
>savory possibilities)? Assume there are three of them, and one of them suddenly
>interrupts their eight years as an "ethical and loyal Scientologist," then
>another of them suddenly fails to evidence "excellent case gain" and the
>remaining Trustee suddenly has a less than "excellent result" with the
>"technology of Dianetics and Scientology?"
>
>If these all occur sequentially, the answer is simple. The Trustees replace
>vacancies of their own volition, even if only one remains.
>
> Section. 5. Vacancies. A vacancy on the Board of Trustees shall be deemed
> to exist in case of the death, resignation or termination of any Trustee as
> provided in Section 7.
>
> a. Vacancies on the Board of Trustees may be filled by a majority of the
> remaining Trustees, though less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining
> Trustee.
>
>Suppose, however, these vacancies do not occur sequentially, but simultaneously.
>
>Suppose, not to put too fine a point on it, the lot of them are Declared.
>
>You might think the otherwise excellent Author of these By-laws has neglected
>this possibility. There could be nothing further from the truth.
>
>Here, we are coming very close to the conclusion, which will, unfortunately,
>only raise more questions. In the case of the complete dissolution of the Board
>of General Directors and Board of Special Directories, because, for example, by
>some odd mischance they all simultaneously met with an SP Declare, an obscure
>little clause hedged about with language seemingly indicating its extreme
>unlikelihood kicks in.
>
>Take a deep breath.
>
> b. In the event the Board of Trustees is unable to fill vacancies because
> of the death or disqualification of the entire Board of Trustees or sole
> remaining Trustee, then that person holding the senior ecclesiastical post
> in this Church shall (and only in this unlikely event and only s a singular
> circumstance) appoint individuals to fill all vacancies on the Board of
> Trustees, who must themselves meet the qualifications of a Trustee as
> provided in Section 3.
>
>Suddenly, these otherwise lucid and crystal clear By-laws spring an astounding
>assault on the senses! What in God's name is this?
>
>The "senior ecclesiastical post in this Church" has the power to recreate the
>entire body of the Board of Trustees and the Board of General Directors ex
>nihilo!
>
>At this time, since I am limiting myself to what The Librarian might call HARD
>FACTS, I am going to duck out from under this question and submit it to the
>collective wits of the audience. This may appear to be the cheapest of ruses to
>avoid a question which has suddenly gone from a simple matter of reading plain
>language (which albeit is not in plain order), to an ecclesiastical matter which
>I am not qualified to discuss.
>
>I have already done a bit of research on this subject, however, I have reached
>the end of what I can conclude by even a thorough examination of the By-laws of
>the Church of Spiritual Technology, because when I track the flow of power to
>its Source, as it were, it suddenly goes and gets all ECCLESIASTICAL on me!
>
>Let the brickbats commence.
>
>ptsc
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
CL
Hash: SHA1
[NOTATION IN SQUARE BRACKETS ARE REUSS'S TRAINING REGIMEN POINTS]
Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote:
>Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
>
>>If you and Michael Reuss could ever get through your Cro-Magnon skulls
[ESTABLISH RAPPORT--WINK, BE FRIENDLY]:
>Oh, how rude! We don't like to be called Cro-Magnons anymore. We
>prefer to be called "otherly skulled, pre-Americans." ;-)
Figures; being P.C. is very Cro-Magnon. ;-)
>>that I don't give a happy flying fuck about the remarkableness or
>>unremarkableness of ~either~ remote viewing ~or~ floating ashtrays
>>~or~ firewalkers ~or~ crystal balls, and take your vapid metaphysical
>>musings over to alt.paranormal where they belong
[ACCUSE]:
>I keep asking you straight out, yet you continue to refuse to answer
>my question.
No, you're just a pedantic liar. I've answered the same tired question
before. You just want to grandstand. Go ahead:
[ESTABLISH FALSE ARGUMENT AND FORCE THAT ISSUE ON OPPONENT]:
>Is it your theory that the motives of the CST special directors in
>controlling Scientology, is really to control the all-valuable,
>stolen, Hubbardspew, so that the CIA can have the only OT supermen in
>the country?
No, otherly-skulled, pre-American moron. (Was that better?) ;-)
>That's a yes/no question. I'd like a yes or no answer.
You got your answer. You'd gotten it before, too, but you like to keep
ignoring the answer, so you can just keep rewording your "Here, let me
find SOME way to make you look like an idiot" question in more and more
ludicrous ways so you can have something to ridicule, don't you, you
smart-ass school-yard punk. Ever thought about getting into long pants
and acting anything like an adult?
[MAKE AN "US AGAINST YOU" STATEMENT ON THE ISSUE; OVERWHELM]:
>Then we'll all be able to judge whether you do or do not give a flying
>fuck about the issue of magical metaphysics.
Who's "we all"? Got a squadron of flying ashtrays with clown faces and
long black robes following you around? Tell 'em I don't submit to their
jurisdiction, and "you all" can go judge each other's cavities.
>>then it would free up
>>bandwidth for people with enough intelligence and discernment to at
>>least be able to recognize what was being discussed: the material,
>>provable historical facts of what actually, IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD,
>>took place vis a vis SCIENTOLOGY (the topic of this newsgroup) and its
>>principals and organizations, and the federal government that first
>>granted, then revoked, then granted it tax exemption. All of which
>>goes directly to the subject of this thread, "Who Controls the CST."
[USE OPPONENT STATEMENT TO CREATE YOUR OWN PLAYING FIELD]:
>I am talking about who controls the CST. I'm advancing the theory that
>it's the Poodleboy, David Miscavige (*).
Well, that's why you are so hopelessly full of shit, because in all the
years I and others have been posting here YARDS of printable and
verifiable and very thoroughly sourced indisputable facts that prove
conclusively that he doesn't--facts that are all archived within your
easy access--you have done nothing but spew the same inane "theory,"
while dodging the facts like they were bullets, and while simultaneously
failing, in all of your fly-blown rhetoric, to produce even ONE SINGLE
VERIFIABLE FACT to support your hallucinatory "theory." But of course,
as you said, you ~are~ among the skull-challenged, so "we'll all" judge
you with sympathy and politically correct compassion. ;-)
>And I can't very well be correct,
Yeah, you're not. You're dead wrong and full of shit, which I have
proven repeatedly with copious documentation in the form of legal
documents and federal records. Which you never refer to and dodge as
though they were bullets. Dance, Festus.
[REDUCE OPPONENT POSITION ON YOUR PLAYING FIELD TO MERE THEORY/OPINION]:
>if YOU'RE theory that the special directors of the CST are in
>charge, is correct.
