CST responsible for DMCA attack on Google and Operation Clambake
CL
Hash: SHA1
The legal assault on Google and Operation Clambake for alleged
"copyright violations" was the work of the owner of those copyrights:
the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), doing business under the
fictitious business name of the "L. Ron Hubbard Library."
CST is not a church. CST is a 501(c)(3) corporation that was granted tax
exemption by the IRS and, as a result of that tax exemption, received
ownership and control of all Scientology-related intellectual property,
including ownership of all copyrights, and controlling interest in all
the trademarks--even those titularly "held" by the so-called "Religious
Technology Center" (RTC). RTC is, in fact, a front for CST--its yard
dog, contractually bound to defend the intellectual property owned by
CST through any and all "legal" means (and I use the word advisedly).
That's why an attorney claiming to "represent RTC" is the visible and
apparent culprit, when, in fact, CST is behind the entire operation.
By virtue of its ownership and control over all Scientology-related
intellectual property, CST is the senior-most corporation in
Scientology, and has the ability to leverage any junior corporation in
any way they see fit, since all junior organizations rely entirely on
the intellectual property--copyrights and trademarks--owned and
controlled by CST.
CST is run by three tax, copyright, and probate attorneys who are
"Special Directors" of the corporation: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske,
and Lawrence E. Heller. None of them are Scientologists.
As "Special Directors," the three attorneys named above have virtual, if
not complete, carte blanche power over CST and, by extension, over the
entire corporate structure known loosely (and inaccurately) as
"Scientology." Their powers are spelled out in the Bylaws of CST (which
are available on the web, as listed at the bottom of this message), and
derive largely from the IRS code, since one of their primary stated
purposes is to maintain tax exemption for CST at all cost.
One of the co-founders of CST, tax attorney Meade Emory, was Legislation
Counsel for the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress from
1970 to 1972, and is a former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS,
having served in that capacity under IRS Commissioner Donald C.
Alexander from 1973 to 1975.
All the above statements of incontrovertible fact are copiously
documented on the internet at several web sites, and have been further
documented in a.r.s., which documentation can be found in Google's
archives.
A press release that first broke the story of a former IRS official
being involved in the establishment of CST is here:
http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/prfpressrelease.html
The following web sites contain much of the documentation:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/index.htm
http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/
Copies of many of the most important legal documents, including the
Bylaws of CST, detailing and proving the statements of incontrovertible
fact above can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/cstlegalpaperscontents.html
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKQKH9AKsx0v8qcvEQK6QACcDanaIx+UfCG2+e4rmt7Fr9hRJEwAoLan
wwzykbN1A26z1MMiFtj6UtGk
=upvV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bentleybug123
>From: CL c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon
>Date: 3/28/02 11:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <28QY5LXJ3734...@frog.gilgamesh.org>
This is not true about the special directors running CST. The CST bylaws you
refer to specifcally state that they have no power. It is the trustees who
ultimately run CST.
The CST bylaws state that the special directors are only an oversight group,
there to make sure that the general directors, who run the day to day
operations, follow tax law. That is all they do plus rule that the assets are
not being spent foolishly.
Anything the special directors rule on however can be overturned. Below is the
clause in the by laws that clarifies this:
"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."
So the special directors don't do shit.
I think the three dudes listed above (Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske,
and Lawrence E. Heller) were chosen for image sake. Since they have little
power but are knowledable about tax laws, why not use them. By using them the
IRS would be more inclined to rule on tax deferance.
The by laws state that special directors have the position for life but there
is a clause that even nulifies this. It says that:
"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."
The last sentence of this is the key. Scientology is famous for having someone
write up a notice of resignation before they take a position. The wording in
the bylaws allows for that. I'm sure anyone of the special directors can be
replaced by the whim of the trustees.
This means that none of the original special directors might be there today but
I think they probably are. Since they are powerless and help create a good
image, why change?
Lastly, the CST bylaws require that the ones who really run CST - the CST
trustees - be high ranking Scientologists. See below as taken from the by laws:
"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;"
"e. A person who is an ordained Scientology minister, in good standing
pursuant to those principles set forth in the Scriptures;"
"f. A person who is a good student; that is to say, a person who is
able accurately and speedily to duplicate and apply that which has
been studied with a minimum of correction necessary; and"
"g. A person who is well versed in the Scientology Ethics and Justice
system."
The argument about the Special Directors running the show is all bullshit.
>special Directors," the three attorneys named above have virtual, if
Gerry Armstrong
This is not true. These people do not *run* CST and no evidence has
ever been presented that David Miscavige, while running everything
else, somehow doesn't run CST.
It is incorrect to interpret whatever CST's and "papers" say, and
whatever the rest of Scientology's "papers" say, to mean that Lenske,
Lenske and Heller *run* it. That is identical to saying that the
Scientology organizations during the Hubbard regime were independent
because their "independent" boards were "independent" on "paper"and
Scientology said, for obvious reasons, that they were "independent."
Miscavige runs Scientology, and makes the decisions about whom to fair
game. As an interesting, to me, aside, they happen to be the same
persons you attack here on a.r.s. Lenske, Lenske and Heller use their
positions as "directors" and "lawyers" to make DM's fair game
decisions easy for him. All Scientology lawyers use their positions to
make fair game easy for DM. Name one who does not.
> None of them are Scientologists.
Oh what a load. It's an irrelevant load, but nevertheless a load.
Heller made a big public announcement that he had converted to
Scientology. I think Cooley or some other cult lawyer crook may have
publicly announced his conversion to Scientology at the same time. The
Lenskes (damn I keep saying those names in response to CL's BS) I've
never heard have made such a public announcement.They obviously
collaborate in fair game just as Heller does as a Scientologist, so
the designation "Scientologist" is utterly meaningless in CL's
pronouncement that "none of them are."
Miscavige hires Scientology lawyers. Scientology lawyers do not hire
Miscavige.
>
>As "Special Directors," the three attorneys named above have virtual, if
>not complete, carte blanche power over CST and, by extension, over the
>entire corporate structure known loosely (and inaccurately) as
>"Scientology." Their powers are spelled out in the Bylaws of CST (which
>are available on the web, as listed at the bottom of this message), and
>derive largely from the IRS code, since one of their primary stated
>purposes is to maintain tax exemption for CST at all cost.
What can be concluded is that whatever power the "papers" say they
have, they do not exercise it, and that by not exercising it they
signal the truth that they do not have the power. Miscavige exercises
the power. Is it not reasonable to assume he has it?
>
>One of the co-founders of CST, tax attorney Meade Emory, was Legislation
>Counsel for the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress from
>1970 to 1972, and is a former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS,
>having served in that capacity under IRS Commissioner Donald C.
>Alexander from 1973 to 1975.
A fact which may have no significance beyond that. And even if there
is a significance beyond the fact that it's logical and "legal" that
DM hire an ex-IRS lawyer to help him, and the Lenskes (in case, you
missed what I was thinking, oops) and Heller, and the rest of the
regime, get the Scientology enterprise, including the CST part of the
enterprise, their warred for tax exemption, it is utterly unimportant
to resolving the Scientology problem.
You, CL, never address the Scientology problem. Why is that? (LFBD)
>
>All the above statements of incontrovertible fact are copiously
>documented on the internet at several web sites, and have been further
>documented in a.r.s., which documentation can be found in Google's
>archives.
No they have not been copiously documented. Your assertion that
someone other than DM is responsible for Scientology's attacks - of
every kind on any wog (R) or wog (R) institution - is false. CST will
fall with DM.
>
>A press release that first broke the story of a former IRS official
>being involved in the establishment of CST is here:
And don't forget when you read about this that this fact very well
could be utterly irrelevant. How about covering the lies in
Scientology's 1023 submission? Oops, those are lies about the people
you're sent here with your fatuous CST "exposure" to lie about
yourself. Isn't that ducky? As in shooting us down like duckies in a
pond.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/prfpressrelease.html
>
>The following web sites contain much of the documentation:
>
>http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/index.htm
>http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/
>
>Copies of many of the most important legal documents, including the
>Bylaws of CST, detailing and proving the statements of incontrovertible
>fact above can be found at:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/cstlegalpaperscontents.html
>
>CL
How're the bio holes growing?
>
>
>==================================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.
This is a good time to respond to this black PR from the Miscavige
regime.
CL, like other cult agents, because he always must get a product, is
prone to falling for his imagined effects being reality. (Claire are
you listening?) Thinking he won the field, he has for no othger reason
whatsoever attacked an excellent a.r.s. service. Now who, but the
Miscavige cult, or someone deranged or pretending to be deranged and
acting as if he's the Miscavige cult, would act like that.
No one has any obligation to respond to the Scientology cult's
criminal efforts to rewrite history. That's why I don't respond to the
CLameleon Operation as the operation would like me to. I don't answer
all its questions to leave its efforts to rewrite history thwarted,
and leave the cult vulnerable no matter what they say.
But to really avoid using extreme socio-political censorship to hide
important material facts from anyone relying on it, in this paradigm
certainly, it would be necessary to include a real investigation of
the CLameleon Op that is behind this black PR, so Mr. CLameleon, why
don't you start the ball rolling, and tell us who you are and really
why you're attacking DM's opponents?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
ka...@wwwaif.net
>This is not true. These people do not *run* CST and no evidence has
>ever been presented that David Miscavige, while running everything
>else, somehow doesn't run CST.
>
>It is incorrect to interpret whatever CST's and "papers" say, and
>whatever the rest of Scientology's "papers" say, to mean that Lenske,
>Lenske and Heller *run* it. That is identical to saying that the
>Scientology organizations during the Hubbard regime were independent
>because their "independent" boards were "independent" on "paper"and
>Scientology said, for obvious reasons, that they were "independent."
The trouble with the "theory" that you "present" here, Gerry, is that you have
no "facts" to back up your claims "about" CST, and the facts "you" do put
forward are, in some "cases", directly contradicted "by" available evidence. And
for the record, it is not analogous, necessarily, to the puppet presidents and
boards of directors of sub organizations like CSI, ABLE or ASI for the very good
reason that CST is where the money is, or at least the most valuable tangible
asset possessed by the Scientology empire itself: the copyrights. The works. The
good stuff. You will also doubtless be aware that because of its uniquely
downplayed position within the Scientology empire, CST is in the enviable
position of being virtually lawsuit-proof, since it almost never does anything
directly that could at some point lead to a civil lawsuit against it. Which
means that those aforementioned assets, the copyrights, are sittin' pretty.
Does this mean that DM doesn't run CST? Not necessarily. But simply stating over
and over again that he does, with a peevish stamp of your foot, does little to
present a convincing argument to the contrary.
>Miscavige runs Scientology, and makes the decisions about whom to fair
>game. As an interesting, to me, aside, they happen to be the same
>persons you attack here on a.r.s. Lenske, Lenske and Heller use their
>positions as "directors" and "lawyers" to make DM's fair game
>decisions easy for him. All Scientology lawyers use their positions to
>make fair game easy for DM. Name one who does not.
You seem to be terribly unclear on the difference between a Scientology lawyer
and the unique position held by the special directors of the CST, or the Lenske
brothers and Lawrence Heller. Neither of the Lenskes appears to have done any
significant work for the church outside of their work with CST, and acting as
registered agent for a number of CST-related corporations and DBAs. Larry
Heller, on the other hand, was involved in extraorganizational activities on
behalf of Scientology, particularly (if I recall correctly) during the IRS
years, as well as in your case (you being Gerry Armstrong). However, I think
the Lenskes have restricted themselves to CST-related activities.
I'm sure if I am incorrect on this, I will be corrected by someone with *hard
evidence to the contrary*.
>> None of them are Scientologists.
>
>Oh what a load. It's an irrelevant load, but nevertheless a load.
>Heller made a big public announcement that he had converted to
>Scientology. I think Cooley or some other cult lawyer crook may have
>publicly announced his conversion to Scientology at the same time. The
>Lenskes (damn I keep saying those names in response to CL's BS) I've
>never heard have made such a public announcement.They obviously
>collaborate in fair game just as Heller does as a Scientologist, so
>the designation "Scientologist" is utterly meaningless in CL's
>pronouncement that "none of them are."
I believe you're mistaken on Heller. Cooley has been contradictory; he has
denied it, then apparently admitted it, and now, I think, refused to answer
questions about his religious orientation. And really, Gerry, this may come as a
shock to you, but there are thousands of people, many of whom are also
attorneys, who cheerfully accept and practice "fair game" without being
Scientologists, or even aware that Scientology claims to have some sort of
monopoly on it. Look at any nasty divorce case and you'll see "fair game". Look
at the way the Catholic church has handled those pesky abuse complainants and
you'll see "fair game". The difference between Scientology and the rest of the
world is that Scientology has an official, written policy that dictates exactly
what "fair game" is, but they are certainly in no way unique in practicing such
behaviour.
>Miscavige hires Scientology lawyers. Scientology lawyers do not hire
>Miscavige.
>
>>
>>As "Special Directors," the three attorneys named above have virtual, if
>>not complete, carte blanche power over CST and, by extension, over the
>>entire corporate structure known loosely (and inaccurately) as
>>"Scientology." Their powers are spelled out in the Bylaws of CST (which
>>are available on the web, as listed at the bottom of this message), and
>>derive largely from the IRS code, since one of their primary stated
>>purposes is to maintain tax exemption for CST at all cost.
>
>What can be concluded is that whatever power the "papers" say they
>have, they do not exercise it, and that by not exercising it they
>signal the truth that they do not have the power. Miscavige exercises
>the power. Is it not reasonable to assume he has it?
Sometimes I think the only reason you get so antsy about these papers is because
you, yourself, were pretty much ignorant of the whole CST enigma before it came
to light here, and in other places, and it annoys you that your cachet as being
some sort of expert on all things Scientological is threatened because you don't
have a clue on that whole side of things. It doesn't invalidate your knowledge
and discoveries on other matters, particularly with regard to the contradictory
true life of L. Ron Hubbard, to admit that you were ignorant of the CST
connection too. Mrllow out. Nobody expects omniscience, but it's bad form to
stomp your little foot becasue some people are interested in discussing
something on which you aren't an expert.
>>
>>One of the co-founders of CST, tax attorney Meade Emory, was Legislation
>>Counsel for the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress from
>>1970 to 1972, and is a former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS,
>>having served in that capacity under IRS Commissioner Donald C.
>>Alexander from 1973 to 1975.
>
>A fact which may have no significance beyond that. And even if there
>is a significance beyond the fact that it's logical and "legal" that
>DM hire an ex-IRS lawyer to help him, and the Lenskes (in case, you
>missed what I was thinking, oops) and Heller, and the rest of the
>regime, get the Scientology enterprise, including the CST part of the
>enterprise, their warred for tax exemption, it is utterly unimportant
>to resolving the Scientology problem.
>
>You, CL, never address the Scientology problem. Why is that? (LFBD)
I'm not CL, and I find CST fascinating as a key part of the "Scientology
problem" for the very good reason that, as previously mentioned, *that's where
the money is(*. Without the money, all those high-priced lawyers and harassment
campaigns fade away. You're just as stubborn in denying the relevance of the CST
question as the Veritas contingent is about insisting it's the key to the
puzzle.
>>
>>All the above statements of incontrovertible fact are copiously
>>documented on the internet at several web sites, and have been further
>>documented in a.r.s., which documentation can be found in Google's
>>archives.
>
>No they have not been copiously documented. Your assertion that
>someone other than DM is responsible for Scientology's attacks - of
>every kind on any wog (R) or wog (R) institution - is false. CST will
>fall with DM.
That's just stupid. DM is disposable, like any caretaker who isn't "Source" is
equally disposable, should a usurper in waiting put together the political force
needed to oust him from his position. CST, on the other hand, gathers its powers
not from how well it is able to stare down challengers and preserve its fiefdom,
but through probate and estate law, and the existing corporate structure.
>>
>>A press release that first broke the story of a former IRS official
>>being involved in the establishment of CST is here:
>
>And don't forget when you read about this that this fact very well
>could be utterly irrelevant. How about covering the lies in
>Scientology's 1023 submission? Oops, those are lies about the people
>you're sent here with your fatuous CST "exposure" to lie about
>yourself. Isn't that ducky? As in shooting us down like duckies in a
>pond.
Can someone who isn't Gerry make sense of this bizarre non sequitur? Or is it
just another of his absurd allegations that somehow CL, and the rest of the CST
students (who, by the way, Gerry, also include people like ptsc, Bev and myself)
are all part of a cunning DM plot to dead agent Gerry? Like the whole world
revolves around him or something. I call that pure egomania.
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/prfpressrelease.html
>>
>>The following web sites contain much of the documentation:
>>
>>http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/index.htm
>>http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/
>>
>>Copies of many of the most important legal documents, including the
>>Bylaws of CST, detailing and proving the statements of incontrovertible
>>fact above can be found at:
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/cstlegalpaperscontents.html
>>
>>CL
>
<URLs left in place because whether you agree with the speculations therein or
not, the information collected is invaluable>
>This is a good time to respond to this black PR from the Miscavige
>regime.
>
>CL, like other cult agents, because he always must get a product, is
>prone to falling for his imagined effects being reality. (Claire are
>you listening?) Thinking he won the field, he has for no othger reason
>whatsoever attacked an excellent a.r.s. service. Now who, but the
>Miscavige cult, or someone deranged or pretending to be deranged and
>acting as if he's the Miscavige cult, would act like that.
Okay, Gerry. I'm going to explain this in words of one syllable, in hopes that
they are able to penetrate your curiously thick (on this subject) skull:
\
CL is not a "cult agent".
Claire is not a "cult agent".
I am not a "cult agent".
In fact, you could probably get all three of us together in a room and the only
thing we'd agree on would be that Scientology, as it stands today, has some
pretty damn abusive practices, and that occasionally, you, Gerry Armstrong, are
-- gsap -- dare I say it? -- occasionally, you are WRONG. Apparently in the
Gerry Armstrong Classic Megalomania, that makes one a "cult agent"; I would have
to respond in the words of my fellow non-"cult agent" Claire, and respond,
"Whatever."
>No one has any obligation to respond to the Scientology cult's
>criminal efforts to rewrite history. That's why I don't respond to the
>CLameleon Operation as the operation would like me to. I don't answer
>all its questions to leave its efforts to rewrite history thwarted,
>and leave the cult vulnerable no matter what they say.
There is no "CLameleon Operation", Gerry. It is possible for someone to disagree
with you - heck, even to dislike you - and not be an OSA op. Deal with it.
>But to really avoid using extreme socio-political censorship to hide
>important material facts from anyone relying on it, in this paradigm
>certainly, it would be necessary to include a real investigation of
>the CLameleon Op that is behind this black PR, so Mr. CLameleon, why
>don't you start the ball rolling, and tell us who you are and really
>why you're attacking DM's opponents?
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. What's your excuse?
K
ka...@wwwaif.net
<snip absolutely everything>
I know it's terrible form to respond to my own post, but I just wanted to
apologize for the slew of typos that snuck into my diatribe on the DMCA and CST
(with the occasional passing reference to Gerry Armstrong). I'm stuck with a
teeny tiny grubby monitor set at an absurdly high resolution, and I can barely
see what I'm typing, but I'm sorry nonetheless, and hopefully y'all will find it
in your hearts not to hold it against the words between the typos.
K
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>The legal assault on Google and Operation Clambake for alleged
>"copyright violations" was the work of the owner of those copyrights:
>the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), doing business under the
>fictitious business name of the "L. Ron Hubbard Library."
That's not true, though. The crime syndicate didn't enumerate any
copyrighted materials; their complaint was primarily about the Fair
Use of trademarks -- a baseless complaint. Anything that actually
does belong to the syndicate was lost in the list of bogus complaints.
-- Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice
"Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com
Why did the Scientologist cross the road? - mimus
To slug Bob Minton. - Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/
Rod Keller
: The trouble with the "theory" that you "present" here, Gerry, is that you have
: forward are, in some "cases", directly contradicted "by" available evidence. And
: for the record, it is not analogous, necessarily, to the puppet presidents and
: boards of directors of sub organizations like CSI, ABLE or ASI for the very good
: reason that CST is where the money is, or at least the most valuable tangible
: asset possessed by the Scientology empire itself: the copyrights. The works. The
: good stuff. You will also doubtless be aware that because of its uniquely
: downplayed position within the Scientology empire, CST is in the enviable
: position of being virtually lawsuit-proof, since it almost never does anything
: directly that could at some point lead to a civil lawsuit against it. Which
: means that those aforementioned assets, the copyrights, are sittin' pretty.
: Does this mean that DM doesn't run CST? Not necessarily. But simply stating over
: and over again that he does, with a peevish stamp of your foot, does little to
: present a convincing argument to the contrary.
Actually, there is preliminary evidence that the money is in trademarks,
not copyrights. I don't necessarily think that moves it from CST to
another in the web of Scientology corporations, but it's interesting. The
works are not where the money is, it's in being a more senior org and
licensing trademarks to junior orgs. It's an interesting point about CST
being pretty much lawsuit-proof, but if you want to look at an
organization that is even more immune, whose head is also the head of
Scientology, and which seems to control more and more of Scientology as
you move up the levels to more senior orgs in the corporate web, look at
the Sea Org.
: Sometimes I think the only reason you get so antsy about these papers is because
: you, yourself, were pretty much ignorant of the whole CST enigma before it came
: to light here, and in other places, and it annoys you that your cachet as being
: some sort of expert on all things Scientological is threatened because you don't
: have a clue on that whole side of things. It doesn't invalidate your knowledge
: and discoveries on other matters, particularly with regard to the contradictory
: true life of L. Ron Hubbard, to admit that you were ignorant of the CST
: connection too. Mrllow out. Nobody expects omniscience, but it's bad form to
: stomp your little foot becasue some people are interested in discussing
: something on which you aren't an expert.
I think Gerry is impatient with CL because of the strange way he, Stacy,
Vaughn and Omar Garrison have been attacked in strange question form for
offenses I don't understand. Maybe somebody has Cliff Notes.
--
Rod Keller/ Irresponsible Publisher/ Black Hat #1/ OSA Patsy/ Killer Rod
Expert of the Toilet/ CWPD Mouthpiece/ Shelly Thompson in Drag
The Lerma Apologist/ Merchant of Chaos/ Socio-Political Censor
Bigot of Mystery/ Quasi-Scieno/ Mental Bully/ Vision of Destruction
Paul Matulef
You mentioned "Qualifications prior to appointments".
Who then is appointing the trustees? If the "special directors"
are an oversight group, wouldn't any "trustees" be somehow obligated?
Especially if they are fully indoctinated and sec-checked to death
to be dependent on the organization.
Either way, it's irrelevent as to who is running things "day-to-day".
Int managment runs things "day-to-day" with RTC behind the scenes
setting the plans.
The whole point of setting up an organization is to maintain control
and reap the benefits while someone else runs things.
Whatever is says on paper probably has little to do with what is
really going on.
