Reed Slatkin Declaration / Aug 23 2002 (re Hitchman)
tikk
http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
FILED AUG 23, 2002
JOHN P. REITMAN (Bar No 80579)
ANDREW S. ROTTER (Bar No 86725)
GUMPORT, REITMAN & MONTGOMERY
550 South Hope Street Suite 825
Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
Telephone: (213) 452-4900
Facsimile: (213) 623 3302
Attorneys for R. Todd Neilson,
Chapter 11 Trustee
RICHARD L. WYNNE (Bar No. 120349)
R. ALEXANDER PILMER (Bar No. 166196)
TIMOTHY B. JAFEK (Bar No. 214066)
Kirkland & Elias
777 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 680- 8400
Facsimile: (213) 680 8500
Special Litigation Counsel for R Todd Neilson,
Chapter 11 Trustee
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NORTHERN DIVISION
In re ) CASE NO.ND 01-11549-RR/
REED E. SLATKIN ) AD 02-01111
)
Debtor ) CHAPTER 11
)
______________________________ )
)
R. TODD NEILSON, Trustee of the ) DECLARATION OF REED E.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy Estate of ) SLATKIN IN SUPPORT OF
Reed E. Slatkin, ) THE TRUSTEE'S EX PARTE
) APPLICATION FOR A
) RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER
Plaintiff, ) AND ORDER FOR
) ISSUANCE OF WRIT
) ATTACHMENT
)
ANTHONY and MARGARET )
HITCHMAN, individuals; and Does ) Date: [To be set by Court on
1-50 ) emergency basis]
)
Defendants ) Time:
) Place: 1415 State Street
) Courtroom 201
) Santa Barbara, CA 93101
) [Judge Riblet]
DECL. OF R. SLATKIN IN SCPP OF TRUSTEE'S EX PART APPLICATION FOR A
RTAO
Exhibit I
I, Reed E. Slatkin, hereby declare:
1. I make this declaration in support of the Trustee's ex parte
application for a right to attach order. I have personal knowledge of
the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I
could and would competently testify thereto.
Mr. Hitchman's Early Involvement with Slatkin's Ponzi Scheme
2. I have known Anthony Hitchman since the mid- 1970's. I met him in
the Los Angeles area when we were both involved in the Church of
Scientology ("Church").
3. In about 1984, I began soliciting money from others ostensibly to
invest for them. I intended to run this "investment" scheme so that
fellow members of the Church could have funds available to purchase
services from the Church. I planned to take money from people, invest
it, and have money available for the withdrawal for Scientologists who
needed money for Church services.
4. When I knew that many investments would not cover the withdrawals
which were requested, I began to cover the withdrawal requests with
funds from new "investors."
5. From the very beginning, I depended on Mr. Hitchman to ensure the
viability of my scheme. He, along with a few others, was to bring
other, "investors" to me, thus providing a flow of new money which
could be used to pay withdrawal requests made by other "investors."
6. Mr. Hitchman was aware of my Ponzi scheme from the beginning and
helped me plan and execute it. In about 1985, we discussed my scheme.
We discussed that I would need to cover withdrawals of old
"investors" with the deposits of new "investors."
7. We discussed the fact that I falsified records. I told "investors"
that funds were invested in certain securities when that was not true.
I told Mr. Hitchman that the statements I sent to my "investors" were
false.
8. We also discussed how Mr. Hitchman would bring new "investors" to
me. We agreed that he would promote me to others as an effective
investor. WE also agreed that if Mr. Hitchman had his own money with
me, it would make it easier for him to convince other people to
"invest with me. That way, he could assure people that he also had
money "at risk" with me.
9. In Exchange for Mr. Hitchman's assistance to establish and ensure
the continued viability of my Ponzi scheme, I agreed to pay him on a
regular basis. In 1986, I paid Mr. Hitchman about $6000 a month. By
1988, I was paying Mr. Hitchman about $10,000 a month. My payments to
him quickly exceeded the money he "deposited" into my scheme. By no
later than mid-1988, I had paid out to him more than he has
"deposited." By 1993, I paid Mr. Hitchman about $15,000 a month. By
1999, I paid Mr. Hitchman about $20,000 a month.
10. Attached as Exhibit 1 are accurate copies of requests by Mr.
Hitchman to me for monthly payments during 1999, 2000, and 2001. Most
of the requests are for amounts over and above the normal monthly
payments. Each of the documents was received from Mr. Hitchman or his
wife, Margaret (aka Peggy). I recognize their handwriting because I
have received many handwritten and/or signed documents from them over
a period of more than twenty years. I received the requests by fax
from the fax number Mr. Hitchman uses to send faxes.
11. Mr. Hitchman reported to me on a regular basis as to what he was
doing to try to get new "investors" into my scheme and also what he
was doing to get old "investors" to contribute new money.
12. Mr. Hitchman acted as an ambassador for me in connection with
those people he helped convince to give money to me. For example, he
helped deal with people who had concerns about investing with me. Mr.
Hitchman also spoke with persons who were upset with me because of
delays in receiving a withdrawal or if a person needed some extra
money for the Church. On several occasions, I asked Mr. Hitchman to
talk to people out of attempting to withdraw money. Mr. Hitchman
reported back to me that he successfully achieved that goal.
-Mr. Hitchman's Assistance in Dealing with Falsified Brokerage
Statements in 1987-
13. Mr. Hitchman also helped me with problems created when I was
caught falsifying investment records in 1987. In order to join with
an investment firm, Statistical Sciences, Inc. ("SSI"), I created
false brokerage records to document a "successful" history of trading
securities. The principals of SSI discovered that I had falsified the
records and we had a falling out. I consulted MR. Hitchman about how
to handle the issue and I told him that I had falsified the brokerage
records.
14. Mr. Hitchman helped me deal with the fallout of falsifying the
brokerage records in two ways. First, he communicated with Richard
Levine, who joined SSI together with me. Mr. Hitchman calmed Mr.
Levine down for me. Second, Mr. Hitchman used his high status in the
Church to mollify Church officials and convince them not to
investigate me despite reports to them that I falsified the brokerage
records.
-Mr. Hitchman's Knowledge of Falsification of Financial Records-
15. Over the years of my investing scheme, I constantly falsified
records I sent to my "investors." I discussed this with Mr. Hitchman
indirectly dozens of times and directly between five and ten times.
For example, Mr. Hitchman asked me "how are we doing this month" or
"how are we doing this quarter." Then he asked if I was making up the
numbers I was sending out to "investors." I told him I was.
16. Following such conversations, Mr. Hitchman often asked for an
extra $20,000 or $30,000 to his monthly payoff.
17. I also gave MR. Hitchman a check for a new car.
-Mr. Hitchman's Request for False Financial Records-
18. Mr. Hitchman regularly requested that I provide for him false
financial records. He told me that he was taking false deductions for
the purpose of his tax returns. He requested that I provide false
financial records to back up those deductions and I did so.
19. Attached as Exhibit 2 are accurate copies of "interest expense"
statements I made at the request of Mr. Hitchman. These false
financial statements supposedly reflect interest on a margin account
MR. Hitchman supposedly had with me. In fact, Mr. Hitchman never had
any such margin account with me. Instead, Mr. Hitchman and I created
the idea of a margin account as a methodology for generating false
interest expenses that MR. Hitchman could claim as a deduction on his
tax returns. Mr. Hitchman told me that he would use, and did use, the
false financial statements for his tax returns.
20. Mr. Hitchman also told me that he did not report all of his income
on his income tax returns. The last time he told me that was the last
time I worked with him on his taxes, which was 1999 or 2000.
-Mr. Hitchman's Actions During the SEC Investigations-
21. I also told Mr. Hitchman about the Security and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") investigations of me in 1997 and 1999.
22. When I received notice in 1997 of the SEC investigation, I
immediately went to Mr. Hitchman and told him of concerns that the SEC
might find out that I was falsifying records. Mr.
Hitchman worked with me to respond to that investigation to make sure
nothing come of the investigation.
23. When I received notice of the SEC investigation in 1 1999, I also
immediately informed MR. Hitchman. I told him that I was concerned
that the SEC would discover that I was running a Ponzi scheme. Mr.
Hitchman was very alarmed. He said that it sounded bad and that we had
to handle the situation. He also implied that he might get caught up
in the SEC investigation.
24. I discussed with Mr. Hitchman the progress of the SEC
investigation form October 1999 until May 2001, when I filed
bankruptcy.
25. In the late spring or summer of 2000, I discussed with Mr.
Hitchman the false account statements from "NAA Financial" ("NAA")
that I presented to the SEC and the attorney who represented me to the
SEC as supposed proof of overseas assets. NAA was supposedly a Swiss
financial institution that held hundreds of millions of dollars of
assets I held for my "investors." But I made up the NAA story and
supported it with false account statements, persons posing as NAA
officials, etc.
26. I discussed the fabricated NAA statements with Mr. Hitchman. I
told him the NAA story was false and that I did not have any money in
Europe. When I told Mr. Hitchman about the NAA story, he laughed and
said, "Are you kidding me? They're not going to buy that.."
27. Mr. Hitchman asked me for an update every week or every two weeks
through the latter part of 2000 on how the SEC investigation was
progressing. In answer to his inquiries, I showed him the false
account statements from UBS, which was supposedly receiving my NAA
assets, and fabricated correspondence from UBS, NAA and RIT, another
fictional European financial institution that supposedly held my
assets. When I showed him these false documents, he laughed and said
"This is amazing."
28. During the time the SEC was investigating me from 1999 to 2001, I
often had conversations with Mr. Hitchman about my payments to him.
Countless times he said to me "You're going to take care of me. You're
making sure money's set aside for me."
