MCCS meeting transcript

60 views
Skip to first unread message

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 9:13:02 PM3/11/07
to
I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06-21.html

In seeking possession of the MCCS tapes, which had been held by the
Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court following the 1984 trial in
the Scientology v. Armstrong case, the IRS had submitted a partial
transcript to the U.S. District Court to demonstrate a crime-fraud
exception to the attorney-client privilege. The MCCS meeting that was
recorded involved of course a number of attorneys for Hubbard and
Scientology, as well as Sea Org and GO staff members working on MCCS.
Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard ordered MCCS, and current cult head
David Miscavige operated the mission.

I have never seen what transcript the IRS used, and I did not give the
IRS any transcript at any time. I wrote the note that precedes the
transcript in 1982 and my ex-wife Jocelyn transcribed the tape. If the
IRS used it, the Service did not get it from me, and I do not recall
to whom I may have given it besides my attorneys, but I obviously gave
it to someone because it has now come back to me.

Because of the ongoing investigation of Scientology cult fraud, I am
posting this now, and I am grateful to whoever sent it to me. If
anyone knows if this is the partial transcript that was central to the
U.S. v. Zolin cases I would like know. The published opinions and a
number of other documents relating to MCCS are webbed on my site at:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/other-scientology-litigation.html

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its ruling:

[Quote]

The IRS denied that the transcripts were made using tapes obtained
from the Superior Court or from any other illicit source. Agent
Petersell declared: "The partial transcripts were not prepared by the
United States from the tapes in the custody of the Superior Court for
Los Angeles County, California, nor from copies of the tape now in the
custody of the Clerk of this Court. The transcripts were obtained from
a confidential source by another Special Agent prior to the issuance
of this summons. The source was not a party to Church of Scientology
v. Armstrong, No. 410153, nor an attorney for any party in that
proceeding." See Declaration of Agent Petersell in No. CV85-0440-HLH
(Tx) (March 21, 1985). As the District Court made no finding of
illegality, we assume for present purposes that the transcripts were
legally obtained.

[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06-21.html

My note:

[Quote]

Transcript of tape recording made 29 September 1980 at a meeting of
Scientology legal personnel, MCCS Mission personnel and attorney's of
Scn, LRH and Gold or New Era Pictures the film crew co.).

When I have been able to identify the speaker I have noted his or her
initials beside the statement. When I have not been able to identify
the speaker there are no initials.

The following people attended the meeting:

CP: Charles Parselle, then DGL WW.

AW: Alan Wertheimer, attorney for LRH who worked closely with Laurel
Sullivan and the MCCS mission, attempting to have LRH retain control
without liability or responsibility.

LS: Laurel Sullivan, LRH Personnel PR, and I/C of the Legal mission,
MCCS, which was attempting to shield LRH.

LB: Lisa Britowich, Laurel's junior on MCCS. Now kicked out,off
staff. Was in the GO at the time.

JM:James Murphy, LRH's tax attorney. He worked in the same firm as
Alan Wertheimer, - Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman in Beverly Hills. I
believe Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman have been dropped by the
organization. Wertheimer I know for sure has been dropped, Murphy I'm
not sure of.

DS: Dick Sullivan, Laurel's husband,and junior on the MCCS mission.

MC: Melanie Cook, attorney at Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman, who did a
lot of work on trademarks, etc.

Ron Fujikawa, worked on the film deals. Part of MCCS's actions was to
work out the legal arrangements for LRH to get paid for the films, and
I believe retain copyrights for them, plus work out distribution lines
with Pubs DK, and other related matters. Fujikawa is an attorney in
Century City.

I was given this tape by Barbara DeCelle, secretary on the MCCS
mission, in late 1981. Barbara had transcribed the various tapes and
gave me the cassettes for my use.

Some of the statements, particularly regarding RRF, eg. see p. 8 and
9, are very interesting.

GA

[End Quote]

The transcript:

[Quote]

I have gathered a fair amount of information on this and I have been
quoted by people who actually do documentary work of $22,750.00 for a
script for a half hour educational film.

It's low.

The numbers are low.

In part because documentaries and educational films are methods for
writers, directors and other talent to break into the business and
therefore (inaudible). So, I guess one of the problems then is that
anything you pick that is even reasonably on the high side is subject
to challenge because they will definitely be able to go and find other
people to work for < inaudible >.

CP: Right. So it could be as low as three.

It could be as low as three. There are other services that are
involved here in addition just to writing the script.

AW: And L. Ron Hubbard is not an unknown quantity. He's not somebody
trying to break into the business.

Admittedly.

CP: That's right.
Just the economics of making a half hour or an hour of educational
film is such that they can't afford to pay someone a great deal of
money. Certainly not the amounts that were originally contemplated or
have actually been paid in this particular arrangement.

CP: Right. That's right. Thereof one has to look at the fact that he
trained an entire crew for the Church. All those people are now
available to continue film-making for the Church if the Church wishes.
Plus the scores. All on their account. As far as we were concerned, he
trained them up. They are Church employees, they're Scientologists and
they are probably going to go on making films for Church purposes. But
even so, if we look in - I mean, I just did my little calculation and
it came out to just 1/2 a million. That's 33 times 15,000 and if you
add on bits for film scores and bits for the work for training and
something for the fact that he's not a newcomer trying to break into
the field as far as we are concerned.

LS: He also is the only person in the world who could ever write these
... the way they were written.

-1-

LB: Yeah.

LS: There's that.

CP: That's right. It's the score. I mean, it would have been really
impossible for CSC (Church of Scientology of California) to have gone
to another author for those films because they are entirely technical
films. He's the only chap who could have done it. But...

LB: He's also I think a ... there's more significance on the fact that
he was the author and what would the Catholic Church pay the Pope, for
instance to do that; or if Jesus Christ was alive today, what would
they pay for a lecture? You know.

LS: We're talking about a non-unknown quantity ... in the field.

LB: Yeah. There's a significance that's attached that makes his words
extremely valuable - priceless - to the Church that is different than
you are talking about you are just going to pay somebody to direct an
educational film. Well, you're going to pay Professor Joe Schmoe in a
University to be the lecturer for that film or if you are going to
hire, you know, a <inaudible> person to do it. There's going to be a
difference...

AW: You have two problems and you raise an interesting point in what
Jesus Christ would charge or what he would get paid. But ah, the two
things that are going on is that LRH does not want to be accountable
for all of the acts of the Church of Scientology since some of those
could be slightly out of bounds and he doesn't want to be in a
position where he is held accountable, on one hand. On the other hand,
the Church is attempting to maintain a certain tax exempt status and
they are worried that the status of the Church can be characterized as
nothing other than an alter ego for L. Ron Hubbard whereby certain
profit-making things are done in the name of the Church. So, with
those two things going on, what we're trying to do is have some sort
of structure whereby as much of those two things will continue as long
as possible. And I am not trying to say that what he has done is not
worth 2.1 million dollars <inaudible>... but you are talking about a
jury of 12 people who may have to decide whether L. Ron Hubbard is
sufficiently interwoven in the affairs of the Church to be held
accountable for some astrocity that should happen in the future.

LB: I understand. I just want to make sure that in a deal -if we're
going to have to deal with LRH - that it's due; I think Charles
<inaudible> are attaching a significance to

-2-

that. Well as long as we are going to attach a significance to his
contribution to the film-making, it should be, you know, <inaudible>.
male - Well, at some point you draw the line, I don't know if it's
worth 5 million dollars and I don't know if it's...

LS: Well, lets just look at his idea of it. His idea was that he
didn't want it... (someone entered the room)... The other point was
that LRH did not want any significance put on any services that he
provided the Church unless it was absolutely necessary... and this was
his instruction. He didn't want to be paid for anything other than the
goods that he actually delivered. Now, over the last few months, Mary
Sue has changed that because we have to justify the 2.1. She has said
we will count that now as an advice from a different period of time
and now we look at it again and that's why we are now considering
assigning significances to his abilities to edit film, shoot film,
create sets, music, etc. So, we don't want to go overboard on
assigning significances to service. We just want regular assets which
is the purpose for even assigning values to the services is only to
<inaudible>.

CP: Well, I think we can look at it from this point of view. As far as
the Church is concerned, if we paid him 2.1 million for making these
films for which ordinary industry standard is very, very, very much
less, we face an inurement problem. Therefore, if the Church's
attorneys had been involved with this transaction, we would have
advised the Church not to pay that kind of money because it would be
dangerous to our exempt status. However, if you would like to say that
he will do the work for nothing, obviously, the Church is - I,
representing the Church's attorney viewpoint, would say, "Terrific,
you're going to do it for nothing; that's fine." But of course, one
also has considerations as <inaudible> Scientologist which says it's
not right that he should make 33 films and occupy a good portion of
time doing that for no recompense whatsoever. I just want to - so as
far as I'm concerned, it can be as low as it can be from the Church
viewpoint but there is a point beyond which it cannot go and that is
the point at which it becomes unjustifiable in terms of industry
standards. Not taking the lowest possible figure, but taking the
highest reasonable figure. So, I put it back to you now as Ron's
attorney.

AW: If we're talking about a low figure, depending on how low it were,
I might say, the risks don't justify the benefits in this particular
instance because I know that he doesn't want to be named in lawsuits
and he does not want his finances looked into and where the line is,
just as with drawing any of these financial lines, I don't know.
Perhaps, as we're thinking about 2 million it could be an advance
against number

-3-

6; partly it could be compensation for services; partly it could be an
advance against a future share of the profits.

CP: Right. In terms of risk to him arising out of this particular
transaction, it's hard to see how there could be any risk. It's not
like, for example, the Purification Rundown where people might sue for
claiming injury.

AW: The real risk is the fact that the man has been paid a lot of
money which is greater than it should be...

CP: Right. But that's no risk to him.

AW: And fortunately for you... I think it is because the inurement has
two sides to it. If the Church is his alter ego, then he will be held
accountable for the acts of the Church, as well as the Church losing
its tax exempt status which is of no significance to him as L. Ron
Hubbard.

CP: I can't myself see it... I can see that the Church would lose its
tax exempt status if inurement is found but at the moment I can't see
how that would create a liability for him.

AW: Well, the whole piercing of the corporate veil in <inaudible>
cases is what we're talking about here. You know, where a person sets
up a corporation to run a business and the business has liabilities
and the person just says, "Well, it was my corporation; wasn't me. So,
go sue the corporation if you like, but it has no assets." And
<inaudible> it says if it is unjust to treat liabilities to the
corporation in the matter where the individual gets <inaudible>.

CP: Yes, but that I can - I can see that but I don't think that a
finding that part of the net earnings inured to his benefit in itself
pierces the corporate veil. Unless it could be showing that
corporation was indeed a sham for his benefit which would actually be
inconceivable in terms of the amounts of money involved. His take of
compensation...

AW: I'm not sure what the courts require. If I were on a jury and
somebody got paid 2 million dollars where $250,000, $300,000 or
$500,000 was the appropriate amount, the difference would be large
enough to me as an individual to think that perhaps something shady
was going on.

CP: So, in essence, what you're saying is that if the Church loses its
exempt status on the basis of inurement to him, there could also be a
finding that the whole corporation was in fact a sham for his benefit.
Which indeed, the IRS, are alleging in the current case and therefore
other litigants could pursue him directly bypassing the Church.

-4-

AW: A lot of this also is cumulative because there are other things
going on: The fact that he writes books which the Church publishes and
sells and pays for advertising and so forth and there's probably some
very meaty stuff there I would think. Jewelry. He has a lot of money
coming in because of what the Church does. And perhaps that amount of
money that's coming to him is not significant compared to the Church's
total, but it is in and of itself, significant.

CP: It's a lot of money. It certainly is percentage-wise very small.
But, do I take it that you do say that - is that your real worry, the
piercing of the corporate veil so that other litigants could pursue
him directly?

AW: I think that is the concern, yeah.

The reason we are structuring it this way is to keep the green box and
the red boxes as far away from each other as possible. We're trying to
at least confuse people who are trying to figure out exactly what it
is we're <inaudible>.