It isn't a "theory;" that's only your transparent and unclever and
failed attempt at making less of the facts. The FACT that the Special
Directors are in charge is inarguable, proven repeatedly and
conclusively with indisputable evidence. Hence, you dodge the evidence,
and allege "theory" where no "theory" is required by those who can see
the plain evidence before them. You apparently don't rise to that level.
Maybe you can't see over the edge of the table in your short pants.
You can't--or pretend you can't--comprehend the evidence when it's laid
out in front of you on a silver platter, even when it's laid out in
front of you repeatedly and with great care and reason and explanation.
That inability to comprehend is the very definition of "stupid." That's
why you keep spouting YOUR stupid and completely unsupported THEORY, and
try to reduce the proven FACT of the Special Directors' control of CST
to the level of your own hallucinatory, inane, and completely unfounded
"theory," so you can pretend they somehow compare to each other.
They don't remotely compare. One is a fact backed by stacks and mounds
of documentation. The other is the product of nothing but your own
feverish imagination, backed by zilch. You're just a moron. It's okay.
You're probably just a victim of genetics or environment or both. Don't
feel bad. ;-)
[CAST DOUBT ON THEORY YOU HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO OPPONENT]:
>So, I'm just discussing the dependencies of your theory,
You know, I'm sympathetic and patient with the learning impaired, but it
only goes so far. It's not a theory, moron. Depend on that. It's a fact.
[REINFORCE "US VS. YOU"]:
>so that we can all understand them better,
We? You and your squadron of floating ashtray clown judges? You have no
desire to understand what has been repeatedly put before you with reason
and evidence. Why do you keep up the fraud that you do?
[SADDLE OPPONENT WITH FALSE THEORY HE MUST DEFEND]:
>and so that I can invalidate your theory,
Address the facts, idiot. There is no theory here for you to address.
You are hallucinating. There are only indisputable facts. Address the
facts. Cite the facts. Cite the documents. Cite the dates. Cite the
names of the principals. You won't, because you cannot. You are a fool.
>so that my theory will carry the day.
Your theory couldn't carry water.
[HINGE OPPONENT'S ENTIRE POSITION ON MEETING IMPOSSIBLE DEMAND]:
>And if you cannot demonstrate that there is a real motive for the
>secretive special directors to behave as you imply, then I'm just
>saying you have some additional 'splainin' to do.
Oh, it's MOTIVE I have to demonstrate to you, now! Is that it? Really.
Which one of your floating ashtray clown judges told you that I had to
"remote view" the minds of the Special Directors and then tell you what
motives I found in their post-Cro-Magnon skulls? You really should fire
that little troublemaker. Do you have a black dog down in the yard that
tells you I have to do its bidding, too? 'Splain this to your black yard
dog, moron: fuck off.
While you're at it, let's play Scientology: Your demand to ME for the
MOTIVES of the SPECIAL DIRECTORS of CST is "DEV-T." Do you know what
that means. moron? It means "Developed and Unnecessary Traffic." Your
demand is OFF-LINE. That means you sent it to the wrong place. But here,
since you're cranially challenged, I'll show mercy and help you:
Sherman D. Lenske
Lenske Lenske & Abramson ALC
Warner Atrium
Suite 315
6400 Canoga Ave
Woodland Hills, California 91367-2433
Phone: (818) 716-1444
(818) 883-2920
E-mail: sle...@aol.com
Fax: (818) 883-9260
You want their fucking motives? ASK THEM, FUCKHEAD--NOT ME!
But then, you probably already knew where to find them, didn't you.
Be sure and report back to the class what you learn on your field trip.
I may miss it. Any more idiotic questions you want to pose while you're
showing your ass?
[ESTABLISH PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY PLAN FOR OUR PEOPLE]:
>I think the notion that the CST special directors are just the paid
>legal mercenary whores of David Miscavige is a perfectly good
>explanation for the verbiage in the CST articles.
Well, that's because you are a pathetic moron who cannot reason, even
when spoon-fed indisputable facts by the wheel-barrow-load. But when you
talk to the Special Directors, be sure to ask them.
>And that the general directors could all very well be brainwashed,
>obedient yes-men, who cower at the feet of the COB, and who could be
>coerced by the Poodle (*)
Is it a black Poodle? Down in the yard? Telling you and the brainwashed
yes-men what to do? What do you have as evidence? Some doggy-doo-doo?
Oh. Nothing. Really? Just your fevered imagination and paranoia about
CIA MK-ULTRA-style tinfoil-hat brainwashing? Is that the whole
"rational" for your "theory." My, my, my, Michael; I didn't realize you
were that far gone.
Well, at least brainwashing is CIA tek that pre-dates the CIA
remote-viewing tek, so I guess that makes it... well, older. ;-)
>to vote unanimously against the special directors, should that need
>ever arise, which, if my theory is correct, would seldom, or never
>happen.
Ooo. Let's ~hope~ not. ;-)
You have no idea WTF you're talking about. You are a fucking moron. ;-)
>>If either of you could ever get off of your carousel-horses of "you
>>have to prove metaphysics are real before any history happened" long
>>enough to even be able to SEE a real physical world where real,
>>physical world CIA contracts were written and signed by real, physical
>>world individuals
[RESTATE OPPONENT STATEMENTS IN ABSURD WAYS ATTRIBUTED TO OPPONENT]:
>Great. To you, "money spent" = "proof that magic happens."
Really, Michael? Is that how you understood the statement made above?
Hm. No wonder you have no fucking clue what the legal documents say.
Yes, you clearly are a comprehensional moron.
>>and where real Federal Reserve tax dollars changed hands to
>>pay for stolen property
[ASSERT APPROVED DISINFORMATION STATEMENTS WITH
APPEAL TO OUR AUTHORITIES]:
>In this instance (the Stanford, Ingo Swann, Hal Puthoff psi tests) our
>tax dollars paid for a research program that proved <ChrisFarley> JACK
>SQUAT! </ChrisFarley>. No less an authority than Hal Puthoff admits
>this very thing.
Oh? Did he really? And Hal Puthoff is an "authority" now? I could have
sworn you thought he was a fraud. Well, which should we take him as,
Michael: authority or fraud? Should we take him as an "authority" on
being a fraud? Well, if so, then, he could as well be defrauding us
"now" as "then"--couldn't he TweedleDumbAss? Do you think you might ever
actually catch your tail? If you do, what will you do with it?
But precisely when and where did this fraud, Puthoff, defraud us by
"admitting" that the fraudulent research program proved "JACK SQUAT"? Do
you have a cite to this "admission" of his having been a fraud, or do
you only have your own assertion that he "admitted" to having defrauded
the CIA and DIA out of tens of millions of dollars for AT LEAST
TWENTY-FOUR YEARS? Maybe we are all supposed to swallow your assertion
like sugar water because it fell from the mouth of Michael?