Which my have little relevence since there seem to be so few
who are really interested in going along with their game anyhow.
jmj
> Bently,
>
> You mentioned "Qualifications prior to appointments".
>
> Who then is appointing the trustees?
This isn't clear from the bylaws. It seesm to be circular - trustees
appoint the directors and the directors appoint the trustees.
> If the "special directors"
> are an oversight group, wouldn't any "trustees" be somehow obligated?
I don't think so. The special directors have to be lawyers since their
job is legal. The trustees have to be high level Scientologists. Once
the trustees are in place, control is 100% in the trustees hands.
> Especially if they are fully indoctinated and sec-checked to death
> to be dependent on the organization.
No, they run the whole thing by their ability to control the works of
LRH. The trustee requirements as staed in the bylaws seem to be an
effort to make sure they follow Hubbard's tech and policy to the hilt
or the other trustees can replace an offender. The only problem would
arise if the trustees started in-fighting; a majority of Trustees
start throwing out another trustee. The bylaw below allows for that:
"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."
A trustee can also resign by letter:
"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."
If one trustee was remaining (after all the other 3 to 7 trustees
resigned) and he then appointed new trustees with presigned letters of
resignation, then power could ultimately reside in one person (the one
who held all the presigned resignation letters) for life as I see it.
>
> Either way, it's irrelevent as to who is running things "day-to-day".
>
> Int managment runs things "day-to-day" with RTC behind the scenes
> setting the plans.
>
> The whole point of setting up an organization is to maintain control
> and reap the benefits while someone else runs things.
Not true. There are many charitable and religeous corporations set up
for the benefit of the many and not any one person or clique. If it is
run by good men they can often achieve the corporation's ideals.
A careful study of these bylaws indicates this was at least the intent
of CST. It definately has the stamp of someone like Hubbard who, once
he was gone and could no longer personally benefit, would want the
Organization run according to certain ideals. The bylaws were drafted
when he was alive.
>
> Whatever is says on paper probably has little to do with what is
> really going on.
A very good point. The bylaws state that no trustee or director can be
held liable for their actions. So there is nothing to coerce a trustee
or director to follow the bylaws exactly.
ka...@wwwaif.net
>Actually, there is preliminary evidence that the money is in trademarks,
>not copyrights. I don't necessarily think that moves it from CST to
>another in the web of Scientology corporations, but it's interesting.
According to the assignment agreement between LRH and RTC, CST has a reversion
clause, which would allow it to buy back the trademarks and all other rights
held by RTC for the princely sum of $100:
(From May 16, 1982 assignment agreement between LRH and RTC)
4. Option. This assignment is subject to an option granted
by LRH to Church of Spiritual Technology, a California corpora-
tion (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.
Note that CST has *sole discretion* to decide that the marks have not been
adequately maintaned and preserved; this gives a lot of wiggle room in terms of
shifting assets around, should RTC be on the losing end of a big lawsuit.
The
>works are not where the money is, it's in being a more senior org and
>licensing trademarks to junior orgs. It's an interesting point about CST
>being pretty much lawsuit-proof, but if you want to look at an
>organization that is even more immune, whose head is also the head of
>Scientology, and which seems to control more and more of Scientology as
>you move up the levels to more senior orgs in the corporate web, look at
>the Sea Org.
The Sea Org is lawsuit-proof because it isn't incorporated. It is also assetless
for that same reason. The notorious Sea Org Reserve is not owned by the SO
itself; it is a trust, maintained (I believe) by SOR Services, a UK company, for
the use of the Sea Org. When it comes to the assets of Scientology itself, CST
is the only show in town, and that alone makes it worthy of further scrutiny, in
my opinion.
>
>I think Gerry is impatient with CL because of the strange way he, Stacy,
>Vaughn and Omar Garrison have been attacked in strange question form for
>offenses I don't understand. Maybe somebody has Cliff Notes.
Gerry may be "impatient" with CL for valid reasons, but he seems to be equally
"impatient" with anyone else who dares to discuss CST as anything other than a
shell corporation run by Scientologist puppet lawyers under the direct control
of David Miscavige, and those who support his position have no trouble doing so
by directly contradicting known facts with unproven assertions. This, as you can
imagine, does not go far in furthering his argument, and tends to lead to more
questions, rather than less.
K
ka...@wwwaif.net
>Xenu allowed CL <c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon> to write:
>
>>The legal assault on Google and Operation Clambake for alleged
>>"copyright violations" was the work of the owner of those copyrights:
>>the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), doing business under the
>>fictitious business name of the "L. Ron Hubbard Library."
>
>That's not true, though. The crime syndicate didn't enumerate any
>copyrighted materials; their complaint was primarily about the Fair
>Use of trademarks -- a baseless complaint. Anything that actually
>does belong to the syndicate was lost in the list of bogus complaints.
No, that's incorrect. The list itself did include many, many alleged copyright
infringements; the deception was that sprinkled through the list of DMCA-able
URLS were those for which the complaints were purely trademark-based. The most
obvious of these incorrectly included URLs was, of course, the index page at
www.xenu.net.
K
ptsc
This is to keep it out of the hands of wogs--or to be more precise, out of the
hands of the wrong wogs. The one particularly perturbing clause is this:
"RTC's ownership of the Advanced Technology in any way places the
Advanced Technology in danger of appropriation by any entity
that is outside or hostile to the religion of Scientology."
In other words, RTC is essentially contracting to hold CST harmless
for litigation RTC does on behalf of CST. This means actions done at
CST's behest, and with CST the only entity actually profiting, are to
be held entirely at arm's length from CST, with no liability ever attaching.
The one 'gift' from CST to RTC is these intellectual properties, which
RTC, like a beanfield peon, sells on behalf of CST while funnelling
90% of any proceeds from the use of them to CST.
If and when such activities as generally pass for Scientology turn out
to be illegal, resulting in a huge civil judgment against RTC, CST yanks
back its copyrights, remaining entirely immune from judgment itself.
However, you can hardly consider any action of RTC independent when
RTC is under the sword of Damocles represented by the immediate loss
of the intellectual properties--RTC's sole purpose for existence.
Let me segue into how this actually works:
(Quoted from the same Assignment Agreement)
b. RTC shall apply at least ninety percent (90%) of
the gross income it receives by reason of the Advanced Tech-
nology to religious and charitable purposes, to be determined
by the Directors of RTC, other than the support of RTC and its
operations, that either are within purposes of the religion of
Scientology according to the Scientology Scriptures, or are for
the general purpose of advancing the moral and ethical level of
mankind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
acceptable purposes for use of this income shall be:
(1) establishing and maintaining an indestructible
record of the Scientology Scriptures;
(2) establishing and maintaining a museum of the
religion of Scientology;
(3) establishing religious schools, scholarships
and retreats;
-5-
(4) supporting other qualified organizations of
the religion of Scientology; and
(5) publishing, disseminating and promoting
literature that is not part of the Scientology
Scriptures but which, in the judgment of the
Directors of RTC, is in concert with the broad
goals of Scientology and is worthy of support
for the general benefit of mankind.
c. RTC may retain up to ten percent (10%) of the gross
income derived by RTC by reason of the Advanced Technology, tos
support the operating and overhead expenses of RTC.
---
Note, very importantly, that those stated purposes seem to imply that
the beneficiary of most of this income, if not the entire 90% of GROSS,
is purposes which only benefit CST.
Article IV of the Bylaws of CST reiterates these stated goals of RTC:
a. Establishment of a religious body and entity to promote, protect,
administer and encourage the religion of Scientology and its goals;
b. Foundation, construction and use of a church, establishments, tutorial
schools, retreats, parsonages, centers of training and other centers, for
the teaching, dissemination and administration of the religion of
Scientology, which aspires to the religious and ethical guidance and
improvement of the individual character, and also to better and clarify the
human spirit;
c. Assistance in the foundation of Churches of Scientology and other
organizations devoted to the religion of Scientology.
d. Publication and distribution of religious literature and other sectarian
aids in order to propagate and disseminate Scientology; and
e. Establishment of religious cultural centers.
f. Minister to the spiritual needs of the parishoners and congregants of
the Church through the conduct of services, both group and individual.
g. Establishment of a scholarship fund to provide assistance to those
seeking advancement on the Scientology Bridge.
h. Establishment and maintenance of a museum devoted to the religion of
Scientology.
i. Construction and maintenance of an imperishable structure, capable of
withstanding the ravages of nuclear warfare to house the essence of
Scientology for the benefit of future generations.
j. Establishment and maintenance of a library devoted to the religion of
Scientology.
---
In short, RTC's stated purposes and CST's stated purposes are identical.
In light of this it's hard to see how these two corporations can be considered
legally separate at all--regardless of who's on the board.
Whenever RTC litigates, CST is a real party in interest, because RTC's sole
source of income is CST's property.
For RTC to litigate in this manner, and to be allowed to "own" CST's property,
which is the subject of most of the controversy in which RTC is embroiled,
while keeping CST entirely harmless from any costs related to the litigation,
or risks of loss associated with the litigation, is not merely ethically
questionable, nor is it merely rather clever. There's a possibility it's
illegal. At the very least, it amounts to the concealment of the real party
in interest in litigation, and at most, it amounts to champerty.
ptsc
Rod Keller
: In article <a83be8$a...@netaxs.com>, rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
: >Actually, there is preliminary evidence that the money is in trademarks,
: >not copyrights. I don't necessarily think that moves it from CST to
: >another in the web of Scientology corporations, but it's interesting.
:
: According to the assignment agreement between LRH and RTC, CST has a reversion
: clause, which would allow it to buy back the trademarks and all other rights
: held by RTC for the princely sum of $100:
It's a hell of a markup. Narconon alone pays more than $250,000 for
"Trademark License Fees." Whereas the gross receipts from sale of books
(the copyrighted stuff) was only $47,000. Over 5:1 in favor of
trademarks, even before you consider the cost to print the books. This
pattern seems to hold for other Scientology orgs. Applied Scholastics -
$1.4 million in trademark fees, gross books sales account for $45,000
: >I think Gerry is impatient with CL because of the strange way he, Stacy,
: >Vaughn and Omar Garrison have been attacked in strange question form for
: >offenses I don't understand. Maybe somebody has Cliff Notes.
:
: Gerry may be "impatient" with CL for valid reasons, but he seems to be equally
: "impatient" with anyone else who dares to discuss CST as anything other than a
: shell corporation run by Scientologist puppet lawyers under the direct control
: of David Miscavige, and those who support his position have no trouble doing so
: by directly contradicting known facts with unproven assertions. This, as you can
: imagine, does not go far in furthering his argument, and tends to lead to more
: questions, rather than less.
I'm all for scrutiny of all of Scientology, including CST. But I'm with
Gerry in my lack of patience with the CL contingient. It's a long way from
scrutinizing the articles of incorporation to a foregone conclusion that
CST is a shadow cabinet that outranks David Miscavige, as CL seems to
imply.
I'm sure you would admit that the evidence in favor of am active, powerful
and controlling CST is a lot thinner than the evidence that DM is the
leader of Scientology. It seems to border on the theories that man never
flew to the moon (it was a TV set-up) and that KFC doesn't serve chicken
any more (it's cloned chicken parts grown in a lab).
The statement of Veritas on their CST page "It is indisputable that the
Church of Spiritual Technology, doing business as the L. Ron Hubbard
Library, is the seat of power in Scientology" seems pretty weak. We have
seen evidence that CST builds bomb shelters and allow RTC to do it's
trademark/copyright thing. I haven't seen evidence that it rules
Scientology. Any evidence to the contrary would be interesting.
ptsc
>ka...@wwwaif.net (ka...@wwwaif.net) wrote:
>: In article <a83be8$a...@netaxs.com>, rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>: >Actually, there is preliminary evidence that the money is in trademarks,
>: >not copyrights. I don't necessarily think that moves it from CST to
>: >another in the web of Scientology corporations, but it's interesting.
>: According to the assignment agreement between LRH and RTC, CST has a reversion
>: clause, which would allow it to buy back the trademarks and all other rights
>: held by RTC for the princely sum of $100:
>It's a hell of a markup. Narconon alone pays more than $250,000 for
>"Trademark License Fees." Whereas the gross receipts from sale of books
>(the copyrighted stuff) was only $47,000. Over 5:1 in favor of
>trademarks, even before you consider the cost to print the books. This
>pattern seems to hold for other Scientology orgs. Applied Scholastics -
>$1.4 million in trademark fees, gross books sales account for $45,000
Much of this is licensed by RTC--90% of this goes to CST as described
in intricate detail in the Rights Agreement.
-5-
---
---
--
Further, if you get into copyrighted materials that RTC licenses, you have the
Advanced Technology Materials. Stats for Flag for those this last year
(2001) were:
OT I 8 0 10 8
OT II 2 7 5 10
OT III 8 0 8 8
OT IV 11 4 16 8
OT V 7 3 31 27
OT VI SOLO NOTs Course 9 12 14 4
SOLO NOTs CERTAINTY COURSE I 5 8 12 23
SOLO NOTs CERTAINTY COURSE II 6 3 18 26
OT VII 0 0 3 0
OT VII EXPANDED 0 0 12 1
L 11 25 20 40 31
L 10 8 4 10 11
L 12 3 7 6 8
(Cerridwen in <tquf5m4...@corp.supernews.com> )
Using the most recent price lists I have [+] and not pro-rating, a rough
estimate of how much actual cash that adds up to is:
OT I 28 * 2120 = 59360
OT II 24 * 4160 = 99840
OT III 24 * 7040 = 168960
OT IV 39 * 6,388.80 = 247213.20 [++]
OT V 68 * 6,388.80 = 431038.40 [++]
OT VI SOLO NOTs Course 39 * 3,408.00 = 132,912.00 [+++]
SOLO NOTs CERTAINTY COURSE I 48 * ???
SOLO NOTs CERTAINTY COURSE II 53 * ???
OT VII 3 * ???
OT VII EXPANDED 13 * ???
L 11 116 * 12,100 = 1,403,600 [++++]
L 10 33 * 12,100 = 399,300 [++++]
L 12 23 * 12,100 = 278,300 [++++]
[+] Note that I combine an AOLA price list with a Flag price list, AOLA
from Cerridwen (Advance?), Flag from Source #133. This in fact
will cause gross underestimation, as the AOLA prices for lower levels
are lower than Flag's.
[++] OT IV is done on a scale of 12.5 hour blocks--I assume merely
one such block, leading to a gross underestimation
[+++] OT VI has numerous prices, for different Class auditors, I picked
the cheapest, leading to a gross underestimation
[++++] The Ls are sold in blocks of 12.5 hour intensives. Each L requires
at least two such blocks. Despite this, I assume merely one, leading, again,
to a gross underestimation
This is, at a gross misunderestimation, $3,220,523 just from sales of the
AT, just at Flag, just in 2001, even disregarding some heavy income
courses that I couldn't find prices for, and lowballing every figure I had
to guess. I'd personally think at least $5 million in delivery of OT levels
and courses only delivered at AOs, just at Flag--but the 3.25 mil figure
is guaranteed to be lower than the absolute lowest it could possibly be.
The copyrighted material is not just that sold in books--book sales are not
insignificant but not the main source of income from copyrighted materials--the
main income from copyrighted materials derives from *delivery of courses*.
Warrior in one of his posts related to ASHO day gave a rough guess of 20% of GI
being book sales.
That's probably somewhat different at AOs like AOLA and Flag, where
the bulk is delivery of the Advanced Technology such as OT levels.
Book sales are a drop in the bucket on that level of high-priced courses,
so using book sales alone as a comparison to trademark fees is not a
valid benchmark.
>: >I think Gerry is impatient with CL because of the strange way he, Stacy,
>: >Vaughn and Omar Garrison have been attacked in strange question form for
>: >offenses I don't understand. Maybe somebody has Cliff Notes.
>: Gerry may be "impatient" with CL for valid reasons, but he seems to be equally
>: "impatient" with anyone else who dares to discuss CST as anything other than a
>: shell corporation run by Scientologist puppet lawyers under the direct control
>: of David Miscavige, and those who support his position have no trouble doing so
>: by directly contradicting known facts with unproven assertions. This, as you can
>: imagine, does not go far in furthering his argument, and tends to lead to more
>: questions, rather than less.
>I'm all for scrutiny of all of Scientology, including CST. But I'm with
>Gerry in my lack of patience with the CL contingient. It's a long way from
>scrutinizing the articles of incorporation to a foregone conclusion that
>CST is a shadow cabinet that outranks David Miscavige, as CL seems to
>imply.
To be picky about it, it's the Bylaws that explain all that. They also do not
directly refer to David Miscavige at all, nor to RTC as anything other than
a fiefdom.
>I'm sure you would admit that the evidence in favor of am active, powerful
>and controlling CST is a lot thinner than the evidence that DM is the
The fact that they outright own the intellectual property from which RTC
derives all of its income, and that of RTC's income, 90% must go to purposes
delineated in the Bylaws of CST, seems to indicate CST's seniority pretty
clinchingly, unless you see some reason to think that RTC is somehow
more important despite the fact that it doesn't own anything that can't be
immediately taken away, and is only allowed to keep a measly 10% of its
own income.
>leader of Scientology. It seems to border on the theories that man never
>flew to the moon (it was a TV set-up) and that KFC doesn't serve chicken
>any more (it's cloned chicken parts grown in a lab).
I'd say that it's the contrary view (that CST doesn't own the intellectual
property outright) that is completely unsupported by even a scintilla
of evidence. You can of course feel free to provide that scintilla if you
have it available.
>The statement of Veritas on their CST page "It is indisputable that the
>Church of Spiritual Technology, doing business as the L. Ron Hubbard
>Library, is the seat of power in Scientology" seems pretty weak. We have
>seen evidence that CST builds bomb shelters and allow RTC to do it's
>trademark/copyright thing. I haven't seen evidence that it rules
>Scientology. Any evidence to the contrary would be interesting.
It doesn't merely rule Scientology--it owns it outright. Not a bit of what goes
on in Flag, at AOLA, or at any other org delivering the copyrighted tech could
go on without CST's say-so. If RTC steps out of line, CST at its sole
discretion can grab every single piece of it back for the magnificent sum of
$100.
What precisely would a Scientology org do without being able to call itself
a "Church of Scientology," deliver any Scientology courses, or show so much
as an "Orientation Film?"
ptsc
CL
Hash: SHA1
bentle...@aol.com (Bentleybug123) wrote:
CL:
>>CST is run by three tax, copyright, and probate attorneys who are
>>"Special Directors" of the corporation: Sherman Lenske, Stephen
>>Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. None of them are Scientologists.
Bentleybug123:
>This is not true about the special directors running CST. The CST
>bylaws you refer to specifcally state that they have no power. It is
>the trustees who ultimately run CST.
Look, if I had wanted you to give me your demented and risible
"interpretation" of the Bylaws of CST, I'd have had you fill out a form.
And you're the last person who would get a form.
You may as well say, "the Beach Boys ultimately run CST." It would have
as much foundation as your vapid statements. The Trustees do not,
cannot, never have, and never will run CST. Your statement is ludicrous
and without a shred of merit.
You merely brand yourself as someone who can't read.
>The CST bylaws state that the special directors are only an oversight
>group,
Quote where the Bylaws state that the Special Directors are "only an
oversight group." You can't, because you just lied.
<snip more perversions of the bylaws>
>Anything the special directors rule on however can be overturned. Below
>is the clause in the by laws that clarifies this:
>
>"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."
Do you know what the "[sic]" in the above-quoted section refers to
(other than the obvious grammatical gaffe of the omitted "with," which
you, of course, probably missed)? Did you look at Section 4, Article VII
to find out exactly how "any General Director" was supposed to proceed?
Did the other shoe drop when you found out it actually required TWO
General Directors to call such a "Special Meeting?"
Do you know the total number of people (all untrained in legal and tax
law) who would have to vote UNANIMOUSLY in order to override any
~single~ act of any one or all of the Special Directors--all of whom are
tax and probate attorneys?
Did you know that Lyman Spurlock, one of the people who co-founded CST
with Sherman Lenske, is now a Trustee, and so he, alone, can be a
one-man voting block to ensure things always go in favor of the Special
Directors?
Did you? Did you bother to find out any of this? Or did you just rush
through the Bylaws trying ~desparately~ to find little phrases and
clauses (which you obviously don't understand anyway) that you could
twist and re-word and half-state in order to "prove" something you
desperately wanted to "prove?" Like...
>So the special directors don't do shit.
Yeah, Bentleybug. Right. That's what you had already decided going in,
wasn't it?
>I think the three dudes...
I no longer care what you "think."
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKXy49AKsx0v8qcvEQLnawCeKplhagIinJWxpKIDw7tbPNkaiyUAnjQh
9c3Voxb9114AXLc/0rNWL6aD
=uHJ0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CL
Hash: SHA1
Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net> wrote:
>CL?
>
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
Why, yes, Gerry! It ~is~ CL! (Hope you weren't feeling around in the
dark. Wink! Wink!)
Always nice to bump into you this way! And, say, since you're here, I
have a few questions for you. You wouldn't mind helping a fellow wog
pilgrim--and all of us--by just honestly and openly answering a few
questions, would you? Gee, it would be ~such~ a big help. Well, thanks
in advance!
Here they are:
1. Did you know about CST owning all the copyrights before the
"Scientology Copyright Transfers" database was published in a.b.s.?
2. In a recent post, you said: "$cientology, as directed by the
Miscavige regime..." and that the "$cientology corporations...are
all part of the single criminal enterprise under the criminal
dictator Miscavige." How, exactly, does Miscavige exert dictatorial
control over the people who own all the copyrights, and how can I
document/verify your answer the way the Library of Congress
documents prove conclusively that CST owns all the copyrights?
3. Have you seen the legal documents proving that CST can take over any
and all of the registered trademarks from RTC (Miscavige) at any
time, at their "sole discretion"?
4. Given that CST owns the copyrights, and has ultimate control over
the trademarks, precisely what is the leverage that Miscavige has
over CST that makes them dance to his dictatorship anyway?
5. In message <34c522e1....@news.dowco.com>, dated 20 January
1998, you said: "Because of dealing with Hubbard's lawyers in LA,
and for security reasons, Laurel and I move to the Cedar complex and
set up MCCS [Mission Corporate Category Sort-Out] and the Hubbard
Archive." Your own Appendix to the Breckenridge Memorandum says:
"During the first part of 1980, Defendant Armstrong moved all of the
L. Ron Hubbard Archives materials he had located at Gilman Hot
Springs to an office in the Church of Scientology Cedars Complex in
Los Angeles. ...Defendant Armstrong had located himself in the
Cedars Complex, because he was also involved in 'Mission Corporate
Category Sort-Out,' a mission to work out legal strategy."
A) Approximately in what month in 1980 was this move
to the Cedar complex, as closely as you can place it?
B) What was the purpose and nature of your dealings with
Hubbard's lawyers in LA?