CP: Now I fully understand that. I'm just trying to see what we're -
if we say, don't give him anything at all for making the films. Other
way around. Sorry. If we say the inurement problem is a very real
problem. Any connection between him and the Church or substantial
connection between him and the Church is a real problem to him rather
than to the Church.

AW: I was dealing from his point of view.

CP: Yeah. 'Cause I tended to view it from the Church's point of view
and the Church is always fixated on the problem of inurement. From his
point of view I have always thought that there is no problem because,
provided he accounts for sums received, which of course he always
does, he would merely pay his tax and then...

AW: He is not always taxable. He receives <inaudible>
He gets a $35,000 annual consultant fee.

AW: $35,000 is not enough as far as I was concerned to get into
whether or not that's a fair amount and I just suggested that he
forget it. He gets - people work for him. People who are paid by the
Church render their exclusive services to him directly. That's
something that's always bothered me. Standing Order #1 is an area I've
had dealings in which hasn't been followed for ten years; yet there is
advertisement... There's a lot of things going on that really tie him
into the Church. If you get back to Jesus Christ delivering a lecture
to Christians, probably he would do that without being paid, I
guess,... not being Christian.

-5-

CP: I think on the whole, he did give lectures free and furthermore
fed people for nothing while they were there.

AW: My feeling is that if LRH knew up front that he wasn't going to
get paid for doing the films, he would have done them anyway.
female- Yes.

JM: If I may interject something here, the reason, I think, that
inurement is a problem on both sides of any congression is that an
actual finding of inurement which would jeopardize the Church's tax
exempt status presupposes a control relationship in addition to a
transfer of personal or extraordinary personal financial gain. And
that control relationship is a control relationship that we have been
primarily concerned with because that could be basis for suits by
private litigants whose main complaint against the Church from going
through the Church and looking at our client or any other organization
which was receiving money via the Church and has arguably some control
relationship with the Church. So that when Allen is referring to
inurement, we really - our concern is primarily this control
relationship aspect rather than the direct financial gain. And getting
back to what you indicated before, yes, if it were just a matter of
pure dollars and if you never had to look beyond those dollars, then
we would not be concerned. In fact, we would be quite happy that our
client received 2 million dollars. Allen, is that consistent with
...?

AW: The trade mark area which is next on our agenda has very little
to do with money and everything to do with control.

CP: Right. But it would be true to say then, that your concern about
control essentially is that 3rd party litigants will pursue him for
damages which will cost literally - which will be intolerable for him
in terms of his personal life. That's really the concern.

AW: I think so. I think the people have shown a predisposition to
suing him personally and perhaps this is part of their experience of
getting out of the Church. He seems to be the person, in addition to
the Church, who seems to be an important party.

CP: Oh, yeah, that's true and it is the fashion to sue him as well.

AW: Well, he's not without assets. He's well off and I would assume
would have the money to satisfy a few of these judgments if they
were successful and he certainly would have

-6-

to pay to defend them.

CP: True. That's absolutely right. You did say that he has not always
accounted for sums actually received. That is entirely at variance
with my understanding from Marty Greenburg that he has always
accounted for sums received. I realize that the Church has rendered
certain services to him in the form of personnel.

AW: That's the kind of thing that I was talking about.

CP: You're not talking about actual cash transfers.

AW: I don't know anything about that.

CP: Oh, you don't know about that. Well, as far as I know, he has
always been, through his accountants, entirely scrupulous about
accounting for every cent actually received. Benefits is another
matter entirely.

When we're talking about accounting, we are talking about accounting
from the financial standpoint; for example, tax authorities, as
opposed to accounting to the Church for the goods and services
rendered which would justify cash transfers. That's two separate kinds
of accounting. Are we talking about the same kind of accounting?

CP: Well, the kind of accounting I am talking about is accounting for
the IRS for his income expressed in terms of money.

Allen, when you are talking about accountability, are you referring
to exactly the same thing

AW: Indirectly I am.

CP: Yes.

Those are the only people who are going to raise the
question.

AW: The people I'm worried about are the IRS.

That's what all of this accounts for L. Ron Hubbard's <inaudible>.

CP: Good and that's great.

JM: This structurally a little more allows it. Because there was a
concern to interpose or to put a barrier between direct economic
relationships, between a tax exempt organization and LRH and we're
not for him continuing the economic

-7-

relationship. Some of us would get <inaudible>.

CP: Right.

JM: And that is not generated so much from this office as concern on
the part of the people representing the Church. And a direct economic
relationship, if it can be avoided, should be avoided.

CP: Right. Well I think the Church is always..

AW: And the control at the same time which is how the F & P thing
arose and here we have created - taken the people who in the English
terms really do control the Church, we have taken them out of the
Church and we've given the church its own Board of Directors who are
now supposed to control the Church after consulting with a separate,
separately incorporated body of people who in turn can look to LRH for
advice when they are unable to solve whatever problems they are being
asked to solve <inaudible>. We are trying to remove the man as much as
possible from allegations or <inaudible> control.

CP: Right. That's a very helpful exercise. And also I may say this,
that it is very very helpful for LRH to have his own attorneys, i.e.
yourselves, because for many years we have been missing this essential
service and we have done this exercise of trying to think of the way
it would be on the one side and trying to think of the way it would be
on the other side and it really doesn't work very well to do that. It
doesn't work to represent both parties at the same time. Especially if
you also happen to be a Scientologist and involved in that particular
way as well. So, I'm with relief representing the Church interest and
I certainly invite you to represent Ron's interest as much as you can.
I say that RRF, which is as far as I am concerned part of the Church,
made a mistake when it paid over that 2.1 million. RRF had nothing...
We could say that RRF and CSC are part of the same Church, even though
they are corporately different. I mean if anything was a sham
corporation, it's RRF.

AW: As I understand it, RRF receives monies that would otherwise be
due the California Church for services rendered by the California
Church to people outside of the country who decide to pay the Church
from outside the country.

CP: That's right.

AW: So that's basically right?

CP: That's right. Foreign - non-US Scientologists who wish to pay for
Flag services pay RRF and then go to Flag and take the services. RRF
was originally supposed to hold the money

-8-

until the service was rendered and then pay it to CSC. But in fact, it
has not really done that and so CSC has rendered much service to many
foreign Scientologists and RRF has got the money. Fortunately for us,
RRF wasn't incorporated until 1973 and we are now litigating 1972. So,
I haven't really tried to sort this one out but it obviously is the
classic case (loud laugh) of inurement, if not fraud.

(Several laughs.)

LS: Well, put.

It's all privileged.

DS: The tape recorder is going here, Charles.

CP: However, as you can see, our financial direction is really
weighted to this solution and it is an ongoing battle which I will
eventually win because I am the one who has to litigate the case next
year and we obviously have to handle RRF. The way we will probably
handle it is by simply saying it is part of the same Church, in fact.
Now that, of course, goes directly contrary to what you're doing which
is to split LRH off from the Church and to talk about the corporate
integrity of the different Churches. Unfortunately, the Churches do
not have any corporate integrity. And our efforts to give them
corporate integrity have not hitherto been successful. Now when you
talk around a table like this and there is no Internal Revenue agent
present, (whispered: I hope so), bugged or otherwise, one can work out
solutions. But when you are a few weeks away from a trial and
everything you say is going to be rammed down your throat, then you
have to start looking at what actually happened. And it's very
difficult to assign significances to things other than what was
actually being done at the time. We are trying to say for example that
Flag in 1970 is a part of California Church which is probably true but
there is no documentation to say that and the truth of the matter is
that Marty Greenburg, the accountant, decided to include Flag's
accounts in California accounts some years later for convenience. So
the decision, what is - the IRS can say and are in fact alleging that
Flag in those years, 1970 to 1972, was an unincorporated association
to which CSC's income inured on a grand scale. We cannot point to a
document which says, "Actually Flag was part of CSC during the years
of question" because it doesn't exist because no one really thought of
it. So, we have to have a different theory of the case which is going
to account for all facts and omitted facts which do exist.

Is this the why of efforts to create corporate integrity in 1980?

-9-

CP: Well, I think it certainly affects F & P. Possibly Laurel told you
I have thoughts about F & P. But I think perhaps shouldn't anticipate
ourselves.

What should we do with the 2.1 million dollars? Do you want LRH to
give that back? We'll declare it all a mistake and we'll negotiate it
fresh, or what? What would you like to do on that? What's your
thought?

CP: My thought is that the Church is very willing to pay LRH for all
the work which he did in creating those movies and ought to pay
generously but not excessively having in mind accepted industry
standards. Generously because he was the only person who could have
done it. Generously because he did everything. And generously because
he trained the Church crew from start to finish. And generously
because his name on the credits will ensure an audience and without
his name on the credits, one could be fairly confident that there
would be no Church audience. I think all those facts should be taken
into account in the reaching of a fair price.

Who will own the copyrights <inaudible>? Who will control the
dissemination of the films, how they are used, whether they are used
properly, or how long they will be used? Is that something that the
author can retain? <Inaudible.>

CP: Well___

And can control their uses for Churches, Missions, non-Scientology
organizations, such as WISE. Who knows who is going to use those
films?

LS: <Inaudible> will use the films; WISE will use the films; SMI may
use the films (only 3 of them). Why can't PDK own the copyrights?

CP: Well, who in fact owns the copyright? Normally, as far as I
understand it, the employer owns the copyright. But,

AW: Financier. Usually the financier - he who pays usually owns.

CP: That's right.

AW: Not always.

CP: Not always. In this case, we have a relationship between Ron and
the Church which is not entirely that of film director to film set. It
is also Founder of the Church and for the last 30 years, Ron has
always steadfastly insisted upon owning and retaining the copyrights
to any of his own work product. And I think we could say that in these
circumstances it is

-10-

completely understood without even the necessity of saying it. That
where Ron produces something of this nature, he owns the copyright. I
would have thought that was well defensible.

MC: Is the underlying work already published? What the film is made
from, is that already published in <inaudible> covering the script?
Script?

MC: It's just a script, it's not a book or anything...

CP: No, it's just a script.

-11-

[End Quote]

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 11:15:23 PM3/11/07
to
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:13:02 GMT, Gerry Armstrong
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:

>I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
>as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
>reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06-21.html
>
>In seeking possession of the MCCS tapes, which had been held by the
>Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court following the 1984 trial in
>the Scientology v. Armstrong case, the IRS had submitted a partial
>transcript to the U.S. District Court to demonstrate a crime-fraud
>exception to the attorney-client privilege. The MCCS meeting that was
>recorded involved of course a number of attorneys for Hubbard and
>Scientology, as well as Sea Org and GO staff members working on MCCS.
>Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard ordered MCCS, and current cult head
>David Miscavige operated the mission.
>
>I have never seen what transcript the IRS used, and I did not give the
>IRS any transcript at any time. I wrote the note that precedes the
>transcript in 1982 and my ex-wife Jocelyn transcribed the tape. If the
>IRS used it, the Service did not get it from me, and I do not recall
>to whom I may have given it besides my attorneys, but I obviously gave
>it to someone because it has now come back to me.

To correct the record, I didn't obviously give the transcript to
anyone. For all I know, someone stole it from me, or stole it from my
attorneys.

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Out_Of_The_Dark

unread,
Mar 11, 2007, 11:37:27 PM3/11/07
to
On Mar 11, 9:13 pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
> I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
> as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
> reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06...
> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org <

I am reading this thinking........"I cannot believe they actually
tape recorded that meeting. "
I am still reading it.
I hope someone answers your question.


Message has been deleted

SME

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 12:33:41 PM3/12/07
to
On Mar 11, 11:37 pm, "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Now you know why we did not record meetings when doing the corporate
sortout after MCCS! lol

Gerry's post here is a very important one.

Here we have various church staff from the Church of Scientology of
California on that MCCS mission (run by DM), the DG Legal WW and
various attorneys trying to work out some legal signifance for $2.1
million that was funneled to Hubbard from a paper corporation (RRF) so
as to protect Hubbard legally and try not to show that revenues from
the church were in fact inureing to Hubbard's benefit and thus risk
tax exempt status for the church.