Or should "we all" (yes, we'll even include your squadron of floating
ashtray clown judges and your beaming-brainwashing-beams yard-Poodle)
stick just to indisputable facts? Let's DO!
INDISPUTABLE FACT ONE: In 1971, Hal Puthoff wrote a "Success Story" as
Expanded OT III, OT VII, published in "Advance" magazine.
INDISPUTABLE FACT TWO: The CIA/DIA program in remote viewing ran for AT
LEAST twenty-four years: from AT LEAST 1971 to AT LEAST 1995.
Scientology OT VII Puthoff was the head of that program. The two head
technical personnel were Scientology OT VIIs Ingo Swann and Pat Price.
INDISPUTABLE FACT THREE: In 1975, Hal Puthoff submitted a report to the
CIA. The cover of the report reads:
STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Menlo Park, California 94025 * U.S.A.
Final Report
Covering the Period January 1974 through February 1975
PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES
Part One--Executive Summary
By: Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ
Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory
SRI Project 3183
Approved by:
Earle Jones, Director
Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory
Bonnar Cox, Executive Director
Information Science and Engineering Division
SECRET
The seventeen-page well-documented report concludes as follows:
"Finally, it is concluded by the research contractors that
the accrual of experience in three years of successful effort
constitutes an asset that could be utilized in the future
both for operational needs and for training others in the
development and use of the remote sensing capability."
INDISPUTABLE FACT FOUR: Michael Reuss has no access to any documentation
to determine what any of the actual results were of anything done at any
time in the twenty-four-year+ secret program, so anything Michael Reuss
says about it can be discarded out of hand as nothing more than hearsay,
opinion, and other brands of entirely worthless effluvium.
Okay, Michael: we're done with all relevant and provable facts. At ease.
>But does that admission persuade CL?
Um, what admission, Michael? Is it under the black judge's robe of one
of your flying ashtray clowns? I can't see it there, Michael. Where is
it? You keep talking about it, but nobody can see it except you. Is it a
Secret CIA Invisible Admission, Michael? Do you have to wear special CIA
glasses to be able to see it? Does the black yard-Poodle tell you that
you can see it when nobody else can?
I just posted for you what Puthoff provably reported to the CIA. Where
is your fucking report where Puthoff admits he was defrauding the CIA
for twenty-four years out of tens of millions of dollars? Where is your
fucking report, Michael? Or are you just a fucking moronic liar?
>Oh no, not in the least.
;-)
>To CL, this statement by Puthoff
What "statement by Puthoff"? Are you holding the statement in your hand,
Michael? Or is it floating in the air with your ashtrays? Or do you have
it shoved up your ass so it can be close to your brain? I can't see it,
Michael. I can see the one I just posted. It's right there. Where is
your claimed "statement by Puthoff"?
>is just interpreted as "proof" that Puthoff is just another of the
>lying conspirators,
Well, either:
A. he defrauded (lied to) the CIA for twenty-four years; OR,
B. he did NOT defraud the CIA for twenty-four years, and so if he
really did make the statement you claim he made (but won't
produce), he is lying about there being no results; OR
C. you are lying about him ever making such an "admission" at all.
In any of those cases, the testimony you claim so fervently (but hide
from us up your ass) is thoroughly impeached, and there is no
independent corroboration or proof possible of who lied when about what.
Therefore it is all worthless hot air and entirely ejectable without
regret. (Unless you eject it in a closed room. Please step outside to
eject it.) If you weren't such a moron that would be evident to you. It
is evident to all the non-morons reading this. It is just not evident to
you. That's because you are patently a moron. But I'm sure it's all a
sad accident of genetics or environment, so don't feel bad, and "we"
won't hold it against you. ;-)
[REINFORCE FALSE ARGUMENT YOU ATTRIBUTE TO OPPONENT]:
>seeking to spirit away the invaluable Hubbardspew, on behalf of the
>gummint, forever to be hidden from you and me, like Arc of the Covenant
>in the big warehouse at the end of those Indiana Jones movies...
Is the black yard-Poodle howling Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries?"
>>and where a real former IRS official fattened
>>his wallet with Scientology money to set up a real, physical universe
>>corporation with real corporate papers and corporate laws that entire
>>state government agencies are set up to ENFORCE, a corporation that
>>has real, physical world titanium holes in the physical world ground
[REINFORCE PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY PLAN FOR OUR PEOPLE]:
>Money changing hands is not proof of anything (except that people,
>especially lawyers, want and like money). The non-Scientology lawyers
>who have helped prosecute the cases against Erlich, Wollershiem, Ward,
>Penny, Henson, Spaink, Minton, et.al. have also fattened their wallets
>with Scientology money.
Haven't they though.
[INTRODUCE SPECIOUS DICHOTOMIES]:
>Money doesn't prove anything about the tech, CL.
Really. Well, I see that you're an expert on commerce and economics,
too, Michael. Isn't Greenspan due to retire soon? Maybe there's a place
for you.
[BLITZ HARD WITH HYPERBOLE AND GENERALITIES]:
>True believers who have been willing monetary victims of this
>insidious scam for decades, in spite of the fact that no one has ever
>turned into a psi-superman.
Yes, Michael, they are all just poor CIA-MK-ULTRA-style brainwashed
victims, right? Listen to your yard-Poodle, Michael; he'll tell you,
howling at the moon.
>>, there might be some hope of having a discussion.
[REINFORCE PLANTED CONCEPT THAT OPPONENT'S POSITION
IS MERE UNSUPPORTED THEORY/OPINION]:
>A better discussion might very well happen when you start explaining
>your WHOLE theory, instead of just bits of it.
No, Michael, no discussion is possible with a moron of your ilk who
cannot make the required distinction between FACT and THEORY. I don't
know why you are incapable of making that distinction--genetics or
environment, I suppose--but that lamentable deficiency in you achieves
sub-moron qualifications, and so of course defeats any possibility of
rational discussion with you.
That's not to say that your moronic rants aren't entertaining, even if
morosely tiresome, predictably, and redundant after a very short while.
[FIND FAULT WITH OPPONENT'S DEMEANOR OR EMOTIONAL STATE]
>A good discussion might happen when you stop getting angry at us
Whipping out the "psych tek," now, Michael? Gonna' give me a little
"anger management" lesson? LOL!
[ACCUSE]
>because, in the absence of your full honesty,
Ahh! I see your squadron of floating clown ashtray judges clinked their
heads together and have issued a pronunciamento that I am less than
honest. Will this be a published ruling, or merely a Breckenridge-esque
bench-remote-viewed amateur psychoanalysis? You fucking twit. You are as
transparent as Saran Wrap.