C) Who were Hubbard's lawyers in LA that you were dealing with?
D) Did you deal with Hubbard's lawyers in relation to MCCS?
E) Where, exactly, was the Hubbard Archive set up?
F) Did you deal with Hubbard's lawyers in relation to the
L. Ron Hubbard biography?
G) Was the location of the Hubbard Archive 1301 North Catalina
Street, where Stacy Brooks Young later established the
corporation known as North Star Publishing, Inc.?
6. Please name all the people who had access to the Hubbard Archive
during your tenure--in any capacity--on the biography project.
7. In message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com> you say that you did,
in fact, meet with Ronald DeWolf, a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., a.k.a.
Nibs. In Bent Corydon's book, "Madman or Messiah," you are quoted as
saying that Norman F. Starkey questioned you in Archives when you
"had just gotten back at that time from seeing Nibs [Ron Jr.]." In
that book, you go on to say that "a few days later I was called out
to Gilman Hot Springs to talk with the Master at Arms about a report
from Starkey," and, "it would just be a matter of time till I was
'busted.'" You are describing events leading up to and just
preceeding your leaving, which you have placed as being on or about
12 or 13 December 1981. Given these orienting references:
A) Did you, then, meet with Ronald DeWolf, a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard,
Jr., a.k.a. Nibs, in approximately November of 1981? If not
November of 1981, what month in 1981?
B) In your meeting with DeWolf, did you at any time discuss, or
refer in any way to, the whereabouts or condition of his father,
L. Ron Hubbard? If so, what was said?
C) What information, in any form, did you give to DeWolf?
D) What information, in any form, did DeWolf give to you?
8. Did you continue to be "dealing with Hubbard's lawyers" [see
question #5, above] between April 1981, and when you left--on or
about 12 or 13 December 1981? If not, when did your dealing with
Hubbard's lawyers end, and why?
9. Did you ever meet Sherman Lenske? If so, when and under what
circumstances?
10. In message <2b0kct8ov258lgms8...@4ax.com>, you wrote:
"I was first Deputy Ship's Rep then Ship's Rep for maybe 2 1/2
years, from 1972 into 1974. The Ship's Rep handled many of the
ship's needs in port, including, dealings with...lawyers, and so
forth." According to Russell Miller's "Bare-Faced Messiah," Chapter
19, on or about 3 December 1972: "The Commodore then sat fretting in
his hotel suite for several hours while lawyers in Paris, Lisbon and
New York assessed the risk of his extradition to face fraud charges
in France. [Jim Dincalci]: '...After two or three hours there was a
telephone call from the Port Captain. When he [Hubbard] put the
phone down he said, 'This is really serious. I've got to get out of
here _now_.'" The Ship's Rep post you held was in the Port Captain's
office. You were in Lisbon, as the Apollo was in dry dock.
A) Who were the lawyers in Paris, Lisbon, and New York who were
assessing the risk of Hubbard's extradition to France?
B) Are you the person who placed the call to Hubbard? If not, who
was it?
11. On or about what date did you have your very first contact with
attorney Michael Flynn, and what were the circumstances?
12. In message <37iktt4g2ug0uq5sj...@4ax.com>, you say:
"The 'Armstrong documents' were under seal in LA Superior Court in
September, 1982." And, indeed, according to a U.P.I. story on file,
Judge John Cole, on 24 September 1982, had ordered the "21 boxes of
personal letters and journals of the sect's reclusive founder L. Ron
Hubbard" into the custody of the County Clerk. In another story, the
Associated Press (14 February 1983) said it was an estimated 30,000
documents.
A) Is the 30,000 documents estimate workably accurate?
B) Did the 21 boxes include somewhere in them what came to be known
as "The Zolin Tape(s)," an excerpted transcript of which has been
published in this forum and elsewhere?
C) How did you come into possession of the so-called "Zolin
Tape(s)"?
D) Who transcribed the "Zolin Tape(s)" and when?
E) If you had provided to Omar Garrison only materials he needed
for an LRH biography, and you only took documents from the
materials you had already supplied to Garrison, why was the
"Zolin Tape(s)" among the materials submitted to the court?
13. In message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com>, you said: "Your
assertion that I...have never mentioned that the Lenskes
participated in the set-up [of CST] and were 'Special Directors' is
a lie."
A) When, where, and to whom have you mentioned that the Lenskes
participated in the set-up [of CST] and were "Special Directors"?
B) When did you first know that the Lenskes were Special Directors
of CST?
C) How did you find out that the Lenskes were Special Directors of
CST?
D) When did you first know of the participation of the Lenskes in
the set-up of CST, and under what circumstances did you learn of
their participation?
E) Why did you never make mention of the Lenskes' participation in
the set-up of CST, and the fact of their being Special Directors
of CST, in any of your publically-available affidavits or
declarations, or in the very appropriate forum of a.r.s.?
14. According to your own Appendix to the Breckenridge "Memorandum of
Intended Decision": "Defendant Armstrong made two copies of almost
all documents copied for Mr. Garrison - one for Mr. Garrison and the
other to remain in Hubbard Archives for reference or recopying." And
in "Madman or Messiah," you are quoted as saying: "I was desperately
trying to get Garrison everything that I could. ...The pressure of
the situation was getting to me. ...So I worked as long as I could
and copied virtually everything I could for Garrison. I knew I had
to do that, because I knew that I would soon be sec checked on what
I'd been giving Garrison, and so I had to get it to him before that.
...Joycelyn was still working for me at that time and we were
copying madly to get all we could to Garrison. Every day I was going
to Costa Mesa in Orange County, where Omar Garrison lived, and I
would take down a box of materials that I had copied. Then I'd take
down a box of shirts or books or whatever, until we got down to the
point where we had, box by box, totally moved the whole place out."
Finally, in message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com>, you said
that you had "not actually" taken "a very impressive collection of
documents with you," but, instead had: "supplied the biographer
Omar Garrison with this 'impressive collection of documents,'
pursuant to contract arranged by Hubbard's personal attorney, over
the course of the prior year or more." In consideration of the
foregoing:
A) Were the 21 boxes of documents submitted to the court originals,
or were they only copies/reproductions of whatever you had
"supplied the biographer Omar Garrison with"?
B) Who was the "Hubbard's personal attorney" who arranged the
contract under which you supplied Garrison with copies of the
documents?
C) Did the contract allow you to deliver originals to Garrison, or
only copies/reproductions?
D) When and how did you get the 21 boxes of documents from Garrison?
E) Did you only make copies/reproductions of what Garrison had, or
did you take what he had, leaving him with no biography
materials?
F) If you or he made copies of some 30,000 documents so that you
could have the set was submitted to the court, who paid for that
copying, and how much was it?
G) Did your receiving of the documents or copies/reproductions of
documents from Garrison violate the contract?
H) Will you post a copy of the contract to a.r.s. or a.b.s.?
I) If there were original documents in the documents that were
submitted to the court, where, when, and how did you come into
possession of those originals, and by what authority?
15. Did Sherman Lenske ever have a key to the Hubbard Archives while you
were working in any capacity on the biography project?
16. Referring to the case filed by Ronald DeWolf, a.k.a. L. Ron
Hubbard, Jr., a.k.a. Nibs, in which he claimed that his father was
either dead or incapacitated, you say: "It was the forged
[$2,000,000] check on Hubbard's [New England Merchants Bank] account
which precipitated the missing person case, nothing I did."
(Reference: your message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com>)
According to an Associated Press article of 13 November 1982, "Son
Believes L. Ron Hubbard Dead Or Mentally Incompetent," the New
England Merchants Bank froze Hubbard's account after determining
that a $2 million check written against it in June of 1982 had a
forged signature. Yet as early as 5 May 1982 (at least a month prior
to the check forgery), in a Clearwater Sun article titled "Hubbard's
Son Will Testify Today," Clearwater Sun staff writer Bill Prescott
said: "In a recent magazine article, DeWolfe said he suspects his
father is dead." And indeed, two days later, on Thursday, 6 May
1982--in hearings being conducted by your attorney, Michael Flynn,
before the Clearwater city commissioners--DeWolf testified, and,
during his 6 May 1982 testimony stated publically that he believed
that his father was dead, insinuating that Hubbard's letters were
being forged. [Cite: Clearwater Sun 7 May 1982, "Sect Founder's Son
Thinks Dad is Dead," by Sun staff writer Steven Girardi.] Questions:
A) On what date did you retain Michael Flynn as your attorney?
B) On what date did you deliver the documents [see questions #12
and 14 above] into the custody of Michael Flynn for
safekeeping?
C) Did you ever discuss with DeWolf your own opinion that his
father might be dead (a sentiment which you expressed to
several journalist, as reported in several news articles),
and if so, when was the first time you discussed it with him,
and what did you say?
17. In message <37b84d4c....@news.dowco.com>, you say, "C$T was
hatched in MCC$." [sic: "CST was hatched in MCCS."] "MCCS" stands
for "Mission Corporate Category Sort-out," of which you were Mission
2nd. According to your own Appendix to the Breckenridge Memorandum,
your involvement in MCCS ended in June of 1980. [NOTE: The Appendix
gives the date as "June 1990," which is clearly impossible. If
"1990" isn't a typo for 1980, please state correctly when your
involvement in MCCS did end.] Yet CST was not incorporated until 28
May 1982--nearly two full years after your involvement in MCCS
purportedly ended. Finally, according to Judge Bruggink in CST vs.
US, No. 581-88T, United States Claim Court: "CST...claim[ed] the
MCCS discussions were abandoned in June of 1981, and that no action
was taken with regard to anything the committee discussed."
Therefore:
A) When, how, and by whom was CST "hatched in MCCS?"
B) How do you know that CST was "hatched in MCCS"?
C) Was CST co-founder Meade Emory involved in any way in MCCS?
D) Did you ever meet or speak to Meade Emory? If so, when, where,
and under what circumstances?
E) Was CST co-founder and incorporator Sherman Lenske involved
in any way in MCCS?
F) Did you ever meet, meet with, or speak to Sherman Lenske in
relation to MCCS, CST, or the biography project? If so, when,
where, and under what circumstances?
G) Was CST co-founder Leon Misterek involved in any way in MCCS?
H) Did you ever meet, meet with, or speak to Leon Misterek in
relation to MCCS or CST? If so, when, where, and under what
circumstances?
18. When and where in 1979 did you last see L. Ron Hubbard?
19. On 17 December 1986 the Los Angeles Times reported on your
settlement. In their report, they said that the Hubbard papers you
were returning as part of your settlement had been valued by a
collector at $5 million, and included manuscripts. AP and UPI had
also reported that the documents at suit and in the custody of the
court contained "unpublished manuscripts." And PR Newswire had a
similar report valuing the collection at $5 million, further
stating that one of the unpublished manuscripts alone had been
valued at $1 million. Yet in your accounts of how you came into
possession of the documents (only via Omar Garrison; see data in
question #14 above), you refer only to having made copies to give to
Garrison. How could copies/reproductions be valued at $5 million,
and why would you be returning mere copies as part of a settlement?
20. If your answer to questions in #14 and #19 above involved
Garrison--and then, as a result, you-- being in possession of
originals instead of copies:
A) What justified having the highly-appraised originals being moved
out of the archives and into Garrison's private possession all
the way down in Costa Mesa, when all Garrison needed was the
information, and photocopies would have been perfectly adequate
for his research, since he would have had a direct chain of
custody to you, ensuring for him that the copies were valid?
B) Had L. Ron Hubbard approved of the originals of his diaries,
unpublished manuscripts, etc., being shuttled down to Omar
Garrison--who was a non-Scientologist?
C) If Hubbard didn't, who did? Who had that authority?
BONUS QUESTION:
Was L. Ron Hubbard murdered, or kidnapped, or held against his will,
or intentionally incapacitated through drugs or other means to your
knowledge?
Sure appreciate your help in getting at the truth! Really look forward
to your answers!
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKX3MdAKsx0v8qcvEQLc/gCgyN1u82DrqdSDGDwIYsrDiSl9HywAoLqH
UoE7jzhUu891l8J7y2+njXLw
=OBQP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CL
Hash: SHA1
Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net> wrote:
Well... Nothing, really, except his usual entropic effluvium of ad
hominem and Lenske apologia, bubbling and spreading across usenet like
fresh brown dog puke on a hot day.
Well, Gerry, I have to say that I'm sorry to see that in your dogged
efforts to explain away CST and its Special Directors, and to somehow
keep DM elevated (that alone is no mean feat) to a stature grander than
the trained toad that he is, your rhetoric has become as tired, worn,
rehashed, re-used, and rag-limp as a Tijuana whore on Sunday morning.
And when you do make some valiant effort to drag yourself out of your
old worn rut, when you try to put some fresh and original and clever
spin on your endless loop of loopiness--well, the effort is noble, but I
fear you have become almost completely incomprehensible. Why don't you
take some time to read some Dickens or Keats or Kerrouac, or *something*
that might inspire you, might lift you up to literacy, might put some
new paint on the tired old whore of your sagging and lagging littany?
I see you even tried to come up with yet ~another~ excuse for dodging
and evading the questions I've been trying to get you to honestly and
openly answer--some of them for ~years~ now. I have to tell you, it's
really sort of sad to see you this way, wriggling rather like a worm on
a hook. I'd thought there might be more to you.
But life can be full of disappointments, and I know it's not something
you can help. I mean, we are what we are, right?
It's never too late to turn over a new leaf, though. It's never too late
to be honest and forthcoming. And, heck, I'm ~always~ willing to give a
guy another chance.
So, just because it's Spring, and the birds are tweeting, and love is in
the air, I'm going to show you just what a fair and decent fellow I am,
and give you yet ~another~ chance to prove that I have been wrong in
some of my musings and speculations and deductions. Yessiree, Gerry, I'm
going to ask you again to set the record straight, to fill in the
missing pieces, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, and damn the consequences.
Wouldn't that be ~great~ if you did that! Now that way, you could
~really~ prove all the hateful, terrible, dreadful things you have
alleged and intimated about me, and prove conclusively to one and all
that you were at all times the faultless, blameless, victimized saint
that we all know, in our heart of hearts, that you really, really, are.
I figure you can only:
A) Finally answer the questions, or
B) Studiously ignore them and run away and hide again, or
C) Continue to rant and rave and wriggle like a worm on a hook, twisting
this way and that way, becoming more and more incomprehensible in your
frothing condemnation of me, and in your ever-more-bug-eyed spasms of
invective, hoping to still convince a dwindling few of your most devoted
and slavish disciples that there really ~is~ some justifiable reason not
to just truthfully answer the questions.
Shucks, any way it goes, it will still be Spring here. :-)
So let me be the first to wish an early happy Easter to you and all your
fellow Ishtar-celebrating fertility-rite-practioners out there.
And now here are those ~great~ tormenting, crucifying questions again,
Gerry, to help you increase your legendary martyrdom. 'Tis the season:
BONUS EASTER QUESTION:
Was L. Ron Hubbard murdered, or kidnapped, or held against his will, or
intentionally incapacitated through drugs or other means to your
knowledge?
Hey, Gerry--surprise me: don't run away or try to evade this time.
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKYDodAKsx0v8qcvEQKEMQCfQjd0Mq0weoKY4u9KfuZmBigTvAUAoOQ/
+Rg3maJArN+xMiXY74DVqrt+
=vmc7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Warrior
>
>The Sea Org is lawsuit-proof because it isn't incorporated.
Perhaps, but individual Sea Org members are not.
>It is also assetless for that same reason.
This is an intended apparent reality created by lawyers who work for
Scientology.
>The notorious Sea Org Reserve is not owned by the SO itself; it is a
>trust, maintained (I believe) by SOR Services, a UK company, for the
>use of the Sea Org.
The use of Sea Org Reserves funds is controlled by Scientology through
the Sea Organization and its members.
>When it comes to the assets of Scientology itself, CST is the only
>show in town, and that alone makes it worthy of further scrutiny,
>in my opinion.
What about IAS funds? What about buildings used by Scientology?
What about GO Reserves (or whatever these accounts became)? Not to
mention the fact that there are most certainly accounts in existence
that you and I are not aware of.
>Rod Keller wrote:
>>
>>I think Gerry is impatient with CL because of the strange way he, Stacy,
>>Vaughn and Omar Garrison have been attacked in strange question form for
>>offenses I don't understand.
I too question "CL's" motives.
>Gerry may be "impatient" with CL for valid reasons, but he seems to be
>equally "impatient" with anyone else who dares to discuss CST as anything
>other than a shell corporation run by Scientologist puppet lawyers under
>the direct control of David Miscavige, and those who support his position
>have no trouble doing so
Some of us former Sea Org members understand the Scientology scam.
OTC has been declared to have been a sham corporation. The tradition
of forming sham corporations has been carried on by the Miscavige
regime.
>by directly contradicting known facts with unproven assertions. This, as
>you can imagine, does not go far in furthering his argument, and tends to
>lead to more questions, rather than less.
>
>K
Asking more questions is a good thing.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.offlines.org
Rod Keller
: On 30 Mar 2002 16:19:09 GMT, rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
: >It's a hell of a markup. Narconon alone pays more than $250,000 for
: >"Trademark License Fees." Whereas the gross receipts from sale of books
: >(the copyrighted stuff) was only $47,000. Over 5:1 in favor of
: >trademarks, even before you consider the cost to print the books. This
: >pattern seems to hold for other Scientology orgs. Applied Scholastics -
: >$1.4 million in trademark fees, gross books sales account for $45,000
: Using the most recent price lists I have [+] and not pro-rating, a rough
: estimate of how much actual cash that adds up to is:
:
: OT I 28 * 2120 = 59360
: OT II 24 * 4160 = 99840
: OT III 24 * 7040 = 168960
: OT IV 39 * 6,388.80 = 247213.20 [++]
: OT V 68 * 6,388.80 = 431038.40 [++]
: OT VI SOLO NOTs Course 39 * 3,408.00 = 132,912.00 [+++]
: SOLO NOTs CERTAINTY COURSE I 48 * ???
: SOLO NOTs CERTAINTY COURSE II 53 * ???
: OT VII 3 * ???
: OT VII EXPANDED 13 * ???
: L 11 116 * 12,100 = 1,403,600 [++++]
: L 10 33 * 12,100 = 399,300 [++++]
: L 12 23 * 12,100 = 278,300 [++++]
: This is, at a gross misunderestimation, $3,220,523 just from sales of the
: AT, just at Flag, just in 2001, even disregarding some heavy income
: courses that I couldn't find prices for, and lowballing every figure I had
: to guess. I'd personally think at least $5 million in delivery of OT levels
: and courses only delivered at AOs, just at Flag--but the 3.25 mil figure
: is guaranteed to be lower than the absolute lowest it could possibly be.
:
: The copyrighted material is not just that sold in books--book sales are not
: insignificant but not the main source of income from copyrighted materials--the
: main income from copyrighted materials derives from *delivery of courses*.
: Warrior in one of his posts related to ASHO day gave a rough guess of 20% of GI
: being book sales.
The completions information is very valuable and interesting, but not
really relevant to determine how money flows between Scientology
organizations. Just because courses are copyrighted doesn't mean that a
lot of money flows to RTC for copyright fees. Considering how few and
infrequently copies are probably made, it's not a reliable way to move
money every year.
: >leader of Scientology. It seems to border on the theories that man never
: >flew to the moon (it was a TV set-up) and that KFC doesn't serve chicken
: >any more (it's cloned chicken parts grown in a lab).
:
: I'd say that it's the contrary view (that CST doesn't own the intellectual
: property outright) that is completely unsupported by even a scintilla
: of evidence. You can of course feel free to provide that scintilla if you
: have it available.
I don't know where you generated this straw man.
: >The statement of Veritas on their CST page "It is indisputable that the
: >Church of Spiritual Technology, doing business as the L. Ron Hubbard
: >Library, is the seat of power in Scientology" seems pretty weak. We have
: >seen evidence that CST builds bomb shelters and allow RTC to do it's
: >trademark/copyright thing. I haven't seen evidence that it rules
: >Scientology. Any evidence to the contrary would be interesting.
:
: It doesn't merely rule Scientology--it owns it outright. Not a bit of what goes
: on in Flag, at AOLA, or at any other org delivering the copyrighted tech could
: go on without CST's say-so. If RTC steps out of line, CST at its sole
: discretion can grab every single piece of it back for the magnificent sum of
: $100.
I think power in Scientology is better determined by who exerts power,
rather than by-laws and such. Plenty of evidence is available that DM
exerts power and control over all sorts of things, in a variety of
organizations. There is no similar evidence for CST. If CST has given
anybody a say-so at any time for any reason, nobody has documented it.
CL
Hash: SHA1
ka...@wwwaif.net (ka...@wwwaif.net) wrote:
>Neither of the Lenskes appears to have done any significant work for
>the church outside of their work with CST, and acting as registered
>agent for a number of CST-related corporations and DBAs. Larry
>Heller, on the other hand, was involved in extraorganizational
>activities on behalf of Scientology, particularly (if I recall
>correctly) during the IRS years, as well as in your case (you being
>Gerry Armstrong). However, I think the Lenskes have restricted
>themselves to CST-related activities.
I'm actually very interested in the pre-CST period, when the brothers
Lenske were working for Karno in the mid-late (perhaps even early)
1970s. Karno obviously was up to his hip-waders in the G.O. and in
Hubbard's personal and business affairs, Sherman has admitted in sworn
statements that he was involved in Hubbard's business affairs back then,
Sherman wrote the first (1979) Will that heavily favored Karno's
interest and named Karno as trustee of the estate, and--as I know you
know, since you're the one who discovered it--Stephen was even involved
in litigation with Karno (the timing of which is also very interesting)
in 1980 concerning his 70's employment with Karno.
There is a lot of evidence--very bit-and-piece though it is--that the
Lenskes were weilding considerable behind-the-scenes power inside the
organizations substantially before they split off from Karno (while
still keeping him in place as named trustee of the Hubbard estate), and
publically started LLH&M just prior to being "hired" to represent
Hubbard. Their tenure with Karno also seems to span the birth of MCCS.
>I'm sure if I am incorrect on this, I will be corrected by someone with
>*hard evidence to the contrary*.
I'm not trying to say you are "incorrect," but there is at least a
limited body of evidence regarding the Lenske's pre-CST involvement that
I think you might find of interest.
Most of it is contained in a series of threads that took place last year
that ptsc and several other people contributed to. I'll have to find an
opportunity (which I don't have right now) to look it up and post the
exact message IDs so you can easily find them. I think it was Cambridge
who took some of the random bits and pieces and put them together into a
decent timeline on the subject, too. I'll have to find it, so forgive me
for begging off at the moment.
>Sometimes I think the only reason you get so antsy about these papers
>is because you, yourself, were pretty much ignorant of the whole CST
>enigma before it came to light here,
Well, here is where you and I have a very wide divergence of
view--despite the great respect I have for you, and despite how much
your own work contributed to my knowledge of CST and its denizens.