As you can see just from this transcript: 1) the money was already
given to Hubbard; 2) it was given by a phony corporation (RRF) that
was banking all the monies paid by public from outside of the USA for
flag services; 3) they now needed to legally justify the money already
sent to Hubbard; 4) they were worried that this might show Hubbard was
controlling the church (which he was); 5) they were also worried about
the IRS auditing the church and were trying to back track and say flag
would be part of CSC (Church of Scientology of California); and 6)
they were worried of losing a chance at tax exempt status if they
could not come up with the signifance to legally justify the amount of
money to Hubbard as reasonable.

This transcript very accurately shows the kind of discussions that
went on all the time as part of the corporate sortout after MCCS as
well. If you can imagine this and maybe 50 or more other
considerations as big or even bigger than this, you can get some idea
of the magnitude of things covered on that corporate sortout.
Sometimes we had meetings with 15 or more attorneys and CPA types to
go over different "problem areas". There would be some of the top
attorneys in the world addressing such issues as the above (tax exempt
status, gutting CSC of assets, dealing with the fact that Hubbard was
controlling things and matters involving other potential real problems
with the IRS and damages claimants). So much was woven into that
"corporate sortout" that had to do with corporate, taxes, intellectual
property rights, contracts, trusts, controls, etc.

Basically there were real problems because Hubbard really was the one
controlling organized scientology and there was a great deal of money
funneled to him for his private benefit for which there was no really
defensible legal signifance. Additionally, a large part of the
church's "eggs" were in fact in the CSC corporate basket (flag, AOLA,
ASHO, LA Org, San Francisco Org, USGO and really all of top
management, including CMO). On top of all that, there was no real
corporate integrity throughout organized scientology, the GO had
undated resignations of all corporate officers and board members of
all church corporations throughout the world and, frankly, most local
staffs who were legally in such positions didn't even know it .Couple
this with the facts that the IRS was breathing down CSC's corporate
neck and there were many damages cases looming and you have a legal
mess.

I state the above to point just how real those issues were in the
transcript Gerry just posted.

Now, without going into details, here's the real kicker:

The "corporate sortout" was done in late 81 through 82, with various
other pieces following. Millions was spent to cover all legal issues
and get it right and "defensible". The net result included the
following:

1) CSI comes out as the new "mother church" and all churches of
scientology signing agreements acknowledging same. What is supposed to
be "top management" is put in CSI. This ends up including CMO Int/WDC,
the ED Int's Office and OSA;

2) The orgs that were once the big revenue-producing arms of CSC
(flag, AOLA, ASHO, LA Org and San Francisco org) become separate
corporations. They, like other orgs, are managed by CSI;

3) SMI exists and licenses missions and SMI is managed out of CSI;

4) WISE exists and gets involved with "putting ethics" in various
businesses run by scientologists and WISE is managed out of CSI;

5) RTC is created as a "non management body" to see to the proper
usage of all the trademarks and service marks. It hold various rights
to the usage of the trade/service marks and, through it, all orgs
(including CSI) are licensed to use them;

6) CST gets created to eventually receive most of Hubbard's fortune,
the rights to his copyrights, etc and will work on the "preservation"
of the tech. Very important is that CST, for $100, can take all rights
to the trademarks and service marks from RTC should they ever be at
risk in RTC. If needed, CST could then license the churches itself or
create and license another body like RTC;

7) ASI (Author Services) is setup to manage Hubbard fiction works and
otherwise his copyrighted works as a for profit corporation. It is to
take all that out of the church corporately. It is to have nothing to
do with the management of the church. Later, Author Services is to
become owned by CST;

8) The Publications organizations (Bridge in the USA and New Era in
Denmark) then deal mostly with the manufacture and distribution of
Hubbard's works related to dianetics and scientology. They have
royalty contracts with Hubbard. Later, both organizations are owned by
a non profit "trust";

9) many trusts are established, more come later, to receive monies
from various churches. They are set up as non profit. (For example, a
films trust is set up to receive a portion of each church's revenues
weekly "in exchange for" the churches being allowed to show the films
to their staffs and public);

10) old "problem" entities are eventually gotten rid of (RRF, OTC,
CSC, etc.). For example, the last of the monies in OTC that did not
end up inuring to Hubbard's benefit were transferred to a "non profit"
trust, CSC is let to die a financial death as all its assets were
stripped out of it;

11) IAS gets setup to get millions directly from any scientology
public that hope to be able to do services again in churches;

12) additional little fancy legal steps are taken later to further
spread out the money into various trusts and a company is setup in the
UK that is staffed by Sea Org members to help "manage" the reserves of
individual churches.

Whew! lol My point is that what was once basically CSC with all the
legal problems mentioned above is now most of those things above. What
were both CSC's and hidden funds before are now neatly spread out
around the world in various trusts and such. What was legally
confusing before (the legal status and control of the publications
orgs, non US public monies to flag, the licensing of trademarks, the
legal "distinctions" between Hubbard's and the church's interests,
etc.) are now more clarified and "defensible".

So this sounds kind of neat huh? Quite a sophisticated legal setup
compared to the old CSC days!!

For some people, this evolution was supposed to be a new legal
beginning where things could be legally clear, Hubbard's and the
church's interests separated and legally defensible and the church
itself having a legal structure that no one could topple. And it would
be a "new era" in that management would go in to actually mirror the
corporate structure. By that I mean, things like the following would
really happen:

1) CSI, through the likes of CMO Int and the ED Int's office would
manage scientology orgs, missions and the like;

2) a body would exist that is truly not management called "RTC" and it
would simply focus on the "pureness" of the technology covered by the
trademarks;

3) money could go to Hubbard, not by cover up and lies, but actually
via legally defensible channels, such as market-based royalties, that
could be shown to the likes of the IRS;

4) ASI would truly be an organization that does what it says it does,
which is make money on his fiction works, etc. It would be separate
from the church and not in any way be involved in the management of
the church.

So, did this happen? Were lessons like those covered in the transcript
finally learned and would this now be a corporate structure that
reflects the actual operating reality of the church? Could the church
now legally take responsibility for its past tax and other financial
frauds, pay what it must to the IRS, etc. and start a new, honest
life? Now that the GO is disbanded, is it truly a new era without
dirty tricks, illegal actions and the like? Was this the beginning of
real and honest "church" expansion, in effect a new era for growth?

Not even close!

1.Remember the $2.1 million sent to Hubbard they were trying to deal
with as covered in that transcript? Quite a huge problem right? Guess
what? In 1982 alone, with the GO now out of the way, DM sees that over
$40 million is funneled to Hubbard from his position in ASI. Not $2,1
million, $40+++ million! There is no longer any kind of "check and
balance" to any degree within organized scientology. The GO is gone
and DM can do whatever he wants. The $40 million is gotten in part
using funds obtained through huge abuses on churches, missions,
individuals, etc.

Here is a quote from a small section of an affidavit filed in the
Fishman case in 1994 that may be of some interest on this matter:
"44f. What is also not seen in Exhibits 23, 24 and
25, is that the Mission Holder Conference was held
in order to perpetrate an enormous financial fraud
and scam on CSI and individual Mission Holders,
and was done with the full knowledge and
participation of Miscavige, others present as well
as Hubbard as follows: (1) Through massive
intimidation and coercion ("Fair Game"), the
wealthy and independent Mission Holders were
forced to pay huge sums of money through CSI to
ASI; (2) ASI funneled the money through a Liberian
shell corporation, Religious Research Foundation,
and through Canada, into Hubbard's private bank
accounts in Luxembourg and Lichtenstein; (3)
During only part of 1982, over forty million
dollars from the non-profit CSI was funneled
through the for profit ASI into Hubbard's personal
bank accounts, attached hereto as Exhibit 26,
according to trial testimony of Homer Schomer in
JULIE CHRISTOFFERSON TITCHBOURNE vs. CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY, et al., pages 3609, 3611, 3614-3620,
3629-3630". "

2. The corporate integrity that was made to appear real in all that
structure mentioned earlier, was completely untrue, despite repeated
statements to the contrary by DM in courts in the 90s, under penalty
of perjury. While he was in ASI legally, he ran CSI and RTC with an
iron fist and through his control of CMO Int, RTC and Special Unit ran
the church completely. This will be proven as part of the ongoing
criminal investigation. The amazing thing is that the corporate
integrity was now, after the "corporate sortout" WORSE than when the
GO basically ran it. DM had total dictatorial control. ; and

3) Starting in late 81 with the advent of the new corporate structure
and DM securing complete control over the organizations, there have
been wholesale abuses of scientology staff, public and critics through
countless means. In 1982 alone, under DM, more people were horribly
abused, gang bang sec checked, declared, fair gamed and the like than
in the entire history of the GO! Since then over 35,000 who were once
are staff, have been declared "suppressive persons" by and under DM.

The biggest violator of all this has been DM, yet he is the one who
has been the church spokesperson in courts legally to stress things
like how complete the corporate integrity is in organized scientology,
how they have reformed from the old GO days and the like. Nothing can
be further from the truth, It has gotten far worse. It is being proven
now.

This all is simply the tip of the iceberg but I wanted to mention the
above to give the investigation and the understanding of the
transcript some context.

The transcript gives a tiny piece of the truth. It took a lot of
courage for Gerry to do what he did to expose this. Having worked
directly with DM for a couple years after that and knowing his hatred
of Gerry, I truly believe if Gerry had not released this information
publicly after he fled the church, he would not be alive today. In my
opinion, at the very least if DM and his crew could have caught Gerry
before he released things like this, Gerry would have been subjected
to horrible physical abuse and indefinite incarceration within the
church.

Anyway folks, I hope this gives more meaning to just what is behind
those transcripts.

SME


antisectes

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 1:53:40 PM3/12/07
to

Great!

I loved these passages where they parralel the Christ and LRon!

"LB: He's also I think a ... there's more significance on the fact that
he was the author and what would the Catholic Church pay the Pope, for
instance to do that; or if Jesus Christ was alive today, what would

they pay for a lecture? You know. later:


AW: You have two problems and you raise an interesting point in what
Jesus Christ would charge or what he would get paid. But ah, the two
things that are going on is that LRH does not want to be accountable

...:"

and later we have the astrocity thing - [go to Trementina to see its
earthly astroport]:

"... but you are talking about a
jury of 12 people who may have to decide whether L. Ron Hubbard is
sufficiently interwoven in the affairs of the Church to be held
accountable for some astrocity that should happen in the future."

and later, they say their fear of a suit coming from the Purification:

"CP: Right. In terms of risk to him arising out of this particular
transaction, it's hard to see how there could be any risk. It's not
like, for example, the Purification Rundown where people might sue for
claiming injury."

This passage says how well Dwarfscavige understood the MCCS tapes and
applied them to his cult via the RTC/CST sham:

"AW: The trade mark area which is next on our agenda has very little

to do with money and everything to do with control." (same lmater under
the form:


"Ron has always steadfastly insisted upon owning and retaining the
copyrights
to any of his own work product."

which leads to:


"I mean if anything was a sham

corporation, it's RRF." and just later to this:

"So, I haven't really tried to sort this one out but it obviously is the
classic case (loud laugh) of inurement, if not fraud."

[Here they laugh , knowing well what a fraud is]

moreover so since what the "church" paid is:

"MC: It's just a script, it's not a book or anything...

CP: No, it's just a script."

r


Out_Of_The_Dark

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 11:56:11 PM3/12/07
to
On Mar 12, 12:33 pm, "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:

Excellent summary! Now can you clue me on what happened to matters
that no one got prosecuted and what significance and time line of
Meade Emory getting posted to CST has to all this. And how did DM get
so much control when LRH seemed to be running everything throuh his
laweyers and accountants as I was always under the impression was the
case? Others seem to disagree in the past with this picture of
Emory? Do you think DM had enough or equal dirt on the IRS by the
time the IRS had this dirt on Hubbard and CSC, that with Hubbard dead,
some deals could be made financially and contractually to keep the
church from meing fined and taxed into non existence?


I was glad to see Marty's name pop up it the transcripts because I'd
never seen that before but know he was involved. I know Larry Heller
did work for LRH & CSC in the 70's and he and Marty were friends, too.
I used to work for Marty back before he retired to help LRH & corp
sortout full time.

I see you are from NH, Marty's stomping grounds. Any idea how he is
doing? Is he still alive?