>we are forced
We? Then it WAS your floating clown ashtray judges, ~en banque~ at that!
>to make educated guesses at what you're really saying.
That's because you are a moron, and incapable of comprehension of facts
laid before you. So remote view it, motherfucker. ;-)
How is my anger management? ;-)
>>But there isn't; you are both loons off in some la-la land deluding
>>yourselves that you can order me to prove to you that Scientology
>>works:
[DENY DOING WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING]:
>That's crap. I'm not ordering you to do anything.
It's your black yard-Poodle that's making you do it, right?
>I'm not even "ordering" you to tell me your entire theory.
Phew. You have no idea how relieved I am.
[RE-ESTABLISH RAPPORT--BESEECH]:
>But I am saying that your continued reticence at doing so is
>frustrating to me, and I HOPE, I ask, I BEG you to just lay all your
>goddammed cards on the table,
I'm not playing Pinochle or whatever idiotic game you are trying to
engage me in, nor am I divining from the Tarot. What I have are FACTS.
They are documented FACTS. They are indisputable FACTS. And they are ON
the table, and HAVE been on the table, and will REMAIN on the table for
those who have the intellect and intelligence to access and understand
them. Apparently you don't reach that category. Perhaps you can't see up
over the edge of the table in your short pants.
[THEN ACCUSE AGAIN]:
>instead of playing your stupid "mine is the only possible way to
>interpret the data" game.
I'm not playing any game. You are welcome to interpret the facts any way
you choose. But I humbly suggest you try to somehow overcome the barrier
of your inability to comprehend and understand them FIRST.
>>otherwise, history didn't happen.
[REINFORCE FAULT WITH OPPONENT'S DEMEANOR OR EMOTIONAL STATE]
>That's just your angry and emotional projection onto what I'm saying,
>CL.
I so love it when you rub on the psych-tek balm, Michael. I'm so easy to
manipulate with covert invalidation. I feel so calm, now.
Fucking idiot.
>Clearly, history has happened. Unfortunately, neither of us is privy
>to the juiciest parts of that history that we're discussing here,
>agreed?
You mean like what went on inside of a twenty-four-year+ CIA/DIA/NSA
multi-million-dollar remote-viewing program, and the results? No, we
aren't, are we, Michael. But you're the only one who pretends to be
privy to it, aren't you? All I do is relate the documentable historical
facts about it. Of course it seems to escape your notice that ALL of the
documentable historical facts relate success in the program, while NONE
of the documentable historical facts demonstrate or refer to failure in
the program: right up until the moment when the program was exposed, at
which time the CIA issued, in 1995, a weak and watery statement of a
sudden unexplained need to "review" the twenty-four-year-long program
(acting like it was all DIA's folly, and that they had "just heard about
it"--sound familiar?), followed by a CIA-bought think-tank's (American
Institutes of Research) mush-mouthed white-wash paper published to blunt
the public interest. (CIA/AIR Report--and NOTHING was EVER so aptly
named.) Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with, moron? How stupid
are you, really?
Oh, but YOU were referring to the FACTS about CST when you tried to
pretend that "the juiciest parts" aren't known, weren't you? Oh, and
here I went off on a remote-viewing tangent. Silly me.
No, lying asshole, we ~aren't~ agreed.
There is a tremendous amount of ~previously~ hidden data available now
regarding the corporations of Scientology, and particularly CST, and
particularly proving conclusively and inarguably where the actual wealth
and power lie in them--as opposed to the lies and willful disinformation
that were spread about Miscavige's power, all of which you have been a
major mouthpiece of, and all of which have now been thoroughly and
irrevocably impeached.
Anyone who cannot recognize the FACT of the ownership and control of
both the copyrights and trademarks vesting in CST, and the FACT of the
control the Special Directors have over CST--and therefore over all the
intellectual property, and therefore over all the licensed junior
organizations of Scientology--either will not LOOK at the facts, or
cannot comprehend them. So fuck them, and fuck you, too. I don't feel
any compelling need to hold your hand and try to walk you through it
anymore, because all attempts fail. You either truly are too stupid to
get it, or you have some other very important--to you--agenda.
Either way: fuck you, moron.
[RE-ESTABLISH RAPPORT]
>And that's why we're discussing.
No, you're not discussing, and you're a liar when you say you are. So
fuck you, moron AND liar.
You're soapboxing, pumping your agenda to deny CST's control for all
it's worth, and trying in some obviously desperate and convoluted way to
tie the FACT of CST's control, and the FACT of these Special Directors'
control of CST, to some metaphysical psi bullshit that you can then
discredit, and, by association (you think), discredit the FACTS about
CST and its Special Directors. You are as transparent as Saran Wrap, and
you aren't even good at it. Give it up, moron.
[INVALIDATE OPPONENT'S EVIDENCE]
>You and I interpret the limited evidence in vastly different ways.
The evidence is only limited by the capacity of your intelligence. The
evidence is VAST and indisputable. That's why you try to jump the
metaphysical border and beat the medicine drum about "psi-tech" instead,
and do everything you can to desperately make THAT the topic (your
playing field), and then through grotesque rhetorical arabesques attempt
to link THAT to CST, because you CANNOT and WILL NOT address the actual
pertinent documents and the indisputable facts about CST and its Special
Directors. Your game is blown. You are a joke. And here you go again:
[REINFORCE FALSE ARGUMENT YOU ATTRIBUTE TO OPPONENT]:
>Your way depends on a theory that presumes metaphysical feats of magic
>happen, and are therefore the motive for all sorts of nefarious
>governmental conspiracies.
Let's all just stand back and watch the man in the houndstooth suit work
his Snake Oil Show, and try not to snicker out loud:
[ASSERT SUPERIORITY OF YOUR POSITION OVER
FALSE ARGUMENT YOU ATTRIBUTE TO OPPONENT]:
>My way presumes that no metaphysical feats of magic are happening, or
>have ever happened
Ohhhhhh, no, your way just requires that all corporations and all
corporate law and all Secretaries of State and the entire set of
exemption sections of the Internal Revenue Code for 501(c)(3) and 170
corporations have all metaphysically become utterly meaningless, and
that David Metaphysical Miscavige keeps hundreds or thousands around him
metaphysically brainwashed and in his irresistible metaphysical thrall.
Right? You fucking dipshit ignoramous disingenuous moron.
>and all the money the CIA gave to Ingo and Hal
...for at least twenty-four years...
>was just money thrown down a rat hole.
Well, of course it was, Michael. Hal Puthoff channeled through your
black yard-Poodle and told you so, didn't he? You lying motherfucker.