I personally believe Gerry Armstrong was in on the entire operation, and
was, himself, a crucial cog. Gerry Armstrong was CST's predecessor (in
control of the archives). He has said himself that CST was "hatched in
MCCS," and Armstrong was Mission 2nd on MCCS. He has admitted to working
with Hubbard's lawyers in L.A. at a time when Hubbard's lawyers were
Karno's firm (which included the Lenskes). I believe Armstrong colluded
with the Lenske's to convert millions of dollars worth of Hubbard's
property for the express purpose of delivering that property to
Hubbard's avowed enemy, Flynn, for it to be used in a pre-planned
sensationalistic "trial," and to be also used in DeWolf's trial, which
ran almost in tandem with Armstrong's. I believe that Armstrong met
privately with DeWolf (along with Omar Garrison) a year or more before
DeWolf's probate challenge specifically to make arrangements with DeWolf
for such a claim on his father's estate, briefing DeWolf that a lot of
Hubbard's personal papers would be available, and assuring DeWolf that
they would be sufficiently damning and discreditable to ensure success.
I also believe that DeWolf was merely used as a patsy in the thing, and
never had a prayer of winning. I believe that it was all part of the
larger operation leading to CST's ultimate ownership and control, but
served a very vital function of "proving" that the disappeared Hubbard
was "alive" and "in control of his affairs," and establishing DM and
Norman Starkey as Hubbard's "handpicked trusted advisors and friends."
With that sensationalized court-framed endorsement, with DM catapulted
to such vaunted status, the road was paved for DM to be held out as the
figurehead while Lenske and company were free to do all the dirty work
they needed in the dark--with the also-endorsed Norman F. Starkey as
their chief golem.
No single other person that I know of has done more to create the
utterly false and wide-spread public belief that David Miscavige was the
supreme ruler over all of Scientology than Gerry Armstrong (in concert
with several of his very close known associates). The creation of such a
public perception was patently part of the plan: every single corporate
interrelation, every publically-released brochure, every PR
event--everything done on the inside has been entirely consistent with a
hard-pressed campaign to put RTC and David Miscavige on the stage while
CST held the whip hand, completely out of sight, out of mind. The entire
success of the operation to establish--and HIDE--CST was utterly
dependent on the exact false PR image that Gerry Armstrong is rabidly
dedicated to--even now, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.
Armstrong also received $800,000 funneled through CST Special Director
Lawrence E. Heller>Flynn>Armstrong. If that figure isn't correct, he can
correct it.
This is only the sketchies outline; there is quite a lot of supporting
data behind. And of course there are gaps in the record. Such is the
nature of things like termites: you can't see everything that is going
on. That's why I have asked Gerry a series of pertinent and germane
questions regarding information and events that he would have unique
percipient knowledge of. He refuses to answer those questions.
Of course Gerry could, at any time, could just prove that I'm all wet by
merely answering the questions and thereby laying those troubling
questions to rest.
But he won't.
>and in other places, and it
>annoys you that your cachet as being some sort of expert on all
>things Scientological is threatened because you don't have a clue on
>that whole side of things. It doesn't invalidate your knowledge and
>discoveries on other matters, particularly with regard to the
>contradictory true life of L. Ron Hubbard, to admit that you were
>ignorant of the CST connection too.
Yes, I second that. Let him just state categorically that he was just
entirely igorant of the CST connection, and entirely innocent of any
complicity with Lenske and friends--if that's the truth. Let him just
say he was incorrect when he stated that CST was "hatched in MCCS"
(especially since former IRS official Meade Emory was one of the
hatchers), or when he said he was working with Hubbard's lawyers in L.A.
That would at least be declarative and substantive instead of the status
quo: his infinite evasiveness and ambiguity.
ARMSTRONG:
>>You, CL, never address the Scientology problem. Why is that? (LFBD)
I ~always~ address the Scientology problem, Gerry: CST ~is~ "the
Scientology problem." CST is the owner of everything that makes up the
entire subject known as "Scientology." CST owns and controls the "Fair
Game" policy, Gerry. CST owns and controls all of the RPF issues, Gerry.
CST owns and controls NOTs and ALL of the "Advanced Technology." CST has
controlling interest in the very S.O. symbol on DM's cap, Gerry. CST has
at all relevant times had controlling interest in all of the copyright
litigation against some of the people you claim to be your friends. So
why do ~you~ never address the real "Scientology problem," Gerry?
And you obviously don't known an LFBD from a Rock Slam.
KADY:
>I'm not CL, and I find CST fascinating as a key part of the
>"Scientology problem" for the very good reason that, as previously
>mentioned, *that's where the money is(*. Without the money, all those
>high-priced lawyers and harassment campaigns fade away. You're just
>as stubborn in denying the relevance of the CST question as the
>Veritas contingent is about insisting it's the key to the puzzle.
Uh, am I part of "the Veritas contingent?" You're not suggesting that,
are you. Nahhhhh. Can't be.
Haven't you heard: I'm a "cult op."
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKYVL9AKsx0v8qcvEQIMwwCgvH+Kmu/gx9udbhJCfG40JJNe3lwAnj10
BKwrsz1wRES7kByw37ogvLYQ
=gp4D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ka...@wwwaif.net
>In article <a84jae$3e4...@news1.sympatico.ca>, ka...@wwwaif.net says...
>>
>>The Sea Org is lawsuit-proof because it isn't incorporated.
>
>Perhaps, but individual Sea Org members are not.
And the relevancy of this is ... ?
>>It is also assetless for that same reason.
>
>This is an intended apparent reality created by lawyers who work for
>Scientology.
No, it is a statement of fact. The Sea Org does not legally exist. It does not
have assets. You cannot sue it. You cannot collect damages from it. It operates
on funds from a trust, which is managed by a separate UK corporation. It. Has.
No. Legal. Existence. At. All. Period. Full stop. C'est tout.
I think the point that you are failing to make, but intend to put forward, is
that the Sea Org has *power*, in a practical sense, through the positions held
by its non-official members. But that has little to do with assets, or money.
>>The notorious Sea Org Reserve is not owned by the SO itself; it is a
>>trust, maintained (I believe) by SOR Services, a UK company, for the
>>use of the Sea Org.
>
>The use of Sea Org Reserves funds is controlled by Scientology through
>the Sea Organization and its members.
Okay, see the difference here? I am trying to be *specific* in describing the
chain of command, and the control of money. You are deliberately speaking in
generalities. Saying "Scientology controls Scientology" does not add much to the
overall understanding of how the corporate structure works, so unless you're
willing to share specific knowledge of which facets of Scientology perform what
tasks, it's really not all that helpful.
>>When it comes to the assets of Scientology itself, CST is the only
>>show in town, and that alone makes it worthy of further scrutiny,
>>in my opinion.
>
>What about IAS funds? What about buildings used by Scientology?
>What about GO Reserves (or whatever these accounts became)? Not to
>mention the fact that there are most certainly accounts in existence
>that you and I are not aware of.
Other than a list of irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the issue at
hand, which is the role of CST, I can answer your questions as followed: the IAS
funds are held in two trusts (if I remember correctly), one for overseas (SIRT),
one created in the US (CSRT). There are also various other trusts, such as the
Flag Ship Trust, the United States Parishioners Trust and various other
similarly named entities; it is not clear whether these trusts are still active,
but SIRT and CSRT are definitely both alive and kicking. The organization that
controls the IAS, btw, is a curious little beastie called Foundation
International Membership Services Administration, which is incorporated in the
lovely Netherlands Antilles.
The buildings used by Scientology are, of course, owned by Building Management
Services, which is a separate corporation of which CSI is a voting member.
The GO Reserves, it appears, became the "Central Reserves", and are controlled,
as previously mentioned, by SOR Services Inc, a UK-based corporation whose
officers are the same as the trustees of SIRT (as of 1993, Pauline Chatterton
and Helen Wehl).
What does any of this have to do with the fact that CST controls the copyrights,
receives the bulk of the cash brought in by RTC for products and services, not
to mention money from various other sources, and is virtually lawsuit proof?
>>Rod Keller wrote:
>>>
>>>I think Gerry is impatient with CL because of the strange way he, Stacy,
>>>Vaughn and Omar Garrison have been attacked in strange question form for
>>>offenses I don't understand.
>
>I too question "CL's" motives.
>
>>Gerry may be "impatient" with CL for valid reasons, but he seems to be
>>equally "impatient" with anyone else who dares to discuss CST as anything
>>other than a shell corporation run by Scientologist puppet lawyers under
>>the direct control of David Miscavige, and those who support his position
>>have no trouble doing so
>
>Some of us former Sea Org members understand the Scientology scam.
>OTC has been declared to have been a sham corporation. The tradition
>of forming sham corporations has been carried on by the Miscavige
>regime.
You don't have to be a former Sea Org member to be able to understand corporate
shellgames, and I don't think anyone is arguing that the concept of shell
corporations is a new one for the Scientology empire. The question is whether
CST is just another one of these shells, which seems unlikely, given the
enormous control it has over the organization's assets that *cannot be easily
reversed* via a CSC-style switcheroo.
K
CL
Hash: SHA1
FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>Xenu allowed CL <c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon> to write:
>
>>The legal assault on Google and Operation Clambake for alleged
>>"copyright violations" was the work of the owner of those copyrights:
>>the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), doing business under the
>>fictitious business name of the "L. Ron Hubbard Library."
>
>That's not true, though.
Oh yes it is true. Every word of it is precisely true.
>The crime syndicate...
Who? Cosa Nostra? Congress? Which crime sydicate are you referring to?
Why don't you just say what you mean instead of trying so damned hard to
be cute.
>...didn't enumerate any copyrighted materials;
Here's a relevant quote from Google, emphasis added:
"We removed certain specific URLs in response to a notification
submitted by the Religious Technology Center and Bridge
Publications under section 512(c)(3) of the the Digital Millenium
Copyright Act (DMCA). Had we not removed these URLs, we would be
subject to a claim for COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT..."
You won't be offended if I rely on Google--an actual party to the
complaint--instead of relying on you--a peanut gallery seat-holder--will
you?
>their complaint was primarily about the Fair Use of trademarks -- a
>baseless complaint.
You seem to have some confusion about where the language "Fair Use"
comes from and in relation to what. As for the trademarks issue, I
~also~ covered that in portions that you snipped, where I clearly stated
that CST also has controlling interest in all the trademarks--which they
do. This was thoroughly documented here last year in a "Trademarks
Series" that was posted in this newsgroup detailing how Hubbard retained
ALL COMMERCIAL INTEREST in the marks when he "gave them" to RTC. I
recommend that you look the series up and study it.
>Anything that actually does belong to the syndicate was lost in the
>list of bogus complaints.
I have no idea WTF you are trying to say. Do you? CST owns all the
intellectual property, and was behind the DMCA attack on xenu.net and
Google. Period. Deal with it. Or not.
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKYbK9AKsx0v8qcvEQLj8QCeKKeDB9KK8FwuJgJWUaukgrd+TJkAnR5a
tkbKbdDEu7G7+hqxk2voVsjS
=JtwE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ka...@wwwaif.net
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>ka...@wwwaif.net (ka...@wwwaif.net) wrote:
>
>>Neither of the Lenskes appears to have done any significant work for
>>the church outside of their work with CST, and acting as registered
>>agent for a number of CST-related corporations and DBAs. Larry
>>Heller, on the other hand, was involved in extraorganizational
>>activities on behalf of Scientology, particularly (if I recall
>>correctly) during the IRS years, as well as in your case (you being
>>Gerry Armstrong). However, I think the Lenskes have restricted
>>themselves to CST-related activities.
>
>I'm actually very interested in the pre-CST period, when the brothers
>Lenske were working for Karno in the mid-late (perhaps even early)
>1970s. Karno obviously was up to his hip-waders in the G.O. and in
>Hubbard's personal and business affairs, Sherman has admitted in sworn
>statements that he was involved in Hubbard's business affairs back then,
>Sherman wrote the first (1979) Will that heavily favored Karno's
>interest and named Karno as trustee of the estate, and--as I know you
>know, since you're the one who discovered it--Stephen was even involved
>in litigation with Karno (the timing of which is also very interesting)
>in 1980 concerning his 70's employment with Karno.
Yes, and I really am terribly, horribly sorry that I have somehow misplaced
along the line the 20 or so pages from the courthouse that summarized the
case before commiting it to scanner, or at least transcribing the text. Mea
culpa. It was one of those moving-related calamities.
However, I do remember the basic facts of the complaint; Stephen Lenske had been
an associate in Karno's partnership of the moment, and had worked in the probate
section. He left for some reason - I believe, although cannot swear to it, that
it was to join up with his brother, the loveable Sherman, in a separate
partnership venture, and consquently got into a squabble with the Karno firm
over the amount he was owed in pension benefits, as well as vacation pay. It was
not an insurmountable sum; I believe the total was somewhere in the thousands.
The case drifted on for a few months, the final summary included allusions to
allegations on both sides of professional misconduct, and then the whole thing
appears to have been settled.
One of my theories -- or perhaps I appropriated it from you -- was that it was
possible that Lenske had stolen Hubbard's clientele from his former partner when
he moved to set up shop with OtherLenske, and that's what led to the bad blood
between the two partnerships, as well as the sudden disappearance of Karno from
the list of Hubbard's attorneys. Of course, this is purely speculation and I
don't have a scrap of evidence to back it up; I suggest it merely as a
possibility.
>There is a lot of evidence--very bit-and-piece though it is--that the
>Lenskes were weilding considerable behind-the-scenes power inside the
>organizations substantially before they split off from Karno (while
>still keeping him in place as named trustee of the Hubbard estate), and
>publically started LLH&M just prior to being "hired" to represent
>Hubbard. Their tenure with Karno also seems to span the birth of MCCS.
>
>>I'm sure if I am incorrect on this, I will be corrected by someone with
>>*hard evidence to the contrary*.
>
>I'm not trying to say you are "incorrect," but there is at least a
>limited body of evidence regarding the Lenske's pre-CST involvement that
>I think you might find of interest.
I will definitely check that out. It sounds like it could fill in some of the
gaps in the colourful history of my personal favourite Scientology-related
lawyer, the one and only Norton S. Karno.
Well, it's an interesting theory, and I'm going to have to muse on the whole
idea for a while before being to comment intelligently. However, I have to ask
you, given the level of understanding that Gerry Armstrong has thus far
demonstrated as to the intricacies of corporate minutia, do you really think
he's capable of orchestrating such an audacious scheme? Or was he just another
dunderheaded yes-man who was involved in MCCS in name, and perhaps in body, but
was never part of the brain trust that came up with the plan -- whatever the
plan might have been -- at all?
>With that sensationalized court-framed endorsement, with DM catapulted
>to such vaunted status, the road was paved for DM to be held out as the
>figurehead while Lenske and company were free to do all the dirty work
>they needed in the dark--with the also-endorsed Norman F. Starkey as
>their chief golem.
>
>No single other person that I know of has done more to create the
>utterly false and wide-spread public belief that David Miscavige was the
>supreme ruler over all of Scientology than Gerry Armstrong (in concert
>with several of his very close known associates). The creation of such a
>public perception was patently part of the plan: every single corporate
>interrelation, every publically-released brochure, every PR
>event--everything done on the inside has been entirely consistent with a
>hard-pressed campaign to put RTC and David Miscavige on the stage while
>CST held the whip hand, completely out of sight, out of mind. The entire
>success of the operation to establish--and HIDE--CST was utterly
>dependent on the exact false PR image that Gerry Armstrong is rabidly
>dedicated to--even now, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
>contrary.
There's also the possibility, you must admit, that he just can't stand being
wrong, and he can't stand the idea that there is a whole hidden chapter in the
Scientology story of which he was previously unaware before it was brought to
light here on a.r.s and in other places on and off the net.
>Armstrong also received $800,000 funneled through CST Special Director
>Lawrence E. Heller>Flynn>Armstrong. If that figure isn't correct, he can
>correct it.
>
>This is only the sketchies outline; there is quite a lot of supporting
>data behind. And of course there are gaps in the record. Such is the
>nature of things like termites: you can't see everything that is going
>on. That's why I have asked Gerry a series of pertinent and germane
>questions regarding information and events that he would have unique
>percipient knowledge of. He refuses to answer those questions.
>
>Of course Gerry could, at any time, could just prove that I'm all wet by
>merely answering the questions and thereby laying those troubling
>questions to rest.
>
>But he won't.
Hey, I'd love to hear the answers to the questions too, and I'm certainly not
suggesting that you stop asking them. But from watching his barnacle-like
clinging to the DM-as-uberlord theory in the face of even the most mild
suggestions to the contrary, I still contend that it has more to do with the way
his ego is wrapped up in his position as a self-described "expert" on the
Scientology enterprise than for any more sinister reason. Perhaps one day we'll
know which one of us owes the other a beer.
>>and in other places, and it
>>annoys you that your cachet as being some sort of expert on all
>>things Scientological is threatened because you don't have a clue on
>>that whole side of things. It doesn't invalidate your knowledge and
>>discoveries on other matters, particularly with regard to the
>>contradictory true life of L. Ron Hubbard, to admit that you were
>>ignorant of the CST connection too.
>
>Yes, I second that. Let him just state categorically that he was just
>entirely igorant of the CST connection, and entirely innocent of any
>complicity with Lenske and friends--if that's the truth. Let him just
>say he was incorrect when he stated that CST was "hatched in MCCS"
>(especially since former IRS official Meade Emory was one of the
>hatchers), or when he said he was working with Hubbard's lawyers in L.A.
>That would at least be declarative and substantive instead of the status
>quo: his infinite evasiveness and ambiguity.
It also *is* possible, you have to admit. I mean, MCCS came up with a Plan to
restructure the corporations, ostensibly to remove the last vestiges of direct
Hubbard control for his own protection, and to avoid the charges of inurement
which were so unfeelingly hurled by the IRS. Whether or not that MCCS plan was,
in fact, the one that eventually was put into place as part of the Great
Restructuring, or whether DM, after taking out his arch nemesis Guardian's
Office, decided to reinvent the wheel or at least put his own mark on the
eventual reconstituted structure would mean that it would be difficult for a
non-expert like Gerry to recognize subtle differences between Reorganization I
and Reorganization II.
Now get that scowl of rage off your face; I'm only thinking out loud, and
speculating as to what might have been happening in between the first alleged
meetings to "sort out" the corporation and the eventual sorting out itself. Just
throwing out some ideas, not stating them as established fact, so no
eviscerating me for lacking hard evidence to back up the theory.
>
>KADY:
>>I'm not CL, and I find CST fascinating as a key part of the
>>"Scientology problem" for the very good reason that, as previously
>>mentioned, *that's where the money is(*. Without the money, all those
>>high-priced lawyers and harassment campaigns fade away. You're just
>>as stubborn in denying the relevance of the CST question as the
>>Veritas contingent is about insisting it's the key to the puzzle.
>
>Uh, am I part of "the Veritas contingent?" You're not suggesting that,
>are you. Nahhhhh. Can't be.
>
>Haven't you heard: I'm a "cult op."
>
>CL
>
I would never suggest such a thing so baldly. You are CL, a cypher wrapped in an
enigma shrouded in fuming frustration at non-answering Armstrongs and cronies.
Perish the thought that I could have implied otherwise.
K
Generic Poster
>Much of this is licensed by RTC--90% of this goes to CST as described
>in intricate detail in the Rights Agreement.
90% of what goes to CST? Not money because it's stated that RTC can use up
to 10% of what it makes for itself and 90% must be used for the stated
purposes. I don't see CST getting a dime here. Where do they get their
money?
Birgitta
and excellent reasearch abilities.
Bid
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:51:50 GMT, ka...@wwwaif.net (ka...@wwwaif.net)
wrote:
>In article <uaabfdn...@corp.supernews.com>, FR...@SkepticTank.ORG wrote:
Keith Henson
wrote:
>In article <a850n...@drn.newsguy.com>, Warrior <war...@entheta.net> wrote:
>>In article <a84jae$3e4...@news1.sympatico.ca>, ka...@wwwaif.net says...
>>>
>>>The Sea Org is lawsuit-proof because it isn't incorporated.
>>
>>Perhaps, but individual Sea Org members are not.
>
>And the relevancy of this is ... ?
>
>>>It is also assetless for that same reason.
>>
>>This is an intended apparent reality created by lawyers who work for
>>Scientology.
I believe the SO was created before lawyers, at least the ones who did
CST, got in the act.
>
>No, it is a statement of fact. The Sea Org does not legally exist. It does not
>have assets. You cannot sue it. You cannot collect damages from it. It operates
>on funds from a trust, which is managed by a separate UK corporation. It. Has.
>No. Legal. Existence. At. All. Period. Full stop. C'est tout.
I just dawned on me where Hubbard got the idea for the Sea Org. We
know he seldom had an original thought and was a SF author. Take a
look here:
"WSFS is an unincorporated non-profit organization governed by a
Constitution and Standing Rules as documented at
<http://wsfs.org/bm/rules.html>. "
The World Science Fiction Society dates back to 1939. Hubbard was at
a number of them, though he never rated high enough with fans to be a
guest of honor or to win anything.
Keith Henson
jmj
>
> Yeah, Bentleybug. Right. That's what you had already decided going in,
> wasn't it?
>
No CL, I say that because that is what the bylaws imply. Let me define
shit.
They rule on tax issues. If the directors or trustees are doing
something that is illegal tax wise, then they have to call it to the
attention of the trustees. If soemone is taking money out for personal
use or spending CST money irresponsibly they have to point this out
and veto it (it threatens the tax exempt status of CST).
However, anything they veto can be overidden by a majority vote of the
general directors and the trustees. The special directors have no
real power. That to me is shit.
It is all in the bylaws and is very very simple and clear to anyone
who can see. You have fabricated an entire story about the special
directors based on your prejudice that isn't supported by anything.
Careful review of the bylaws compleetly countradict what you say. You
are the liar CL, not me.
The bylaws specically say the special directors do not run CST - the
trustees and general directors do. Why do you continue to say the
special directors control CST when they obviuosly don't?
Warrior
>:
>: The copyrighted material is not just that sold in books--book sales
>: are not insignificant but not the main source of income from copyrighted
>: materials--the main income from copyrighted materials derives from
>: *delivery of courses*. Warrior in one of his posts related to ASHO day
>: gave a rough guess of 20% of GI being book sales.
That's my estimate, based upon first hand knowledge spanning an
eight year time frame.
In article <a852b1$a...@netaxs.com>, rke...@netaxs.com says...
>
>The completions information is very valuable and interesting, but not
>really relevant to determine how money flows between Scientology
>organizations. Just because courses are copyrighted doesn't mean that a
>lot of money flows to RTC for copyright fees. Considering how few and
>infrequently copies are probably made, it's not a reliable way to move
>money every year.