29. In March and April 2001, Mr. Hitchman even demanded that I sign a
letter stating that I held 200,000 Earthlink shares at a cost basis of
50.33 a share in trust for Mr. Hitchman, his wife, Peggy, and his
children. He also asked me to confirm their ownership and sell the
shares "since I would not want my shares to be incorrectly included in
your assets should you declare bankruptcy." (Ex. 4 at 2803-2015959) I
have attached as Exhibit 3 accurate copies of the faxes Mr. Hitchman
sent me regarding the Earthlink stock. I recognize Mr. Hitchman's
handwriting because of the many times that I have seen his handwriting
over the course of our relationship of over twenty years. Furthermore,
the faxes were sent from the fax machine he used at the time.
30. I never had any agreement with Mr. Hitchman that I was holding
Earthlink stock for him. I did sign page 2803-2015928 of Exhibit 3. I
did this under duress when I was locked in a room in Mr. Hitchman's
house on March 31, 2001. Mr. Hitchman, along with Jack Dirmann,
another high-ranking member of the Church, physically restrained me
and demanded that I sign the page. They threatened that they would not
let me leave until I had signed that piece of paper. Mr. Hitchman told
Mr. Dirmann in my presence that I had been engaged in a fraud, and
both Mr. Hitchman and Mr. Dirmann were demanding that I give them
money.
31. By April 23, 2001, when Mr. Hitchman sent me the letter about
the 200,000 Earthlink shares (Ex. 4 at 2803-2015919), I had told him
that I would probably file for bankruptcy.
-Indictment and Plea Agreement-
32. In 2002, I was indicted for activities in furtherance of my Ponzi
scheme. On March 26., 2002, I signed a plea agreement in which I
agreed to plead guilty to 15 felony counts. I admitted to having
operated a Ponzi scheme since 1986. A copy of that plea agreement is
attached as Exhibit 4.
-Authenticity of Financial Documents-
33. I have reviewed the documents attached as Exhibit 4 to the
declaration of Grant Newton in support of the Trustee's motion for an
ex parte application for a right to attach order. All of the documents
in that exhibit are records used in the normal course of my scheme and
are accurate copies.
34. The following documents are accurate copies of checks, or
records of checks, payable to Mr. Hitchman and/or his wife on their
behalf: 1-7, 10,11, 13, 15-24, 26-40, 42-55, 74, 76-130, 132-139, 157,
161, 172, 189-202, 204-214, 216, 230 and 232-248. The checks, or
records of checks, were issued to Mr. Hitchman as part of the Ponzi
scheme, were in my possession as part of the records I kept to
document my financial activities, and were completed and signed by me
or were completed and signed by someone in my office acting at my
direction.
35. Most of the checks were completed and signed by me. The others
were completed and signed at my direction by Phyllis Rogers, my
bookkeeper.
36. The following documents are accurate copies of wire transfer
confirmations from me to Mr. Hitchman: 9, 41, 131, 140-156, 158-160,
162-171, 173-188 and 215. The wire transfer confirmations show
payments made to Mr. Hitchman as part of the Ponzi scheme, were in my
possession as part of the records I kept to document my financial
activities and confirmed wire transfers that I had requested be made
to Mr. Hitchman.
37. The following document is an accurate copy of a wire transfer
confirmation for a wire to Designframe Ltd. made on behalf of Mr.
Hitchman: 231. The wire transfer confirmation shows a payment made on
behalf of Mr. Hitchman as part of the Ponzi scheme, was in my
possession as part of the records I kept to document my financial
activities and confirmed a wire transfer that I had requested be made
on behalf of Mr. Hitchman.
38. The following documents are accurate copies of checks from Mr.
Hitchman payable to me: 8, 25, and 203. The payments were made to me
as part of the Ponzi scheme and were in my possession as part of the
records I kept to document my financial activities.
39, The following documents are accurate copies of account
statements and handwritten ledger entries showing payments made to me
from Mr. Hitchman: 12 and 14, The account statements and handwritten
ledger entries document payments made to me as part of the Ponzi
scheme and were in my possession as part of the records I kept to
document my financial activities.
40. The following documents are accurate copies of a ledger
showing payments made by me to Mr. Hitchman or to others on behalf of
Mr. Hitchman: 56-73 and 75. The ledgers document payments made to me
as part of the Ponzi scheme and were in my possession as part of the
records I kept to document my financial activities.
41, The following document is an accurate copy of a check payable
to me for the Hitchman Family Trust: 249. The check documents a
payment made to me as part of the Ponzi scheme and was in my
possession as part of the records I kept to document my financial
activities.
-Mr. Hitchman's Son in England-
42. Mr Hitchman has a son in England, Paul Hitchman. In early
2000, I sent money to Paul Hitchman in England at the urging of Mr.
Hitchman.
43. Attached as Exhibit 5 are accurate copies of emails and fax
messages I received from Paul Hitchman regarding his company in
England. The documents were received in the regular course of
operating my scheme, were made at or near the time the payment
requests were made, and were in my possession as part of the records I
kept to document my financial activities.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed this 15th day of August, 2002 at Los Angeles, California.
By [signed] Reed E. Slatkin
Attachment A
Additional relief requested for temporary protective order / right
before order [handwritten]
The defendants shall (1) within two court days of service of this
order produce to plaintiff any documentary evidence in defendants'
possession showing where the proceeds from the sale of 625 Via
Trepadora are located. This shall include the name(s) and location(s)
of the financial institution(s) holding the proceeds from the sale,
the name(s) on the account and account number(s), and the amount in
the account(s) which came from the sale of 625 Via Trepadora. (2)
within two court days of service of this order produce to plaintiff
any documentary evidence in defendants' possession of any property
owned by defendant described in 3b. if defendants do not have in their
possession documents regarding the property described in 3b, then
defendants shall obtain such documents and produce them to plaintiffs
within four court days of the date of this order. (3) deposit their
current passports with the Court within one court day of service of
this order. The court shall retain defendants' passports for the space
of thirty days following the deposit of the passports.
Cerridwen
"tikk" <in...@slatkinfraud.com> wrote in message
news:5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com...
Very interesting. While Reed Slatkin was pleading guilty to 15 felony
counts (March 26,02) his alledged cohort, Tony Hitchman, was attesting
to OT 8. The C of S has to be freaking out about this. One of their
New NEW NEW OT 8's was up to his eyeballs in the Reed Slatkin Ponzi
scheme. It just doesn't get any better than this.
Here's a bit more data about Tony and Peggy Hitchman.
Freewinds Issue 46 [circa June 2002]
NEW OT VIII, Truth Revealed [33]
Peggy Hitchman
Tony Hitchman
These magazines are a few months behind. Peggy and Tony actually
attested to OT VIII in Feb/March of 2002.
Peggy originally completed OT VIII in 1990 (Freewinds Issue #2)
TIME TRACK OF THETA COURSE
Tony Hitchman
```````
Source Magazine Issue 138 [circa late June 2002]
NEW OT VII
Peggy Hitchman
Tony Hitchman
``````````
SP Building Contributions
SENIOR FLAG ALUMNI a donation somewhere between $10,000 to $25,000.
Peggy and Tony Hitchman
`````````
OT Festival
Tony Hitchman was scheduled to speak at the Grand Finale of the OT
Festival in the AOLA Atrium. For some reason he never showed up.
Sunday July 7th:
12:30 The Admin Scale Workshop with Robbie Robinson
Practical data on how to organize your life to acheive your
goals.
3:30 Make your dreams come true with Michael Lewis
Key LRH referrences on how to really win across your
dynamics.
6:30 Grand Finale Event with Tony Hitchman
Hear his OT VIII wins Mr. Hitchman was the interviewer
in the "Introduction to Scientology" video with LRH.
Scientologists on line page
http://tonyhitchman.our-home.org/
URL: www.our-home.org/tonyhitchman/index.htm
Picture: None
Myself: Hello, my name is Tony Hitchman, and here is a little bit
about myself: I am a minister of Scientology living in California
with my wife and two children. I got into Scientology in 1957 after
reading a book and I am now a highly trained Scientology auditor
(counselor) spending much of my time introducing others to
Scientology.
In 1966, I met and worked with L. Ron Hubbard, and interviewed
him on TV and radio. I consider Ron to be mankind's best friend.
I came into Scientology in 1957, as I was looking for a way to
improve my life and understand myself. In the many years since
then I have found that Scientology works every time in helping
me achieve my goals and be a happier person.
This url now gives a 404 message. Tony may be getting erased.
It was always promoted that Tony Hitchman got into Scientology AFTER
he interviewed LRH. Per this, he got in 9 years BEFORE he did the
interview.
````````
Volunteer Minster Page
Peggy Hitchman corr...@earthlink.net Santa Barbara/California/United
States
Tony Hitchman corr...@earthlink.com Santa Barbara/California/United
States --
Cerridwen
"Informing people doesn't involve trying to silence those who
disagree with you." --Prignillius
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats.htm
"tikk" <in...@slatkinfraud.com> wrote in message
news:5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com...
ka...@wwwaif.net
news:QJFBUIV737597.3173842593@anonymous.poster:
>
> "tikk" <in...@slatkinfraud.com> wrote in message
> news:5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com...
>> can also be seen at :
>>
>> http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
>
>
>
> Very interesting. While Reed Slatkin was pleading guilty to 15 felony
> counts (March 26,02) his alledged cohort, Tony Hitchman, was attesting
> to OT 8. The C of S has to be freaking out about this. One of their
> New NEW NEW OT 8's was up to his eyeballs in the Reed Slatkin Ponzi
> scheme. It just doesn't get any better than this.
>
Thanks so much for this, C. It will be fascinating to see how Scientology
goes about the task of "disappearing" Tony Hitchman from official history,
especially given the "Tony Hitchman film" interview of LRH, which as far as
I can tell is one of the only "approved" media that captured ole Ron on
film. Sure, they can remove Tony the interviewer with CGI magic, and dub
over his questions with someone else's voice, but there are still thousands
of copies of the original film out there.
Anyway, thanks again for this wonderful data collection!