>It certainly wouldn't be the first time the gummint blew our tax money
>on stupid experiment.
Twenty-four years worth of "stupid experiment." They are all such slow
learners in the CIA. Bet the gummint wishes they had smart people like
~you~, so they wouldn't waste so much time and money on those idiots
they've got working for them. Why don't ~you~ work for them, Michael,
and help the poor idiots out? I'm sure they would value your genius.
;-)
>>Then, while tippy-toeing around the facts like they were land mines,
>
>I fear no facts. I'm only saying that you are interpreting the facts
>badly.
Like the gummint did for twenty-four fucking years, right? We're just,
all of us, not ~quite~ as bright as Michael Reuss.
>And you're saying the same thing about me.
Nah, Michael, I'm not saying you're interpreting the facts badly: I'm
saying you're either too fucking stupid to understand the facts in order
to interpret them at all, or you have another agenda. It is one or the
other. And just between us girls: I don't ~really~ think you're all
~that~ stupid. ;-) But I ~could~ be wrong. ;-)
[REASSERT SUPERIORITY OF YOUR POSITION OVER
FALSE ARGUMENT YOU ATTRIBUTE TO OPPONENT]:
>But of the two of us, at least I am trying to disclose all of my
>thought processes and reasoning.
I feel so enriched. By the way, I think you left behind the facts you
are doing all that thought processing and reasoning on. Maybe they're in
your other robe.
>>you insist that ~I~ should believe in
>>the same hallucinatory fairy tale that you got suckered into by your
>>lying, criminal heroes:
>
>I really don't give a crap what you believe. We're playing to the
>audience, here.
No, you are. I'm sticking to the facts. Frustratin', ain't it.
>>that a wet-behind-the-ears high-school drop-out out-smarted and
>>out-bullied some of the highest-paid tax attorneys in the land,
[REINFORCE PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY PLAN FOR OUR PEOPLE]:
>Fuck no, that's not what I'm saying at all. A high-school drop-out
>didn't outsmart that attorneys. He hired them.
Really? Let's check the facts: What year did he hire them? What month?
How old was he? What was his organizational position at the time? Did he
have any authority to hire them? Who gave him that authority? What is
your evidence? Who were his seniors at the time? What were their posts?
Did he have control over the funds to hire attorneys with? What funds?
- From which organization? What is your evidence? What was his authority
over the funds? What is your evidence? Who signed the checks to hire the
attorneys? Was it David Miscavige? What is your evidence? Did Starkey
and Gamboa hire the attorneys, too? What did he hire them for? Was it L.
Ron Hubbard's literary marketing? Was it corporate restructuring? Was it
to handle "all aspects of estate planning" for L. Ron Hubbard? What was
Norton Karno doing at the time? What role did he play in their hiring?
Do you know?
DO YOU KNOW, you conscienceless lying fuck?
Every question I just asked is absolutely critical to your false
assertion, and has copious documentation that I have posted and
discussed in this very forum over the last two weeks, proving
conclusively that you are a fucking amoral lying moron.
[REINFORCE PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY PLAN FOR OUR PEOPLE]:
>He bought them.
Fucking moron. Liar. Prove it, fuckface. Back it up. You can't, lying
whore. You're worse than the lying cocksucking legal whores that work
for Lenske, Lenske and Heller, spreading any lie you feel like spreading
without shame or remorse, and without the tiniest shred of evidence.
God, you are to be reviled by anyone with a soul.
[REINFORCE PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY PLAN FOR OUR PEOPLE]:
>They set up the shells to be exactly what he paid them for.
Prove it, lying fuck. Post one single shred of evidence, you low-life
lying disinformation-spreading motherfucker. You won't because you
can't. You're a blowhard and a liar, blowing the party line.
>>the entire IRS, the entire Justice Department, and the entire
>>FBI, and did it all with undated letters of resignation.
>
>I'm not relying solely on undated letters of resignation to control,
When did you post a copy of the ones you're only PARTLY relying on? I
musta' been on vacation. Lying fuck.
>and we're not talking about strong-willed skeptics, here, in any case.
No, we're talking about either a moron, or a liar, or both.
[INJECT VITAL DISINFORMATION]:
>I believe that if there are current trustees, other than Miscavige,
You bare-faced liar. Miscavige is not now and never has been a Trustee
of CST, as I just proved conclusively in a post to ptsc, the
documentation for which has been around for years. All it took was
someone who cared enough about the FACTS instead of your FICTION to put
it together and present the truth. That person was me. You're a fucking
liar spreading disinformation.
And if you had ANY clue whatsoever of the facts, you'd know that the
Bylaws of CST require THREE Trustees, and that they have NO power
whatsoever except to appoint General Directors. But of course you're
clueless, or you just want to muddy the waters some more with your
fucking irresponsible or bought-and-paid-for disinformation.
>that undated resignation letters probably exist.
Yeah, them and your flying ashtrays. Post one, moron, or STFU, roll it
around a poker, and shove it up your ass.
[INJECT VITAL DISINFORMATION AND PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY]:
>If so, I think such letters do exert some level of control over people
>who signed them,
That's because you're a fucking moron.
>just as the fear of the immoral and legally invalid free-loader debt
>controls Sea Org members.
When did the free-loader debt start? Do you know? Who created it? DO YOU
KNOW? Moron.
[INJECT SLY DOUBT-INSTILLING HINTS OF DISINFORMATION]:
>But we're talking about a group of people who (if there even is a
>general board of directors in existence)
Well, if you had even a nodding acquaintance with the facts, you'd know
that it does exist, that it has to exist, and why. So you shamelessly
admit your utter ignorance of the most fundamental facts at issue?
>that are already well brainwashed to obey,
Did Dr. Sidney Gottlieb brainwash them? Was it a black-bag MK-ULTRA
brainwashing job? Was it one of Jolly West's techniques? Puharich's? Who
did the brainwashing, oh bastion of Truth and Facts? How long did it
take? Did they use the "nurse pops out of doorway" technique? Do you
know? Was sleep deprivation involved? Is brainwashing possible without
it? DO YOU KNOW? Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with here? And
how fucking stupid are you really?
>and not question the authority of the man who is I/C.
Who is that, Michael, and what is your documentation? Post it for
somebody who might still care; I think I might miss it.
>>Fuck you, moron, and the carousel horse you ride round and round on.
>
>I'm detecting a little hostility here. HEY you suppose I'm a psychic?!
No, I suppose you're a fucking moron. How's my anger management coming?
>>You're both too stupid to even understand what the topic of
>>discussion is. So just keep riding your merry-go-round. Watch out
>>for floating ashtrays, and don't sign any undated letters of
>>resignation.