>
<snips>
>
>I think power in Scientology is better determined by who exerts power,
>rather than by-laws and such. Plenty of evidence is available that DM
>exerts power and control over all sorts of things, in a variety of
>organizations. There is no similar evidence for CST. If CST has given
>anybody a say-so at any time for any reason, nobody has documented it.
Thanks.
I'll try to post in the near future about money flows, accounts and
their uses in Scientology.
ptsc
Take a look at the stated purposes for which 90% of that money goes.
The purposes listed in the 1982 Rights Assignment are almost identical
to the purposes of CST stated in its By-laws. For example, devoting money
to an indestructible archive of LRH materials could mean nothing else
other than giving it to CST.
---
[1982 Rights Assignment]
(1) establishing and maintaining an indestructible
record of the Scientology Scriptures;
Why, now who exactly does that? Isn't there a corporation that is completely
in charge of establishing an indestructible record of the Scientology
scriptures? What do those By-laws say again?
[From Section IV, By-laws CST]
i. Construction and maintenance of an imperishable structure, capable of
withstanding the ravages of nuclear warfare to house the essence of
Scientology for the benefit of future generations.
---
[1982 Rights Assignment]
(2) establishing and maintaining a museum of the
religion of Scientology;
And let's see, what corporation does that?
[From Section IV, By-laws CST]
h. Establishment and maintenance of a museum devoted to the religion of
Scientology.
---
[1982 Rights Assignment]
(3) establishing religious schools, scholarships
and retreats;
[From Section IV, By-laws CST]
b. Foundation, construction and use of a church, establishments, tutorial
schools, retreats, parsonages, centers of training and other centers, for
the teaching, dissemination and administration of the religion of
Scientology, which aspires to the religious and ethical guidance and
improvement of the individual character, and also to better and clarify the
human spirit;
---
[1982 Rights Assignment]
(4) supporting other qualified organizations of
the religion of Scientology; and
[From Section IV, By-laws CST]
c. Assistance in the foundation of Churches of Scientology and other
organizations devoted to the religion of Scientology.
---
[1982 Rights Assignment]
(5) publishing, disseminating and promoting
literature that is not part of the Scientology
Scriptures but which, in the judgment of the
Directors of RTC, is in concert with the broad
goals of Scientology and is worthy of support
for the general benefit of mankind.
[From Section IV, By-laws CST]
d. Publication and distribution of religious literature and other sectarian
aids in order to propagate and disseminate Scientology; and
--
ptsc
CL
Hash: SHA1
ka...@wwwaif.net (ka...@wwwaif.net) wrote:
>In article <5STUTAP63734...@frog.gilgamesh.org>, CL
><c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon> wrote:
>>I'm actually very interested in the pre-CST period, when the brothers
>>Lenske were working for Karno in the mid-late (perhaps even early)
>>1970s. Karno obviously was up to his hip-waders in the G.O. and in
>>Hubbard's personal and business affairs, Sherman has admitted in sworn
>>statements that he was involved in Hubbard's business affairs back
>>then, Sherman wrote the first (1979) Will that heavily favored Karno's
>>interest and named Karno as trustee of the estate, and--as I know you
>>know, since you're the one who discovered it--Stephen was even
>>involved in litigation with Karno (the timing of which is also very
>>interesting) in 1980 concerning his 70's employment with Karno.
>Yes, and I really am terribly, horribly sorry that I have somehow
>misplaced along the line the 20 or so pages from the courthouse that
>summarized the case before commiting it to scanner, or at least
>transcribing the text. Mea culpa. It was one of those moving-related
>calamities.
I know that "where did the condemned thing go?!" syndrome. It's a shame
they got lost; I have an intense interest in getting my hands on the
case documents because I feel that they might give up what otherwise
might appear to be inconsequentials, but that could be important
corroboration, especially about dates. Of course, never having seen
them, I have no way of knowing whether that would be the case or not.
It's one of those tantalizing frustrations. Maybe there is some elf in
or around L.A.-L.A.-Land that might someday muster the industry to round
them up for us all. I hope so.
>However, I do remember the basic facts of the complaint; Stephen
>Lenske had been an associate in Karno's partnership of the moment,
>and had worked in the probate section. He left for some reason - I
>believe, although cannot swear to it, that it was to join up with his
>brother, the loveable Sherman, in a separate partnership venture, and
>consquently got into a squabble with the Karno firm over the amount
>he was owed in pension benefits, as well as vacation pay.
Well, that in itself is interesting because of the timing: according to
a series of psuedonymous posts called "The Karno Files" (I will refrain
from questioning you on that), the law suit was filed on 13 March 1981.
(L. Ron Hubbard's birthday. Isn't that cute.)
The only testimony I know of regarding when LLH&M was established is a
broad reference by Sherman Lenske in one of his affidavits which places
the date approximately around the Fall of 1980. So that would seem to be
consistent. (I'm including a timeline at the end of this message that
blocks all this out.)
I believe that these timing issues are absolutely crucial. Lawrence E.
Heller is known to have been involved to some degree in the
incorporation of Bridge Publications, Inc. in February of 1981--over a
month before the filing of the Lenske/Karno suit--because he was named
as Registered Agent.
That's part of why I would like to see what if any dates are referenced
about Stephen Lenske's tenure in the Karno firm. The timeline below
(thanks to Cambridge and others) places BOTH the Lenske brothers in
Karno's law firm AS EARLY AS THE BEGINNING OF 1977, and places Karno's
involvement, confirmed, at LEAST as early as November 1973!
I theorize that the Lenskes' involvement in the corporate reshuffling
dates to considerably earlier than anyone had ever been allowed to
believe. This all ties back into the dark and secretive doings of MCCS
(begun on 23 February 1980--while the Lenkes are KNOWN to have been
working at the Karno firm, as show below), the only voyeuristic glimpse
into which we have is the oh-so-carefully selected snippet of the
infamous "Zolin tapes." And, of course, tracing the provenance of ~that~
little widely-disseminated propaganda jewel (in which the identity of at
least one speaking attorney is carefully masked) leads us right up to
the door of...
Can you guess?
Gerry Armstrong.
So these dates of who was actually doing what, where, and when are
vitally important in my estimation. They have taken on even greater
importance in my own research efforts exactly because of their rather
startling absence: it appears that great effort has been taken to keep
exact important dates expunged from the record, else it wouldn't be so
~damnedably~ difficult to sort the thing out.
>It was not
>an insurmountable sum; I believe the total was somewhere in the
>thousands. The case drifted on for a few months, the final summary
>included allusions to allegations on both sides of professional
>misconduct, and then the whole thing appears to have been settled.
Is that the TV Guide version? :-) Thanks for the precis.
>One of my theories -- or perhaps I appropriated it from you -- was
>that it was possible that Lenske had stolen Hubbard's clientele from
>his former partner when he moved to set up shop with OtherLenske, and
>that's what led to the bad blood between the two partnerships, as
>well as the sudden disappearance of Karno from the list of Hubbard's
>attorneys. Of course, this is purely speculation and I don't have a
>scrap of evidence to back it up; I suggest it merely as a
>possibility.
Yes, it's a possibility (and not one that you appropriated from me,
BTW), but there are several not-insignificant facts that argue against
it. The most glaring is the fact that Karno remained named as Executor
of Hubbard's estate all the way through the pivotal and electrifying
date of 10 May 1982. On that date the elusive reclusive El-Ron was
somehow magically located and held down long enough to purportedly sign
*three*--count 'em, three--separate history-changing documents (in Los
Angeles) that had been cobbled together by the estimable Sherman Lenske.
In attendance, severally or separately, were David Miscavige as "notary"
(give me a second to pick myself up off the floor) on at least one of
the documents, and of course the Smurfs--Pat and Annie Broeker--who
witnessed the Will of that date naming Patrick as the new Executor (give
me a second to pick myself up off the floor), but with Lyman Spurlock
and Norman F. Starkey listed as the Ladies in Waiting in case Patrick
fell down and broke his crown.
There are so damned many ramifications to this that I couldn't possibly
touch on them all here, but suffice it to say that if the Lenskes left
Karno in, say, November 1980, they were still locked in loving embrace,
because Karno was named as successor to the crown: Executor of Hubbard's
Estate. So for at *least* a year and a half--November 1980 to May
1982--while Sherman Lenske was handling "all aspects of Estate
planning," the Lenskes and Karno ~had~ to have some kind of unspeakable
love triangle going on amongst them--the civil suit notwithstanding.
And Karno may have apparently "disappeared" from the "list of Hubbard's
attorneys," but he was ~very~ present in the unheralded and unpublicized
role of named Executor of the Estate.
Also, I imagine you have more than a nodding acquaintance with the 1979
Will (drafted by Sherman Lenske) that named Karno as Executor, and so
will have some familiarity with the recorded fact of peculiar and
undefined shared "business interests" between Karno and Hubbard, which
business interests of Karno were given PRECEDENCE in the Will!
(I've got to quit revisiting these things. So many goddamned unexplained
weirdnesses and vaguenesses and generalities hiding God-knows-what that
my blood pressure rings the bell. You stand looking at these
gopher-holes labelled by these goddamned attornies as "business
interests" or something equally vacuous and undefined, with absolutely
no way of plumbing their depths or tracing their unknown branchings and
connections to other gopher holes.)
CL:
>>There is a lot of evidence--very bit-and-piece though it is--that the
>>Lenskes were weilding considerable behind-the-scenes power inside the
>>organizations substantially before they split off from Karno (while
>>still keeping him in place as named trustee of the Hubbard estate),
>>and publically started LLH&M just prior to being "hired" to represent
>>Hubbard. Their tenure with Karno also seems to span the birth of MCCS.
>>I think you might find of interest.
KADY:
>I will definitely check that out. It sounds like it could fill in some
>of the gaps in the colourful history of my personal favourite
>Scientology-related lawyer, the one and only Norton S. Karno.
Well, I did mangage to dig up the Cambridge timeline which did a great
job of pulling a lot of bits and pieces together on the Karno-Lenske
relationship (with a pinch of Kreiner thrown into the soup), and their
hinted or verified involvement behind the scenes of many a famous and
infamous event in the checkered history that we've all become de facto,
if reluctant, historians of. I'm including it at the end of this.
Unfortunately, I found that Cambridge had left out a few things
(including the Stephen Lenske/Karno civil suit), and so I have just
plugged in whatever I thought needed to be added. As I said to Bid, this
effort is something like a community quilt, and I am finding it harder
and harder to track who added what, and don't know that it ultimately
matters a great deal, as long as the facts prove out. I haven't tried to
segregate what I added to his timeline below, but the original Cambridge
post ID is <BRTMOQXG3724...@anonymous.poster>, just for the
record.
I also took the liberty of editing out a confusion he had about two
different spelling of the last name of the attorney James Q. Fisher that
he had gotten somewhere spelled as "Fischer" (probably an OCR error in
something he had), because I researched it and found that it was all the
same person, and just wanted to get that possible confusion removed. And
of course this became doubly important to clear up, since James Q.
Fisher, as I'm sure you are ~thoroughly~ aware, floated to the surface
recently in the infamous Reed Slatkin affair. (And the wheel is still in
spin. Let's all take a deep breath, shall we?)
<Snip my Armstrong/Lenske connection theorizing)
KADY:
>Well, it's an interesting theory, and I'm going to have to muse on the
>whole idea for a while before being to comment intelligently. However,
>I have to ask you, given the level of understanding that Gerry
>Armstrong has thus far demonstrated as to the intricacies of corporate
>minutia, do you really think he's capable of orchestrating such an
>audacious scheme?
Well, I didn't actually say I thought he orchestrated it; I said I
thought he was an important cog. Or maybe I should say "instrument," in
keeping with the "orchestrated" theme. I don't for a minute, though,
think he is as dumb on the subject of the "corporate minutia" as he
might like to play.
>Or was he just another dunderheaded yes-man who was involved in MCCS in
>name, and perhaps in body, but was never part of the brain trust that
>came up with the plan -- whatever the plan might have been -- at all?
You'll have to ask him. Pack a nice lunch to take along, and good luck
getting any straight answers. Stick a copy of his "Curriculum Vitae" in
your pic-a-nic basket, too, so you have a good grasp on his background
and training in intelligence, legal, and PR--you know, just in case he
tries to smoke you. Not that I think that soft-talking, God-loving,
God-fearing, Jesus-hugging Gerry Armstrong would do something so low as
lie, spread disinformation, or be a party to grand theft. Or to
premeditated murder or kidnapping. Or anything like that.
<Snip more of my theorizing>
KADY:
>There's also the possibility, you must admit, that he just can't stand
>being wrong, and he can't stand the idea that there is a whole hidden
>chapter in the Scientology story of which he was previously unaware
>before it was brought to light here on a.r.s and in other places on
>and off the net.
<Cough>
CL:
>>Armstrong also received $800,000 funneled through CST Special Director
>>Lawrence E. Heller>Flynn>Armstrong. If that figure isn't correct, he
>>can correct it.
>>Of course Gerry could, at any time, could just prove that I'm all wet
>>by merely answering the questions and thereby laying those troubling
>>questions to rest.
>>
>>But he won't.
KADY:
>Hey, I'd love to hear the answers to the questions too, and I'm
>certainly not suggesting that you stop asking them. But from watching
>his barnacle-like clinging to the DM-as-uberlord theory in the face of
>even the most mild suggestions to the contrary, I still contend that it
>has more to do with the way his ego is wrapped up in his position as a
>self-described "expert" on the Scientology enterprise than for any more
>sinister reason. Perhaps one day we'll know which one of us owes the
>other a beer.
I will spring for an entire case of the beer of your choice if it turns
out not to be something far more sordid than his just being some
Chauncyesque babe-in-the-woods, blithely and innocently oblivious,
surrounded on all sides by the machinations of the movers and shakers
who were methodically dismantling and reinventing the entirety of
Scientology around him, while he puttered about in the archives, head
down, blinkers on.
CL:
>>Let him just state categorically that he was just
>>entirely igorant of the CST connection, and entirely innocent of any
>>complicity with Lenske and friends--if that's the truth. Let him just
>>say he was incorrect when he stated that CST was "hatched in MCCS"
>>(especially since former IRS official Meade Emory was one of the
>>hatchers), or when he said he was working with Hubbard's lawyers in
>>L.A. That would at least be declarative and substantive instead of the
>>status quo: his infinite evasiveness and ambiguity.
KADY:
>It also *is* possible, you have to admit.
<Cough>
>I mean, MCCS came up with a Plan to restructure the corporations,
>ostensibly to remove the last vestiges of direct Hubbard control for
>his own protection, and to avoid the charges of inurement
>which were so unfeelingly hurled by the IRS.
Oh, yes, that "motivation" is certainly a key part of "The Official
Story," and one that dies hard. Clinging to it, barnacle-like or
otherwise, though, requires one to completely ignore the entry at 5 June
1976 in the timeline below, on or around which date L. Ron Hubbard and
Mary Sue Hubbard are known to have paid an "adjustment tax" after a
scorching THREE-YEAR audit of their taxes by the IRS. That fact, and the
fact that it came in the heat of the purported "Snow White" activities
should glow like a neoned HOLLYWOOD sign on the landscape, but the
purveyors and disciples of "the Official Story" keep it swept under
their mental rugs somehow. Did so much "inurement" occur in three and a
half short years, between mid-1976 and February 1980, that a huge
secretive and fraudulent corporate reshuffling had to be launched, with
the brilliant concept of criminal money-laudering that had absolutely no
chance of succeeding?
Well, that's what we're all supposed to believe. Just ask Gerry.
I ejected the entire "Official Story" long ago. Every last, tiny scrap
of it. Had it hauled away in a dumpster. It was a first and necessary
step on the road to any kind of sane assessment of the documented facts
for me, because the documented facts could NOT be pounded, welded, bent,
foundried, smelted, riveted, or SuperGlued into "The Official Story."
Trying to make them fit drove me practically mad. Until, that is, I
realized once and for all that "The Official Story" HAD to be a pack of
lies, kicked it out the door and into the street, dusted my hands, and
started fresh with KNOWN, PROVABLE, DOCUMENTED and incontrovertible
facts. Clean slate.
And if you are going to bring up the scandalous 1981 Tax Court ruling, I
beg you not to: I have it on my "to-do" list to analytically rip that
thousand pages of lies and misrepresentations and half-truths apart here
in this newsgroup in the not-too-distant future, but it is a massive
undertaking that I have been working on for well over a year now, and I
wish not to even ~attempt~ to debate its relative merits or findings
until it has been taken apart and the actual data, and MISSING
countering data, have been fairly and fully presented for reference.
If you choose to rely on it as an authority (and I don't assert that you
do), that is of course your prerogative; I merely want to pre-empt any
possible premature diving into that black hole, a place where I have no
interest in or intention of going at the moment.
>Whether or not that MCCS plan was, in fact, the one that eventually was
>put into place as part of the Great Restructuring, or whether DM, after
>taking out his arch nemesis Guardian's Office,
Whoa whoa whoa whoa! I do ~not~ stipulate that DM "took out the
Guardian's Office"! Fuh-GED-about-it! What is recorded is that DM was
the delivery boy--like the "Call-For-Phil-lip-Mor-ris!" bellhop, in his
natty little suit--who delivered a LETTER FROM ATTORNEYS (geeze, wonder
who ~that~ might have been) to Mary Sue, and that he was in Mission Ops
of the CMO for the GO take-down missions. The rest is urban legend and
"Official Story," and Miscavige's (a proven liar's) own braggadocio.
As for documented facts about who the Guardian's Office was ~really~
arch-nemesis to, one has only to roll out across the floor the long
scroll of FOIA suits that the G.O. had been involved in (and was still
involved in) up to its demise, and take stock of what the continuation
of the Guardian's Office would have meant to any possibility of the
establishment of CST and its succession to ownership of the intellectual
properties. ~Then~ the take-down of the G.O., and its absolutely crucial
timing, makes perfect sense, and has a sensible and believable
motivation. But then "The Official Story" makes absolutely none. (Not
that it ever did.)
In fact...
<Pounding, pounding, pounding the desk> Jesus! I didn't want to get into
this, but now you've dragged me kicking and screaming into it. Now,
listen, please: bear with me. Please; really: take a moment to sit down
in a quiet corner somewhere, and say "Ommmmmmm," or whatever, to clear
every last vestige of "The Official Story" from your mind, and when you
have achieved that newborn-babe-like state of innocence and clarity,
then, and only then, contemplate this fact: that the ~sole~ motivation
for the take-down of the G.O., as given by David Miscavige and "The
Official Story," is that he/they/whoever had ~discovered~--now get that:
DISCOVERED--to his shock, horror, and dismay, in mid-1981, after FOUR
F-U-C-K-I-N-G YEARS of FBI raids, of the signing of the Stipulation of
Evidence, of national and international screaming, scandalous headlines,
of criminal trials and appeals to federal courts--after ALLLLLLL of
that, he suddenly makes the STARTLING FUCKING DISCOVERY that somehow the
G.O. had been "involved in criminal activity" and "negligent" in its
duties. And if you don't need oxygen by this time, then you have
permanently lost your sense of humor.
Yet on this utter idiocy hangs a huge and absolutely crucial segment of
"The Official Story." And this has been ~believed~ by people who won't
believe the Bylaws of a registered corporation when you place it under
their nose.
>decided to reinvent the wheel or at least put his own mark on the
>eventual reconstituted structure would mean that it would be difficult
>for a non-expert like Gerry to recognize subtle differences between
>Reorganization I and Reorganization II.
>
>Now get that scowl of rage off your face;
No, no--it was only a minor aneurism.
>I'm only thinking out loud, and speculating as to what might have been
>happening in between the first alleged meetings to "sort out" the
>corporation and the eventual sorting out itself. Just
>throwing out some ideas, not stating them as established fact, so no
>eviscerating me for lacking hard evidence to back up the theory.
Well put your mind at ease: I can't perform usenet eviscerations without
abusive hyphenations, and the Hyphen Police came in a dawn raid and
carted away hundreds of boxes of the illegal marks--some of them
believed to be counterfeit hyphens--and even took some completely
innocent em-dashes who were disguised as double-hyphens. Unfortunately,
when the Hyphen Police arrived I misunderstood them through the muffling
of the door to say, "Open up! Hymen Police!" and I said, "Man, are ~you~
ever in the wrong location," and of course they broke right on through.
And with that, here is the timeline of the Karno/Lenske connection
(including other peripheral personalities and events), with thanks and
apologies to Cambridge, and of course to the many others who likely
contributed to its existence. And I hope it serves you well and proves
of interest and use. The notes/asides in it are from Cambridge, although
I just could ~not~ resist adding one or two of my own, which I identify
as being my grafitti:
==================================================================
25 June 1973
A trust instrument is executed establishing the existence of "The United
States Church(es) of Scientology Trust" ("the Trust;" "the Trustee
fund") with L. Ron Hubbard named as the sole Trustee. (Based on later
events, it seems a likely possibility that this Trust instrument was
drafted by Norton S. Karno or someone at his firm, which is why I
include it here. I freely admit that this is not confirmed and that it
bears further investigation. The Tax Court that discusses this Trust
apparently had access to the Trust instrument, and it may be part of
their public record, so there may be some hope of confirming this at
some point.) What is certain is that California attorney Joel Kreiner is
the Deputy Guardian Legal U.S. at this time, and that the Trust
instrument was drawn up by some attorney familiar with trusts and the
related tax issues. Kreiner is also a Director and the Secretary for
HASI, Inc. at the time, which has its own relevance in developing
events.
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/irslegal/240984.html
2 July 1973
An IRS audit of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard for the tax years
1971 and 1972 is begun by IRS's OIO. It is been being worked on by
Thomas R. Crate in OIO, under the supervision of Howard Rosen. (It is my
informed belief that Norton S. Karno is representing L. Ron Hubbard by
this time, based on events that happen in relation to IRS within a very
few months which involve Karno's firm of Karno, Rudnick & Fisher, and
based on the continuing involvement of Norton Karno in tax-related and
business affairs of L. Ron Hubbard.)
19 September 1973
After having been ordered by IRS earlier in the year to produce certain
documents, CSC and Henning Heldt file with United States District Court,
Central District of California, a notice to take the depositions of
Regional Commissioner of Internal Revenue Homer Croasmun, Internal
Revenue Service Group Manager James Argue, and Internal Revenue Agent
Robert H. Cluberton, also requesting that they produce certain records
and documents at the depositions. (It is my informed belief and is very
likely indeed that the law firm that drew up and filed the notice is
Karno, Rudnick & Fisher, as that firm's James Q. Fisher represents CSC
and Henning Heldt at the 5 November 1973 hearing on this and other
filings in this case.) Joel Kreiner is the Deputy Guardian Legal U.S.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf252.html
5 November 1973
(First confirmed involvement of Karno's law firm.) James Q. Fischer of
the law firm Karno, Rudnick & Fischer is representing Henning Heldt (of
the Guardian's Office) and Church of Scientology of California (CSC) in
a hearing 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; C.D.