Thanks so much for the summary.

Mary Out_Of_The Dark

Out_Of_The_Dark

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 10:10:54 AM3/13/07
to
On Mar 12, 11:56 pm, "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Sorry for the typos. It was late :)

Mary Out_Of_The Dark


SME

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 12:05:37 PM3/13/07
to
On Mar 12, 11:56 pm, "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 12, 12:33 pm, "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Excellent summary! Now can you clue me on what happened to matters
> that no one got prosecuted and what significance and time line of
> Meade Emory getting posted to CST has to all this.

Hiya Mary. As far as prosecutions goes, I'd be glad to chat about that
on private channels. Let's just say that they have managed to settle
cases before the truth got out or otherwise "handled" the opposition.
And to this day, most attorneys will not touch a scientology case in
part due to the huge costs associated with same (the church knows well
how to make legal very, very costly to the opposition) or the
harassment they have to deal with after in effect becoming "fair game"
by fighting the church. As far as their "handling" some governmental
bodies like the IRS goes, well I understand that is under
investigation.

As for Meade and CST, there is much false information all over the web
about this. I worked extensively with Meade as part of the corporate
sortout. As well, Meade and some other attorneys and I were the first
to meet with the top IRS reps after the corporate sortout, in their
national offices in Washington D.C. Present for the IRS were some of
their top people who were handling scientology cases such as Charlie
Rump, Jean Gessay and Joe Tedesco (spelling on all of them = ?). It
was a first step to try to start the process of "making peace" and I'm
not so sure much came of it really. But Meade was helping in opening
the door to at least talking due to his past positions within the IRS.

In my opinion Meade was a very good person and an excellent attorney.
He was a partner in a Seattle law firm we used. Leon Misterix also was
in that firm and, in my opinion, also was a very good man and
excellent attorney. Lyman Spurlock worked with them on CST and RTC
matters and I worked with them extensively as well. They were both key
attorneys on the corporate sortout. But they were not hardly the only
attorneys used, nor were they used to the extent some others were
used.

The rumors of them somehow "taking over the church" are completely
unfounded. I've seen the theories of how "the IRS" took over the
church on behalf of the CIA so as to control the "advanced technology"
for CIA remote viewing purposes. lol That is completely untrue. When I
was Special Unit IC there was almost a meeting with the CIA but
nothing came of it and it had nothing to do with the corporate
sortout. RTC was even going to give me an "implant check" after I
attended the meeting with the CIA, had we done it. (not kidding) How
crazy would THAT have been! LOL Yes there is some "history" on this
subject mentioned on the web but I can assure you that none of it had
to do with the corporate sortout and controls of the church.

Some people forward the above theory and support it by pointing out
how Meade and two other attorneys were "Special Directors" of CST.

Like so many things in scientology's corporate structure, that is
misleading. Here is part of a post I made months ago on XSO that
covers this subject:

"Here is a section of CST's bylaws that forwards this conspiracy to
some who allege that this makes the special directors in control:
"The Special Directors shall carry out their duties by approving or
vetoing every resolution, vote, or act of the General Directors which
in any way directly or indirectly affects the duties of the Special
Directors set forth above. In addition, Special Directors may by
unanimous vote direct the General Directors to consider any matter
which comes within the scope of their duties, as outlined above".

Please note though two things about this paragraph:

1) those attorney special directors can approve or veto those actions
that affect "the duties of the Special Directors"; and

2) they can direct the real directors to "consider" things.

So what are the duties of these "Special Directors" that they have
this apparent power regarding? Well, I am glad you asked lol Per the
bylaws they are:

"d. Particular Functions of the Special Directors. The Special
Directors, acting by a majority of their authorized number are
empowered to ensure the following:
i. That the corporation attains tax exempt status, as soon as
practical, and that such status is maintained throughout the existence
of the corporation.
ii. That no part of the corporation inure to the benefit of any
private individual, firm or corporation.
iii. That the assets of the corporation are not subject to waste and/
or extravagance but are instead increased in value.
iv. That proper Scientology management is correctly applied to the end
that the purposes of the corporation are accomplished".

This is mostly legal/tax stuff really when you boil it down.
Furthermore, see the following bylaw section that shows these Special
Directors can be handled by the regular, Scientologist, directors/
trustees:

"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".

Also, there are strict requirements of being in good standing, done
with OT VII or on it and being a classed auditor to be a regular
director. Only someone in the licensed scientology church structure
has a hope of qualifying for the real powers here.

There is more I can say on this to explain it further but trust me
these guys DO NOT control scientology through the trademarks or
otherwise".

Anyway, Mary that's the info relevant to that point about the
attorneys and CST.

There are so many hidden little things written into the church's
corporate docs to ensure that the "ecclesiastical authority" (meaning
the top Sea Org management as run by DM) really controls it all. For
example "proper Scientology management" must be applied in CST. Who
determines what is "proper scientology management"? I guess that would
go back to RTC huh? Another example is how the real directors and
trustees who could legally control CST must be in good standing with
the mother church. Well guess who is the "mother church"? It's CSI.
Guess who has the real powers over CSI on things that matter? RTC.
Guess who controls RTC? DM. lol This is actually overly simple. This
whole corporate structure is nothing more than an alter ego of LRH
(and now DM) of total, central control by DM while trying to hide the
control and protect it from attack. There are more "veils" in that
corporate setup than the highest Tibetan monastery has steps!


> And how did DM get
> so much control when LRH seemed to be running everything throuh his
> laweyers and accountants as I was always under the impression was the
> case? Others seem to disagree in the past with this picture of
> Emory?

See my earlier ars post about the real powers in scientology. It goes
into the All Clear Unit run by DM and it's evolution into "special
project" and "special unit" and then into ASI, RTC and CSI, etc. That
pretty much covers that subject.

> Do you think DM had enough or equal dirt on the IRS by the
> time the IRS had this dirt on Hubbard and CSC, that with Hubbard dead,
> some deals could be made financially and contractually to keep the
> church from meing fined and taxed into non existence?

As this goes into something under investigation and concerning which I
do not have first hand information, there's not much I can say here.
At this point it's up for speculation how they got that huge IRS
settlement just after losing major cases to the IRS on the same
matters. There have been postings about DM saying Hubbard would have
to die in order to handle the IRS but I did not hear any such comments
he may have made personally and cannot attest to the context.

They did pay the IRS $12,500,000 as part of that "settlement". I
believe that DM thought/thinks that with LRH dead and "the past" of
RRF, OTC, etc, "paid for" it is all over with the IRS. I believe he is
wrong about that.

Also under investigation are all the submissions they made to the IRS
as part of that whole process.

>
> I was glad to see Marty's name pop up it the transcripts because I'd
> never seen that before but know he was involved. I know Larry Heller
> did work for LRH & CSC in the 70's and he and Marty were friends, too.
> I used to work for Marty back before he retired to help LRH & corp
> sortout full time.
>
> I see you are from NH, Marty's stomping grounds. Any idea how he is
> doing? Is he still alive?

Marty has more knowledge on the pre 1981 tax and legal history of all
church entities than all people currently on staff in the church have.
He was huge on IRS matters for years. There are only two people left
on staff that have much real corporate/tax knowledge. Lyman Spurlock
is one but his real knowledge starts in 1980. He understands more
about "the corporate sortout" than DM or anyone in OSA. He was very
conflicted right after the corporate sortout due to all of DM's
demands of total control and of millions to Hubbard regularly (thus
completely negating just about every bit of corporate integrity we
tried to put in there with the corporate sortout). I always considered
Lyman a good guy and I have no idea how it is that he has stuck it out
with them, despite all the lies and abuses. I don't know Mary, he must
really believe in scientology because he's got to know that the
evidence he can produce can make a huge difference in righting wrongs.
The other person I would prefer not to name here as I am hoping he/she
can supply evidence of the truth as part of ongoing investigations.

Marty was not let be part of the corporate sortout that started in 81.
So he was not involved in it. Yes he did live in NH when he worked in
RealWorld and personally I consider him one of the nicest people I
have ever known. I have zero connections with him now. I know he's a
practicing scientologist and respect him too much to try to be in
contact with him knowing that church management would abuse him if he
were in touch with me.

>
> Thanks so much for the summary.

Thank you too Mary. Anything further on this, let's do private ok?

Take care...
SME

Out_Of_The_Dark

unread,
Mar 12, 2007, 11:33:03 PM3/12/07
to
On Mar 11, 11:50 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
> In article <s5a9v29lr3j0hf4g6b2fd7qv5ef851r...@4ax.com>,

> Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
> > I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
> > as to whether it is the partial tape transcript
>
> snip
>
> Larry and Gerry, dynamic duo....
>
> a < <

WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES, ALEX!!!! lol!!

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 4:42:31 PM3/13/07
to
On 12 Mar 2007 09:33:41 -0700, "SME" <larrybr...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Mar 11, 11:37 pm, "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 9:13 pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
>> > as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
>> > reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06...
>> > © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org<
>>
>> I am reading this thinking........"I cannot believe they actually
>> tape recorded that meeting. "
>> I am still reading it.
>> I hope someone answers your question.
>
>Now you know why we did not record meetings when doing the corporate
>sortout after MCCS! lol
>
>Gerry's post here is a very important one.
>
>Here we have various church staff from the Church of Scientology of
>California on that MCCS mission (run by DM), the DG Legal WW and
>various attorneys trying to work out some legal signifance for $2.1
>million that was funneled to Hubbard from a paper corporation (RRF) so
>as to protect Hubbard legally and try not to show that revenues from
>the church were in fact inureing to Hubbard's benefit and thus risk
>tax exempt status for the church.

In December 1981, as part of the restructuring, SO staff were required
to sign new "contracts," entitled "Declaration of Religious Commitment
and Application for Active Participation on Church Staff." I was
ordered to sign one for CSI, but I didn't and instead blew the cult.

The contract contained this "condition," which was very significant to
me and hastened my exit:

[Quote]

I recognize and understand that neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard
receive any compensation or remuneration from training or processing
by the Church, that that neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard are officers
or directors of the Church and that neither of them are in any manner
responsible for actions of the Church.

[End Quote]

It was also significant in the trial in Scientology v. Armstrong in
1984, and significant, I believe, to Judge Breckenridge who stated in
his judgment:

[Quote]

The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this
bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The
evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar
when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The
writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism,
greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness
against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html

There is some discussion of the new CSI staff contract and this
particular condition about Hubbard receiving no compensation or
remuneration in this trial transcript:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/rt-1984-05-14.html

Were you involved in the creation of these staff contracts? And if so,
what can you recall about the project?

I'm assembling some material relating to the fraud of "What your fees
buy," and this condition in the staff contracts is part of the
picture. Clearly, Hubbard for years had taken huge sums in
compensation or remuneration from the organization, and I believe that
all staff or former staff who believed what he stated in "What your
fees buy" and believed what was stated in their staff contracts have a
real fraud claim now that the admissions of inurement in the MCCS
meeting transcript and your knowledge of the other millions paid to
Hubbard are becoming public.

Some day soon I'll have to debrief you about Miscavige's personal
hatred for me. This testimony will be important in ending the
Scientology v. Armstrong war, and DM's dirty war on SPs everywhere.

Thanks for your excellent work and for speaking out now.

>
>Anyway folks, I hope this gives more meaning to just what is behind
>those transcripts.
>
>SME
>

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Message has been deleted

Out_Of_The_Dark

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 9:25:58 PM3/13/07
to
On Mar 13, 4:42 pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
> ..............{..}

>
> >Anyway folks, I hope this gives more meaning to just what is behind
> >those transcripts.
>
> >SME
>
> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org < <

Thanks to you both, Gerry and SME for the information, answers and
efforts to get the truth out. Your posts on this thread really helped
put things in a perspective that aligned with the information I
already knew and facts that I have read before. Keep us informed when
you can. :)

Mary Out_Of_The_Dark

www.raids.org


Keith Henson

unread,
Mar 13, 2007, 9:42:03 PM3/13/07
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:42:31 GMT, Gerry Armstrong
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:

snip


>
>It was also significant in the trial in Scientology v. Armstrong in
>1984, and significant, I believe, to Judge Breckenridge who stated in
>his judgment:
>
>[Quote]
>
>The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this
>bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The
>evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar
>when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The
>writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism,
>greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness
>against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.
>
>[End Quote]
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html

Things have not changed a bit since he died. In fact, you could make
the case DM is even worse off than LRH.