K
<snipped text of declaration for bandwidth conservation>
Cerridwen
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
<ka...@wwwaif.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92DD6AB1B52...@207.35.177.135...
> >
>
> Thanks so much for this, C. It will be fascinating to see how
Scientology
> goes about the task of "disappearing" Tony Hitchman from official
history,
> especially given the "Tony Hitchman film" interview of LRH, which as
far as
> I can tell is one of the only "approved" media that captured ole Ron
on
> film. Sure, they can remove Tony the interviewer with CGI magic, and
dub
> over his questions with someone else's voice, but there are still
thousands
> of copies of the original film out there.
>
> Anyway, thanks again for this wonderful data collection!
Your welcome :-).
I just dug out that "Tony HItchman film" interview of LRH.
It's a complete hoot!. It may take some time, but I am going to
transcribe and post it.
--
Cerri
Double Agent/Cunning OSA GOON
ladayla
says...
It's too bad and too sad. I used to be in love with Tony. I would never have
guessed that he would involve himself and/or his family in an illegal scheme.
Perhaps the cost of 'moving up the bridge' pressured him into this garbage heap.
Now, he has 'moved up the bridge' to total ruin.
la
ptsc <ptsc nym <dot> alias <dot> net>
wrote:
>"tikk" <in...@slatkinfraud.com> wrote in message
>news:5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com...
>> can also be seen at :
>> http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
[. . .]
>6:30 Grand Finale Event with Tony Hitchman
> Hear his OT VIII wins Mr. Hitchman was the interviewer
> in the "Introduction to Scientology" video with LRH.
>Scientologists on line page
>http://tonyhitchman.our-home.org/
>URL: www.our-home.org/tonyhitchman/index.htm
[. . .]
>In 1966, I met and worked with L. Ron Hubbard, and interviewed
>him on TV and radio. I consider Ron to be mankind's best friend.
[Snip other fascinating data]
OWNER: Church of Spiritual Technology (Los Angeles)
TITLE: Introduction to scientology- 1966; a.k.a. Hitchman film.
NUMBER: PA 225-679
This film has been used up until recently in order to sell Div 6
courses like the PEC.
ptsc
Rev Norle Enturbulata
news:astgs...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <Xns92DD6AB1B52...@207.35.177.135>,
"ka...@wwwaif.net"
> says...
>
> It's too bad and too sad. I used to be in love with Tony. I would never
have
> guessed that he would involve himself and/or his family in an illegal
scheme.
Yes, sad indeed that anyone would belong to such scams knowingly.
But how many baby steps is it from the fraud of $cientology to the fraud of
Slatkinology? According to the statement Slatkin set up the whole thing as
an investment scheme to make money so that others could make more money, so
they could give it to $cientology. In essence this is exactly what ElRum
said to do: make money, and make others to make more money.
> Perhaps the cost of 'moving up the bridge' pressured him into this garbage
heap.
Unless one considers the Slatkin scam to be just a different garbage heap
from the one called $cientology.
> Now, he has 'moved up the bridge' to total ruin.
Since the 'bridge' goes nowhere this is a moot point, but no less a waste of
life.
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
- LRH's "Creation of Human Ability" p251
michael pattinson
So, if my understanding is correct, the whole Ponzi scheme would never
have happened but for Reed Slatkin's Scientology connection.
It seems here that the whole purpose of the fraud was to benefit
Scientology, Reed Slatkin and Scientology members who were needing to
placate aggressive Scientology registrars!
The BASIC on this fraud is Scientology and its voracious lust for
power in an atmosphere of unbridled greed. Reed was a pathetic but BIG
- EGO pawn in the chess game of Scientology's detructive frauds,
covert but aggressive manipulations of money and wholesale financial
irregularities, it appears to me.
I hope those whose wellbeing has been severely harmed will recognize
and turn to the Source of their woes, while Reedy sings like a bird.
Greedy Reedy the needy weedy is a good example of a true Scientologist
in the reality of the workings of the cult.
i hope that investors who got ripped off so Scientology could reap in
the loot will sue to get back what went that way.
M.
*****************************
Zaliwa
"ptsc nym alias net>" <ptsc <atdotdot> wrote in message
news:27r4vus7l52td9d2l...@4ax.com...
Goes to show also who really owns the trademarks and copyrights of
Scientology: CST, not RTC as they report they do. They are mere licencees.
Z.
Zaliwa
"michael pattinson" <kare...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:22c1ffd4.02120...@posting.google.com...
> in...@slatkinfraud.com (tikk) wrote in message
news:<5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > can also be seen at :
> >
> > http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
> > ***********************
>
> So, if my understanding is correct, the whole Ponzi scheme would never
> have happened but for Reed Slatkin's Scientology connection.
> It seems here that the whole purpose of the fraud was to benefit
> Scientology, Reed Slatkin and Scientology members who were needing to
> placate aggressive Scientology registrars!
> The BASIC on this fraud is Scientology and its voracious lust for
> power in an atmosphere of unbridled greed. Reed was a pathetic but BIG
> - EGO pawn in the chess game of Scientology's detructive frauds,
> covert but aggressive manipulations of money and wholesale financial
> irregularities, it appears to me.
> I hope those whose wellbeing has been severely harmed will recognize
> and turn to the Source of their woes, while Reedy sings like a bird.
> Greedy Reedy the needy weedy is a good example of a true Scientologist
> in the reality of the workings of the cult.
> i hope that investors who got ripped off so Scientology could reap in
> the loot will sue to get back what went that way.
> M.
> *****************************
<text of declaration snipped, but can be found here:
http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm>
I don't really think the source is Scientology. That's similar to saying
that the drunk driver who hurts/maims/kills in an auto accident is just a
pawn of Jack Daniels or Smirnoff or Wiser's and they are the true Source and
not him. True, there are pressures brought to bear to buy Scientology
services, but I don't think you can say that the registrars were telling him
to "go rip people off so we can make our quotas". Slatkin may have used
circumstances surrounding him as justification or to help extenuate the
crimes he was committing, but bottom line is Slatkin wanted to make money
and he himself got caught up in the aberation of money in western
civilization. Scientology just happened to be a good cause/reason for him.
I'm sure if he wasn't a Scientologist, he would have been a 3Commer or an
S&L owner.
Z.
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
><ka...@wwwaif.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns92DD6AB1B52...@207.35.177.135...
>> Thanks so much for this, C. It will be fascinating to see how
>> Scientology goes about the task of "disappearing" Tony Hitchman from
>> official history, especially given the "Tony Hitchman film" interview of
>> LRH, which as far as I can tell is one of the only "approved" media that
>> captured ole Ron on film. Sure, they can remove Tony the interviewer
>> with CGI magic, and dub over his questions with someone else's voice,
>> but there are still thousands of copies of the original film out there.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks again for this wonderful data collection!
>Your welcome :-).
_You're_ welcome. _You're_ welcome. You are welcome. Take the "a" out of
"are" and put an apostrophe in its place.
>I just dug out that "Tony HItchman film" interview of LRH.
>It's a complete hoot!. It may take some time, but I am going to
>transcribe and post it.
I'd love to read it. You are such a nice asset to the newsgroup,
Cerridwen.
I've been ruminating some more about Hitchman. Makes sense. The most
amazing thing about Slatkin's Ponzi scheme was that it lasted so long. You
can't do that without complicity unless you're a genius and Slatkin is no
genius. How many others were in on it? I hope we find out.
But you gotta love the irony. The guy whose interview with LRH has been
used for years to sell Scientology is now the same guy who sold Slatkin.
The Scientology "history" books (the ones that don't like the difference
between facts and PR) are going to have to be corrected again.
Another think that has to make you think is the example of ethics on
display by Scientologists who came out net gainers. How many of them have
collaborated to give back their "profits" to the Scientologists and nons
who were net losers, versus how many have done nothing of the kind or are
fighting to keep from giving it back?
Is CoS doing anything to make their parishioner net gainers get their
ethics in?
I hope the investigating authorities find out more about Dirmann. Look at
his pic at http://www.slatkinfraud.com/dirmann.php and tell me it doesn't
look like it's out of an album of Nazi war criminals. This guy gives me
the creeps.
Warrior
I see this declaration has a mention of Jack Dirmann.
I first met Jack Dirmann very shortly after I joined Scientology's Sea
Organization on October 11, 1975 (see my Sea Organization contract at
http://warrior.xenu.ca/19751011seaorgcontract.jpg ). At that time, Jack
Dirmann held the position of Hubbard Communications Office Area Secretary
("HAS") for the American Saint Hill Organization, which was located at
2723 West Temple Street in Los Angeles, California. Jack's junior,
Steve Grant, was the Recruiter for ASHO Day. Steve is the one who made
numerous frauulent representations about the organization in order to
induce me to sign a Sea Org contract.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
In article <5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com>,
in...@slatkinfraud.com says...
Lulu Belle
You know, that's a good point and you could very well be right.
However, Slatkin is not the only one to come up with a financial
scheme whose ultimate purpose was to pay money to the church. There
was a time period in the 80s where public were encouraged to borrow
money off of other people's credit cards for services. This was often
"arranged" by FSMs. who then got the commission. Whether or not the
regges were directly involved in it, they definitely knew about it.
Then the people whose cards were used didn't get paid by the person
who borrowed it, they couldn't make their credit cards payments, etc.
Eventually the whole thing blew up and the practice was stopped within
the church. But it's not like the church gave the money back.
It seems like a lot of Scientologists, especially OTs, are prone to
"get rick quick" schemes. A lot of FSMs and OT public in the 80s and
90s got involved in various multilevel marketing things.
Is it Scientology that makes people do this stuff, or is it that these
people would do it anyway? I don't know. I think the fact that you
have to come up with huge sums of money to do the bridge, especially
the upper bridge, puts people in the position where they feel they
need to find a way to make a quick million or two on an immediate
basis. Scientologists are definitely put under tremendous pressue by
org regges - not to even mention the IAS and other units - to pay,
pay, PAY. In the LA area, the orgs, FSMs, OTs, etc. are always giving
"how to make a lot of money fast so you can get up the bridge" type
seminars.