California. Joel Kreiner is the Deputy Guardian Legal. (In the
"Scientology Shyster List," it is reported that Joel Kreiner and a James
Fisher become partners at some point.)
http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf252.html
1 June 1974
Attorney Joel Kreiner reportedly "steps down" as "as chief legal
adviser" but continues "to hold a legal post" in the Guardian's Office.
In that post, he reportedly is CSC's "primary tax attorney" and has
"custody and control of the Church's tax files." (The Tax Court ruling
this is taken from is very ambiguous about what this "stepping down as
chief legal adviser" means. It doesn't say specifically that Kreiner is
no longer the Deputy Guardian Legal U.S., and in fact says that he
continues "to hold a legal post" in the Guardian's Office. At the very
least he is still in the office of the Deputy Guardian Legal U.S.)
According to annual reports filed with the Arizona Corporations
Commission, Kreiner also remains a director and the Secretary of HASI,
Inc.
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/irslegal/240984.html
29 August 1974
There is a Department of the Treasury internal "buck slip" dated August
29, 1974, concerning an FOIA request from Joel Kreiner on behalf of the
"Church of Scientology." (This would certainly be CSC.) The "buck slip"
is from a Treasury Department official to an attorney in the Office of
the General Counsel and contains opinions and requests legal advice as
to the processing of the request. (This establishes Kreiner's continuing
involvement in legal matters on behalf of CSC concerning tax and IRS and
US Treasury Department matters. This "buck slip" concerns an FOIA
request from Kreiner that is contemporary with this period in 1974, and
Kreiner is already established as working in association with the Karno
firm on IRS-related matters at this point in time.)
15 September 1974
Cindy Raymond, "Collections Officer in the US Information Bureau in
L.A." for the US Guardian's Office, allegedly informs Michael Meisner
that she has selected Gerald Bennett Wolfe to "infiltrate the IRS on
behalf of the Church of Scientology." (Again this is a gross instance
where all mention of the attorneys is left out, and no mention of any of
their names is included, but both the Stipulation of Evidence and the
later September 1984 US Tax Court ruling state that the senior purpose
of the alleged IRS infiltration was to obtain documents to be used by
attorneys in CSC's litigation against IRS, and/or in relation the audit
that was being conducted on L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard out of
IRS's OIO at the time. It is a very curious element of the Stipulation
of Evidence that, despite this purported purpose, the Stipulation leaves
out all mention of the documents being routed to the G.O.'s legal
department, or to Kreiner and then on to the attorneys involved in tax
issues. Karno's firm is most decidedly involved in IRS-related legal
matters at this time, and Joel Kreiner continues to be actively and
closely involved, as is proven by previous and ensuing events. Therefore
there has to be here an unstated, and even concealed, connection to
Kreiner and to the Karno firm. The most perplexing aspect of this is
that the government's own Stipulation of Evidence is concealing these
necessary connections, and Joel Kreiner's name appears nowhere in the
Stipulation, even though he is named in the September 1984 Tax Court
ruling in relation to this time period. The Stipulation concentrates
almost exclusively on the intelligence-collection activities and
personnel, and almost completely obliterates the very existence of the
attorneys and Guardian's Office Legal Department for whom the data
collection was supposedly being done in the first place. All of this
begins to seem even more incongruous in events that follow almost
immediately.)
11 November 1974
Gerald Wolfe is hired by IRS as a clerk typist despite the fact that
there is a hiring freeze in effect at IRS. (See above notes.)
2 December 1974
The matter of "Church of Scientology of California, a non-profit
corporation, Plaintiff v. Internal Revenue Service, Donald C. Alexander,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury of the
United States, William Simon, Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States, Defendants" is heard in court at 10:00 AM. Appearing for
Plaintiff (CSC) is Joel Kreiner, Attorney At Law. (This is a rather
amazing event, coming less than one month after the hiring of Gerald
Wolfe by IRS, because the Karno firm is already established in
representing CSC against IRS, Karno has definitely been closely
associated with Kreiner in Kreiner's position as the Deputy Guardian
Legal U.S. when Karno was retained, and Kreiner has only recently
"stepped down" from being "chif legal adviser." Yet here Kreiner is
standing up for CSC, with no evidence of Karno or Karno's firm involved
in this case against Donald C. Alexander, Commissioner or IRS, and
William Simon, Secretary of the Treasury. Yet we can be absolutely
certain that Karno is still very actively involved with Hubbard's
affairs, with the G.O., and with CSC, as is proven in the later events.)
http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf251.html
1 January 1975
Meade Emory becomes Assistant to Donald C. Alexander, Commissioner of
IRS. (Included because of Meade Emory's later connection to the Lenskes
in setting up CST, and because CSC has just filed suit against Donald C.
Alexander et al. The timing of Emory's hiring relative to the event
directly above is quite an amazing "coincidence," one of the many very
odd coincidences that keep turning up. But it confirms that Meade Emory
was made Assistant to Commissioner of IRS in the middle of CSC and the
G.O.'s case against Commissioner of IRS and the US Treasury Secretary.)
[CL NOTE: It also establishes another, even MORE amazing "coincidence":
that of Meade Emory on one "side," and Karno and company on the other
"side," in the very conflict that will ultimately enable Meade Emory to
come along several years later and work with attorneys that had been
EMPLOYED IN KARNO'S FIRM (the Lenske brothers) to set up CST, which will
then go on to inherit ALL the assets of the clients of Norton S.
Karno--L. Ron Hubbard, CSC, and the GO--but only AFTER being granted
tax-exemption by Emory's employer, IRS. Just a coincidence. Move along.
Nothing to see here. Move along... ]
14 November 1975
Joel Kreiner signs an annual report for HASI, Inc. as its Secretary. It
is the last annual report ever filed for HASI, Inc.
5 December 1975
Norton S. Karno is acting as counsel to Henning Heldt, the G.O., and
CSC, and also has access to and some sort of control over "the Trustee
fund," most likely set up originally by Karno's firm in June of 1973, as
above. This also links Norton Karno to Martin Greenberg who was the
central CPA to all of CSC and the G.O.'s activities throughout the
entanglements with IRS and the entire "Snow White" affair.
Message ID: <cbdu7tsc2brqtunk0...@4ax.com>
16 April 1976
Joel Kreiner resigns as Secretary of HASI, Inc. and James "Jimmy"
Mulligan resigns as Vice President. Lynn McNeil (Michael Meisner's
direct senior in the G.O.) replaces Mulligan as Vice President, Judy
Weigand replaces Joel Kreiner as Secretary.
5 June 1976
L. Ron Hubbard pays an "adjustment tax," 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. The audit case was for the years 1971 and
1972. It has been being worked on by Thomas R. Crate in OIO, under the
supervision of Howard Rosen. (Again, it is my informed belief, based on
all surrounding events, that Karno is handling tax and business affairs
for L. Ron Hubbard at this time.)
1 January 1977
Both Sherman and Stephen Lenske are working in Norton S. Karno's law
firm, (now called "Karno & Schwartz"), and they are both representing
"various business interests of Mr. Hubbard." (They only give 1977 as a
date.)
Message ID:
<ed50f9cb8257a396...@remailer.cryptofortress.com>
10 May 1977
A Certificate of Revocation is issued against HASI, Inc. by the Arizona
Corporation Commission for "FAILURE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT." The
statute cited is ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES SECTION 10-095. Signatories on
the document are Bud Tims, Chairman, Ernest Garfield, Commissioner, Jim
(illegible), Commissioner, and Donald E. Vance, Executive Secretary.
Sherman and Stephen Lenske are handling L. Ron Hubbard's "business
affairs" for the firm of Karno & Schwartz.
22 May 1977
The Certificate of Revocation for HASI, Inc. is mailed back from the
postal service in Silver Springs, Maryland to the Arizona Corporation
Commission as "Moved--Not Forwardable." (This is the last record of
HASI, Inc. that the Arizona Corporation Commission has on file. HASI,
Inc. is permanently revoked as a corporation.)
8 July 1977
The FBI raids the Guardian's Offices on both coasts because of alleged
actions of the Guardian's Office and CSC (which are both being
represented by Norton Karno's firm and by Karno himself as counsel).
1 January 1978
Meade Emory's term as Assistant to Commissioner of IRS ends. (This is
only estimated because Meade Emory gives the dates for his term only as
1975-1977. I'm assuming that it is inclusive of 1977.)
11 April 1978
Shaw Management Corporation is incorporated by Sherman Lenske. Dr. Gene
Denk as President.
[CL NOTE: For those who aren't aware, Gene Denk is the doctor who later
attended the death of L. Ron Hubbard and signed off on all the documents
saying it was a natural death (with no explanation of the Vistirl that
had been injected into him) so Hubbard's body could be immediately
cremated with no autopsy. Just a coincidence. Move along... )
15 December 1979
The first known L. Ron Hubbard Will is drawn up by Sherman Lenske,
naming Norton S. Karno as Executor of the Estate, and subordinating the
Estate of L. Ron Hubbard to unspecified "business interests" that
Hubbard and Karno reportedly have in common. The Will also disinherits
L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (Nibs, later known as Ronald DeWolf).
Message ID:
<ed50f9cb8257a396...@remailer.cryptofortress.com>
http://home.earthlink.net/~snefru/deathoflrh/1979.html
1 February 1980
Laurel Sullivan and Gerald Armstrong move from Hemet to Los Angeles,
taking the "LRH Archives" there with them. Of the move, Gerry Armstrong
says, "Because of dealing with Hubbard's lawyers in LA, and for security
reasons, Laurel and I move to the Cedar complex and set up MCCS and the
Hubbard Archive." (Here is another of the generic collective noun
"Hubbard's lawyers." Yet we know that Norton S. Karno is the lawyer who
has business interests with L. Ron Hubbard, and is the named Executor
for Hubbard's Estate, and that Sherman Lenske is the lawyer who just
drew up Hubbard's Will, and that both Sherman and Stephen Lenske are
representing "various business interests of Mr. Hubbard." So I don't
know who else would possibly be "Hubbard's lawyers in LA.")
http://www.reformedscientology.org/htmldocs/1980/eval_1980.htm
Message ID: <34c522e1....@news.dowco.com>
23 February 1980
Mission Corporate Category Sort-Out (MCCS) is set up with Laurel
Sullivan as Mission 1st and Gerald Armstrong as Mission 2nd. (None of
the attorneys named in relation to MCCS have any visible, known
connection to the Karno firm where the Lenske brothers are working, but
given the documented deep involvement of Karno and the Lenskes in L. Ron
Hubbard's Estate and business affairs to this point in time, and the
fact that Sherman Lenske had just drawn up the December 1979 will naming
Karno as Executor, and given the language of that Will, and given the
involvement of Karno with CSC and the G.O., I will remain entirely
convinced that MCCS had to have been run completely under the
supervision of the Karno firm until that is somehow proven otherwise.
The lawyers who have been named in relation to MCCS are Alan Wertheimer,
James "Jim" Murphy, and a Ron Fugikawa. I believe they had to be either
in Karno's firm, or had some sort of junior working relationship with
Karno's firm, and will believe that until there is some evidence to the
contrary.)
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/corporate.html#pt2_6
28 February 1980
L. Ron Hubbard disappears, reportedly in the company of Pat and Annie
Broeker. (It must not be forgotten, however, that Norton S. Karno is the
named Executor of L. Ron Hubbard's Estate, and that Norton S. Karno is
involved in business interests with L. Ron Hubbard at the time. It is
therefore almost virtually certain that at least Norton S. Karno, if not
the Lenske brothers as well, know exactly where L. Ron Hubbard is, and
are able to communicate with him. That is borne out by later events.)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/rmiller/bfm21.htm
1 June 1980
Gerald Armstrong becomes "involved in the selection of a writer for the
Hubbard biography." Armstrong learns that L. Ron Hubbard has "approved
of a biography proposal prepared by Omar Garrison, a writer who was not
a member of Scientology." (Here is another example where one can almost
smell the attorneys' cologne, but there is no mention of any attorney.
Consider: L. Ron Hubbard's whereabouts are generally unknown. This
transaction is supposedly concerning a writer for a biography of
Hubbard's life. Surely there would be required royalty considerations
for Hubbard himself if he were approving a biography to be written about
him, with his own name trademark being the thing that would generate the
sales of the biography. Hubbard could not be conducting any such royalty
negotiations himself, because he has supposedly disappeared. Through
whom did Omar Garrison supposedly submit this "biography proposal"? What
consideration was in the proposal for Hubbard and his Estate? Who else
submitted a proposal, and where? There are so many unanswered questions
raised by these carfully selective statements by Gerald Armstrong, and
they all seem to point to attorneys representing Hubbard's business and
copyright interests. Yet there is no mention whatsoever of any attorneys
being involved. This is just an incredible omission. This is why I
include it here because there is no possible way Garrison's
participation in a biography could have even been contemplated without
attorney-crafted royalty and copyright agreements and contracts.
Armstrong even says that there was a contract with Garrison regarding at
least the access to Hubbard archive materials, but Armstrong does not
and apparently will not say who drew up that contract. It is all very
odd, but one simply must insert Norton Karno and/or the Lenske brothers
into this picture until and unless it is proven that it was some other
attorney or attorneys who handled the Garrison contracts.)
http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/armstrong.html
15 September 1980
Gerald Armstrong is sent (by whom he does not say) to East Grinstead,
England, to meet Omar Garrison. (See my notes for the above record.
Also, every other known transaction later involving L. Ron Hubbard after
his disappearance, e.g. the Rocky Mt. News Interview, the letters for
the courts, and the Declaration in 1983, were conducted through his
attorneys, Sherman and Stephen Lenske. How or why would this be any
exception? Armstrong has already said he was "dealing with Hubbard's
lawyers in LA." Surely, then, Armstrong was working in conjuntion with
attorneys at the Karno firm. How could it possibly be otherwise, with
Norton S. Karno named as Executor of Hubbard's Estate, and these matters
related to the alleged biography being so directly related to the
Hubbard Archives, which was the bulk of the Estate, and to L. Ron
Hubbard's name trademarks, and to L. Ron Hubbard's own literary works
and business affairs? Again we are confronted with an account that
carefully sanitizes any mention of attorneys who most certainly had to
be very closely involved. One really begins to wonder why the attorneys
are so meticulously censored from Armstrong's accounts of the incidents.
The only way such a glaring omission could be attributed to
attorney/client privelege is if Armstrong were one of their clients.
Failing that, I cannot come up with any logical explanation for
Armstrong so adroitly omitting all mention of Karno and/or the Lenske
brothers, both of whom were working in the Karno firm at the time, both
of them representing "various business interests of Mr. Hubbard.")
25 September 1980
Informed Visuals, Inc. is incorporated by Sherman Lenske (of the firm
Karno & Schwartz).
28 and 29 September 1980
Two meetings, which are recorded, are held by people involved in MCCS.
The recordings of these meetings later become known in court proceedings
as the "Zolin tapes." One of the people on the recordings, in the few
bits of transcription available, is simply called "Speaker
Unidentified." It is this unidentified speaker who says of the
conversations, "It's all privileged." (This is another indication of an
attorney's presence, but where the identity of that attorney has been
protected. Whoever transcribed the tape certainly knew the identities of
everyone else present. How could they not know the identity of this
attorney whose identity is hidden by the appelation "Speaker
Unidentified"? This appears to be a willful cover-up and protection of
the attorney involved, who was almost certainly someone connected with
the Karno firm. The only people I know of who had these tapes and could
have transcribed them before they came into possession of the courts are
Gerald Armstrong and Omar Garrison. Gerald Armstrong certainly had to
know the identities of every attorney and personnel involved with MCCS,
because he was the Mission 2nd.)
26 and 27 October 1980
Two dispatches (called "R-Advices") purportedly from L. Ron Hubbard (who
is reportedly in seclusion) discuss a new novel he has written that will
soon be arriving from him, with instructions on its disposition. In
them, he refers to his "copyright attornies," saying in one dispatch:
"Any sales contract to be drawn by my copyright attornies with all
clauses end [sic: "and"] rights safeguarded," and saying in the other:
"Consult with my copyright attornies and see if there is a way to
copyright this work so that it cannot be picked up or taken over." [CL
ENTRY AND NOTE: This would almost certainly have to be Karno's firm, or
the almost-immediately-formed Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin firm,
since no other sharks are known to be circling... I mean, no other
attorneys are known to be around or involved at the time. I'm giving the
message ID, below, of where I got this from, but it won't do anybody any
good, since CST or some of their minions got this message and all of the
other purported "R-advices" posts deleted from Google.]
Message-ID: <15dcbef48be49879...@dizum.com>
1 November 1980
It is around this date that the firm Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin is
formed. (The date has been computed from Sherman Lenske's November 1995
Declaration, in which he says he has been a principal of the firm for
"the past fifteen years.")
10 November 1980
The trial in "CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent," Docket No. 3352-78,
United States Tax Court begins. (I put this here because of the coming
involvement with the Lenskes of former Assistant to Commissioner of IRS
Meade Emory, and, later, of two agents of the United States Treasury
Department, all of which occur while this case is pending in the United
States Tax Court.)
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/irslegal/240984.html
21 November 1980
Real Rapid Reproductions is incorporated in Seattle, Washington. Leon
Misterek is the Registered Agent, at 2400 Columbia Square. (Leon
Misterek is a partner of Meade Emory, who at the time is a partner in
LeSourd, Patten, Fleming, Hartung & Emory, also at 2400 Columbia Square.
Misterek will be one of the "founders" of CST with the Lenske brothers.)
2 February 1981
Bridge Publications, Inc. is incorporated. Lawrence E. Heller is
Registered Agent.
13 March 1981
Case Entitled: Stephen A. Lenske vs David L. Blender, Joseph M. Cobert,
Kenneth L. Friedman, Norton S. Karno, Karno Schwartz Cobert, Karno &
Schwartz, et al; Case Number: C359497; Date Filed: 03/13/81; Court: Los
Angeles.
The Karno Files, posted to a.r.s.; also message by tallulah, a.k.a. Kady
OÕMalley, of 13 August 1998 Message-ID:
<6qv88t$6k_...@desdemona.arcpub.com>
15 April 1981
The firm of Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin is supposedly retained by
Norman F. Starkey and Terri Gamboa. The principals include Sherman
Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence Heller. There are a variety of
reasons given for their being hired, but all by different people: Norman
Starkey says it was to handle L. Ron Hubbard's "business and literary
affairs" surrounding particularly the new book "Battlefield Earth."
Laurel Sullivan says it was to restructure the corporations to hide L.
Ron Hubbard's control of Scientology. Sherman Lenske says he was hired
to start handling "every aspect of Estate planning" for L. Ron Hubbard.
Regardless, Norton S. Karno is still in the position of Executor of L.
Ron Hubbard's Estate by virtue of the prevailing 15 December 1979 Will
that was drafted by Sherman Lenske.
Message ID: <2001101017032...@nym.alias.net>
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/taxanalysts/cst.txt
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/CST/Lenskeinrtcvslerma.htm
1 July 1981
Mary Sue Hubbard is removed from her position as Controller, supposedly
by David Miscavige, but it is done with "a letter prepared by lawyers"
saying that her presence as Controller "implicated Hubbard in all church
matters including the GO cases (Guardians Office)." (I don't believe it
takes too much of a stretch at this point to know who the attorneys
are.) Around the same time the Guardian's Office is disbanded by Sea Org
missions. Norman F. Starkey is an important part of those missions.
http://pages.about.com/beers66/classics4/id5.html
13 October 1981
Author Services, Inc. is incorporated by Lenske, Lenske & Heller as a
for-profit corporation with the purpose of handling L. Ron Hubbard's
"business and literary affairs." The Articles of Incorporation are
executed at the Woodland Hills offices of Lenske, Lenske & Heller.
Sherman Lenske is the Registered Agent. (ASI's incorporation had to have
been done under Sherman Lenske's supervision and control, even though
his name does not appear on the Articles, because of what he says in his
12 November 1995 Declaration, linked to below, about how and why all the
corporations were set up by him as part of L. Ron Hubbard's "Estate
planning.")
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/CST/Lenskeinrtcvslerma.htm
12 November 1981
The Church of Scientology of California completes its rebuttal in
"CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent," Docket No. 3352-78, United States Tax
Court, ending the trial phase. (The ruling will not be issued and filed
by the Tax Court until 24 September 1984. The events that follow which
involve the Lenskes working with former Assistant to Commissioner of IRS
Meade Emory, and with two agents of the United States Treasury
Department, come while this case is still pending in the Tax Court.)
1 January 1982
Religious Technology Center (RTC) is incorporated by Lenske, Lenske &
Heller.
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/CST/Lenskeinrtcvslerma.htm
10 May 1982
Three documents drawn up or supervised by Sherman Lenske are supposedly
signed on the same day by L. Ron Hubbard: an "Advanced Technology
Assignment," a "Trademarks Assignment," and a new Will. The new Will
names Patrick Broeker as the new Executor, but lists two successor
Executors: Lyman D. Spurlock, Jr. and Norman F. Starkey, in that order
of priority.
http://home.earthlink.net/~snefru/deathoflrh/1982.html
Message ID: <3QPJMRRD3722...@frog.gilgamesh.org>
28 May 1982
The Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) is founded by Sherman Lenske,
former Assistant to Commissioner of IRS Meade Emory, Leon Misterek, and
Lyman D. Spurlock, Jr., who has just been named as first successor
Executor of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard in the 10 May 1982 Will.
http://www.fzint.org/rhilton/CST.htm
http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/cstlegalpapers02.html
7 June 1982
The principals of Lenske, Lenske & Heller (Sherman Lenske, Stephen
Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller) are appointed for life as Special
Directors of CST in the Bylaws of CST signed this date.
http://www.geocities.com/thearscclibrarian/cstlegalpapers03.html
3 February 1983
Sherman Lenske utilizes two agents of the United States Treasury
Department to validate documents supposedly executed by L. Ron Hubbard
in order to prove that L. Ron Hubbard is not missing, is alive and well,
and that L. Ron Hubbard's Estate and business affairs are "in good
hands." The agents are U.S. Treasury Department document inspector
Howard Doulder, and Richard L. Brunelle, a forensic chemist with the
U.S. Treasury Department's BATF. (It's staggers the imagination that,
after everything now known about the attorneys involved, as outlined
above, none of the names of the attorneys are mentioned in any of the
"Hubbard" documents, and the person whose name is most prominently
featured in the documents, and who is assigned as having most of the
responsibility is David Miscavige.)
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/books/lamont/append.htm
Message ID: <BKJEKAAX3722...@frog.gilgamesh.org>
Ain't we got fun, and just barrels of it?
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKcAQdAKsx0v8qcvEQL2rgCeN41VDTsmZtOQmGv1E6IpA93MUrYAoPXe
biks/ViKylP7u0AuVZ77MG7o
=/fQI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CL
Hash: SHA1
Birgitta <xe...@post.netlink.se> wrote:
>Thanks Kady and CL and a few others for the very inspiring saneness
>and excellent reasearch abilities.