Keith Henson

SME

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 4:27:25 PM3/14/07
to
> [End Quote]http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision....

>
> There is some discussion of the new CSI staff contract and this
> particular condition about Hubbard receiving no compensation or
> remuneration in this trial transcript:http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/rt-1984-05-14.html
>
> Were you involved in the creation of these staff contracts? And if so,
> what can you recall about the project?

The new staff contracts were part of the corporate sortout that we
did. The dating in early Dec 81 was to coincide with the date that we
picked for CSI to start as the new mother church. It was a tiny piece
of a bigger puzzle to put in the new structure.

As of that date we took all who were in CSC and determined which staff
would go to which of the new corporations (CSI, FSO, LAO, ASHO, AOLA,
etc.) and who would stay in CSC.

You were obviously chosen to be a CSI staff member so got that CSI
contract.

All I can say about the lies about LRH not getting any such
compensation was that those of us who really designed the corporate
structure with the attorneys and accountants for DM and LRH thought
that was to be the case from that point on. It turned out to be far
from the truth. DM grilled me on points of control and LRH's ability
to run things in approving the corporate plans but by the end of my
meeting him, I really thought things would in fact change for the
better and corporate integrity would truly go in. Looking back on that
meeting now, I should have seen what was coming.

I, with another, had done an evaluation in Aug 81 showing how the
ecclesiastical and corporate structures were so unaligned and sent it
up through DM to Hubbard for approval. We were hoping to "educate" on
the need for changes with that eval. I was then picked for corporate
sortout. For what it is worth, there truly was an intention on the
part of a number of us to get it right this time but, unfortunately DM
had other plans.

Once the structure was implemented, DM started demanding money to
Hubbard weekly. In courts DM later positioned himself for that time
period as having been in ASI representing Hubbard with no control
whatsoever over the church corporations such as CSI and RTC. If you
follow what DM said in courts you would think that the next two years
after the corporate sortout he was somehow "negotiating" with us in
CSI on matters that might have to do with funds to Hubbard or anything
else. Also he says that those in ASI, as they represented Hubbard,
were doing some "coordination" with us in CSI with regard suits that
might also include Hubbard.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As regards the suits, he and
Norman Starkey fully took over running the CSI area dealing with the
suits. This was a CSI department heading by Marty Rathbun who was then
"Special Unit Litigation Execution". ASI gave all the orders on how to
handle the suits and what CSI or any other church corporations would
file or otherwise do with the suits.

As far as the money to Hubbard goes, DM also lied in courts when he
said the above. The facts are throughout 82 and into 83 DM was
ordering us to "legally justify" money to Hubbard regularly. Instead
of negotiating on behalf of Hubbard from his position in ASI, DM was
ordering the funds be paid regularly and often. Lyman Spurlock in ASI
and I in CSI desperately tried weekly to come up with legal
significances that were justifiable to cover the monies that DM
ordered be sent to Hubbard. We tried to query the orders but DM
responded that they had to be "made legal" and that the funds were
going whether we made them legal or not and threatened non compliance
with strangulation and worse. Many details of this will be disclosed
shortly.

There were times that Lyman was over with me in the Special Unit
conference room totally exasperated as we laid on the floor exhausted
listening on the conference phone to this week's ASI demands for money
to Hubbard and how we had to come up with legal justifications. Lyman
and I both knew that DM was just killing all the legal defenses that
we had just spent millions working out to put in a real, defensible
corporate structure and to keep Hubbard and Church interests
separated. We tried every trick in the book to legally justify things
and tried to get DM to stop with the insane money demands to Hubbard
but he would just not listen.

I figured that through 1982 several million dollars for Hubbard was
taken by DM and perhaps there was some chance we could defend much of
it legally and still consider the church corporations tax exempt.
Imagine my shock when years later I find in 1982 alone, DM took over
$40 million of it. Jeeze he just took much of it and did not even TRY
to go through us anymore. He just took it! And he was in ASI when he
took it.

So the truth is Gerry that DM's actions as above made a total mockery
of that part of the staff "contract". It ended up being a fraud..

DM even spit on, beat and /or otherwise abused his own ASI people (see
Homer Shomer docs for an example) if he considered they were not
getting Hubbard enough money or losing money that could be Hubbard's.
Every time we put in a corporate structure, DM would violate it. He
ran a reign of terror from ASI. His alleged "non involvement" in
church management when he was in ASI and just "coordinating" and
"negotiating" with the church included such things as ordering who
would run RTC, who would run the key parts of CSI (WDC/CMO Int for
example) and then running those people himself and deciding who of
them got busted. This included things like him going to Int and
spitting on top church WDC/CMO Int executives, punching in the mouth
hard, slapping across the face hard and choking hard. And, again,
this was in the time period he says in court he was in ASI and not
involved in running the church.

And all this information is just the very tip of the iceberg.

All our corporate work went for naught and the man that destroyed it
all, DM, was the one to testify later about how separate the
corporations were and how he did not in fact run corporations other
than the one he was in.

Most people would be shocked to find out how much they have gotten
away with in theirs lies in many forums outside of the courts. I have
been being interviewed by a number of people recently and another is
flying in to spend two days with me shortly just to understand some
things that happened. None of them have any real grasp of what
happened in 81/82 nor about the corporate scene there, even though
some have written about them and are doing articles, shows or books
now. One told me that he/she was told by a very top person in OSA (who
I am not naming now) that the following "proved" scientology was
"religious":

1) "scientology" is incorporated as a "religious corporation"; and
2) the Mormon church is incorporated as a "religious corporation";
and
3) both "scientology" and the Mormons have been persecuted; and
4) the Mormons are religious; and therefore
5) "scientology" is religious.

Aside from the fact that "scientology" is not incorporated, nor is
there a category for "religious corporations", OMG where does one even
start with that one!? lol I had a ball debunking that with him/her.
So when even something as ridiculously simple as this is confusing to
some writers, just imagine what confusions their big, complex
corporate structure is doing to back off other writers from looking at
it. Even many people with a more than average legal background often
buy into their lies as they just cannot understand it.


>
> I'm assembling some material relating to the fraud of "What your fees
> buy," and this condition in the staff contracts is part of the
> picture. Clearly, Hubbard for years had taken huge sums in
> compensation or remuneration from the organization, and I believe that
> all staff or former staff who believed what he stated in "What your
> fees buy" and believed what was stated in their staff contracts have a
> real fraud claim now that the admissions of inurement in the MCCS
> meeting transcript and your knowledge of the other millions paid to
> Hubbard are becoming public.

Well, Gerry, consider the above my long winded way of agreeing with
you that, thanks to DM, that part of the staff contract and the issue
covering "What your fees buy" was a total fraud. It was before "the
corporate sortout" in 1981 and, despite millions spent to remedy it,
DM made it even worse after 1981.


>
>
> >The transcript gives a tiny piece of the truth. It took a lot of
> >courage for Gerry to do what he did to expose this. Having worked
> >directly with DM for a couple years after that and knowing his hatred
> >of Gerry, I truly believe if Gerry had not released this information
> >publicly after he fled the church, he would not be alive today. In my
> >opinion, at the very least if DM and his crew could have caught Gerry
> >before he released things like this, Gerry would have been subjected
> >to horrible physical abuse and indefinite incarceration within the
> >church.
>
> Some day soon I'll have to debrief you about Miscavige's personal
> hatred for me. This testimony will be important in ending the
> Scientology v. Armstrong war, and DM's dirty war on SPs everywhere.

Well Gerry, if you mean things like DM using highly personal
information culled from your PC folders to criticize and "make fun of"
you to others and other things like that, I think you will find that
you are no exception to their tendency to do that. Especially, in your
case, DM.

I've seen what they have done to you and expect the same sort of
things to come my way. I have pretty much decided recently that when
their lies about me start hitting all over and they start their fair
game "legal actions" against me, I am willing to take a lie detector
test about all I have said (which is maybe 1% of what can be said) as
well as other relevant facts involving fraud as long as the body
administering it is an appropriate attorney general's office, the FBI
or the Criminal Investigations Division of the IRS. The actions I will
have to take to defend myself will prove what I am saying to be
correct and I will not hardly be the only one proving this. Beyond
this, I don't really want to go into specifics here.

And you know what's the weirdest part of all that? I, like you, don't
even want to fight these guys. I have way better things to do in my
life that have nothing to do with scientology. Like they will not talk
with you to end their insane war with you, they also refuse to speak
with me to address and handle abuses that involved myself and my
family. So there's not much of an option left but to fight for your
rights. Go figure! They make their own enemies and, more than
anything, I attribute it to DM.

My hope for all people who wish to practice the non abusive parts of
scientology in the future include that some day soon the ones causing
the abuses are gone so that non abusive people can end up running what
is left of the "church". I know of people in CMO Int or that were in
CMO Int or in Exec Strata there that were not abusive before DM and
that might love to try to reform the organization in his absence. IMHO
anyway.

I won't be one of them but I do in fact believe strongly in the rights
of anyone to practice their own version of religion/spirituality, or
not. Just end the abuses and the fraud.

SME

Message has been deleted

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 14, 2007, 7:27:32 PM3/14/07
to
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:41:03 GMT, alex
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:

>In article <1173904045.1...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>So, millions to hubbard, he's dead. Did that money come back in, in the
>trusts?
>
>a

Has your cult ever acknowledged that "What Your Fees Buy" was fraud?

Has your cult ever acknowledged that Hubbard lied about being paid
less than an org staff member?

Has your cult ever acknowledged that the SO#1 line was fraud and
Hubbard was lying about it?

Have you ever acknowledged that Hubbard was a pathological liar?

Have you ever acknowledged that the claims listed here are false?
http://www.carolineletkeman.org/refund/docs/hco-info-ltr-1961-04-14-pe-handout.html

Or here?
http://www.carolineletkeman.org/refund/docs/dmsmh-claims.html

What would it take for Scientolgists like yourself to get honest about
Scientology? LFBD

Š Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Message has been deleted

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 2:01:20 AM3/15/07
to
On Mar 14, 2:27 pm, "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 4:42 pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:

Gerry, your postings are no proof. I know that you are not honest.

----
Number one suspect of being Wikipiggy smearer, defamer, and harasser
"Orsini" is Canadian Kady O'Malley. She defamed not only Mark (Marty)
Rathbun and I - but according to this website, O'Malley is specialized
of harassing Scientologists:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/kady-omalley/

"Orsini" teams up on Wikipedia with defamer, forger, and harasser
"Vivaldi", who is Korey Jerome Kruse from Olathe, Kansas. He just came
out of jail and is, according to the court, a habital offender:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS210US211&q=korey%20Kruse&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wg

These fanatical people are protected by a Wikipedia administrator from
England, with name Christopher Owens. Chris Owens is biased towards
Scientology and Scientologists and uses his bias to protect defamers
and harassers on Wikipedia and assist them in defaming Scientology and
Scientologists. He never bans any fanatical and harassing anti-
Scientologist from Wikipedia but Scientologists are banned for nothing
else but being Scientologists. Even non-Scientologists are banned from
Wikipedia, if they don't hate Scientology or Scientologists.

According to this website, Wikipedia administrator Christopher Owens
admires Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/david-touretzky/terrorism/

----
Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 2:17:17 AM3/15/07
to
On Mar 12, 9:56 pm, "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Your name is not Mary, you are not even a woman, gay perhaps - but no
woman.
You don't know Marty, and what kind of new rumor do you spin by
claiming that Marty worked in NH (New Hampshire?)

Get a life!

Larry T.

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 2:35:24 AM3/15/07
to
"Barbara Schwarz" <barbara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173938480....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

| On Mar 14, 2:27 pm, "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
| > On Mar 13, 4:42 pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
|
| Gerry, your postings are no proof. I know that you are not honest.

Barbara:

I guess I should have known that even *WEEKS* since I last glimpsed at your
gospel like writings I still find you HERE on A.R.S. "tearing critics to
shreds".