It's also true that Scientology pushes the idea that "MEST is a
consideration. You can create money by deciding to create it and
mocking it up." This does put people into the mindset that you can get
large sums of money out of nowhere. The fact that the whole thing can
and probably will fall down on you like a house of cards a while down
the road is not brought into the picture.
It seems like many of the OTs who are looked on as financially
successful (and some of them are the ones who GIVE these types of
seminars) made their money in questionable ways. Richie Acunto, who
owns Survival Insurance. The Feshbachs. Ron Rakow. Not to even mention
the successful pro FSMs like Barry Klein, who undoubtedly directly
profit from these not-so legal schemes to make people make money for
their bridge.
Zaliwa
"Lulu Belle" <exes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7db3d0ad.02120...@posting.google.com...
I remember. One prominent AOLA reg I knew got declared as a result - Mike
Silverman. There may have been more. And he was involved in it. As were
others, even in outer orgs/churches. On the reg side, I'm sure it was to
push up the stats, which ended in a vicious Catch-22. On the FSM side,
possibly to make money.
> Eventually the whole thing blew up and the practice was stopped within
> the church. But it's not like the church gave the money back.
Right. It resulted in an SO ED forbidding that practice. I knew of a few
instances where the money was returned, but I'm sure it was more the
exception than the rule.
> It seems like a lot of Scientologists, especially OTs, are prone to
> "get rick quick" schemes. A lot of FSMs and OT public in the 80s and
> 90s got involved in various multilevel marketing things.
>
> Is it Scientology that makes people do this stuff, or is it that these
> people would do it anyway? I don't know. I think the fact that you
> have to come up with huge sums of money to do the bridge, especially
> the upper bridge, puts people in the position where they feel they
> need to find a way to make a quick million or two on an immediate
> basis. Scientologists are definitely put under tremendous pressue by
> org regges - not to even mention the IAS and other units - to pay,
> pay, PAY. In the LA area, the orgs, FSMs, OTs, etc. are always giving
> "how to make a lot of money fast so you can get up the bridge" type
> seminars.
It may be a bit of both. Like the gambler, drug addict/alcoholic, or
shopaholic, it can be an addiction. Not only to make or have money, but to
do the service as well. I've known many people, both Scnsts and not, who
manage their money effectively and judiciously. And then I've met those that
can't, and can't say "NO" either. So who's fault is that? Basically, one
"should" be responsible, "should" be able to say "NO", "should" be able to
remain objective about it. But that's an ideal and not always reality. I'm
sure many regges had their own out-ethics on these cycles, as did the
parishioner. Aberration is found in all walks, Scnst or not, staff or not,
rich or poor.
> It's also true that Scientology pushes the idea that "MEST is a
> consideration. You can create money by deciding to create it and
> mocking it up." This does put people into the mindset that you can get
> large sums of money out of nowhere. The fact that the whole thing can
> and probably will fall down on you like a house of cards a while down
> the road is not brought into the picture.
True. And I've seen the house of cards fall on many an occasion.
> It seems like many of the OTs who are looked on as financially
> successful (and some of them are the ones who GIVE these types of
> seminars) made their money in questionable ways. Richie Acunto, who
> owns Survival Insurance. The Feshbachs. Ron Rakow. Not to even mention
> the successful pro FSMs like Barry Klein, who undoubtedly directly
> profit from these not-so legal schemes to make people make money for
> their bridge.
I'm sure there are others as well. And it's interesting, as a side note,
that there's mirrored within the church the disparity between rich and poor
that's prevalent in the world today, especially even within the USA )I'm
sure the percentages are roughly equivalent). And I've seen the special
treatments given to those with money, those with celebrity status of one
kind or another. It is a double standard, and it does exist.
Z.
tikk
> Thanks so very much, tikk!
[snipped much good stuff]
You're welcome :)
However, I probably should've stated up front that the Bulk of the
work (transcribing from the original pdf) was done by head elf Kady
and a special anon guest elf. I html'd which took considerably less
time than they put in.
And this is as good a time as any to also state that this document and
a slew of others is available at slatkinINFO.com in PDF format. The
PDFs are not in good enough shape to OCR (we've tried) so if anyone
wants to take it upon themselves to help transcribe either of the
following PDFs, it'd be a huge help. Email in...@slatkinfraud.com if
you're interested so that two people aren't typing up the same
document.
http://www.slatkininfo.com/SummaryJudFraud/ExParteMotionVacateDateDanning.pdf
http://www.slatkininfo.com/pdf/CrosserDecWrtAttachOct02.pdf
thx, tikk
ka...@wwwaif.net
[snippage]
We also know that in at least one case, one investor was persuaded to
invest his money with Reed by two regs at the Celebrity Centre who were
trying to hit him up for a donation. When he told them that he didn't have
enough money, the two Sea Org members lauded Reed Slatkin's ability to make
money for Scientology so that they could "go up the Bridge". Unfortunately,
he took their advice, and did so - and the rest, as they say, is history.
On another related topic, I've been told that at least some of the larger
orgs have come right out and forbidden Scientologists from trying to
recruit each other for the numerous "make money fast" pyramid schemes that
seem to be so appealing to their members.
Very true, and worth pointing out again that Reed had as many non-
Scientologist dupes as otherwise. However, I think what must make it
particularly hard for his Scientologist victims to rationalize is that he
relied so heavily on their desire to make money not only for themselves,
but for the church, and to help Scientology "make the world a better
place". He exploited the fact that so many of these investors trusted him
implicitly because he was "one of them".
And even though there is no evidence that the Church of Scientology itself
was a willing partner in his cheme, it is becoming painfully clear that
Scientology officials ignored the rumblings and allowed themselves to be
smoothed over by people like Hitchman, Slatkin's alleged fixer, rather than
investigate what was really going on with Reed's "money management" scheme.
In fact, by the words of its own spokesman, Aron Mason, the church *knew*
that Slatkin had trouble "meeting the high ethical standards of WISE",
which was allegedly why he was no longer a member thereof. If this was the
case, why did they not investigate just exactly how "ethical" his actions
were with regards to the millions of dollars to which Scientologists had
entrusted him?
K
ka...@wwwaif.net
in news:84b17b4e74c13025...@cypherpunks.to:
[snippetydoo]
> But you gotta love the irony. The guy whose interview with LRH has been
> used for years to sell Scientology is now the same guy who sold Slatkin.
> The Scientology "history" books (the ones that don't like the difference
> between facts and PR) are going to have to be corrected again.
Not to mention the fact that there are -- *how* many thousands of copies
of that damn LRH interview tape floating around, purchased by devoted and
trusting Scientologists? I can only see one response: send out an
announcement that the Golden Age of Forensic Science Tech has determined
that *the video tape itself* has been determined to be suppressive, and
will do irrevocable damage to the case of anyone who holds it in their
possession. The only solution will be to send all copies of the video back
to the church to exchange for a thoroughly debugged (through the magic of
digital re-editing) and Hitchmanless copy.
> Another think that has to make you think is the example of ethics on
> display by Scientologists who came out net gainers. How many of them
> have collaborated to give back their "profits" to the Scientologists and
> nons who were net losers, versus how many have done nothing of the kind
> or are fighting to keep from giving it back?
Well, of the five parties listed on the Motion for Writ of Attachment,
(which would, in layman's terms, "attach" their assets to that of the
Slatkin estate so that it could be sold, and the money added to the pot of
money that will be dispersed amongst investors) three are Scientologists:
Linda Rosen, Tony Lonstein and Tony Hitchman, and they certainly aren't
going willingly, from what we can see by the motions currently available.
> Is CoS doing anything to make their parishioner net gainers get their
> ethics in?
>
> I hope the investigating authorities find out more about Dirmann. Look
> at his pic at http://www.slatkinfraud.com/dirmann.php and tell me it
> doesn't look like it's out of an album of Nazi war criminals. This guy
> gives me the creeps.
Dirmann is a fascinating character indeed - from what I understand, it is
his wife, Irene, who is the power player, as it were, within the CoS. She
has held all manner of fairly high-ranking posts over the years. Jack
seems to have been more "muscle" - and if Slatkin's version of events is
true, it would appear that was the same role he played with Tony Hitchman
when they allegedly locked Reed in a room and demnaded that he sign over
what little money and non-worthless shares to them. Of course, *he* claims
that he and Tony were just having a little chat with Reed about where the
hell the money had gone, but it's interesting that he does, indeed,
confirm that the meeting took place.
K
Beverly Rice
> > But you gotta love the irony. The guy whose interview with LRH has been
> > used for years to sell Scientology is now the same guy who sold Slatkin.
> > The Scientology "history" books (the ones that don't like the difference
> > between facts and PR) are going to have to be corrected again.
> Not to mention the fact that there are -- *how* many thousands of copies
> of that damn LRH interview tape floating around, purchased by devoted and
> trusting Scientologists?
Does anybody have a copy of that tape?
A transcript of it on ars would be good.
ARC = As-Ising the Real CST,
Beverly
ka...@wwwaif.net
I believe Triple Agent Cerridwen is working on transcribing the tape.
Given her knack for colourful descriptions of IAS events that make the
reader feel like they are *right there* amid the cheering and the hip hip
hooraying, I know she'll do a fabulous job of capturing every nuance of
the Hitchman tape.
K
Zaliwa
<ka...@wwwaif.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92DE751AAC4...@207.35.177.134...
That's good. It's a fundamentally unethical way to make money. The exchange
factor is out. (Even I got caught up in one make-money-fast scheme. Luckily
I only lost a couple grand.) It's hard for people sometimes to balance
reality with dreams. It's hard for many Scnsts to balance their dynamics,
including the money dynamic. It's like the three basic aberrations of "time,
sex, and money". This world seems enveloped by them. Maybe it's an
affliction of being human. On the other hand, I think it's an affliction
that has been invented by what some people found important, stressed and
marketed and educated the minions into believing, and who created that want
(the old "keep up with the Jonses" think) which cuts across man's impulse to
achieve a spiritual freedom. It's a funny world. There's a fanaticism
attached to almost every religion (perhaps not Buddhism) that exhorts its
followers to make money, make war, make slaves, make crusades, whatever.
Perhaps it's the dichotomous nature of the world. But I ramble in my
digressions.
And don't forget the betrayal factor. That is a heavy and long-chained
incident. As well, most people, Scnsts or not, who are themselves
good-hearted, trust more than distrust, especially within a supposedly
highly ethical environment. I don't imagine they gave it much thought that
there would be an inappropriate and unethical use of the funds.
> And even though there is no evidence that the Church of Scientology itself
> was a willing partner in his cheme, it is becoming painfully clear that
> Scientology officials ignored the rumblings and allowed themselves to be
> smoothed over by people like Hitchman, Slatkin's alleged fixer, rather
than
> investigate what was really going on with Reed's "money management"
scheme.
>
> In fact, by the words of its own spokesman, Aron Mason, the church *knew*
> that Slatkin had trouble "meeting the high ethical standards of WISE",
> which was allegedly why he was no longer a member thereof. If this was the
> case, why did they not investigate just exactly how "ethical" his actions
> were with regards to the millions of dollars to which Scientologists had
> entrusted him?
I would have assumed, and indeed it should have been the case, that reports
would have been written up not only to his Pre-OT folder, but the MAAs at
Flag, RTC, his D of P, C/S, uplines and downlines, by WISE execs who knew of
Slatkin not "meeting the high ethical standards of WISE". It violates policy
NOT to write such a report. NOT to follow up on such a report, especially of
such magnitude that it resulted in horrendous flaps for the Church, would
also have been off-policy or out-tech. Even if Reed "whitewashed" the
events. So either way, coming or going, something was let slide. It's again
a hint of the double standards prevalent within the organization. It's not
that LRH decreed it as such, but how broken men and women, broken
management, broken people, let it all happen while turning one blind eye
towards it.
>
> K
Z.
Lulu Belle
> "tikk" <in...@slatkinfraud.com> wrote in message
> news:5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > can also be seen at :
> >
> > http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
>
>
>
> Very interesting. While Reed Slatkin was pleading guilty to 15 felony
> counts (March 26,02) his alledged cohort, Tony Hitchman, was attesting
> to OT 8. The C of S has to be freaking out about this. One of their
> New NEW NEW OT 8's was up to his eyeballs in the Reed Slatkin Ponzi
> scheme. It just doesn't get any better than this.
Yes, it does. :)
Tony Hitchman was also a big time FSM. So, presumably, he was lending
people money as part of this fraudulent scheme. They were using the
money to pay for Scientology services.
He would then collect an FSM commission on these payments.
Anonymous
"Lulu Belle" <exes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7db3d0ad.02120...@posting.google.com...
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) wrote in message
news:<QJFBUIV737597.3173842593@anonymous.poster>...
> > >
> > > http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > Very interesting. While Reed Slatkin was pleading guilty to 15
felony
> > counts (March 26,02) his alleged cohort, Tony Hitchman, was
attesting
> > to OT 8. The C of S has to be freaking out about this. One of
their
> > New NEW NEW OT 8's was up to his eyeballs in the Reed Slatkin Ponzi
> > scheme. It just doesn't get any better than this.
>
>
> Yes, it does. :)
heheh :-)
>
> Tony Hitchman was also a big time FSM. So, presumably, he was lending
> people money as part of this fraudulent scheme. They were using the
> money to pay for Scientology services.
>
> He would then collect an FSM commission on these payments.
OH yes! That's right. Tony was double dipping! And you know
what? He's not even a Patron or a Cornerstone Member. He's not
on any of the lists as any kind of contributor. The C of S must be
really pissed to find out he had access to all that money and didn't
give them much at all.
That boy is in a heap of trouble!
Cerridwen
Triple Agent/OSA Goon and
passive co-conspirator in conduct of the Scientology sham
Warrior
>>
>> Thanks so very much, tikk!
In article <5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com>,
in...@slatkinfraud.com says...
>
>[snipped much good stuff]
>
>You're welcome :)
>
>However, I probably should've stated up front that the Bulk of the
>work (transcribing from the original pdf) was done by head elf Kady
>and a special anon guest elf. I html'd which took considerably less
>time than they put in.
In that case, thank you very much, Kady! The same goes to the special
anonymous person who helped do the great work!
By the way, does "Danning" refer to Curtis Danning? I have some info
on him. He was involved somehow in the bankruptcy of Jewelry Marketing
Group. Exactly what his role was I don't recall, but if the Slatkin
Danning and the Fishman/Walker Danning I know of are the same person,
I'll look into it some more.
Interesting.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
>And this is as good a time as any to also state that this document and
ka...@wwwaif.net
>>Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
>>news:<asv2b...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>>>
>>> Thanks so very much, tikk!
>
> In article <5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com>,
> in...@slatkinfraud.com says...
>>
>>[snipped much good stuff]
>>
>>You're welcome :)
>>
>>However, I probably should've stated up front that the Bulk of the
>>work (transcribing from the original pdf) was done by head elf Kady
>>and a special anon guest elf. I html'd which took considerably less
>>time than they put in.
>
> In that case, thank you very much, Kady! The same goes to the special
> anonymous person who helped do the great work!
You're welcome - and thank you for reading so carefully, and for having
your eerie Rainman-like memory for names, because ...
> By the way, does "Danning" refer to Curtis Danning?
Yes, it does! Curtis Danning's firm is defending many of the defendents in
the fraudulent transfer suits that have been launched by trustee Todd
Neilson. Danning, Gill, Diamond & Kollitz has a webpage at www.dgdk.com
Here is his profile, from the website:
Curtis B. Danning, a Professional Corporation
E-mail: cdan...@dgdk.com
Of Counsel
Mr. Danning, who is of counsel to the firm, was admitted to the California
Bar in 1953. His educational background is as follows: University of
California at Berkeley (A.B. 1942); University of California at Los Angeles
(LL.B. 1952). He is a member of the San Fernando Valley, Century City, Los
Angeles County and American Bar Associations, and the State Bar of
California. Mr. Danning has specialized in administration of insolvency
estates and is a recognized authority on the subject. He has served
frequently on appointment by the District Court, the Bankruptcy Court and
the Superior Court of the State of California, and has substantial
experience in representation of debtors and creditors.
---
The firm itself appears to specialize almost exclusively in bankruptcy-
related litigation, so it might not be that unusual that it was also
involved in another Scientologist-related bankruptcy, but if you can
remember any details about the previous case with which Danning was
involved, that would be great.
K
Warrior
says...
>
>You're welcome - and thank you for reading so carefully, and for having
>your eerie Rainman-like memory for names, because ...
>I had earlier asked:
Curtis B. Danning. That's the guy I asked about. Back in 1987-88,
when he acted as the Bankruptcy Trustee for Fishman Walker & Staff,
Inc. (case number LA-87-06455-LS) he had an office at 1800 Century
Park East, Seventh Floor, LA, CA 90067-1510. phone: 213-277-0077
It'd be best if I don't say much right now in this public forum, but if
I were ever to be served with a subpoena, I guess I would have to tell
everything I know, if it was responsive to a question. I'd spill my guts
here right now, as I have nothing to hide, not having (thank God) been
involved in any illegal activities. But for now, maybe I should keep
my mouth shut. I think this would be wise. I would not be adverse to
speaking with Todd Neilson, however.
I'm getting ready to scan and post some of my old Rolodex cards, just to
put them out there on the record (in cyberspace in all their cute, quaint
little glory). If nothing else, they will support my memories of what I
know.
Thanx, Kady. :)
This is very, very, very interesting to me.
Check out a.b.s. in a bit.
[posted & mailed]
Warrior
>
>By the way, does "Danning" refer to Curtis Danning? I have some info
>on him. He was involved somehow in the bankruptcy of Jewelry Marketing
>Group.
Jewelery Marketing Group ("JMG") was a different corporation.
It was bled into bankruptcy later! Both corporations were owned
by two Scientologists, Gary Fishman and Michael Walker.
Mark Bunker
wrote:
>Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) wrote in
>news:QJFBUIV737597.3173842593@anonymous.poster:
>
>>
>> "tikk" <in...@slatkinfraud.com> wrote in message
>> news:5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com...
>>> can also be seen at :
>>>
>>> http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Very interesting. While Reed Slatkin was pleading guilty to 15 felony
>> counts (March 26,02) his alledged cohort, Tony Hitchman, was attesting
>> to OT 8. The C of S has to be freaking out about this. One of their
>> New NEW NEW OT 8's was up to his eyeballs in the Reed Slatkin Ponzi
>> scheme. It just doesn't get any better than this.
>>
>
>Thanks so much for this, C. It will be fascinating to see how Scientology
>goes about the task of "disappearing" Tony Hitchman from official history,
>especially given the "Tony Hitchman film" interview of LRH, which as far as
>I can tell is one of the only "approved" media that captured ole Ron on
>film. Sure, they can remove Tony the interviewer with CGI magic, and dub
>over his questions with someone else's voice, but there are still thousands
>of copies of the original film out there.
Removing Tony Hitchman from that video will be as great a sin as
Spielberg changing the guns to walkie-talkies in E.T.
Tony's wooden performance is one of the funniest things I have ever
seen on film.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"You have got to have my permission to reproduce my post *anywhere*.
Failure to get that permission will cause me to go to Rev. Grabdough's
superiors in Germany. Trust me, you don't want that to happen."
---- Deana M. Holmes stomps her feet and threatens a minister
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magoo
I have been immersed in some things, so I just got to this. Jeeesus!
TONY HITCHMAN was IN on this>???
I can hardly believe it, having spent years with him on OT 7 and his wife.