>
>Bid
Thank you for your gracious and generous acknowledgement. I'm gratified
if anything I have contributed has been of material use in the
continuing effort to unravel this Gordion Knot, but I make no pretense
about the fact that I have coat-tailed on the research work of others
who I couldn't even name or thank.
It's sort of a community patchwork quilt.
Thank you for exhuming and posting some of the more important documents.
They are the only real solid stepping-stones through the morass.
And now, having mixed my quota of metaphors for the day, I retire.
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKcBB9AKsx0v8qcvEQLWuwCfcnl0qLnHXMH4o/F++ldZMwUvHMoAoJJ+
EJZyEWdyS6Q0ITznYetzK96M
=ItLE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ptsc
90% of RTC's money goes to CST--or to be more precise, in all likelihood
to CSRT, Church of Scientology Religious Trust, which, incidentally, was
also founded by Emory, Misterek and the same crew as CST. CST and
CSRT are part and parcel of the same scheme.
Surely you do not think that the delivery of the tech is done solely by making
copies. That's ludicrous. For example, a movie is copyrighted material, and
is licensed by movie houses. The movie houses do not make copies of the
movie. However, they are paying for the use and resale of copyrighted material,
just as orgs are paying RTC (and thus CST/CSRT).
In any case, the money flow is not a huge mystery--at least on the local org
to CSRT level. International org income goes to SIRT (Scientology International
Religious Trust). Freewinds income goes to the Flag Ship Trust (and I forget
to which other Trust from there). IAS income is administered from the
Netherlands Antilles. CSI controls money through SOR Management Services.
It's more complicated than that of course and one suspects there is possibly
at least one "Supertrust" of unknown size and location which these other
trusts may feed into. I don't believe the idea of CSRT being the final
destination for org income--it's too prominent.
In any case, back to the copyright and trademark issues, the bulk of money
made from intellectual property could be directly attributed to copyrights--
however, I feel that's an artificial distinction. If you had merely the use of
the "Scientology" word mark and no ability to sell copyrighted materials
like courses, the mark would be useless. Conversely, if you could deliver
the OT levels but couldn't call it "Scientology," the materials would similarly
be useless--at least to a Church of Scientology. Therefore, to make money
(as a franchise), it's absolutely essential to have both the copyrighted
materials (and the licenses to deliver them) and the trademarks (in order
even to do business at all as a Scientology franchise).
>: >leader of Scientology. It seems to border on the theories that man never
>: >flew to the moon (it was a TV set-up) and that KFC doesn't serve chicken
>: >any more (it's cloned chicken parts grown in a lab).
>: I'd say that it's the contrary view (that CST doesn't own the intellectual
>: property outright) that is completely unsupported by even a scintilla
>: of evidence. You can of course feel free to provide that scintilla if you
>: have it available.
>I don't know where you generated this straw man.
So you're not contesting that.
>: >The statement of Veritas on their CST page "It is indisputable that the
>: >Church of Spiritual Technology, doing business as the L. Ron Hubbard
>: >Library, is the seat of power in Scientology" seems pretty weak. We have
>: >seen evidence that CST builds bomb shelters and allow RTC to do it's
>: >trademark/copyright thing. I haven't seen evidence that it rules
>: >Scientology. Any evidence to the contrary would be interesting.
>: It doesn't merely rule Scientology--it owns it outright. Not a bit of what goes
>: on in Flag, at AOLA, or at any other org delivering the copyrighted tech could
>: go on without CST's say-so. If RTC steps out of line, CST at its sole
>: discretion can grab every single piece of it back for the magnificent sum of
>: $100.
>I think power in Scientology is better determined by who exerts power,
>rather than by-laws and such. Plenty of evidence is available that DM
>exerts power and control over all sorts of things, in a variety of
>organizations. There is no similar evidence for CST. If CST has given
>anybody a say-so at any time for any reason, nobody has documented it.
Since everything that is done through RTC is, by definition, done with the
assent, tacit or otherwise, of the owners of the materials, there's no
particular reason for them to have documented it. Such documentation,
in any case, would be in the internal minutes of the meetings of the Boards
of CST--minutes, incidentally, to which we have no access.
There's very good reason for CST not leaving a heavy footprint in the
court record--CST taking an obvious, documented role would ruin the
whole point of judgment-proofing them in the first place.
Anything RTC does is only as CST's stalking horse--it has no substantive
independent existence and any business that it does could be eliminated
with the stroke of a pen, leaving it an empty shell.
ptsc
ptsc
>>One of my theories -- or perhaps I appropriated it from you -- was
>>that it was possible that Lenske had stolen Hubbard's clientele from
>>his former partner when he moved to set up shop with OtherLenske, and
>>that's what led to the bad blood between the two partnerships, as
>>well as the sudden disappearance of Karno from the list of Hubbard's
>>attorneys. Of course, this is purely speculation and I don't have a
>>scrap of evidence to back it up; I suggest it merely as a
>>possibility.
>Yes, it's a possibility (and not one that you appropriated from me,
>BTW), but there are several not-insignificant facts that argue against
>it. The most glaring is the fact that Karno remained named as Executor
>of Hubbard's estate all the way through the pivotal and electrifying
>date of 10 May 1982. On that date the elusive reclusive El-Ron was
>somehow magically located and held down long enough to purportedly sign
>*three*--count 'em, three--separate history-changing documents (in Los
>Angeles) that had been cobbled together by the estimable Sherman Lenske.
>In attendance, severally or separately, were David Miscavige as "notary"
>(give me a second to pick myself up off the floor) on at least one of
>the documents, and of course the Smurfs--Pat and Annie Broeker--who
>witnessed the Will of that date naming Patrick as the new Executor (give
>me a second to pick myself up off the floor), but with Lyman Spurlock
>and Norman F. Starkey listed as the Ladies in Waiting in case Patrick
>fell down and broke his crown.
OK, as long as we're swapping pure speculations, I have had a speculation
relating to that lawsuit for a while. That is that the origin of the "bad
blood" doesn't exist, because the "bad blood" doesn't exist either.
The lawsuit was filed purely and simply to create the illusion of such
"bad blood," meanwhile Karno created the whole corporate structure
as it exists today, with the Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin firm as
a beard company.
Otherwise the lawsuit would have been over something real--the outright
theft of attorney work-product, that is, the documents which lay out the
design of the corporate structure of Scientology, which IMO have NSK
monogrammed all over them.
ptsc
Beverly Rice
EEeeeeeekkk!!!
My brain, my poor, poor little brain!!!! How could
you hurt me this way!!!!
I have the simplest answer though . . .
The whole thing is a mountain of bullshit meant to bury
anyone who would endeavor to climb it to get the entire
view.
Simplified . . .
CST ~and~ DM . . .
~ALL~ go down.
No differentiation.
All lying criminals.
Boot 'em all.
I ~love~ simplicity.
And ~yes~, I ~am~ on the wrong planet!!
:-)
ARC = As-Ising the Real CST,
Beverly
Generic Poster
>into which we have is the oh-so-carefully selected snippet of the
>little widely-disseminated propaganda jewel (in which the identity of at
>BTW), but there are several not-insignificant facts that argue against
>weirdnesses and vaguenesses and generalities hiding God-knows-what that
>gopher-holes labelled by these goddamned attornies as "business
>>>There is a lot of evidence--very bit-and-piece though it is--that the
>>>Lenskes were weilding considerable behind-the-scenes power inside the
>Chauncyesque babe-in-the-woods, blithely and innocently oblivious,
None of these hyphens was necessary. And there's oodles more where these
came from. Back to punctuation school, CL.
A correct use of hyphenation is when two adjectives, or an adjective and a
noun being used as an adjective, or two nouns being used as adjectives both
modify the noun that follow them, and neither are separated by a comma or
conjunction. An adverb modifying the adjective that follows it doesn't
require hyphenation.
Generic Poster
RTC uses up to 10% of what it gets for itself and this 10% figure is 100%
Hubbard. The rest goes as directed and it's all 100% Hubbard too.
"literature that is not part of the Scientology Scriptures..." had me think
for a minute but what's that if not Hubbard's fiction or Way To Happiness
or CCHR's anti-psych publications? I still see no money going to CST. I see
nothing going anywhere that isn't exactly what Hubbard would have wanted.
For CL - what difference does it make who controls CST if it's Hubbard's
post-death, corporate, alter ego?
Steve Plakos
ptsc wrote:
(huge snip)
Pardon the big snip, but I wanted to focus just on the issue below:
> In any case, back to the copyright and trademark issues, the bulk of money
> made from intellectual property could be directly attributed to copyrights--
> however, I feel that's an artificial distinction. If you had merely the use of
> the "Scientology" word mark and no ability to sell copyrighted materials
> like courses, the mark would be useless. Conversely, if you could deliver
> the OT levels but couldn't call it "Scientology," the materials would similarly
> be useless--at least to a Church of Scientology. Therefore, to make money
> (as a franchise), it's absolutely essential to have both the copyrighted
> materials (and the licenses to deliver them) and the trademarks (in order
> even to do business at all as a Scientology franchise).
I know a lot of scientologists and with just one exception, they *all* get services
outside of an org. Only one of them has ever been to Florida and the only time they
spend at CCLA is for social events.
I know for a fact that there are a number of private practice auditors, in good
standing with the cult, delivering services from their residences. In most cases they
are charging pc's full price. I've seen the purification rundown performed in private
residences at full price. These people are doing the L's and more out of their homes.
I don't know how prevalent this is outside of the Los Angeles area, but the Cof$ has
not made an effort to close these private practitioners doors. All the talk I've read
about diminished production at the org's may be because they are collecting licensing
fees from people whose activities are below the radar screen.
One goal of the "church" that has always been consistent is to hide as much of their
activities behind as many false fronts as they can erect. Now that the CST has been
exposed, and more information is being unearthed, would it be a surprise to find out
that they have built more walls behind the CST?
The analogy between top management and the cockroach is the accurate one; they both
hate the light of day.
Steve
Ed
I think your facts are seriously off here. Only Flag has ever
been authorized to deliver the L rundowns. If people are doing what
you say, they are certainly not "kosher".
Ed
Steve Plakos
Ed wrote:
No, that is exactly what they are doing. That's the point. If they are still in good
standing with the cult something must explain why they are being permitted to do so.
Steve
CL
Hash: SHA1
rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>Actually, there is preliminary evidence that the money is in
>trademarks, not copyrights.
Actually, it doesn't matter a tinker's dam whether you are talking
trademarks or copyrights: controlling interest in both lies with CST. In
an affidavit purportedly written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1983, it is
unequvivocally recorded that all commercial rights in the trademarks
that he "gave to RTC" were retained by him. Hence all such rights
transferred with the estate to CST. And of course CST has the options to
take back full and complete ownership of all the trademarks at any time
"in their sole discretion."
>I don't necessarily think that moves it
>from CST to another in the web of Scientology corporations, but it's
>interesting.
Really? You don't think it necessarily does? No, I don't think it
necessarily does, either. In fact, it necessarily does not move anything
to any other corporation. Controlling interest over all of the
intellectual property assets resides within CST and CST alone.
>The works are not where the money is,
Well it's certainly where a good deal of money is. If not, could you
propose some theory to justify the amount of money expended in titanium
vaults to house the works, and in litigation over them, and in their
continued publication, promotion, and sales? You would have a rapt
audience of at least one. I will even manage some applause if you are
convincing.
>it's in being a more senior org and licensing trademarks to junior
>orgs.
And which is the more senior org: CST or RTC? And what is your
documentation for your reply?
Also, do you have any indication of what--if any, or no--revenues that
CST derives from the RTC licensing of trademarks in which CST owns all
"commercial rights"? (Not that I have any idea what ~other~ rights there
would be in a trademark--it's another one of the Zen questions given
rise to by the legal-language machinations of the Lenske Bros.)
As far as I know, the record has been kept quite mum on that count. Do
you have any proof or evidence that CST does ~not~ enjoy revenues, by
whatever route, from the licensing of the trademarks? Do you have some
inside source for information about the flow of revenues from RTC to
CST, or lack thereof? I loathe to ask you to prove a negative, but you
have brought the assumption of that negative, by implication, into the
argument without providing any foundation for such an unsupported
assumption, so the burden rather falls upon you to demonstrate that CST
does ~not~ derive money from where you say "the money is."
>It's an interesting point about CST being pretty much lawsuit-proof,
>but if you want to look at an organization that is even more immune,
>whose head is also the head of Scientology, and which seems to control
>more and more of Scientology as you move up the levels to more senior
>orgs in the corporate web, look at the Sea Org.
David Miscavige is only the ~ecclesiastical~ "head of Scientology."
Have you read the "Tax Compliance Manual?" I would appreciate a simple
yes or no.
Have you read the concise and incisively accurate analysis of the
position of the Sea Org posted in recent days by Kady? I would
appreciate a simple yes or no.
What is your evidence of any "control" exerted by the Sea Org that is
not sanctioned by, and exercised entirely at the pleasure of, the
corporation that owns every single Flag Order and Policy Letter that
governs every single act of any member of the Sea Org? That corporation,
of course, is CST. What possible act could be carried out by ~any~ Sea
Org member or unit that, if it were arbitrarily deemed by CST to be a
"non-orthodox" act, could not result in the very trademarked Sea Org
symbol being summarily ripped from their uniforms--literally and
oh-so-figuratively--by CST?
You paint with a broad and paintless brush when you say that the Sea Org
"seems to control more and more of Scientology." How does it "seem" that
way? What evidence do you have? What you say is certainly not consistent
with well-documented and incontrovertible facts. I hope you'll actually
answer the question and provide ~some~ foundation for your panoramas of
unspecified "control" that seem to be painted on then air.
>I think Gerry is impatient with CL because of the strange way he,
>Stacy, Vaughn and Omar Garrison have been attacked in strange question
>form for offenses I don't understand. Maybe somebody has Cliff Notes.
Well since you purport to be a journalistic chronicler of a.r.s., and
since, as such, one could reasonbly expect you to have your own morgue
of files--or at ~least~ to know how to do a search in Google
groups--perhaps you could demonstrate enough journalistic integrity to
bring your nubiferous criticism of me into focus and substance with some
actual quotes representing the "strange way" I have "attacked" these
people in "strange question form," and let me see if I can't bring you
to understanding. I promise I'll try to keep it at Cliff Notes level,
just for you.
In closing, I will say that I am at least heartened to see you stir
yourself to acknowledge the existence of CST, despite your sort of
vague, meandering, mealy-mouthed efforts to shift attention back to the
poor beleaguered Sea Org and, of course, to the beloved DM. It at least
shows promise.
If you will honestly and forthrightly address the issues I have raised
above, and if you actually begin to address the facts regarding CST and
its principals, both in the discussion and in your summarizations of
a.r.s.--who knows: I might have to do the responsible thing then and
find myself a new sig.
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKgaDdAKsx0v8qcvEQKJ2wCfcYvpjdnl87MTWP/kh4GQk9jGzIoAn39/
syuvzmatW0KMa1wx2cl1f3r6
=V8b5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CL
Hash: SHA1
Generic Poster <nob...@cotsebay.cotse.net> wrote:
>For CL - what difference does it make who controls CST if it's
>Hubbard's post-death, corporate, alter ego?
You ask a circular riddle. Are you running for Sphinx? It patently
cannot possibly be "Hubbard's post-death, corporate, alter ego" if it is
being run by non-Scientologists, since Hubbard was a Scientologist.
By the way, the comma after "corporate" in your question is superfluous
since "corporate" is an adjective directly modifying the noun phrase
"alter ego", and you incorrectly used a hypen surrounded by spaces to
represent a dash. Correct form to represent a dash is always a
double-hyphen in ASCII, with or without surrounding spaces--choose your
poison.
This first lesson in punctuation is free of charge.
The answer to the circular riddle has already cost you.
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKgdMtAKsx0v8qcvEQK9rQCePqz27V00nvV+8noH1uSofUkMbLoAoMGY
soXY/R35KhP7HT14WaES50qx
=SLz7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CL
Hash: SHA1
ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
>On 31 Mar 2002 12:44:27 -0000, CL <c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon> wrote:
KADY:
>>>One of my theories -- or perhaps I appropriated it from you -- was
>>>that it was possible that Lenske had stolen Hubbard's clientele from
>>>his former partner when he moved to set up shop with OtherLenske, and
>>>that's what led to the bad blood between the two partnerships, as
>>>well as the sudden disappearance of Karno from the list of Hubbard's
>>>attorneys. Of course, this is purely speculation and I don't have a
>>>scrap of evidence to back it up; I suggest it merely as a
>>>possibility.
CL:
>>Yes, it's a possibility (and not one that you appropriated from me,
>>BTW), but there are several not-insignificant facts that argue against
>>it. The most glaring is the fact that Karno remained named as Executor
>>of Hubbard's estate all the way through the pivotal and electrifying
>>date of 10 May 1982. On that date the elusive reclusive El-Ron was
>>somehow magically located and held down long enough to purportedly
>>sign *three*--count 'em, three--separate history-changing documents
>>(in Los Angeles) that had been cobbled together by the estimable
>>Sherman Lenske. In attendance, severally or separately, were David
>>Miscavige as "notary" (give me a second to pick myself up off the
>>floor) on at least one of the documents, and of course the Smurfs--Pat
>>and Annie Broeker--who witnessed the Will of that date naming Patrick
>>as the new Executor (give me a second to pick myself up off the
>>floor), but with Lyman Spurlock and Norman F. Starkey listed as the
>>Ladies in Waiting in case Patrick fell down and broke his crown.
PTSC:
>OK, as long as we're swapping pure speculations, I have had a
>speculation relating to that lawsuit for a while.
I'll just interject for clarity that the lawsuit being referred to,
which got somewhat lost in the snippage, is the lawsuit between Stephen
Lenske and Norton S. Karno...
>That is that the
>origin of the "bad blood" doesn't exist, because the "bad blood"
>doesn't exist either. The lawsuit was filed purely and simply to
>create the illusion of such "bad blood,"
That's a speculation I've also entertained (whether in writing in this
forum or not, I can't recall). So much of this whole circus has been
about illusion. I've wondered if it weren't just one more tu-tued
chihuahua in the dog-and-pony show.
>meanwhile Karno created the
>whole corporate structure as it exists today, with the Lenske,
>Lenske, Heller & Magasin firm as a beard company.
So you think Sherman Lenske was just flat-out lying (knock me over with
a feather) when he said in his Declaration of 12 November 1995 that he
was "...the principal architect of Mr. Hubbard's estate plan and of all
the documents which are part of that plan"?
>Otherwise the lawsuit would have been over something real--
Yes, at least as we know the facts from Kady, it does seem rather a thin
and watery pretext for a lawsuit, doesn't it?
>the
>outright theft of attorney work-product, that is, the documents which
>lay out the design of the corporate structure of Scientology, which
>IMO have NSK monogrammed all over them.
>
>ptsc
Well, this gives rise to even more speculation (which is fine, and some
fun--I've done my dash of facts for the moment) on something that might
then have a paper trail: that Karno moved ~visibly~ off the radar, but
only with a massive one-time pay-off for the groundwork he had laid and
dirty work he had done 1973-1982 (perhaps as an infiltrator in full
premeditation of the overthrow of the GO and the set-up of CST), or with
a ~continuing~ rake-off of the proceeds that are coming in to CST from
the intellectual properties, carefully concealed for him by Meade Emory,
Sherman Lenske, and their IRS friends--perhaps in those nebulous
"business interests" cited in the 1979 will.
Well, thanks for bringing this up, and I would love to hear Kady's
musings on this as well. Enough dry facts for now (that have already
been proven to death): let's engage in some wild speculations and look
forward to what kind of rat droppings we're going to find next and
where!
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKglK9AKsx0v8qcvEQLBAwCgkdPIknMFxA9QZnjeENSq85mCOOYAoKuG
V/q93ndx5hm+gfimUGBm7D3m
=cf3H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ptsc
>Steve Plakos wrote:
>> I know for a fact that there are a number of private practice auditors, in good
>> standing with the cult, delivering services from their residences. In most cases they
>> are charging pc's full price. I've seen the purification rundown performed in private
>> residences at full price. These people are doing the L's and more out of their homes.
>> I don't know how prevalent this is outside of the Los Angeles area, but the Cof$ has
>> not made an effort to close these private practitioners doors. All the talk I've read
>> about diminished production at the org's may be because they are collecting licensing
>> fees from people whose activities are below the radar screen.
> I think your facts are seriously off here. Only Flag has ever
>been authorized to deliver the L rundowns. If people are doing what
>you say, they are certainly not "kosher".
I would certainly wonder about this to a great degree. It sounds very
squirrel to me and I wonder where this could possibly be tolerated.
This is the one major no-no. If this is being tolerated at present, then
the "Church"'s power and control has deteriorated to a point never
seen before--but again, I'd have to say this sounds like it could only
be squirrel.
Or this is very new, and is being done to keep as much off the books
as possible. While I can't reject a report like this out of hand, it certainly
seems to contradict everything I've heard before about what the cult
considers acceptable behavior.
ptsc
Kaeli
Kaeli A.
"ka...@wwwaif.net" wrote:
> In article <a8305l$1u0...@news1.sympatico.ca>, ka...@wwwaif.net (ka...@wwwaif.net) wrote:
> <snip absolutely everything>
>
> I know it's terrible form to respond to my own post, but I just wanted to
> apologize for the slew of typos that snuck into my diatribe on the DMCA and CST
> (with the occasional passing reference to Gerry Armstrong). I'm stuck with a
> teeny tiny grubby monitor set at an absurdly high resolution, and I can barely
> see what I'm typing, but I'm sorry nonetheless, and hopefully y'all will find it
> in your hearts not to hold it against the words between the typos.
>
> K
ptsc
>> I think your facts are seriously off here. Only Flag has ever
>> been authorized to deliver the L rundowns. If people are doing what
>> you say, they are certainly not "kosher".
>No, that is exactly what they are doing. That's the point. If they are still in good
>standing with the cult something must explain why they are being permitted to do so.
Even in recent propaganda, the Ls are marketed as "Flag-Only" rundowns.
This is one of their major selling points, in fact. The catch-phrase I've seen
is the "Fabulous, Flag-Only L Rundowns!" In my list of course completions
for Flag last year, the Ls were one of the major sources of income.
>: L 11 116 * 12,100 = 1,403,600 [++++]
>: L 10 33 * 12,100 = 399,300 [++++]
>: L 12 23 * 12,100 = 278,300 [++++]
----
2,081,200. Note that this is grossly underestimating the actual income
from the Ls. Since I was deliberately limiting my figures to figures so low
that it is incontestable that they made at least that much, I assumed only
one 12.5 hour block intensive per L--the actual minimum is two 12.5
hour intensives for L, and often more.
I would be astonished if they allowed a major, major money-maker
like the Ls out of the tight control of Flag. However, if this is indeed
the case it is amazing news and should be more fully examined.
You could always call 1-800-POSTULATE or email flags...@earthlink.net
and ask if you can get your Ls somewhere other than Flag. Or go
to http://www.rtc.org and rat them out to "Matters of RTC Concern."
That is, if you feel evil.
ptsc
Steve Plakos
ptsc wrote:
The people I'm talking about are unquestionably inside the "church." The people they are
providing services to are, just about exclusively, in the entertainment business which might
explain why they are being handled this way.
Steve
OT Lurker
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:q9mgauook75p7vs6b...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 05:09:14 GMT, Steve Plakos
<stav...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >> I think your facts are seriously off here. Only Flag has
ever
> >> been authorized to deliver the L rundowns. If people are doing what
> >> you say, they are certainly not "kosher".
>
You are correct. The L's are ONLY delivered at Flag. If anyone else
is delivering the L's, then they NOT doing it with with C of S's
permission.
Steve Plakos is full of shit.
OTL
Keith Henson
cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
snip
>I would be astonished if they allowed a major, major money-maker
>like the Ls out of the tight control of Flag. However, if this is indeed
>the case it is amazing news and should be more fully examined.
>
>You could always call 1-800-POSTULATE or email flags...@earthlink.net
>and ask if you can get your Ls somewhere other than Flag. Or go
>to http://www.rtc.org and rat them out to "Matters of RTC Concern."
>That is, if you feel evil.
Rea Smith will do it for you. Keith Henson
CL
Hash: SHA1
ka...@wwwaif.net (ka...@wwwaif.net) wrote:
(RE: The Stephen Lenske/Norton S. Karno civil suit):
>The case drifted on for a few months, the final summary included
>allusions to allegations on both sides of professional misconduct, and
>then the whole thing appears to have been settled.
Holy Subpoena Power, Batwoman! Was the settlement sealed?
It just hit me like a "POW!" surrounded by cartoon stars that the civil
suit might just have been the cover for a massive pay-off!
This would be entirely consistent with what seems to be shaping up as a
pattern with these attorneys: lawsuits as a means to a PR end, *AND* a
perfect cover for laundering pay-offs!
It was ptsc's discussion of this being a phony suit, something I had
also wondered about, that made this all suddenly come together--along
with the PR results of the DeWolf and Armstrong trials, and the $800,000
to Armstrong, and the "settlement" to Garrison, and...
I'll go bang my head against something for a while for being so slow.
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKlUXtAKsx0v8qcvEQJ05wCdEBrD7f5NRPeq3vocNZLoAsBeuMgAoPTL
YvP9hxY+QUdti3j+BBP5Fsfd
=8Bq3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
CL
Hash: SHA1
x <naa...@vhost.shocking.com> wrote:
>....so you are saying that cst is the scn. If thats true then lenske &
>lenske & whoeveristhethirdonenow are the true leaders of scn. Dm is
>just their pawn.
Well, that's the only way I can get all the available evidence to line
up. It's wildly unpopular, I know. Hence my infamy. But I don't care
what people say about me, as long as they spell "CL" right. And,
heck--even BentleyBug can manage that.
I'm a fan of Doyle: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
>But you forget one thing, that is that dm wants power over people. It's
>in his character.
I'm sorry: I don't do remote-viewed psychoanalysis. And I while I don't
question your own abilities in the craft, I'm afraid I cannot factor
your results into any serious assessment of documented and
incontrovertible fact.
>So either he has made an agreement with lenske's or he is trying to
>cut off their power. Won't you agree?
Um... No.
>Btw, you know pretty much of the inside stuff, i wonder howcome?
That is endearingly funny: there is not one scrap of information I have,
or have ever presented, or have ever discussed, that isn't available to
anyone through public sources. That's where I got all of my knowledge.
It's in the contracts and legal papers and newspaper stories and
Copyright Office records and so on.
>Whats your motive on posting this?
To get the truth and facts aired, broadly disseminated, known,
discussed, and publically recorded--generally brought fully to view--in
the hopes that one day there will be justice for what I percieve to be
some very serious crimes having been committed, and in the hopes that if
that should occur, that no guilty parties escape because they had
contrived to remain hidden.
How about you?
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPKlZsNAKsx0v8qcvEQJ+dgCZAYYTupFBQXAw7StBQfUycDEgMkkAoKQD
A9w++uOh36Khtj5XQSeq0oVG
=X/Cs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Generic Poster
>You ask a circular riddle. Are you running for Sphinx? It patently
>cannot possibly be "Hubbard's post-death, corporate, alter ego" if it is
>being run by non-Scientologists, since Hubbard was a Scientologist.
It was a simple question but I'll make it even simpler. So what if CST is
controlled by non-Scientologists if all they're empowered to do is standard
Scientology?
CST and all other Scientology organizations look like, waddle like and
quack like Scientology organizations. Your conspiracy theory is constipated
by these real-life organizations that lie across the path to its
acceptance.
If you were after justice, you'd spend your time understanding and exposing
some of Hubbard's injustices. To his dying day he never "rose above the
bank" to take responsibility for them. He incorporated the paranoid side of
his personality into policy so his "enemies" could be fair-gamed. That's
how he left things and that's how they remain today. What are you doing
about it? Nothing.
And nothing is what your conspiracy theory explains. It's an excuse to
ignore the role Hubbard and his paranoid policies play in the crimes and
the despicable, or just plain stupid, acts committed robotically, over and
over and over again, by Scientologists in the name of keeping Scientology
working.
When you get tired of flapping the CST red herring in people's faces, slap
yourself with it until you wake the fuck up.
And do something about your interminable and nauseating sarcasm. All it
shows is that when you're challenged, you become as self-indulgent in your
petulance as you are in your deluded theory.
Anonymouse
>
>On 1 Apr 2002, CL <c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon> wrote:
>
>>You ask a circular riddle. Are you running for Sphinx? It patently
>>cannot possibly be "Hubbard's post-death, corporate, alter ego" if it
>>is being run by non-Scientologists, since Hubbard was a Scientologist.
This is a red herring. CL has never proved the CST is run by non-
Scientologists.
>It was a simple question but I'll make it even simpler. So what if CST is
>controlled by non-Scientologists if all they're empowered to do is standard
>Scientology?
_If_ _if_ _if_ the CST is/was controlled by non-Scientologists, then
this is a valid question. But the CST is not run by non-Scientologists.
>CST and all other Scientology organizations look like, waddle like and
>quack like Scientology organizations. Your conspiracy theory is constipated
>by these real-life organizations that lie across the path to its
>acceptance.
CL/Randy McDonald quacks like a quack because he is a quack.
>If you were after justice, you'd spend your time understanding and exposing
>some of Hubbard's injustices. To his dying day he never "rose above the
>bank" to take responsibility for them. He incorporated the paranoid side of
>his personality into policy so his "enemies" could be fair-gamed. That's
>how he left things and that's how they remain today. What are you doing
>about it? Nothing.
In fact the lawsuit brought by the pawns and OSA goons Stephen Mitchell,
Randy McDonald, Lisa Precious Mitchell and Kathleen Carey was doomed from
the start. But they *knew* this since THEY ARE MERELY PUPPETS OF THE CST.
The stupid lawsuit was brought knowing full well it would fail. It was
all for show anyway, designed to set a legal precedent for the benefit of
the CST and Scientology. I mean, consider Randy McDonald's *idiotic* claims
made in his "lawsuit".
Read what REAL lawyers say about his frivolous complaint here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/wwwboard/messages/2020.html
Here are a few of McDonald's and his associates' (the Plaintiffs')
loonytune allegations:
Plaintiffs allege that the statements they characterize as libelous
"cannot be true" [Complaint, p. 10, 1] because they are "under no legal
obligation to pay federal income tax."
The plaintiffs alleged that:
Congress never created the Bureau of Internal Revenue [Paragraph 29],
nor authorized its name to be changed to the Internal Revenue Service
[Paragraph 30]
The IRS "and/or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" is not an
agency of the United States Department of the Treasury [Paragraph 31]
The federal government has no authority to establish revenue districts
or extend the authority of the Treasury Department or its personnel into
or within "any of the several states" [Paragraphs 32-32d]
The Code of Federal Regulations defines "revenue agent" and "secretary"
as used in the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations as the Secretary
of the Treasury of Puerto Rico and commonwealth revenue agents of the
Department of Treasury of Puerto Rico [Paragraphs 33-33c]
The Internal Revenue Code contains no provisions for assessment or
collection of income taxes by the IRS or BATF other than in the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands [Paragraph 34]
While "everyone" is "led to believe"' that the IRS collects revenue for
"the benefit of constitutional United States government operation"
[Paragraph 36], it in reality "is a foreign entity" [Paragraph 35],
"contracted to provide collection services for the Agency for International
Development" [Paragraph 36] which apparently represents the interests
of "the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank" [Paragraph 36]
The only persons specifically liable for federal income taxes under the
Internal Revenue Code are "federal officers and employees" [Paragraphs
37-38]
I mean, if ever there was a lawsuit planned from its inception to fail,
this was it.
>And nothing is what your conspiracy theory explains. It's an excuse to
>ignore the role Hubbard and his paranoid policies play in the crimes and
>the despicable, or just plain stupid, acts committed robotically, over and
>over and over again, by Scientologists in the name of keeping Scientology
>working.
>
>When you get tired of flapping the CST red herring in people's faces, slap
>yourself with it until you wake the fuck up.
CL is part of a covert operation, i.e., a disinformation campaign designed
to confuse everyone by making it *appear* that he is interested in truth
and justice.
>And do something about your interminable and nauseating sarcasm. All it
>shows is that when you're challenged, you become as self-indulgent in your
>petulance as you are in your deluded theory.
Verbal assault is a popular OSA weapon employed in an attempt to overwhelm
an opponent. CL knows full well what he's doing. It's all part of his act.
Blue Xenu
You are full of shit.
"Here's to absent friends--fuck 'em!"--Frank Sinatra
CL
Hash: SHA1
Generic Poster <nob...@cotsebay.cotse.net> wrote:
>On 1 Apr 2002, c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon wrote:
>
>>You ask a circular riddle. Are you running for Sphinx? It patently
>>cannot possibly be "Hubbard's post-death, corporate, alter ego" if it
>>is being run by non-Scientologists, since Hubbard was a Scientologist.
>
>It was a simple question but I'll make it even simpler.
Hey, lighten up! I was playing. Of course what I said is also true. But
if you've just got to be an asshole, go on:
>So what if CST is controlled by non-Scientologists if all they're
>empowered to do is standard Scientology?
You ask a circular riddle. Are you running for Sphinx? It patently
cannot be "standard Scientology" if they aren't Scientologists, because
they wouldn't know "standard Scientology" from "Standard Oil." If they
~do~ know what "standard Scientology" is--meaning that they have studied
it--and are applying it, then they are Scientologists according to the
definition of Scientology from Scientology's own dictionary:
"SCIENTOLOGIST: 1. one who betters the conditions of himself and
the conditions of others by using Scn technology."
You can't have it both ways. So are they Scientologists or aren't they?
>CST and all other Scientology organizations look like, waddle like and
>quack like Scientology organizations.
Could you tell me where CST is, and I'll go and look for myself and see
if I agree with you. I can't find it.
>Your conspiracy theory
Quote my "conspiracy theory."
>is constipated by these real-life organizations that lie across the
>path to its acceptance.
Straw man. I don't have a "conspiracy theory," and if I did, I certainly
wouldn't want anybody to "accept" it. I have a lot of facts, and
probably just as many or more questions. Don't you? It's not foreign to
human nature to attempt to fill in gaps or find explanations for
inconsistencies. I'm not exempt. I do the best I can to get as many
reliable facts as I can, to eject "facts" that prove false or can't be
corroborated, and then see what kind of picture might explain the known
and proven facts. That picture changes as more facts come to view. If
that is reprehensible or condemnable to you, I'm sorry. Well, not
really. And I'm not going to stop because it gets your panties in a wad,
either.
>If you were after justice, you'd spend your time understanding and
>exposing some of Hubbard's injustices.
My interests are my interests. I don't think the world is suffering
terribly from any emergency shortage of condemnation of L. Ron Hubbard.
If you do, feel free to fill the blank canvas of usenet with whatever
you choose. But don't try to dictate to me what issues I'll pursue, Mom.
>And nothing is what your conspiracy theory explains.
Quote my "conspiracy theory," or be sure to FOAD.
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPK/569AKsx0v8qcvEQJP8ACgz2WwtF3wE/sq1tA2Bzn9v5fcegkAoJpd
rtQo+AfaBxExKRnPnETXY+ci
=5LCD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ka...@wwwaif.net
<snip conspiracy theory which manages to be *even kookier* that that proposed by
those the poster attempts to DA, which takes some doing>
>
>In fact the lawsuit brought by the pawns and OSA goons Stephen Mitchell,
>Randy McDonald, Lisa Precious Mitchell and Kathleen Carey was doomed from
>the start. But they *knew* this since THEY ARE MERELY PUPPETS OF THE CST.
>The stupid lawsuit was brought knowing full well it would fail. It was
>all for show anyway, designed to set a legal precedent for the benefit of
>the CST and Scientology. I mean, consider Randy McDonald's *idiotic* claims
>made in his "lawsuit".
How exactly would filing a loony lawsuit against CST, Miscavige et al possibly
serve OSA's purposes? You say it was brought forward by these "puppets" to set a
"legal precedent", which it did not. You then go on to detail some of the more
-- unorthodox aspects of the suit, but never do you explain exactly how the
results of the case in any way led to a precedent that would affect any
other claimant pursuing a case against Scientology.
You know, it's really possible to both disagree with Gerry Armstrong, have some
lines of interest in common with CL et al and *not* be an OSA op or a "Puppet of
CST". If there wasn't such a tendancy amongst some critics discussing this
particular issue to attempt to reduce the facets of the CST question to some
goofy simplistic black/white debate, it might actually lead to some intriguing
questions, like what entity owns ASI, and how it could conceiveably be used as a
funnel to launder money that could inure people like --- oh, DAVID MISCAVIGE.
But no, some people would rather rattle on about how CST is a non-starter, a
dead topic, devoid of interest, and accuse anyone who feels differently of being
a cult operative, a wacky conspiracy theorist or, not infrequently, both.
Very frustrating.
If I were Gerry Armstrong (c), I would probably call it cruel (c), but as I'm
not, I'll just politely suggest that those who find CST to be an uninteresting
line of inquiry simply not participate in the threads, rather than scolding
those of us who do.
K
K
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
Not if by that you mean that this statement by Anonymouse is untrue:
[Quote]
Verbal assault is a popular OSA weapon employed in an attempt to
overwhelm an opponent. CL knows full well what he's doing. It's all
part of his act.
[End Quote]
That happens to be a completely accurate statement.
Thus in your paradigm, Blue Xenu, it is you yourself who is full of
shit.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>In article <IAP8RAWH3735...@anonymous.poster>, Generic says...
>>
>>On 1 Apr 2002, CL <c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon> wrote:
>>
>>>You ask a circular riddle. Are you running for Sphinx? It patently
>>>cannot possibly be "Hubbard's post-death, corporate, alter ego" if it
>>>is being run by non-Scientologists, since Hubbard was a Scientologist.
>
>This is a red herring. CL has never proved the CST is run by non-
>Scientologists.
Correct.
>
>>It was a simple question but I'll make it even simpler. So what if CST is
>>controlled by non-Scientologists if all they're empowered to do is standard
>>Scientology?
>
>_If_ _if_ _if_ the CST is/was controlled by non-Scientologists, then
>this is a valid question. But the CST is not run by non-Scientologists.
Agreed. There is no evidence that any part of Scientology including
CST is run by non-Scientologists.
>
>>CST and all other Scientology organizations look like, waddle like and
>>quack like Scientology organizations. Your conspiracy theory is constipated
>>by these real-life organizations that lie across the path to its
>>acceptance.
>
>CL/Randy McDonald quacks like a quack because he is a quack.
Is this true? Is this Randy McDonald? Why is this fellow working for
the crime cult?
>
>>If you were after justice, you'd spend your time understanding and exposing
>>some of Hubbard's injustices. To his dying day he never "rose above the
>>bank" to take responsibility for them. He incorporated the paranoid side of
>>his personality into policy so his "enemies" could be fair-gamed. That's
>>how he left things and that's how they remain today. What are you doing
>>about it? Nothing.
That's correct. That's what the op is doing.
>
>In fact the lawsuit brought by the pawns and OSA goons Stephen Mitchell,
>Randy McDonald, Lisa Precious Mitchell and Kathleen Carey was doomed from
>the start. But they *knew* this since THEY ARE MERELY PUPPETS OF THE CST.
>The stupid lawsuit was brought knowing full well it would fail. It was
>all for show anyway, designed to set a legal precedent for the benefit of
>the CST and Scientology. I mean, consider Randy McDonald's *idiotic* claims
>made in his "lawsuit".
This sounds reasonable.
And think about its "defendants," in addition to its "plaintiffs."
[Quote]
Pointing to a February 9, 1997 church bulletin (Paragraph
13), which they ascribe to defendant Rinder because (1) he is "the
head of the Office of Special Affairs International" (Paragraph 3),
(2) the bulletin of which they complain displays the legend " 1997
CSI"' (Paragraph 15A), and (3) "the ultimate authorty" to produce the
bulletin "would have to have come from Mike Rinder" (Paragraph 19,
emphasis deleted), plaintiffs claim to have been defamed.
[End Quote]
Rinder was one of the "Loyalists" in the earlier CL Op. Wouldn't the
head of OSA make a fine defendant in his own op?
>
>>And nothing is what your conspiracy theory explains. It's an excuse to
>>ignore the role Hubbard and his paranoid policies play in the crimes and
>>the despicable, or just plain stupid, acts committed robotically, over and
>>over and over again, by Scientologists in the name of keeping Scientology
>>working.
>>
>>When you get tired of flapping the CST red herring in people's faces, slap
>>yourself with it until you wake the fuck up.
>
>CL is part of a covert operation, i.e., a disinformation campaign designed
>to confuse everyone by making it *appear* that he is interested in truth
>and justice.
That's correct.
>
>>And do something about your interminable and nauseating sarcasm. All it
>>shows is that when you're challenged, you become as self-indulgent in your
>>petulance as you are in your deluded theory.
>
>Verbal assault is a popular OSA weapon employed in an attempt to overwhelm
>an opponent. CL knows full well what he's doing. It's all part of his act.
That's also correct.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gallery Ghost
<a8o5n...@drn.newsguy.com> wrote:
>In fact the lawsuit brought by the pawns and OSA goons Stephen Mitchell,
>Randy McDonald, Lisa Precious Mitchell and Kathleen Carey
The Plaintiffs were Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Precious and Kathleen Carey. Randy
McDonald was not part of the lawsuit. He wasn't even in L.A. where the suit was
filed.
>THEY ARE MERELY PUPPETS OF THE CST.
I have no doubt whatsoever you are OSA. You are a complete liar as anybody who
knows Stephen and Kathi will tell you. Anybody who wants to prove this OSA
stooge is a liar can get the phone numbers for Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen
Carey right off of their court papers many of which I posted and so are in
Google. Call them up and talk to them.
>I mean, consider Randy McDonald's *idiotic* claims made in his "lawsuit".
The Plaintiffs were Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Precious and Kathleen Carey. Lisa
later dropped out of the case and it was just Stephen and Kathi. I was there.
McDonald was thousands of miles away from the lawsuit and was never part of it.
Why are you lying about these people?
>Here are a few of McDonald's and his associates
McDonald had nothing to do with the suit you are merely a lying OSA stooge.
Gallery Ghost
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On 6 Apr 2002 Anonymouse <anony...@anonymouse.com> in message
><a8o5n...@drn.newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In fact the lawsuit brought by the pawns and OSA goons Stephen Mitchell,
>>Randy McDonald, Lisa Precious Mitchell and Kathleen Carey
>
>The Plaintiffs were Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Precious and Kathleen Carey. Randy
>McDonald was not part of the lawsuit. He wasn't even in L.A. where the suit was
>filed.
>
>>THEY ARE MERELY PUPPETS OF THE CST.
>
>I have no doubt whatsoever you are OSA. You are a complete liar as anybody who
>knows Stephen and Kathi will tell you. Anybody who wants to prove this OSA
>stooge is a liar can get the phone numbers for Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen
>Carey right off of their court papers many of which I posted and so are in
>Google. Call them up and talk to them.
>
>>I mean, consider Randy McDonald's *idiotic* claims made in his "lawsuit".
>
>The Plaintiffs were Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Precious and Kathleen Carey. Lisa
>later dropped out of the case and it was just Stephen and Kathi. I was there.
Where is there?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Generic Poster
Nothing worth quoting.
CST and all other Scientology organizations look like, waddle like and
quack like Scientology organizations. Your conspiracy theory is constipated
by these real-life organizations that lie across the path to its
acceptance.
If you were after justice, you'd spend your time understanding and exposing
ptsc
wrote:
>On 7 Apr 2002 17:57:42 -0000, Gallery Ghost <ggh...@ghostsaplenty.boo>
>wrote:
>>The Plaintiffs were Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Precious and Kathleen Carey. Lisa
>>later dropped out of the case and it was just Stephen and Kathi. I was there.
>Where is there?
One would imagine the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles,
considering that's where the case was filed, in whatever courtroom
Judge Frances Rothschild held sway.
ptsc
ptsc
>ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
[Various meanderings about the subject of Lenske v. Karno, Lenske
being Sherman's lesser-known brother Stephen.]
>PTSC:
>>OK, as long as we're swapping pure speculations, I have had a
>>speculation relating to that lawsuit for a while.
>I'll just interject for clarity that the lawsuit being referred to,
>which got somewhat lost in the snippage, is the lawsuit between Stephen
>Lenske and Norton S. Karno...
>>That is that the
>>origin of the "bad blood" doesn't exist, because the "bad blood"
>>doesn't exist either. The lawsuit was filed purely and simply to
>>create the illusion of such "bad blood,"
>That's a speculation I've also entertained (whether in writing in this
>forum or not, I can't recall). So much of this whole circus has been
>about illusion. I've wondered if it weren't just one more tu-tued
>chihuahua in the dog-and-pony show.
>>meanwhile Karno created the
>>whole corporate structure as it exists today, with the Lenske,
>>Lenske, Heller & Magasin firm as a beard company.
>So you think Sherman Lenske was just flat-out lying (knock me over with
>a feather) when he said in his Declaration of 12 November 1995 that he
>was "...the principal architect of Mr. Hubbard's estate plan and of all
>the documents which are part of that plan"?
Would it be all that surprising to get a lie from a Lenske?
No more surprising than to get a grunt from a pig. I'm sure
he was the principal waver of ink pens over the signature
blanks.
ptsc