I am not going to put you down but *I* did read that Mary Sue Hubbard was
very upset when she learned that Gerald Armstrong had *forgotten* to return
the project he was working on for the Hubbard's to their offices after he
left the Sea Org. I imagine L. Ron Hubbard was very upset as well, hence
David Miscavige becomes very upset HENCE Gerald Armstrong is delcared an SP.
Well, what else is new?

Larry


(SNIP)


Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 10:34:09 AM3/15/07
to
In article <alexrsingh-D77EBB.15442014032007
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...

<snip>

> So, millions to hubbard, he's dead. Did that money come back in, in the
> trusts?
>
> a

You mean *visibly*?

Doubtful.

That'd be like washing clean socks :)

Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think

Message has been deleted

Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 11:33:49 AM3/15/07
to
In article <alexrsingh-C386B6.06473215032007
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
> In article <MPG.2063236e8...@news2.lightlink.com>,

> Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <alexrsingh-D77EBB.15442014032007
> > @news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
> > says...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > So, millions to hubbard, he's dead. Did that money come back in, in the
> > > trusts?
> > >
> > > a
> >
> > You mean *visibly*?
> >
> > Doubtful.
> >
> > That'd be like washing clean socks :)
> >
> > Zinj
>
> Well kinda my point. Follow the money. Pull the string. Dont be stuck in
> 1982.
>
> Hubbards dead.
>
>
> Just what is the larger picture here?
>
> We know the cia didnt take over the church......
>
> Fresh clean money.....???
>
> a

Well, 'follow the money', while a laudable aim is somewhat akin
to 'just jump in the black hole; it's that simple!' for Joe
Private Citizen.

The public at large does not have subpoena, arrest or
prosecutorial powers such as 'search warrants'; nor the ability
to order wire-taps, raids or cut deals with 'informers' except
through their lawful representatives in police and other
investigatorial agencies.

Unfortunately, those agencies have tended to be lax in the
enforcement of already existing legal machinery with regards to
the 'Church' of Scientology, whether out of actual corruption
(through the 'Church') or merely fear of extortion (kind of
'meta-extortion' :) or fear of budget-busting-can-of-wormism.

Still; with enough public awareness and pressure they may begin
to do their jobs, and, that's the point.

Nothing says 'RICO' like Scientology.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

SME

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 3:19:49 PM3/15/07
to
On Mar 15, 2:53 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>
> Here's a funny....
>
> http://home.scientology.org/cntinent/Namerica/USA/newHampshire/index.htm
>
> 2nd name down, links dead though....
>
> a- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Alex

If your point in that posting was humor, well fair enough, I suspose
it is funny that I am listed on that site as a scientologist from NH
who had one of those boilerplate scientologist's sites. I sure did.

I wonder how many others are listed on there whose links also haven't
worked for years and who are no longer scientologists.

In this same line of humor, want to see something else funny? Look in
the current version of IMPACT (#115). I am listed there as a patron. I
wonder how many others that are no longer involved with scientology
practices are also listed as IAS members?

Makes one think the numbers are somewhat inflated huh?

It's kind of cool being able to operate freely and openly on here and
elsewhere and just be honest about who you are. That's why I use my
email of larrybr...@aol.com on here.

Are you listed in any such publications? Care to share who you are as
well?

It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
try it:)

Take care,
SME

Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 4:31:42 PM3/15/07
to
In article <alexrsingh-C5B468.11570915032007
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
> In article <MPG.20633166...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> Here's a funny....
>
>
> http://home.scientology.org/cntinent/Namerica/USA/newHampshire/index.htm
>
> 2nd name down, links dead though....
>
> a

Here's one that isn't:

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/historical/werthe
imer-ltr-1980-11-17.html

http://tinyurl.com/2an777

Ah yes; yet another 'Disappeared'.

Vanishing fortunes; vanishing Scientologists

<humming> 'who'll be the next in line...'

Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 4:33:22 PM3/15/07
to
In article <1173986388.964373.259350
@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, larrybr...@aol.com says...

<snip>



> Hey Alex
>
> If your point in that posting was humor, well fair enough, I suspose
> it is funny that I am listed on that site as a scientologist from NH
> who had one of those boilerplate scientologist's sites. I sure did.
>
> I wonder how many others are listed on there whose links also haven't
> worked for years and who are no longer scientologists.
>
> In this same line of humor, want to see something else funny? Look in
> the current version of IMPACT (#115). I am listed there as a patron. I
> wonder how many others that are no longer involved with scientology
> practices are also listed as IAS members?
>
> Makes one think the numbers are somewhat inflated huh?
>
> It's kind of cool being able to operate freely and openly on here and
> elsewhere and just be honest about who you are. That's why I use my
> email of larrybr...@aol.com on here.
>
> Are you listed in any such publications? Care to share who you are as
> well?
>
> It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
> try it:)
>
> Take care,
> SME

Nice to meet you Larry :)

Zinj (Joe Lynn)

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 4:00:20 PM3/15/07
to
On Mar 12, 12:33�pm, "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:

Thanks SME!

One of the best all time important posts I've ever read on the
corporate behind the scenes events.

Thankyou Gerry Armstrong, and Laurel Sullivan, and all the others who
later helped expose the pieces along the years.

LRH absolutely was unhandleable on his "above the law" mindset.

I hope Charles Parselle's writings someday get broadly linked and made
public. I've been told by an anonymous ex GO person Charles has
written up some things, but I've not read anything.

This is just the most incredible thread on ARS.

Thankyou Gerry!

Chuck


Message has been deleted

Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 5:54:04 PM3/15/07
to
In article <alexrsingh-7C9E39.13464315032007
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
> In article <1173986388.9...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

> "SME" <larrybr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 2:53 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:

<snip>

> > It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
> > try it:)
> >
> > Take care,
> > SME
>

> Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
> the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
> still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.
>
> So.....did the $40 milliion come back via the trusts.....
>
>
> :)
>
> a

but Alex... I don't understand!

According to your *own* cover-story, you too are 'plotting the
downfall' of the 'Pope of Scientology' (was his 'white smoke'
from the crematorium?)

Or, at least you are 'working to change' Scientology in some
super-subtle way that I don't doubt Davey would consider equally
objectionable, unless it were so subtle as to be non-existent...

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 5:16:03 PM3/15/07
to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:43:25 GMT, alex
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:

>Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
>the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
>still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.
>
>So.....did the $40 milliion come back via the trusts.....

Sort of what the Miscavige regime did with Lisa McPherson once she was
dead too, hey "Alex?"

Once they killed her they cleaned out her bank account.

Once Hubbard was dead they cleaned out his bank account, right?

In both cases they'd call it the ethical thing to do. It does seem
you're claiming that Miscavige taking Hubbard's money after he was
dead was the right thing to do.

So DM, really, not only had a power and control motivation to murder
the old man but a money motivation too, right?

He certainly acts like a guy with murder as a missed withhold.

>
>
>:)
>
>a

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

R. Hill

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 5:44:56 PM3/15/07
to
On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
> In article <1173986388.964373.259...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
> "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 2:53 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>
> > > Here's a funny....
>
> > >http://home.scientology.org/cntinent/Namerica/USA/newHampshire/index.htm
>
> > > 2nd name down, links dead though....
>
> > > a- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hey Alex
>
> > If your point in that posting was humor, well fair enough, I suspose
> > it is funny that I am listed on that site as a scientologist from NH
> > who had one of those boilerplate scientologist's sites. I sure did.
>
> > I wonder how many others are listed on there whose links also haven't
> > worked for years and who are no longer scientologists.
>
> > In this same line of humor, want to see something else funny? Look in
> > the current version of IMPACT (#115). I am listed there as a patron. I
> > wonder how many others that are no longer involved with scientology
> > practices are also listed as IAS members?
>
> > Makes one think the numbers are somewhat inflated huh?
>
> > It's kind of cool being able to operate freely and openly on here and
> > elsewhere and just be honest about who you are. That's why I use my
> > email of larrybren12...@aol.com on here.

>
> > Are you listed in any such publications? Care to share who you are as
> > well?
>
> > It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
> > try it:)
>
> > Take care,
> > SME
>
> Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
> the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
> still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.
>
> So.....did the $40 milliion come back via the trusts.....
>
> :)
>
> a

No one is plotting.

It's about working to bring *accountability* to an organization that
has a pattern of abusing and wronging people, an organization that has
a history of infiltrating institutions and blackmailing people, an
organization that has a history of promoting hate and intolerance. All
in the name of furthering its doctrine, as devised by Hubbard.

Ray.

Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 6:47:05 PM3/15/07
to
In article <alexrsingh-54E82B.14102715032007
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
> In article <MPG.20638a89c...@news2.lightlink.com>,

> Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <alexrsingh-7C9E39.13464315032007
> > @news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
> > says...
> > > In article <1173986388.9...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "SME" <larrybr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mar 15, 2:53 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
> > > > try it:)
> > > >
> > > > Take care,
> > > > SME
> > >
> > > Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
> > > the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
> > > still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.
> > >
> > > So.....did the $40 million come back via the trusts.....

> > >
> > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > a
> >
> > but Alex... I don't understand!
> >
> > According to your *own* cover-story, you too are 'plotting the
> > downfall' of the 'Pope of Scientology' (was his 'white smoke'
> > from the crematorium?)
> >
> > Or, at least you are 'working to change' Scientology in some
> > super-subtle way that I don't doubt Davey would consider equally
> > objectionable, unless it were so subtle as to be non-existent...
> >
> > Zinj
>
> Humm....
>
> Ask your new first name friend if the "inurement" came back in the
> trusts.
>
> a

Is there some reason I'd expect Larry to *know* that?

Personally, I doubt seriously whether any Scientology
accumulated stash would ever re-appear on the 'official' books;
once, well, stashed.

Would seem to kind of defeat the purpose :)

In a 'trust'?

Guess it depends on what you mean by 'trust'.

I doubt the people who know where the moolah went (and is) trust
very many enough to 'share'...

But, you think Larry knows? Sheesh; if he was plotting Davey's
Downfall, I could hardly imagine better ammo...

Out_Of_The_Dark

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 6:52:53 PM3/15/07
to
On Mar 15, 2:17 am, "Barbara Schwarz" <barbara.schw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> of harassing Scientologists:http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/kady-o...

>
> "Orsini" teams up on Wikipedia with defamer, forger, and harasser
> "Vivaldi", who is Korey Jerome Kruse from Olathe, Kansas. He just came
> out of jail and is, according to the court, a habital offender:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS210US211&q=kore...

>
> These fanatical people are protected by a Wikipedia administrator from
> England, with name Christopher Owens. Chris Owens is biased towards
> Scientology and Scientologists and uses his bias to protect defamers
> and harassers on Wikipedia and assist them in defaming Scientology and
> Scientologists. He never bans any fanatical and harassing anti-
> Scientologist from Wikipedia but Scientologists are banned for nothing
> else but being Scientologists. Even non-Scientologists are banned from
> Wikipedia, if they don't hate Scientology or Scientologists.
>
> According to this website, Wikipedia administrator Christopher Owens
> admires Osama Bin Laden.http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/david-...
>
> ----
> Barbara Schwarz < <

Barbara, If you read the transcript that Gerry posted, it mentions a
Marty, but not your Marty. Obviously, anyone reading the thread would
know that.

Try reading the information first instead of flying of the handle with
foolish accusations.

Mary Out_Of_The_Dark

Proverbs 10:11
The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence
overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 7:50:48 PM3/15/07
to
In article <alexrsingh-24E73C.16413215032007
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
> In article <MPG.206396f8b...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> Well he's the one with a bee in his bonnet about inurement. I'm guessing
> he doesnt know.
>
> The trust would be the "Authors family trusts". (the pink slips to
> scientology).
>
> Forrest, trees, context, focus.

I would no more expect Scientology's (and Hubbard's) hoarde to
be in the 'Author's Family Trusts' than I would expect
Bluebeard's treasure to be in my toilet tank.

Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 7:58:28 PM3/15/07
to
In article <alexrsingh-FB3901.16481215032007
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
> In article <0adjv29q9lvbp7a1i...@4ax.com>,
> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:

<snip>

> > Sort of what the Miscavige regime did with Lisa McPherson once she was
> > dead too, hey "Alex?"
> >
> > Once they killed her they cleaned out her bank account.
> >
> > Once Hubbard was dead they cleaned out his bank account, right?
> >
> > In both cases they'd call it the ethical thing to do. It does seem
> > you're claiming that Miscavige taking Hubbard's money after he was
> > dead was the right thing to do.
> >
> > So DM, really, not only had a power and control motivation to murder
> > the old man but a money motivation too, right?
> >
> > He certainly acts like a guy with murder as a missed withhold.

> Jeeeze Gerry!
>
> You sure are a loose cannon!
>
> I'm making no such claims.
>
> Missed withholds are not "evidence in a court of law"
>
> a

Wordclear 'Loose Cannon'; Gerry probably is, or at least one
running on a very idiosyncratic 'track', but, calling him one
where and how *you* just did is just a non-sequitur.

As to the 'missed withhold'; can you doubt it?

You have yourself expressed opinions that pretty much *mandate*
'missed withholds' for 'Scientology's Pope'.

I doubt we'll ever *see* him in a courtroom to face his *legal*
charges, since he has far too many escape hatches (and far too
many people willing to off him first, if they thought he'd be
'captured'. Norton? Gene?)

The one has nothing to do with the other.

Nevaeh N. Lleh

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 8:03:29 PM3/15/07
to
On Mar 15, 3:55�pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
> In article <1173988820.494286.31...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>  "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckbeatt...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > LRH absolutely was unhandleable on his "above the law" mindset.
>
> Yes Chuck.
>
> The termacity to believe that the government should NOT be the highest
> authority in a mans life.

Did you mean temerity or audacity? 'Cause termacity aint happenin'.

>
> Why the gall of the man, trying to steal documents about his lifes
> work,that the government did want him or the public to see,  and to do
> anything in his power to protect what he though was a solution for your
> and my problems and worries.
>
> What arrogance, not bowing at the knee at the mere suggestion of his
> master, the government.
>
> Why learned men should study this and conclude what we all already know,
> LRH flaunted his own determinism.
>
> He damn sure was there and communicated, the criminal.
>
> Even to the point of insisting he might have even organized a system
> that could just help people if they WANTED.
>
> Do you need any scholars to indicate the sarcasm?

Oh, puleeeze! What utter bullshit. LRH was fucking paranoid,
delusional scam artist. The fact he believed *any* part of the shit
he spewed just proves it.

>
> As history unfolds, it becomes more and more clear that the sea org and
> scientology are two different things.

Not!

>
> alex


Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 8:23:40 PM3/15/07
to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:44:54 GMT, alex
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:

>In article <0adjv29q9lvbp7a1i...@4ax.com>,
> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>

>Jeeeze Gerry!
>
>You sure are a loose cannon!

Loose from your cult for sure.

>
>I'm making no such claims.

Fair enough. So you're saying that if Miscavige took Hubbard's money
after the old man was dead it was *not* the right thing to do?

>
>Missed withholds are not "evidence in a court of law"

Wow but you can differentiate! Apples aren't oranges. Zebras aren't
lemons. Clams aren't Klingons. And MWH's aren't evidence.

Well I'm not sure clams aren't Klingons, but I'm sure you get the
point.

As Loser Clam would say: Have you noticed anything else that is not
something it isn't?

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 8:31:46 PM3/15/07
to

I'd expect you'd be feeling flush.

>
>Zinj

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 8:46:20 PM3/15/07
to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:39:45 GMT, alex
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:

>In article <1173995096.0...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>FO

A little late for that.
http://www.xenu-directory.net/

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Nevaeh N. Lleh

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 8:51:44 PM3/15/07
to
On Mar 15, 6:39�pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
> In article <1173995096.010986.297...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> FO

Is "FO" Fuck Off?

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 9:06:29 PM3/15/07
to
On 15 Mar 2007 17:51:44 -0700, "Nevaeh N. Lleh" <Firest...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 15, 6:39?pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>> In article <1173995096.010986.297...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> "R. Hill" <r...@xenu-directory.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>> > > In article <1173986388.964373.259...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Mar 15, 2:53 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Here's a funny....
>>
>> > > > >http://home.scientology.org/cntinent/Namerica/USA/newHampshire/index.htm
>>
>> > > > > 2nd name down, links dead though....
>>
>> > > > > a- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > Hey Alex
>>
>> > > > If your point in that posting was humor, well fair enough, I suspose
>> > > > it is funny that I am listed on that site as a scientologist from NH
>> > > > who had one of those boilerplate scientologist's sites. I sure did.
>>
>> > > > I wonder how many others are listed on there whose links also haven't
>> > > > worked for years and who are no longer scientologists.
>>
>> > > > In this same line of humor, want to see something else funny? Look in
>> > > > the current version of IMPACT (#115). I am listed there as a patron. I
>> > > > wonder how many others that are no longer involved with scientology
>> > > > practices are also listed as IAS members?
>>
>> > > > Makes one think the numbers are somewhat inflated huh?
>>

>> > > > It's +ind of cool being able to operate freely and openly on here and


>> > > > elsewhere and just be honest about who you are. That's why I use my
>> > > > email of larrybren12...@aol.com on here.
>>
>> > > > Are you listed in any such publications? Care to share who you are as
>> > > > well?
>>
>> > > > It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
>> > > > try it:)
>>
>> > > > Take care,
>> > > > SME
>>
>> > > Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
>> > > the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
>> > > still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.
>>
>> > > So.....did the $40 milliion come back via the trusts.....
>>
>> > > :)
>>
>> > > a
>>
>> > No one is plotting.
>>
>> > It's about working to bring *accountability* to an organization that
>> > has a pattern of abusing and wronging people, an organization that has
>> > a history of infiltrating institutions and blackmailing people, an
>> > organization that has a history of promoting hate and intolerance. All
>> > in the name of furthering its doctrine, as devised by Hubbard.
>>
>> > Ray.
>>
>> FO
>
>Is "FO" Fuck Off?

Yes, in Scientologese it means "I give up."

See why here: http://www.xenu-directory.net/

>
>
>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Zinj

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 9:18:23 PM3/15/07
to
In article <q3pjv2pf68koh2l46...@4ax.com>,
ge...@gerryarmstrong.org says...

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:50:48 -0400, Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <alexrsingh-24E73C.16413215032007
> >@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
> >says...
> >> In article <MPG.206396f8b...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> >> Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >> Well he's the one with a bee in his bonnet about inurement. I'm guessing
> >> he doesnt know.
> >>
> >> The trust would be the "Authors family trusts". (the pink slips to
> >> scientology).
> >>
> >> Forrest, trees, context, focus.
> >
> >I would no more expect Scientology's (and Hubbard's) hoarde to
> >be in the 'Author's Family Trusts' than I would expect
> >Bluebeard's treasure to be in my toilet tank.
>
> I'd expect you'd be feeling flush.

Kind of my point is that there seems to be a thread (the 'follow
the money' thread) which the 'Church' fairly frequently advances
to suggest that, since we can't see it, it can't exist...

Kind of like the 'Materialists' :)

It's both amusing and distressing, since, not only is it
reminiscent of a naked Cartman walzing across a stage saying
'you can't seeee meeeee', but, there are actually 'critics' who
fall for it, and assume that the fact that nobody is publishing
actual records of Scientology finances, it *means* that there
are none. :)

Both finances *and* records.

This leads to such interesting concepts as 'The 'Church' is
going broke!' The 'Church' can't afford to bla bla bla.

Admittedly, there are any number of *previous* scenarios that
the 'Church' can't (now) 'afford', such as the really rocking
blatant shenanigans of the Freakout/Snow White/Cazares era.

That doesn't mean they're not doing *exactly the same things*,
because, if nothing else, Scientology is predictable. And, the
'prediction' is that they *will* use the same tactics, but, they
*will* do so more carefully. (because they've noticed people are
*watching*)

I don't doubt in the least that the 'Church' income from its
ongoing fraud has been severely compromised. Quite possibly so
much so that it's barely breaking even.

But, income is *not* about revenue (even for a non-profit) that
serves merely as a cover for the *rest* of the financial
shenanigans going on using funds already laundered and
reinvested and hidden from public view. The 'Orgs' are probably
barely paying for themselves nowdays, but, I suspect that *most*
of the Scientology 'reserves' are running in returning
investments that are well *hidden* and barely recognizable as
'Scientology'.

Like the millions that Hubbard had already stashed away before
his untimely 'retirement to the Galaxies to do research'.

Naturally, if *one* theory of critical thought were correct;
i.e. that the 'lawyers' are now running 'Current Management',
which is why everything is going 'wrong'...

Well, in *that* case, it would now be the time for those evil
enemies of enlightenment to cash in and run.

Run it into the ground. Make it boring. Declare bankruptcy.

Walk away from it.

(and hope nobody asks about the *crimes* committed to accumulate
the vanished wealth.)

Instead, we have a *continued* PR presence and 'push' that
pretty much *screams* 'I believe in Xenu and I LUV it!'

The people actually running Scientology are *True Believers*.

They actually think they *will* 'Clear the Planet' and are
willing to do *anything* to succeed.

It's not about 'take the money and run' (except for some of the
non-Scientology 'partners', like Norton Karno or Gene Ingram and
pustules yet unnamed.)

If it were; they would have left yesterday. Or earlier, before
it collapses.

The guys running things are the Kool-Ade bunch.

alexr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 11:37:47 PM3/15/07
to
On Mar 15, 5:23 pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:44:54 GMT, alex
>
>
>
> <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
> >In article <0adjv29q9lvbp7a1iho20be259i2saq...@4ax.com>,

> > Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:43:25 GMT, alex
> >> <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <1173986388.964373.259...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "SME" <larrybren12...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Mar 15, 2:53 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Here's a funny....
>
> >> >> >http://home.scientology.org/cntinent/Namerica/USA/newHampshire/index.htm
>
> >> >> > 2nd name down, links dead though....
>
> >> >> > a- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> Hey Alex
>
> >> >> If your point in that posting was humor, well fair enough, I suspose
> >> >> it is funny that I am listed on that site as a scientologist from NH
> >> >> who had one of those boilerplate scientologist's sites. I sure did.
>
> >> >> I wonder how many others are listed on there whose links also haven't
> >> >> worked for years and who are no longer scientologists.
>
> >> >> In this same line of humor, want to see something else funny? Look in
> >> >> the current version of IMPACT (#115). I am listed there as a patron. I
> >> >> wonder how many others that are no longer involved with scientology
> >> >> practices are also listed as IAS members?
>
> >> >> Makes one think the numbers are somewhat inflated huh?
>
> >> >> It's kind of cool being able to operate freely and openly on here and
> >> >> elsewhere and just be honest about who you are. That's why I use my
> >> >> email of larrybren12...@aol.com on here.

Moi!!!???

Je se froissé

Nevaeh N. Lleh

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 11:54:08 PM3/15/07
to
On Mar 15, 8:06�pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2007 17:51:44 -0700, "Nevaeh N. Lleh" <Firestarr...@aol.com>

Heh. Thank you.

>
>
> >- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>

> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org- Hide quoted text -

SME

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 12:55:26 AM3/16/07
to
On Mar 15, 4:33 pm, Zinj <zinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1173986388.964373.259350
> @y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, larrybren12...@aol.com says...

>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hey Alex
>
> > If your point in that posting was humor, well fair enough, I suspose
> > it is funny that I am listed on that site as a scientologist from NH
> > who had one of those boilerplate scientologist's sites. I sure did.
>
> > I wonder how many others are listed on there whose links also haven't
> > worked for years and who are no longer scientologists.
>
> > In this same line of humor, want to see something else funny? Look in
> > the current version of IMPACT (#115). I am listed there as a patron. I
> > wonder how many others that are no longer involved with scientology
> > practices are also listed as IAS members?
>
> > Makes one think the numbers are somewhat inflated huh?
>
> > It's kind of cool being able to operate freely and openly on here and
> > elsewhere and just be honest about who you are. That's why I use my
> > email of larrybren12...@aol.com on here.