It was bad enough being around all of the pompous "OT'S" telling me,
"MY Money's with REEEEEEEEEEEEED".
(And no OSA ...you cannot say I didn't mention this. I actually turned
myself into Ethics I was SO grossed out about the "Snotty, 1.1 phony OT's"
>>>>>
No Doubt they've pitched that one out....but I did!
"tikk" <in...@slatkinfraud.com> wrote in message
news:5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com...
> can also be seen at :
>
> http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
>
>
Magoo
"Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:6heJ9.52869$hK4.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> How absolutely amazing!
>
> I have been immersed in some things, so I just got to this. Jeeesus!
>
> TONY HITCHMAN was IN on this>???
>
> I can hardly believe it, having spent years with him on OT 7 and his wife.
>
> It was bad enough being around all of the pompous "OT'S" telling me,
> "MY Money's with REEEEEEEEEEEEED".
> (And no OSA ...you cannot say I didn't mention this. I actually turned
> myself into Ethics I was SO grossed out about the "Snotty, 1.1 phony OT's"
> >>>>>
> No Doubt they've pitched that one out....but I did!
Anyways (puter sent this before I was done).....Tony the all perfect Top
FSM??
Jeeesh! And to think this was actually going on way back in the Wallersheim
era.
Man...I always wondered how that guy had ALL that money, just doing FSM'ing.
How amazing to read THIS.
Well, this WILL be fun to watch them try to scramble and wipe out ol Tony
Hitchman. I'd LOVE to hear their OSA "handles" on ~this~ one. The BS meter
must be reading off the dial.
Thanks for the info :)
As always, my greatest thanks to the Critics who constantly stand vigil
against the lies and frauds of this deceitful group!
Tory/Magoo!
Anonymous
[snippetydoo]
>Not to mention the fact that there are -- *how* many thousands of copies
>of that damn LRH interview tape floating around, purchased by devoted and
>trusting Scientologists? I can only see one response: send out an
>announcement that the Golden Age of Forensic Science Tech has determined
>that *the video tape itself* has been determined to be suppressive, and
>will do irrevocable damage to the case of anyone who holds it in their
>possession. The only solution will be to send all copies of the video back
>to the church to exchange for a thoroughly debugged (through the magic of
>digital re-editing) and Hitchmanless copy.
My best guess is that orgs that have the film will be ordered to send it to
Int, where it will be destroyed. DM will settle for copies in the hands of
public Scientologists disappearing over time. An order to orgs saying it
can't be used any more for dissemination will also be issued. They
probably won't even give a reason.
DM's main concern will be to preserve the "priceless PR LRH technology" in
the film. The new edition will not feature Hitchman (Hitchman? Who's
Hitchman?) but another interviewer. It would be too much to hope it's Jeff
Pomeranz. It'll also be made with the latest technology to make it look
more legitimate as a new version and a more appealing product to the
public. It'll be announced as A NEW RELEASE (hip hip hurrah) at one of the
events and become another Scn bestseller. Years from now, when CoS has
taken over the planet, it'll be nominated for an Academy Award as Best
Documentary. And win.
>> Another thing that has to make you think is the example of ethics on
>> display by Scientologists who came out net gainers. How many of them
>> have collaborated to give back their "profits" to the Scientologists and
>> nons who were net losers, versus how many have done nothing of the kind
>> or are fighting to keep from giving it back?
>Well, of the five parties listed on the Motion for Writ of Attachment,
>(which would, in layman's terms, "attach" their assets to that of the
>Slatkin estate so that it could be sold, and the money added to the pot of
>money that will be dispersed amongst investors) three are Scientologists:
>Linda Rosen, Tony Lonstein and Tony Hitchman, and they certainly aren't
>going willingly, from what we can see by the motions currently available.
There's more to this than meets the eye. I'm going to ruminate on this
some more and start a new thread. (See thread on International Justice
Chief.)
>Dirmann is a fascinating character indeed - from what I understand, it is
>his wife, Irene, who is the power player, as it were, within the CoS. She
>has held all manner of fairly high-ranking posts over the years. Jack
>seems to have been more "muscle" - and if Slatkin's version of events is
>true, it would appear that was the same role he played with Tony Hitchman
>when they allegedly locked Reed in a room and demnaded that he sign over
>what little money and non-worthless shares to them. Of course, *he* claims
>that he and Tony were just having a little chat with Reed about where the
>hell the money had gone, but it's interesting that he does, indeed,
>confirm that the meeting took place.
Is Dirmann the one who spent a few days at Slatkin's computers _before_ his
Ponzi scheme was blown? Why would Slatkin allow anyone who didn't know it
was Ponzi scheme to do that?
What did Dirmann find out? Not enough to merit calling the cops while he
was there? He didn't do that, did he?
Did he contact anyone at CoS instead of calling the cops?
Did Dirmann tell Hitchman what he found out? Did he tell anyone else?
If Dirmann, before he was at Slatkin's computers as long as he wanted to
be, didn't know as much about the Ponzi scheme as Hitchman, he knew enough
to know something was very fishy. He must have known enough to go to
Slatkin and demand that he let him see his computer files or else. What
else did he find out?
Supposedly Slatkin's answer to what he found was that the money was safe in
Switzerland. After days at Slatkin's computer files, we're supposed to
believe Dirmann would buy that?
What did he really find out? Why didn't he go to the authorities with it?
Who _did_ he go to with it? Why? Did _they_ go to the authorities?
I'm surprised Dirmann hasn't been charged with anything yet.
If he is, will he tell the whole truth?
If he does, who might it implicate? Other Scientologists? Senior CoS
staff members?
>K
Anonymous
>Curtis B. Danning. That's the guy I asked about. Back in 1987-88,
>when he acted as the Bankruptcy Trustee for Fishman Walker & Staff,
>Inc. (case number LA-87-06455-LS) he had an office at 1800 Century
>Park East, Seventh Floor, LA, CA 90067-1510. phone: 213-277-0077
>
>It'd be best if I don't say much right now in this public forum, but if
>I were ever to be served with a subpoena, I guess I would have to tell
>everything I know, if it was responsive to a question. I'd spill my guts
>here right now, as I have nothing to hide, not having (thank God) been
>involved in any illegal activities. But for now, maybe I should keep
>my mouth shut. I think this would be wise. I would not be adverse to
>speaking with Todd Neilson, however.
Do it. I'm sure he'd love to hear what you've got to say.
ka...@wwwaif.net
news:d71b6c023d1b842a...@paranoici.org:
<snippedydah>
> There's more to this than meets the eye. I'm going to ruminate on this
> some more and start a new thread. (See thread on International Justice
> Chief.)
>
>>Dirmann is a fascinating character indeed - from what I understand, it
>>is his wife, Irene, who is the power player, as it were, within the CoS.
>>She has held all manner of fairly high-ranking posts over the years.
>>Jack seems to have been more "muscle" - and if Slatkin's version of
>>events is true, it would appear that was the same role he played with
>>Tony Hitchman when they allegedly locked Reed in a room and demnaded
>>that he sign over what little money and non-worthless shares to them. Of
>>course, *he* claims that he and Tony were just having a little chat with
>>Reed about where the hell the money had gone, but it's interesting that
>>he does, indeed, confirm that the meeting took place.
>
> Is Dirmann the one who spent a few days at Slatkin's computers _before_
> his Ponzi scheme was blown? Why would Slatkin allow anyone who didn't
> know it was Ponzi scheme to do that?
Yes, it was indeed Jack Dirmann, and on hearing this latest revelation, I
was equally puzzled by that apparent inconsistency - until I remembered
the dates. The one element of the story on which Reed and Jack's
respective declarations agree is that this famous meeting between the
three men occured *before* Reed had declared bankruptcy, and the Ponzi
scheme came to light.
Reed claims that it was March 31, 2001; Jack claims that it was March 27,
31, 2001 - but in both cases, it was before the facts surrounding the
Ponzi were known to all but a privileged few - Reed's co-conspirators, and
Jack Dirmann, which happened at the beginning of May, when he filed for
bankruptcy fraud and the lawsuits against him began pouring in.
Now, according to our sources, Dirmann spent several weeks at Slatkin's
"office" before Reed went public about his amazing missing millions - and
that would coincide nicely with the idea that he demanded - and got - that
access *after* he was told by Hitchman and Slatkin that the whole
"investment club" was a fraud and a Ponzi scheme. Reed's claim is that
Jack and Tony were demanding that he hand over to them whatever money and
non-worthless stocks he had left; perhaps in order to be let out of
Hitchman's locked bedroom, Reed promised to let Dirmann have his run of
the files to see if any more money was hiding out there, at which point
(in theory), Dirmann and Hitchman could have snatched it before it was
frozen as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.
> What did Dirmann find out? Not enough to merit calling the cops while
> he was there? He didn't do that, did he?
Well, if we take Reed's account as truthful - words that, when I type
them, make me wonder why my keyboard doesn't explode in a puff of smoke
and irony - Dirmann already knew that he was going to find evidence of
fraud and Ponzi scheming. What I think that he may have been seeking was
more money for Hitchman and himself.
> Did he contact anyone at CoS instead of calling the cops?
There's no way of knowing this, obviously; I would say that if he *did*
contact anyone official at the church, that that person deserves some time
in the RPF.
Remember, at this point, while Dirmann is going through the files, Reed
has not yet declared bankruptcy. He had some exceptionally frustrated and
angry investors who were demanding money back, and being stonewalled; he
had a dormant SEC investigation into his "investment club" that could at
any point have flared up; and he had at lesat one lawsuit that had already
been filed against him for fraud. He had not yet declared bankruptcy, but
it should have been clear to anyone that looked at the dismal
circumstances in which he found himself that there was no other possible
action at that point.
So, what would I have done if I was the CoS official who got that
theoretical call from Jack Dirmann in mid-April?
I would have evaluated the situation, and figured out some way to front
Reed enough cash to pay off the investor who had launched his lawsuit -
$15 million or so, I believe; the investor in question was Stuart Stedman,
I think. I would then immediately called together *all* the Scientologist
investors for a meeting, where I would give them a sanitized version of
events that didn't include the words "Ponzi Scheme", blame international
psychiatry for maliciously crashing the market in which Reed had invested
their money and order them not to take legal or other action against him
for money owed, as it would all work out in the end. Really.
Simultaneously, I would have force Reed to sell all the shares of ELNK
that he could legally, as an insider, as well as any other assets he had,
in order to pay off the non-Scientologist investors, either in full, or
enough of the balance that they believed to have invested with Reed to
keep that particular pack of wolves from the door.
By taking these actions, I would hope to have at least delayed the
magnitude of the total amounts owing, should Slatkin later be forced to
declare bankruptcy.
> Did Dirmann tell Hitchman what he found out? Did he tell anyone else?
I suspect that, since Dirmann and Hitchman appeared to have been working
together in the partly sucessful Slatkin shakedown in late March, Dirmann
would have been reporting to Hitchman regularly as he went through the
Slatkin investment club files.
> If Dirmann, before he was at Slatkin's computers as long as he wanted to
> be, didn't know as much about the Ponzi scheme as Hitchman, he knew
> enough to know something was very fishy. He must have known enough to
> go to Slatkin and demand that he let him see his computer files or else.
> What else did he find out?
Again, if you take Reed's account of the meeting as accurate (and once
again my keyboard fails to self-destruct), Dirmann already knew he was
going to find evidence of a Ponzi scheme. In fact, when he was asked about
his time spent at Reed's computers by a creditor at a subsequent trustee's
meeting, his explanation was that he was "looking for [his] money." If you
think about it, that may have actually been the truth. Maybe he *was*
looking for his money, or really, anyone's money, in order to split it
with Hitchman before the house fell in, which would happen the moment that
Reed declared bankruptcy.
> Supposedly Slatkin's answer to what he found was that the money was safe
> in Switzerland. After days at Slatkin's computer files, we're supposed
> to believe Dirmann would buy that?
>
> What did he really find out? Why didn't he go to the authorities with
> it? Who _did_ he go to with it? Why? Did _they_ go to the authorities?
>
>
> I'm surprised Dirmann hasn't been charged with anything yet.
Well, since Reed appears to be singing like a bird to the trustee as part
of his "cooperation" - which, as you'll recall, was a key element of his
plea agreement, and the best way to ensure a short sentence - I would
expect that more charges may be forthcoming, or, what is more likely to be
the case, more plea agreements will be announced. However, Dirmann is also
one of the individuals named by the trustee in the onslaught of fraudulent
transfer files, which means that he also has to worry about civil
litigation. I wouldn't be surprised if he was checking out air fare to
South Africa too.
It truly is fascinating to watch this whole story unfold - and I have a
feeling there is much that has yet to be told.
K
Warrior
I sense that someone is trying to play my piano. I love to play along. :))
In article <d71b6c023d1b842a...@paranoici.org>, Anonymous says...
>
>There's more to this than meets the eye. I'm going to ruminate on this
>some more and start a new thread. (See thread on International Justice
>Chief.)
I really look forward to that!
>Kady wrote:
>>
>>Dirmann is a fascinating character indeed - from what I understand, it is
>>his wife, Irene, who is the power player, as it were, within the CoS.
I very much agree.
>>She has held all manner of fairly high-ranking posts over the years.
I am working on a posting about this subject.
>>Jack
>>seems to have been more "muscle" - and if Slatkin's version of events is
>>true, it would appear that was the same role he played with Tony Hitchman
>>when they allegedly locked Reed in a room and demnaded that he sign over
>>what little money and non-worthless shares to them. Of course, *he* claims
>>that he and Tony were just having a little chat with Reed about where the
>>hell the money had gone, but it's interesting that he does, indeed,
>>confirm that the meeting took place.
To say it's interesting is truly an understatement. I have my own ideas
about Jack.
>Is Dirmann the one who spent a few days at Slatkin's computers _before_ his
>Ponzi scheme was blown? Why would Slatkin allow anyone who didn't know it
>was Ponzi scheme to do that?
Jack and Irene, Tony and Peggy Hitchman, and Reed Slatkin have all known
each other for about 27 years, at least. Irene and Tony Hitchman's
friendship goes back to at least 1967 -- 35 years ago.
I believe I read that Jack was and had been at Reed's home for several days
when the FBI showed up. Besides looking after his own interests, I am
pretty certain Jack was there doing damage control for Scientology. Having
known Jack, it my first guess is that he was collecting documents and
turning them over to Scientology. Given Jack's years of indoctrination
into Hubbard's system of "ethics and justice", I have absolutely no doubt
that Jack would be looking after Scientology, and Scientologists in good
standing, as his first priority. A study of Hubbard's codes of "ethics
and justice" and an examination of the Hubbardian concept of "dynamics",
including "the greatest good for the greatest number" will accurately
illuminate why long-term Scientologists like Jack act as they do. Their
actions are governed by what Hubbard wrote. It would be an "overt of
omission" (wrong in Jack's mind) to _fail_ to take effective action to
protect Scientology. I think it extremely likely that Jack would not
hesitate to remove from Slatkin's premises, anything which proved Scien-
tology's involvement in the Ponzi scheme. Having been a Scientologist
longer than Jack, I have no doubts that Irene would feel the same as
Jack, insofar as her desire to protect Scientology.
>What did Dirmann find out?
Dirmann probably knows more about this whole shady business than just about
anyone else.
>Not enough to merit calling the cops while he was there?
That's a "suppressive act" according to Scientology's "ethics and justice"
codes.
>He didn't do that, did he?
Extremely unlikely.
>Did he contact anyone at CoS instead of calling the cops?
99.999% probability.
>Did Dirmann tell Hitchman what he found out?
Given that they are such long-term friends, I believe Jack (and/or his wife)
would have told Tony what he found.
>Did he tell anyone else?
If he was applying Scientology's policies on the various kinds of internal
reports, as well as their "ethics and justice" codes he would most certainly
have written a complete report in the form of what Scientologists call
"time, place, form and event" -- in other words, every bloody detail known
to him, including his own involvement in the scam and what actions he was
taking to "handle the situation". I would be more than happy to cite the
applicable Scientology policies which support my opinions.
>If Dirmann, before he was at Slatkin's computers as long as he wanted to
>be, didn't know as much about the Ponzi scheme as Hitchman, he knew enough
>to know something was very fishy.
Of this I have no doubt. He and his wife Irene are amongst the most
highly trained Scientologists in the realm of data evaluation, damage
control, finance, and so on as taught and practiced by Scientology and
Scientologists.
>He must have known enough to go to Slatkin and demand that he let him see
>his computer files or else. What else did he find out?
The extent to which Scientology and Scientologists were involved, the damage
potential to Scientology and Scientologists, and whatever else would have
been necessary to find out in order to have a complete understanding of
the whole sordid affair.
>Supposedly Slatkin's answer to what he found was that the money was safe in
>Switzerland.
Ahhh -- the infamous NAA, as in "Not Available Anywhere"??? Heh.
>After days at Slatkin's computer files, we're supposed to believe Dirmann
>would buy that?
Well, I don't think Dirmann is that blind or stupid.
>What did he really find out? Why didn't he go to the authorities with it?
It's a "suppressive act" to do so. He was protecting Scientology and
Scientologists.
>Who _did_ he go to with it? Why? Did _they_ go to the authorities?
>
>I'm surprised Dirmann hasn't been charged with anything yet.
So am I.
>If he is, will he tell the whole truth?
Unlikely, in my opinion.
>If he does, who might it implicate? Other Scientologists? Senior CoS
>staff members?
Only time will tell.
>>K
The above are my opinions. As always, I am happy to explain why I believe
as I do. I am more than happy to provide information on applicable Scientology
policies and why I believe Jack and Irene would be bound to follow them.
I have my own history with Jack and Irene going back to 1975 when they,
along with Steve Grant, made many fraudulent representations to me about
Scientology in order to induce me to sign a contract. There's much more.
"As you sow, so shall you reap."
Chip Gallo
course and a hat pack for the Exec Committee (I think it was). Investments
were not discussed except as the Affluence Formula says to invest in service
facilities.
What if any Hubbard material is there on investing money in the traditional
ways, you know, to make more money and keep on doing so to a major stable
bank account offshore? Did he have some tidbits in Flag Orders of the Day,
LRH EDs or other "staff only" kinds of places?
Seems to me that these Slatkin guys were on their own, policy wise, unless
they happened to have "wog" business training, banking experience, broker
training, etc. Between the sleezy ethics tolerated if you're a perceived
Upstat, and the possible lack of real investment knowledge and experience,
we have another case of:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Chip Gallo
"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
news:at54d...@drn.newsguy.com...
ka...@wwwaif.net
news:uvc87j...@corp.supernews.com:
> Warrior - I took the Executive Director full post hat, personal finance
> course and a hat pack for the Exec Committee (I think it was).
> Investments were not discussed except as the Affluence Formula says to
> invest in service facilities.
>
> What if any Hubbard material is there on investing money in the
> traditional ways, you know, to make more money and keep on doing so to a
> major stable bank account offshore? Did he have some tidbits in Flag
> Orders of the Day, LRH EDs or other "staff only" kinds of places?
Not to preempt Warrior, who I am sure will have much more detailed
information on this subject, but from what I understand, Hubbard was very
keen on currency exchange as a way to make money fast. He also liked gold,
silver and other "hard" investments, as it were. In fact, at one point, an
outside auditing firm brought in to analyse the finances suggested that the
church start melting down some of its gold to sell as jewellery. I'm not
sure if he had any particular investment strategy - his preference,
however, would seem to run towards quick, short-term deals, as opposed to
more long-term investment, whether in a new venture or a secure blue chip
company.
> Seems to me that these Slatkin guys were on their own, policy wise,
> unless they happened to have "wog" business training, banking
> experience, broker training, etc.
Well, it doesn't take much training or experience to devise a staggeringly
unsuccessful investment strategy. Reed seemed to have a positive genius for
picking ventures that would quickly plummet into bankruptcy, and
occasionally allegations of security fraud. His one success story, really,
was Earthlink, and that was a fluke. He just happened to be in the right
place at the right time to get in on the ground floor, and then spent much
of the rest of his financial career in futile pursuit of "another
Earthlink".
K
An Metet
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 10 Dec 2002, ka...@wwwaif.net wrote:
snippedydah
An altruistic plan on the part of Hitchman and Dirmann.
>> What did Dirmann find out? Not enough to merit calling the cops while
>> he was there? He didn't do that, did he?
>
>Well, if we take Reed's account as truthful - words that, when I type
>them, make me wonder why my keyboard doesn't explode in a puff of smoke
>and irony - Dirmann already knew that he was going to find evidence of
>fraud and Ponzi scheming. What I think that he may have been seeking was
>more money for Hitchman and himself.
How many years in jail is Slatkin looking at? Too many not to cooperate
and tell the truth. He has no reason to lie now. What's impossible to
tell is how much of the truth he's telling or how much Neilson allowed to
come out in the declaration.
I don't know what Dirmann was looking for or why he spent so much time at
Reed's office after their meeting. You can't tell from Reed's declaration
if Dirmann knew anything about the fraud before the meeting or how much he
knew after going through the files. Reed says, "Mr. Hitchman told Mr.
Dirmann in my presence that I had been engaged in a fraud, and both Mr.
Hitchman and Mr. Dirmann were demanding that I give them money."
Too much guessing at this point. Too many missing pieces of the puzzle.
One of them is why Dirmann didn't go to the authorities before Slatkin
declared bankruptcy.
>> Did he contact anyone at CoS instead of calling the cops?
>
>There's no way of knowing this, obviously; I would say that if he *did*
>contact anyone official at the church, that that person deserves some time
>in the RPF.
Or jail.
It's a good thing you weren't the CoS official who got that theoretical
call from Jack.
>> Did Dirmann tell Hitchman what he found out? Did he tell anyone else?
>
>I suspect that, since Dirmann and Hitchman appeared to have been working
>together in the partly sucessful Slatkin shakedown in late March, Dirmann
>would have been reporting to Hitchman regularly as he went through the
>Slatkin investment club files.
>
>> If Dirmann, before he was at Slatkin's computers as long as he wanted to
>> be, didn't know as much about the Ponzi scheme as Hitchman, he knew
>> enough to know something was very fishy. He must have known enough to
>> go to Slatkin and demand that he let him see his computer files or else.
>> What else did he find out?
>
>Again, if you take Reed's account of the meeting as accurate (and once
>again my keyboard fails to self-destruct), Dirmann already knew he was
>going to find evidence of a Ponzi scheme. In fact, when he was asked about
>his time spent at Reed's computers by a creditor at a subsequent trustee's
>meeting, his explanation was that he was "looking for [his] money." If you
>think about it, that may have actually been the truth. Maybe he *was*
>looking for his money, or really, anyone's money, in order to split it
>with Hitchman before the house fell in, which would happen the moment that
>Reed declared bankruptcy.
I'd like to see Dirmann explain what he was doing under oath.
>> I'm surprised Dirmann hasn't been charged with anything yet.
>
>Well, since Reed appears to be singing like a bird to the trustee as part
>of his "cooperation" - which, as you'll recall, was a key element of his
>plea agreement, and the best way to ensure a short sentence - I would
>expect that more charges may be forthcoming, or, what is more likely to be
>the case, more plea agreements will be announced. However, Dirmann is also
>one of the individuals named by the trustee in the onslaught of fraudulent
>transfer files, which means that he also has to worry about civil
>litigation. I wouldn't be surprised if he was checking out air fare to
>South Africa too.
>
>It truly is fascinating to watch this whole story unfold - and I have a
>feeling there is much that has yet to be told.
I hope so. It's one of the biggest (the biggest?) Ponzi schemes in
history. Everything about it should become known.
>K
An Metet
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Warrior. Your knowledge insights make the world of Scn easier to
understand.
I think you're right about Dirmann reporting to CoS. Maybe that's why he
spent so long with Slatkin's files: he wanted to find out as much as he
could not only about money he might be able to secure (Kady's idea) but to
gather as much information as possible for CoS damage control later.
I'm sure we're not going to find out all of the truth about Dirmann's
involvement unless it's forced out of him. I want to see this guy deposed.
ka...@wwwaif.net
news:7f82b2686770750c...@anonymous.poster:
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Thanks, Warrior. Your knowledge insights make the world of Scn easier
> to understand.
>
> I think you're right about Dirmann reporting to CoS. Maybe that's why
> he spent so long with Slatkin's files: he wanted to find out as much as
> he could not only about money he might be able to secure (Kady's idea)
> but to gather as much information as possible for CoS damage control
> later.
>
> I'm sure we're not going to find out all of the truth about Dirmann's
> involvement unless it's forced out of him. I want to see this guy
> deposed.
>
Agreed and seconded. I'd also like to know who he has named as legal
counsel in the fraudulent transfer suit against him. That might tell us
something about how closely the CoS is stage-managing his actions and
statements after the fact.
In fact, I think that this weekend, when I have some spare time, I'll put
together a list of all the currently known defendents, sorted by legal
counsel, to see if any interesting patterns turn up.
K
Warrior
person wrote:
>
>Thanks, Warrior. Your knowledge insights make the world of Scn easier to
>understand.
You're welcome.
>I think you're right about Dirmann reporting to CoS. Maybe that's why he
>spent so long with Slatkin's files: he wanted to find out as much as he
>could not only about money he might be able to secure (Kady's idea) but to
>gather as much information as possible for CoS damage control later.
I think you're right.
>I'm sure we're not going to find out all of the truth about Dirmann's
>involvement unless it's forced out of him. I want to see this guy deposed.
So do I.
Warrior
>> to understand.
You're welcome.
>> I think you're right about Dirmann reporting to CoS. Maybe that's why
>> he spent so long with Slatkin's files: he wanted to find out as much as
>> he could not only about money he might be able to secure (Kady's idea)
>> but to gather as much information as possible for CoS damage control
>> later.
>>
>> I'm sure we're not going to find out all of the truth about Dirmann's
>> involvement unless it's forced out of him. I want to see this guy
>> deposed.
In article <Xns92E173114EB...@205.232.34.12>, "ka...@wwwaif.net"
says...
>
>Agreed and seconded. I'd also like to know who he has named as legal
>counsel in the fraudulent transfer suit against him. That might tell us
>something about how closely the CoS is stage-managing his actions and
>statements after the fact.
>In fact, I think that this weekend, when I have some spare time, I'll put
>together a list of all the currently known defendents, sorted by legal
>counsel, to see if any interesting patterns turn up.
>
>K
Way cool! I look forward to reading your information. :)
Frog
>An Metet <anm...@freedom.gmsociety.org> wrote in
>news:7f82b2686770750c...@anonymous.poster:
>> Thanks, Warrior. Your knowledge insights make the world of Scn easier
>> to understand.
>> I think you're right about Dirmann reporting to CoS. Maybe that's why
>> he spent so long with Slatkin's files: he wanted to find out as much as
>> he could not only about money he might be able to secure (Kady's idea)
>> but to gather as much information as possible for CoS damage control
>> later.
>> I'm sure we're not going to find out all of the truth about Dirmann's
>> involvement unless it's forced out of him. I want to see this guy
>> deposed.
>Agreed and seconded. I'd also like to know who he has named as legal
>counsel in the fraudulent transfer suit against him. That might tell us
>something about how closely the CoS is stage-managing his actions and
>statements after the fact.
>In fact, I think that this weekend, when I have some spare time, I'll put
>together a list of all the currently known defendents, sorted by legal
>counsel, to see if any interesting patterns turn up.
>
>K
It gets better and better.
ladayla
A thing about this that is curious is that Tony fled to So. Africa. Who or What
is in So. Africa? Tony's home was, I believe, Twickenham, England. Also, he has
a son in England. Any speculation about So. Africa as a safe haven?
Another thing about this is that Tony is at least 70 years old. It isn't as tho
he can 'start over'.
la
fluffygirl
"Cerridwen" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:QJFBUIV737597.3173842593@anonymous.poster...
>
> "tikk" <in...@slatkinfraud.com> wrote in message
> news:5e0371c5.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > can also be seen at :
> >
> > http://slatkinfraud.com/docs/reed_declare_hitchman_2002_08_23.htm
>
>
>
> counts (March 26,02) his alledged cohort, Tony Hitchman, was attesting
> to OT 8. The C of S has to be freaking out about this. One of their
> New NEW NEW OT 8's was up to his eyeballs in the Reed Slatkin Ponzi
> scheme. It just doesn't get any better than this.
>
Utterly fascinating and not a little disgusting.
I think that the love of money- in its most corrupt sense- has permeated
CofS and its members so much that virtually anything goes, at times.
This reminds me of some of the things done to Raul Lopez although those were
a different set of fraudulent circumstances.
Another comment: When I first got into Scn as an adult (not counting the
years as a Scn'ist and Catholic child) my friends and I used to have these
bull sessions about getting money together for the state of OT and what if
one did something like prostitution to do that, couldn't one just get it run
out, this type of conversation.
Always, someone would solemnly state that tech doesn't go in if Ethics
hasn't, and doing something wrong with the idea that "I can always run it
out later" doesn't make it all right, because the person isn't taking
responsibility, not really.
It seems to me that we were all being rather naive since Slatkin and
Hitchman were doing far worse things. As were those who got their hooks into
Raul Lopez.
I'd like to make some historical parallels as is my wont to do, but I'm just
too utterly disgusted at this point.
C