[USE "ASSERT FOR DENIAL" TO GAIN INFORMATION ON OPPONENT]:
>My, my, what easily pressed buttons you have. If Scientology tech
>works so well, as you continually imply, why are you so reactive?
Where is your evidence that I'm a Scientologist, moron? Did you remote
view it? Or did your black yard-Poodle tell you I was? Do you wear a
little pork-pie hat with fishing lures stuck in the band when you go on
your fishing expeditions? Do you think your fishing lure isn't
three-feet wide and day-glo orange? It is. Do you think you're clever
and subtle with your "assert and deny" technique? You are ham-handed and
club-footed--like Gottlieb. Are you even sure you correspond with the
same "CL" every time? Fish in other waters, moron.
Here, put this in your little fish-basket: I hereby swear under penalty
of perjury, unequivocally, that I am NOT a Scientologist[TM], have never
BEEN a Scientologist[TM], and will never BE a Scientologist[TM] as long
as I live, so help me God.
There, fucker--fry that fish. Or do you have "other fish to fry"? Now
whattchou gon' do?
>Or, perhaps you just need a little refresh on your TRs?
I think it's you who's going to be due for a little retread on your
Training Regimen when I'm done waxing the floor with you. That's why
I've put the important points in here for you, so you can brush up
before you get hauled in for the exam to figure out exactly how you got
cut off at the knees, fuckface. Who the fuck do you think you're dealing
with here?
>You get so hung
>up on my little ridiculing taunts , you always miss the big picture.
Your taunts are too juvenile to notice; it's your panoramic bovine
stupidity that IS the big picture, and NOBODY could miss it.
[JUST SAY ANY SHIT YOU WANT TO MAKE UP
THAT CAN'T BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN]:
>Scientologists believe they are serving David Miscavige.
Really? Every one of them? Can you read their minds, Michael? Do you
remote view their beliefs? Or do your floating ashtray clown-faced
judges judge them, and, like Breckenridge, pass their gratuitous
jabberwocky judgments down from Vallhala to you, the idiot-savant town
crier, so you can run through the streets of usenet with your black
yard-Poodle howling "Ride of the Valkyries," while you brand those
all-alike Scientologists with your proclaimed universal indictments?
You really don't have any idea what a pitiable lout your are, do you?
>That means that, for all intents and purposes, they ARE serving him.
Oooo. Scary. Let's all run and hide.
>He can order them about, make them fear, declare them, kick them out.
Really? But the Special Directors are appointed for life, and they
aren't Scientologists, and they can't be removed by David Miscavige. Or
didn't you know that? Fucking moron. Or were you just trying to make
people forget that fact? Fucking liar.
[INJECT DISINFORMATION]
>That means he has all the tools he needs to browbeat an unanimous
>decision he needs from a general board of directors.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Not the vaguest. Or you
do, and are willfully spreading disinformation. Does it really matter
which? Not to me. The result is the same: lies.
>But he probably doesn't ever have to do that. Because all the trustee
>and director shit is just a scam.
Uh-huh. So, any reason why we can't just send all the 50 Secretaries of
States' Corporations Office employees home? We'd sure save a lot of
state tax dollars that way, wouldn't we? Won't they be surprised when
they learn their jobs never meant anything at all! Oh, and won't the IRS
be surprised when they find out that all that 501(c)(3) shit is
toothless and unenforceable. Hell, we can send all THEIR corporate
enforcement agents home, too, and save a BUNDLE! Hoo, Boy, Michael! You
sure are smart! Gee, you really OUGHT to think about working for the
gummint. ;-)
You're just too smart for me. I just can't take another dose of smart
from you. I don't know what it might do to me. So I'm going to have to
wind down all this good fun we've been having.
It was ~quite~ an education. I do so hate to skip over the lesbian
sheep, it being so pertinent and all, but I am just going to have to
start pulling down the shutters on the shop and take the time to
assimilate all I've learned from this scintillating exchange.
<Snip>
>History did happen. But just not in the way you think.
Mmmm.
>You can call us morons till the cows come home,
Or till the lesbian sheep come home...
[REINFORCE LUDICROUS POSITION YOU FALSELY ATTRIBUTE TO OPPONENT]:
>but in the end, you're
>the one believing in remote viewers in spite of the fact that you've
>probably been involved with Scientology for years, and yet YOU can't
>remote view a goddamned thing (nor lift an ashtray, I might add).
Mmmm.
>>>My problem is that I understand how LRH "technology" "works."
>>
>>Your problem is that you're a moron.
>> * PLONK *
>
>The "Plonked by CL" club is born.
Yes, but it isn't for just ~anyone~. It's /MARTHA STEWART/ very, ~very~
exclusive. \MARTHA STEWART\ It takes a suprhuman, ash-tray-lifting
demonstration of a severe, incorrigible, nearly incapacitating level of
stupidity, or willful attempts to disseminate disinformation to get in.
But congratulations: you made the cut.
* PLONK *
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBPAR9L9AKsx0v8qcvEQKFQgCfTIlNfXIGFOtOckON/oqlWeQA57sAoOKL
H1a6oWLuYTp5FCeiGkRSfIkH
=c7Gx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Michael Reuss
>While you're at it, let's play Scientology: Your demand to ME for the
>MOTIVES of the SPECIAL DIRECTORS of CST is "DEV-T." Do you know what
>that means. moron? It means "Developed and Unnecessary Traffic." Your
>demand is OFF-LINE. That means you sent it to the wrong place. But here,
>since you're cranially challenged, I'll show mercy and help you:
> Sherman D. Lenske
> Lenske Lenske & Abramson ALC
> Warner Atrium
> Suite 315
> 6400 Canoga Ave
> Woodland Hills, California 91367-2433
> Phone: (818) 716-1444
> (818) 883-2920
> E-mail: sle...@aol.com
> Fax: (818) 883-9260
>You want their fucking motives? ASK THEM, FUCKHEAD--NOT ME!
I don't know if it'll do any good, but I'll try.
I've written an e-mail to Mr. Lenske, requesting an interview. I'll
let you know if I get a reply. And if he consents to an interview, I
might ask for your help in formulating a short list of questions that
would be of the most (collective) interest.
================================================================
My e-mail to sle...@aol.com:
================================================================
Dear Mr. Sherman Lenske,
Please allow me to introduce myself, My name is Michael Reuss. I'm
from Fort Collins, Colorado, and I work as a software engineer. The
reason I'm writing to you, is to request a brief interview.
I'm involved in a discussion group which is very much interested in
the corporations and intellectual properties created by L. Ron Hubbard
and his successors, as well as the transfer of ownership of the LRH
properties to other entities, either prior to or after Hubbard's
death.
Our discussion group is interested in knowing about, and hopefully
detailing for posterity, how and why certain 501(c)3 corporations were
created to archive the Hubbard properties, and in knowing how those
corporations interact with, control, or are controlled by the various
corporations collectively known as the Church of Scientology.
Would you consent to answering a few questions about these issues,
either by way of a phone interview, or in an e-mail type interview? I
would try to make my questions brief, and not take up too much of your
time.
Could you let me know if you would consent to such an interview in an
e-mail reply? If you consent, and wish to speak to me on the phone,
I'll be happy to provide my phone number information. Just let me
know.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Reuss
================================================================
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
ptsc
[Response merely to acknowledge one correction.]
>>David Miscavige *was* and perhaps *is* on that Board of Trustees.
>Not true. That's just yet another false datum that's been injected into
>the Great David Miscavige Mythology. Michael Reuss has helped spread
>that false datum around. But that's part of his job. The SOURCE of that
>FALSE STATEMENT is Zegel, in Tape #3, around July 1984. He is the only
>source that I know of for it. The following quote from Zegel Tape #3 is
>FALSE as regards the "trustee of Church of Spiritual Technology" part:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~FALSE STATEMENT ALERT! FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "David Miscavige, trustee of the Church of Spiritual
> Technology, trustee of the RTC and trustee of Author
> Services, Lyman Spurlock..."
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~END FALSE STATEMENT ALERT!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Snip various other offerings of proof.]
I saw this on a number of locations and have contacted one of them. As far as I
can tell, all statements of DM being a Trustee of CST trace their descent from
this one oral statement by Jon Zegel; with the papers disagreeing. DM (as
pointed out) is a Trustee of RTC, but (unless there's something to the contrary
besides the Zegel tape) apparently wasn't, and probably isn't, currently a
Trustee of CST.
Interesting.
ptsc
Beverly Rice
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
> > "David Miscavige, trustee of the Church of Spiritual
> > Technology, trustee of the RTC and trustee of Author
> > Services, Lyman Spurlock..."
> I saw this on a number of locations and have contacted one of them. As far as I
> can tell, all statements of DM being a Trustee of CST trace their descent from
> this one oral statement by Jon Zegel; with the papers disagreeing. DM (as
> pointed out) is a Trustee of RTC, but (unless there's something to the contrary
> besides the Zegel tape) apparently wasn't, and probably isn't, currently a
> Trustee of CST.
Again, the Zegel tape . . .
if it wasn't Hubbies voice on the tape . . .
then whose was it?
Anyone know anybody who can imitate Hubbies voice and cadance
well enough?
Seriously . . .
what would be the purpose of making people think that DM is
a trustee of C$T if he isn't one?
ARC = As-Ising the Real "Conspiracy",
Beverly
Michael Reuss
>> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
>> Sherman D. Lenske
>> Lenske Lenske & Abramson ALC
>> E-mail: sle...@aol.com
Houston, we have a problem...
The person who received my e-mail message requesting an interview,
claims not to be the Sherman Lenske we're talking about.
How sure are you about Sherm's phone number? Maybe I'll give him a
call.
...
Oh, and I certainly hope the remainder of your "facts" turn out to be
more reliable that this one did. ;-)
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Beverly Rice
> > Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote:
> >> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
> >> Sherman D. Lenske
> >> Lenske Lenske & Abramson ALC
> >> E-mail: sle...@aol.com
> Houston, we have a problem...
> The person who received my e-mail message requesting an interview,
> claims not to be the Sherman Lenske we're talking about.
Shoot!!! I guess that would have been too easy.
It would have been nice if it was, because I know that
you are the kind of person that will do something if you
say you will . . .
and would also have been able to talk with ~THE~ Sherman
Lenske from a very unemotive but educated perspective.
You gonna stick with it?
I doubt seriously if any C$T member will talk to any
critic.
Keep us posted!!
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
ptsc
>ptsc wrote:
>> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
>> I saw this on a number of locations and have contacted one of them. As far as I
>> can tell, all statements of DM being a Trustee of CST trace their descent from
>> this one oral statement by Jon Zegel; with the papers disagreeing. DM (as
>> pointed out) is a Trustee of RTC, but (unless there's something to the contrary
>> besides the Zegel tape) apparently wasn't, and probably isn't, currently a
>> Trustee of CST.
[Snip]
>what would be the purpose of making people think that DM is
>a trustee of C$T if he isn't one?
Some may infer darker motives from this than I do. For the moment, though, I'm
going to take the view that Zegel simply slipped in the alphabet soup.
ptsc
Beverly Rice
> Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
> >what would be the purpose of making people think that DM is
> >a trustee of C$T if he isn't one?
> Some may infer darker motives from this than I do.
Rob . . .
you mystery man, you!!
:-)
Actually, I'm always interested in hearing any perspective.
I diamond shines brightest when it is multi-faceted.
It's about time to ~shine~ some light on this previously
ignored topic that reads like "It was a dark and stormy
night".
And, your thoughts, theories, and perspective most assuredly
won't be any wilder than others have been.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
CL
Hash: SHA1
Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>Michael Reuss wrote:
>> > Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
>
>> >> Sherman D. Lenske
>> >> Lenske Lenske & Abramson ALC
>> >> E-mail: sle...@aol.com
>
>> Houston, we have a problem...
>> The person who received my e-mail message requesting an interview,
>> claims not to be the Sherman Lenske we're talking about.
>
>Shoot!!! I guess that would have been too easy.
What?!?! Michael Reuss is actually attempting to reach Sherman Lenske?
My God, I may have to light candles and perform a ritualistic
de-plonking. And here it was seeming so peaceful.
<Sigh>
As to the e-mail address, it and all the other information I gave
Michael is right off of this url (which I have to split and will require
cut-&-paste--splice at "?" leaving "?" intact):
http://profiles.findlaw.com/profile_viewLawyer.jsp?
LawyerUid=1811055&LawyerPid=1
That is accessed by going to (which I also have to split at "name"):
http://directory.findlaw.com/lawyer/lawyer_dir/search/jsp/
name_search.jsp
and entering Lenske for last name, Sherman for first, California for
state, clicking "Search," then clicking on the link that comes up to
Sherman Lenske of Lenske Lenske & Abramson ALC.
I can only suppose that what is on the FindLaw page would have to be the
exact e-mail address that Sherman Lenske himself must have supplied to
FindLaw for their listing.
Besides that, WTF does "the person" mean by claiming he not "THE Sherman
Lenske we're talking about"?! Just how many people named "Sherman
Lenske," for Chrissake, are we supposed to believe exist in the entire
world, much less the liklihood of the only "other" one in the
world--like there is one--just happening to have his e-mail addy
magically show up on the page of THE Sherman Lenske's FindLaw listing?
I'm sorry; have I just been transported to Rod Serling's LSD dream?
No, it looks to me like Michael just got the patented Sherman Lenske
treatment, entirely consistent with an unbroken pattern of bold,
shameless, bare-faced lies.
LOL! What else would anybody expect!
>It would have been nice if it was, because I know that
>you are the kind of person that will do something if you
>say you will . . .
>
>and would also have been able to talk with ~THE~ Sherman
>Lenske from a very unemotive but educated perspective.
>
>You gonna stick with it?
Okay, I'm conditionally deplonking, damn it. I better not be getting my
chain jerked by Reuss...
>I doubt seriously if any C$T member will talk to any critic.
Ummmm...
"This corporation shall have no members."
Sherman Lenske
Articles of Incorporation of CST
>Keep us posted!!
What she said.
>ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
>
>Beverly
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
iQA/AwUBPAdBMdAKsx0v8qcvEQL6iwCfchm7EFJb83JaQqUzG2hpzCI5FeAAoJH2
HnlGDKgMEtngOVwEyhwN81Ns
=7ooe
Michael Reuss
>> Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>>> Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote:
>>>> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
>>> Sherman D. Lenske
>>>> Lenske Lenske & Abramson ALC
>>>> E-mail: sle...@aol.com
>>> Houston, we have a problem...
>>> The person who received my e-mail message requesting an interview,
>>> claims not to be the Sherman Lenske we're talking about.
>> Shoot!!! I guess that would have been too easy.
>What?!?! Michael Reuss is actually attempting to reach Sherman Lenske?
Yup. And maybe I have even reached him.
>My God, I may have to light candles and perform a ritualistic
>de-plonking. And here it was seeming so peaceful.
><Sigh>
Ah, life can be a bitch, sometimes, eh, CL? Now you're going to have
to read my remote viewing taunts again.
>As to the e-mail address, it and all the other information I gave
>Michael is right off of this url (which I have to split and will require
>cut-&-paste--splice at "?" leaving "?" intact):
>http://profiles.findlaw.com/profile_viewLawyer.jsp?LawyerUid=1811055&LawyerPid=1
So verified. I see the same information.
There appear to be only two reasonable explanations. Either the
FindLaw.com database contains erroneous information, or the person who
replies to e-mails sent to sle...@aol.com is lying (misdirecting,
covering up).
Hmmm, I wonder which of these two is more likely...
>I can only suppose that what is on the FindLaw page would have to be the
>exact e-mail address that Sherman Lenske himself must have supplied to
>FindLaw for their listing.
I should think so.
>Besides that, WTF does "the person" mean by claiming he not "THE Sherman
>Lenske we're talking about"?! Just how many people named "Sherman
>Lenske," for Chrissake, are we supposed to believe exist in the entire
>world, much less the liklihood of the only "other" one in the
>world--like there is one--just happening to have his e-mail addy
>magically show up on the page of THE Sherman Lenske's FindLaw listing?
Very good point.
>I'm sorry; have I just been transported to Rod Serling's LSD dream?
>No, it looks to me like Michael just got the patented Sherman Lenske
>treatment, entirely consistent with an unbroken pattern of bold,
>shameless, bare-faced lies.
That's sort of what I figured.
>LOL! What else would anybody expect!
Anyone expecting more than <JACK SQUAT> should have his or her head
examined by a 100%-hated-by-Scientology psych!
>>It would have been nice if it was, because I know that
>>you are the kind of person that will do something if you
>>say you will . . .
Thank you, Bev.
>>and would also have been able to talk with ~THE~ Sherman
>>Lenske from a very unemotive but educated perspective.
*Double* thank you, Bev.
>>You gonna stick with it?
Sure. But now it's going to cost me the price of a long-distance phone
call.
>Okay, I'm conditionally deplonking, damn it. I better not be getting my
>chain jerked by Reuss...
I assure you that I am not jerking your chain about this, CL.
Because I think the response to my e-mail request is a lie, I'm going
to post the reply message from SLe...@aol.com here, in full (not that
it necessary reveals much):
======================================================================
From: SLe...@aol.com Sent: Thu 11/29/2001 8:19 AM
To: michae...@home.com
CC:
Subject: Re: Request for an interview
Your e-mail has been misdirected. I am not the person to whom you
addressed your e-mail.
=========================================================================
If this guy really is Sherman Lenske, he obviously doesn't know or
care about how degraded and -8.0 on the tone scale he appears, based
on the attitudes demonstrated in this message.
>>I doubt seriously if any C$T member will talk to any critic.
>Ummmm...
> "This corporation shall have no members."
> Sherman Lenske
> Articles of Incorporation of CST
Ha! That's right. There are no members. The people on the board of
special directors aren't even members of their own church, er,
corporation, or whatever the hell the CST is.
Bev's comment would be more accurately stated:
"I doubt seriously if any member of the special board of directors of
the C$T will talk to any critic."
>>Keep us posted!!
>What she said.
Roger Wilco, will do.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
ptsc
>> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
>>> Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>>>> Michael Reuss <michae...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (CL) wrote:
>>http://profiles.findlaw.com/profile_viewLawyer.jsp?LawyerUid=1811055&LawyerPid=1
>So verified. I see the same information.
The Martindale-Hubbell Directory disagrees.
(From http://www.martindalehubbell.com)
http://www.martindalehubbell.com/xp/Martindale/Lawyer_Locator/Search_Lawyer_Locator/mailform.xml?EM=2EA1117DBD2A8FFD71DC42AE1087B51988F5&FN=Sherman%20D.%20Lenske&type=2&lid=286598&PRV=
(Cough cough, what an URL)
It gives
Sherman D. Lenske
s...@lenskelaw.com
11/30/01 12:06:50 whois lenskelaw.com
.com is a domain of USA & International Commercial
Searches for .com can be run at http://www.crsnic.net/
whois -h whois.crsnic.net lenskelaw.com ...
Redirecting to NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
whois -h whois.networksolutions.com lenskelaw.com ...
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant:
Lenske Lenske & Abramson (LENSKELAW-DOM)
6400 Canoga Avenue #315
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
US
Domain Name: LENSKELAW.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
Dover, Christiane (CD12898) cdo...@cru-online.com
Dover,Christiane
16501 Sherman Way Suite 225
Van Nuys, CA 91406
US
818-989-0987 818-989-0170
Record last updated on 29-Aug-2001.
Record expires on 21-Jun-2003.
Record created on 21-Jun-1999.
Database last updated on 29-Nov-2001 21:35:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.DSLEXTREME.COM 63.203.107.15
NS2.DSLEXTREME.COM 66.51.206.100
ptsc