>
> > Are you listed in any such publications? Care to share who you are as
> > well?
>
> > It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
> > try it:)
>
> > Take care,
> > SME
>
> Nice to meet you Larry :)
>
> Zinj (Joe Lynn)
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Joe.

It's been nice to "meet you" too, through your posts. I do miss the
vast majority of posts on here as I just can't get on here with
regularity but have highly enjoyed many of your insightful posts.

SME (Larry)


Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 1:39:42 AM3/16/07
to

On Mar 15, 4:52 pm, "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2:17 am, "BarbaraSchwarz" <barbara.schw...@gmail.com>

Yeah right.


>
> Try reading the information first instead of flying of the handle with
> foolish accusations.
>
> Mary Out_Of_The_Dark
>

Nobody is flying off the handle. Irrationality is not part of my
personality.
And now you are citing the bible? Should that give your lies
credibility? Give me a break!

----
Number one suspect of being Wikipedia (Wikipiggy) smearer, defamer,


and harasser "Orsini" is Canadian Kady O'Malley. She defamed not only

Mark (Marty) Rathbun and I - but according to this website, fanatical


O'Malley is specialized of harassing Scientologists:

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/kady-omalley/

"Orsini" teams up on Wikipedia with defamer, forger, and harasser
"Vivaldi", who is Korey Jerome Kruse from Olathe, Kansas. He just came
out of jail and is, according to the court, a habital offender:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS210US211&q=korey%20Kruse&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wg

These fanatical people are protected by a Wikipedia administrator from
England, with name Christopher Owens. Chris Owens is biased towards
Scientology and Scientologists and uses his bias to protect defamers
and harassers on Wikipedia and assist them in defaming Scientology and
Scientologists. He never bans any fanatical and harassing anti-
Scientologist from Wikipedia but Scientologists are banned for nothing
else but being Scientologists. Even non-Scientologists are banned from
Wikipedia, if they don't hate Scientology or Scientologists.

According to this website, Wikipedia administrator Christopher Owens
admires Osama Bin Laden.

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/david-touretzky/terrorism/

----
Barbara Schwarz

SME

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 1:40:25 AM3/16/07
to
On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>
> > It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
> > try it:)
>
> > Take care,
> > SME
>
> Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
> the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
> still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.
>
> So.....did the $40 milliion come back via the trusts.....
>
> :)

Alex my "friend", tell DM he badly miscalculated on that little
"strategy". I have no intentions of broadcasting my own exact opinions
of what is already and what will yet be documented on that general
subject.

I will make two comments of beliefs though:

1) A truly beautiful person, who I sadly only got to know in her last
8-9 months of life (Cat C.) once eloquently said something that
applies. I wish I could quote it as well as she put it. But, it had to
do with DM having a very large karmatic balloon payment coming; and

2) A fun quote I more or less remember from that old "Baretta" cop
show (I may have it backwards though):

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". or was it "If you can't
do the time, don't do the crime" :)

Even putting aside for the moment what investigations may find about
exactly where all LRH's jewels, cash and other assets actually went,
what exactly happened to ALL the cash that he and Pat "brokered"
between them, and how laundering "blood money" (see my XSO post on
that) never really can make it clean, I think he will find one HUGE
mistake that he and Hubbard/Pat etc. made.

And that mistake is that when you do feel "above the law" and
operating accordingly with secret agendas, etc. that have to do with
possible legal fraud, you REALLY ought to confide in your own legal
counsel before attempting same. Also, just a point, you AREN'T above
the law. Sorry.

Call me a silly "spiritualist" or whatever, but I actually believe
that in the end you cannot horribly abuse others, commit fraud
constantly and then perjure yourself constantly afterwards under some
banner of "the greatest good" and actually get away with it. I guess
we'll see. Too many people have died or otherwise have had their lives
destroyed under that banner both within and without scientology.

Anyway, I notice you still don't say who you are Alex. Fair enough,
your right I guess.

SME

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 1:41:45 AM3/16/07
to
On Mar 15, 4:52 pm, "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2:17 am, "BarbaraSchwarz" <barbara.schw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

If you and your friends don't mean Marty Rathbun, then call the person
you mean with anbother name.

----
Number one suspect of being Wikipedia (Wikipiggy) smearer, defamer,


and harasser "Orsini" is Canadian Kady O'Malley. She defamed not only

Mark (Marty) Rathbun and I - but according to this website, fanatical


O'Malley is specialized of harassing Scientologists:

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.com/anti-religious-extremists/kady-omalley/

"Orsini" teams up on Wikipedia with defamer, forger, and harasser
"Vivaldi", who is Korey Jerome Kruse from Olathe, Kansas. He just came
out of jail and is, according to the court, a habital offender:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS210US211&q=korey%20Kruse&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wg

These fanatical people are protected by a Wikipedia administrator from
England, with name Christopher Owens. Chris Owens is biased towards
Scientology and Scientologists and uses his bias to protect defamers
and harassers on Wikipedia and assist them in defaming Scientology and
Scientologists. He never bans any fanatical and harassing anti-
Scientologist from Wikipedia but Scientologists are banned for nothing
else but being Scientologists. Even non-Scientologists are banned from
Wikipedia, if they don't hate Scientology or Scientologists.

According to this website, Wikipedia administrator Christopher Owens

SME

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 1:43:54 AM3/16/07
to
On Mar 15, 9:18 pm, Zinj <zinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <q3pjv2pf68koh2l463hf1migeb4ohb0...@4ax.com>,

>
> The people actually running Scientology are *True Believers*.
>
> They actually think they *will* 'Clear the Planet' and are
> willing to do *anything* to succeed.
>
> It's not about 'take the money and run' (except for some of the
> non-Scientology 'partners', like Norton Karno or Gene Ingram and
> pustules yet unnamed.)
>
> If it were; they would have left yesterday. Or earlier, before
> it collapses.
>
> The guys running things are the Kool-Ade bunch.
>
> Zinj
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think

Very, VERY insightful! I LOVE that "Kool-Ade bunch" sentance! lol

SME

Muldoon

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 2:34:43 AM3/16/07
to
> SME- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -


True believer?

In what? Power, influence, money, blackmail, ego, 'Bolivar', 'Fair
Game', and more influence and power, and the various perks, the ego-
tickling, and recreational sadism, that makes possible?

Or does anyone think that David Miscavige *really* believes that he is
"OT"? After all, he's had access to all the not-yet-released OT levels
for over two decades. He must be at least OT 15. (And, according to
Hubbard, there were at least 15 levels *above* OT 8.) So, is Miscavige
"OT"? And does he envision a Scientology membership that is "OT"?

The 'Bolivar' paradigm or "mind set," (implicitly) envisions a "group"
that exists for the power-thrill, or power-kicks, that it provides to
him who controls it, with the vast majority of participants as dupes.

Hubbard established Scientology to ensure that his own identity (ego/
name/image) would "survive" for many years, that identity having been
fused with, and made inseparable from, the Scientology operation.

The person at the "top" knows that there is nothing "behind the
curtain": That with each additional (not yet released) secret level
of "OT," god-like abilities will *not* be unfolding. And, yet, he must
derive sufficient satisfaction from controlling the Scientology
operation (not really a "group") to *not* simply "take the money and
run."

True believer? Perhaps, but in what?

Out_Of_The_Dark

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 9:06:41 AM3/16/07
to
On Mar 16, 1:41 am, "Barbara Schwarz" wrote:
> If you and your friends don't mean Marty Rathbun, then call the person
> you mean with anbother name.

I hate to burst your bubble but there are other scientologists who are
named Marty. Matter of fact, Marty is their real name. No one owes you
anything and certainly not an explanation for something you would have
known had you read the transcript.

> > On Mar 15, 2:17 am, "BarbaraSchwarz"<barbara.schw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>

> Nobody is flying off the handle. Irrationality is not part of my
> personality.

I won't even argue that point. The evidence is clear that it is.

> And now you are citing the bible? Should that give your lies credibility? >
> Give me a break!

Like I wrote before, and it applies to the above: "Try reading the


information first instead of flying of the handle with foolish
accusations."

If you are rational, then you will restrain yourself from replying to
this and just get on with the business of finding 'Marty' Rathbun
amid the many other other scientology Martys; the only hope you have
that is shared by many.

Mary
Out_OfThe_Dark

"The first vertue, sone, if thou wilt lerne, Is to restreyne and
kepen wel thy tonge. " - Geoffrey Chaucer
The Canterbury Tales (l. 18,213), The Manciple's Tale

www.xenu-directory.net

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 9:37:05 AM3/16/07
to
On 15 Mar 2007 22:40:25 -0700, "SME" <larrybr...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Mar 15, 4:43 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>>
>> > It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
>> > try it:)
>>
>> > Take care,
>> > SME
>>
>> Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
>> the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
>> still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.
>>
>> So.....did the $40 milliion come back via the trusts.....
>>
>> :)
>
>Alex my "friend", tell DM he badly miscalculated on that little
>"strategy". I have no intentions of broadcasting my own exact opinions
>of what is already and what will yet be documented on that general
>subject.
>
>I will make two comments of beliefs though:
>
>1) A truly beautiful person, who I sadly only got to know in her last
>8-9 months of life (Cat C.) once eloquently said something that
>applies. I wish I could quote it as well as she put it. But, it had to
>do with DM having a very large karmatic balloon payment coming; and

Speaking of DM and balloon payments, did you ever see how he came to
rise above the bank?
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/fun/parody/rising.html

Also:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/fun/parody/little-gasbag-fakir.html

Have your sound on.

>
>2) A fun quote I more or less remember from that old "Baretta" cop
>show (I may have it backwards though):
>
>"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". or was it "If you can't
>do the time, don't do the crime" :)
>
>Even putting aside for the moment what investigations may find about
>exactly where all LRH's jewels, cash and other assets actually went,
>what exactly happened to ALL the cash that he and Pat "brokered"
>between them, and how laundering "blood money" (see my XSO post on
>that) never really can make it clean, I think he will find one HUGE
>mistake that he and Hubbard/Pat etc. made.
>
>And that mistake is that when you do feel "above the law" and
>operating accordingly with secret agendas, etc. that have to do with
>possible legal fraud, you REALLY ought to confide in your own legal
>counsel before attempting same. Also, just a point, you AREN'T above
>the law. Sorry.
>
>Call me a silly "spiritualist" or whatever, but I actually believe
>that in the end you cannot horribly abuse others, commit fraud
>constantly and then perjure yourself constantly afterwards under some
>banner of "the greatest good" and actually get away with it. I guess
>we'll see. Too many people have died or otherwise have had their lives
>destroyed under that banner both within and without scientology.
>
>Anyway, I notice you still don't say who you are Alex. Fair enough,
>your right I guess.
>
>SME

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Out_Of_The_Dark

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 9:51:03 AM3/16/07
to
On Mar 15, 7:39 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
> In article <1173995096.010986.297...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "R. Hill" <r...@xenu-directory.net> wrote:
>
>
> > No one is plotting.
>
> > It's about working to bring *accountability* to an organization that
> > has a pattern of abusing and wronging people, an organization that has
> > a history of infiltrating institutions and blackmailing people, an
> > organization that has a history of promoting hate and intolerance. All
> > in the name of furthering its doctrine, as devised by Hubbard.
>
> > Ray.
>
> FO < <
What Ray wrote is the truth, Alex. That truth sure seems to have
pushed a big button! All you could reply is an out of control
"FO" ???

You've been here long enough but I guess sitting on the fence makes it
difficult to digest the facts. I'm not surprised you failed to miss
what the efforts and intent of the real critics of scientology are;
Perhaps now you will understand what motivates the many to take a
critical stand.

Bringing *accountability* to the organization is the goal of many
more people on a.r.s. than you and COS would care to believe.

It's going to happen. It's just a matter of when.

Desiring *accountibility* of the Scientology organization is
definately on the minds of the majority here. Once the pain of this
reality settles in, you are welcome to join us.

"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in
possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all evil that is in
the world." - Max Born

Unlike L. Ron Hubbard, Max Born was a real physicist as well as a
mathematician. He won the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 10:54:18 AM3/16/07
to
On 15 Mar 2007 23:34:43 -0700, "Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com>
wrote: