* 15-Dec-97 $cientology letter: Flag to CPD *
Mark Dallara
######################################################################
# #
# This is one of several posts which contain letters between the #
# Church of $cientology and the Clearwater Police Department, from #
# December 4 to December 15, 1997. Specifically, there are seven #
# letters from Brian Anderson, of $cientology's Flag $ervice Org, to #
# Clearwater Police Chief Sid Klein, and one response from Klein. #
# #
# I obtained these letters by requesting them from CPD. They are #
# items of correspondence with a government entity, and as such #
# are public documents. The copies were $0.15 per page, a total of #
# $4.50, and they were paid for by me, not Bob Minton. ;) #
# #
# By providing copies of these documents upon request, CPD has #
# complied fully with the Freedom of Information Act and the #
# Sunshine Act. Their fair and professional conduct in this matter #
# is much appreciated. #
# #
# I am posting these because they are prime examples of the #
# viciously paranoid lunacy and despicable smear tactics of the cult #
# of $cientology, which has continually attempted to use defamation, #
# legal threats, harassment, and criminal acts to silence those who #
# speak out against them, both online and offline. #
# #
# My own typographical errors aside, I will attempt to reproduce the #
# letters faithfully, keeping the spelling, grammar, formatting, and #
# emphasis as identical to the originals as possible. #
# #
# Mr. Anderson will, no doubt, object to this public airing of his #
# rantings, particularly because I and other Internet users will add #
# our own comments in response to his schizophrenic diatribes. But #
# as I have pointed out, correspondence with a police department #
# is public domain. #
# #
# So there. ;P #
# #
######################################################################
[BEGIN QUOTE]
Chief Sid Klein
645 Pierce Street
Clearwater, Florida
December 15, 1997
Dear Sid,
Here is more of the evidence you demanded I come forth with.
I've previously referred to a woman who had stolen money from the
Church, was apprehended by the police who then gave her a pat on the back
and let her go with the money. It was in response to this incident that
CPD spokesman Shelor referred to me (and apparently all Scientologists) as
schizophrenic.
Here is the evidence.
In June 1983, the Church reported 10,000 Swiss francs missing, that
the cash had been stolen from the Finance Office of the Church of
Scientology, and that Debbie DeRosa was the suspected thief.
Various reports were made by Church members, including police
interviews and all of them described the circumstances of the theft, the
individual who had stolen the money, and the reasons for their suspicions.
We did not hear a single thing from the Clearwater Police for over 10
years when we gained access to the Calzone Pizza files. It was only then
that we discovered you had in fact located and apprehended the criminal,
but instead of charging instead offered congratulations, attempted to
gather intelligence on the Church, and then sent her on her way with all
of the cash.
As you will see, a police investigator went to the airport and
discovered that the suspected culprit had attempted to exchange the money
at a foreign exchange window. After conducting an appropriate police
investigation, the individual was located, across country no less. At
this point, your Calzone Pizza operation went into action. Yes, they did
contact DeRosa and arrange for an interview. But, none other than
Intelligence Officer Lieutenant Emmons -- avowed anti-Scientology hater
and renowned for getting threatened by the State Attorney's Office with an
obstruction of justice charge that the U.S. Attorney would use to "put his
ass in jail" -- did the interviewing.
As the transcript demonstrates, Emmons questioned the woman
extensively -- it appears to be several hours -- yet did not once
interrogate her about the extent of her crime. But, he did debrief the
thief in the most friendly terms imaginable since she was now
"anti-Scientology." Here are some of the incredibly off-base questions
asked of this individual who had stolen 10,000 Swiss francs:
"How did you become involved in Scientology...
Were you having psychological problems?
"Did you feel Scientology would fulfill your needs to
replace chronic depression more?
"Did you reach the State of Clear?"
You are on record in the Times stating my claims are "fantasy", yet
this quote proves what I've said, showing you to be the liar. Verifying
my claim that the CPD considers any "anti-Scientologist" a good person,
even when they're an absolute theif, Lieutenant Emmons went on the
describe to this individual that she needn't worry about incriminating
herself since the last thing he would do is make her responsible for her
crimes. Specifically:
"I guess we'll have to interrupt right now a little
bit and explain something to you. We're not out after
Scientologists. Scientologists are the biggest victims-okay?
That's our viewpoint. We know what has happened to you, over
several months of doing this (being a staff member at the
Church), so don't be afraid to talk."
Let me get that "1984 newspeak" straight. Since I'm a Church
official, anybody can steal the funds given my Church by its parishioners
and if that individual is caught and decides to be "anti-Scientology",
then it's myself, the Church, and all the parishioners who can just go to
hell, because the thief is not a Scientologist? And yes -- I think that
is precisely what the above quote says, even if entirely disingenuous
concerning the CPD attitude towards Scientologists. After all, when the
4,000 or so made their voice clear to you, they similarly got the bigoted
treatment.
And since when has police interrogation included attempting to deman
the Founder of a person's religion or in some way disaffect them? Yet,
that is precisely what your officers were doing when they asked this
question:
"If I told you that everything Hubbard said about
himself is not true ... Would you consider that these courses
were a fraud being perpetrated on the public?"
But this is apparently standard procedure for the Clearwater Police.
Point in fact: 13 years after the DeRosa theft, a complaint was made on
behalf of Julie Schwartz (in March 1997) where your officers picked her
up, manhandled and assaulted her, and while she needed medical attention
had her put into a mental institution pursuant to the "Baker Act",
refusing her needed medical attention and instead abusing her through an
assult on her religious beliefs in an attempt to conduct an illegal
"deprogramming". This matter was reported to the CPD, who rejected the
report without a single statement.
Don't also forget Detective Miller went off bragging to Church
officials about "what Mrs. Schwartz said", including the fact of it being
on tape. Yet, when a copy of the tape was requested, the Police
Department all of a sudden claimed it "didn't exist". Maybe now you
understand why I wrote my original letter requesting you not destroy
evidence. Had we not obtained a copy of the interview transcript of Ms.
DeRosa, that interview transcript would also, no doubt, "not exist". And
yet, based on the DeRosa transcript the evidence is clear that the
reported Schwartz incident reflects and accurate and consistent portrayal
of a continuing pattern of CPD tactics illegally targetting the Church and
Scientologists. Finally, let's not forget it was Detective Miller who
attended those out-of-town seminars to get trained as a "deprogrammer".
And then, there are these questions which couldn't possible have
anything to do with the individual stealing money and circumstances of her
crime:
"Do you know anything about their Gross Income, or
anything like that?
"Are they paying their bills?"
And finally, Emmons concluded the interview with this:
"How much money have you paid so far into the Church
of Scientology?"
Answer: "75 dollars."
Emmons: "You got away cheap."
Actually, she got away more than cheap -- she had 10,000 Swiss francs
(4,000 U.S. dollars).
Now I've given you more evidence. And I've been doing so for a week.
What is evident with this incident is that you had a proper report on th
ematter, that you did locate the culprit, that she did in fact steal the
money and that you did not do a single thing to enforce the law. To
repeat, no one question was asked about the crime itself.
As we have alleged, there appears to be department policy that any
crime committed against a Scientologist or their Church is a good deed.
While you complain about Scientologists marching around your
headquarters and protesting the discriminatory treatment afforded them,
having the temerity to call it "fantasy" while your hatchet-man calls us
"schizophrenic", the acts the complain of are documentably true and no
less than despicable in modern-day Clearwater.
You haven't answered any of my letters. That, too, I consider
discriminatory. I am reporting matters to you of great import and
significance and since the Church is a member of the community, you have a
duty to serve us.
And as for conflicts in the city, you are also proving that it is you
who is keeping them stirred up. With your press statements picked up by
your pals at the St. Pete Times, who call our documented claims
"unfounded", we are in the position of having no choice but to make known
these acts of police misconduct which have occurred. That we have to
expose the acts of yourself and other select members of your department,
who have done everything to suppress them seeing the light of day, is
intolerable. How else do you describe your local media contacts refusing
to report actual quotations out of a Federal Court of Appeals decision --
considered one of the leading civil rights decisions of the decade? How
else do you explain the fact that your behavior precisely comports with
what was condemned by the Federal Courts? How is it that you refuse to
simply tell me your aren't destroying documents? And finally, how do you
explain that I offered you a meeting and you haven't so much as responded
to my letter?
Evidence, evidence and more evidence. That's what I've given to you.
I don't like airing your dirty laundry. But for four years we have tried
to resolve these matters in an amicable matter not even requiring you to
be held fully accountable for these acts. You have refused at every turn
and then, when Scientologists are left with no choice but to speak out --
and speak out loudly -- you respond with insults. It's not that we can't
live with insults. But we refuse to live with insults that are
horrendously dishonest and yet get printed in the press to cause even
greater harm to our members and Church.
I truly do wish to resolve these matters and consider a response the least
you could do.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Anderson
Church of Scientology
Flag Service Organization, Inc.
P.O. Box 31751
Tampa, FL 33631-3751 USA
[END QUOTE]
Anderson needs to word-clear "evidence" because he obviously doesn't have
a friggin' clue about the actual meaning.
Either he has completely lost it, or he thinks that the police chief must
be as dumb as a post to buy into Anderson's idiocy.
Man, this keeps getting weirder and weirder.
--
Mark Dallara
mdal...@kcii.com
http://www2.kcii.com/users/dallara/
Keith Henson
Awesome Mark. Much appreciate the work you put into posting this madness
on paper. Keith Henson
Klaus Bloemker
Mark Dallara wrote:
> # I obtained these letters ... from CPD ...
# The copies were $0.15 per page, a total of $4.50 ...
You got real good value for your money. Many thanks for providing the
letters duty free to the world. - Merry Christmas Mark !
Klaus
Alan Barclay
In article <34a9bd65...@news.relay.co.uk>,
Mark Dallara <mdal...@kcii.com> wrote:
> Here is the evidence.
>
> In June 1983, the Church reported 10,000 Swiss francs missing, that
>the cash had been stolen from the Finance Office of the Church of
>Scientology, and that Debbie DeRosa was the suspected thief.
>
> Various reports were made by Church members, including police
>interviews and all of them described the circumstances of the theft, the
>individual who had stolen the money, and the reasons for their suspicions.
In other words, no evidence at all. Why aren't I suprised.
Brett
mdal...@kcii.com (Mark Dallara) wrote:
># I am posting these because they are prime examples of the #
># viciously paranoid lunacy and despicable smear tactics of the cult #
># of $cientology, which has continually attempted to use defamation, #
># legal threats, harassment, and criminal acts to silence those who #
># speak out against them, both online and offline. #
---snip --
>Either he has completely lost it, or he thinks that the police chief must
>be as dumb as a post to buy into Anderson's idiocy.
>
>Man, this keeps getting weirder and weirder.
>
>--
>Mark Dallara
Mark, you're a legend in your own backyard ! (Clearwater that is :->)
Now wonder you're so high up on their (s)hit-list !
Have a great Xmas and an even better New Year.
Brett K
Ron Newman
In article <34a9bd65...@news.relay.co.uk>, mdal...@kcii.com wrote:
[quoting a letter from $cientologist Brian Anderson to Clearwater
Police Chief Sid Klein]
> But this is apparently standard procedure for the Clearwater Police.
> Point in fact: 13 years after the DeRosa theft, a complaint was made on
> behalf of Julie Schwartz (in March 1997) where your officers picked her
> up, manhandled and assaulted her, and while she needed medical attention
> had her put into a mental institution pursuant to the "Baker Act",
> refusing her needed medical attention and instead abusing her through an
> assult on her religious beliefs in an attempt to conduct an illegal
> "deprogramming". This matter was reported to the CPD, who rejected the
> report without a single statement.
I assume this refers to the incident documented in the following
newspaper articles at the time. Now we have a name to go with it:
Julie Schwartz.
Scientologist hospitalized after jump into harbor
By THOMAS C. TOBIN
©St. Petersburg Times, published March 2, 1997
CLEARWATER - A barefoot woman ran between two
Church of Scientology buildings early Saturday before
jumping into Clearwater Harbor, where police took her
into protective custody for a psychiatric evaluation.
As the incident unfolded over more than three city blocks
downtown, a patrol officer tried twice to ask the woman if
she needed help, police said. They said she and a Church
of Scientology security guard behind her kept running and
eventually she was found by police in shallow Clearwater
Harbor.
Scientology attorney Elliot Abelson said Saturday that the
woman had a personal emergency at a Scientology
building, the Sandcastle hotel, and was running to get there
from the Fort Harrison Hotel.
The guard was trying to help her, Abelson said. "The
guard was absolutely not running after her."
The woman, a 36-year-old Scientologist visiting from
New Jersey, told Clearwater police she was not trying to
get away from the church or church officials during her
pre-dawn sprint through downtown.
Police said the woman appeared distraught and was
admitted to Morton Plant Hospital under the Baker Act,
which empowers officers to seek mental evaluations for
people who appear likely to harm themselves or others.
The woman's two children, estimated to be ages 2 and 7,
were found sleeping in her room on the seventh floor of
Scientology's Fort Harrison Hotel, said police spokesman
Wayne Shelor, who refused to release the woman's name.
He said the children were fine and were in the custody of
the state Department of Children and Families.
The incident comes as Clearwater police and state law
enforcement officials investigate the case of another
36-year-old Scientologist, Lisa McPherson, who died in
1995 after a 17-day stay at the Fort Harrison.
McPherson also had behaved oddly in public, taking off
her clothes at the scene of a minor accident. She too was
taken to Morton Plant Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation
but fellow Scientologists intervened, saying psychiatry was
against her religion. They promised to take care of her and
took her to the Fort Harrison.
McPherson entered the hotel in good physical shape.
After an autopsy, the medical examiner said she had
suffered severe dehydration.
McPherson's family has alleged in a lawsuit that she was
isolated and held against her will as part of a church
procedure to cure what Scientology calls a "psychotic
break." Church officials say McPherson was isolated, but
did not undergo any procedure and was free to come and
go. They say she was well cared for and that they did all
they could after she suddenly became ill with a severe
staph infection.
On Saturday, Officer Terry Kelly saw the woman run out
the front door of the Fort Harrison and head north on Fort
Harrison Boulevard, Shelor said. She was dressed in a
shirt and jeans with no shoes or socks, and was being
followed by a security guard, he said.
"She was in a full-gait run," Shelor said. Kelly "described
her as wild-eyed," Shelor said.
Shelor said the McPherson case had no bearing on how
the department handled the Saturday incident.
"At 5:40 in the morning, this tends to catch the eye of a
police officer, regardless of where it happens," Shelor
said. "He was concerned for her well-being . . . It was
imperative that a police officer speak with the woman and
determine if she needed assistance."
Shelor said Kelly caught up to the woman at the city's
main library three blocks from the Fort Harrison and
asked if she needed help. He said the woman and the
security guard continued running.
After that, he said, the woman cut through a hedge at the
old chamber of commerce building at Osceola Avenue
and Drew Street and ran to the Sandcastle, a church
retreat overlooking Clearwater Harbor.
The officer again tried to talk to the woman as she paused
briefly near a man who appeared to be a Sandcastle
manager or representative, Shelor said. But she bolted
into a Sandcastle building and a short time later was seen
in the harbor, just beyond a 6-foot sea wall at the west
end of the property.
The water was only about a foot deep, and the woman
was unhurt except for a cut on her foot, Shelor said.
An officer was dispatched to the Fort Harrison after the
woman mentioned her two children, he said.
Police placed her into protective custody and took her to
headquarters to be interviewed, Shelor said. They decided
to admit her under the Baker Act in part because of a note
they found in her room at the Fort Harrison, he said.
Shelor would not disclose the note's contents.
Also, Shelor said, "she was speaking and acting
irrationally. Clearly, she was trying to do harm to
herself."
Abelson, the church attorney, said the woman and her
children checked into the Fort Harrison on Friday night.
He said she appeared in the lobby holding two pillows at
about 5:40 a.m.
A guard saw her and asked if he could help her, he said.
Church spokesman Brian Anderson said she asked a
security guard whether he had a car available. The guard
said he did not, Anderson said.
The woman told the guard there was an emergency at the
Sandcastle and that she needed his help, Anderson said.
Then she ran out the door, he said.
The guard radioed to alert the Sandcastle then headed out
to assist the woman, Anderson said.
Abelson said the guard was a block behind the woman.
At the Sandcastle, he said, police asked her whether she
was being chased. She responded that the guard was
helping her, then ran into the Sandcastle, Abelson said.
"This is not an escape," he said. "This is a person going
from one church building to another."
Anderson said the woman had told church guards and
police that she was troubled about the death of her
husband last year. He said the woman's family has arrived
in town to help her and her children.
He said he did not know what the woman's emergency
was. He also said the church would not intervene for the
woman at the hospital.
"It's a private matter," he said.
--------------------------
Tampa Tribune, March 3, 1997
Baker-acted Scientologist released
By SEAN LENGELL of The Tampa Tribune
_________________________________________________________________
CLEARWATER - A woman who was taken into police custody for a
psychiatric evaluation after running barefoot from a Church of
Scientology building and jumping into Clearwater Harbor has been
released from the hospital, a church spokesman said Sunday.
A Clearwater police officer on patrol early Saturday saw the woman
sprint from the former Fort Harrison Hotel building downtown, used
as a residence by the church, followed by a security guard.
The officer followed the woman and offered assistance, but she kept
running until arriving at the Sandcastle Hotel on Osceola Avenue,
another Scientology residence.
She then jumped into about 1 foot of water in Clearwater Harbor, in
back of the Sandcastle.
The woman appeared distraught, so police admitted her to Morton
Plant Hospital under the state's Baker Act, which allows for the
temporary committal of those who pose a physical threat to
themselves or others.
Church spokesman Brian Anderson said the woman, a Scientologist
visiting from New Jersey with her two small children, checked into
the hotel Friday night. About 5:40 a.m. Saturday, she went to the
lobby and told a security guard that she needed help because of an
emergency at the Sandcastle, Anderson said.
The 36-year-old woman asked the guard if he had a car, and when he
said he didn't, she ran out the door, Anderson said.
The guard radioed the Sandcastle before running to the hotel to
assist, Anderson said.
There apparently was no emergency at the Sandcastle. The woman
later told church officials and police she was upset about the loss
of her husband, who died last summer, Anderson said.
Anderson said the church did not object to the woman receiving
psychiatric treatment, saying that the case was ``a private
matter.''
``I think [utilization of the Baker Act] was unnecessary, as
evident by her release,'' Anderson said.
The woman's family arrived from out of town Sunday and is caring
for her, Anderson said.
Anderson denied that the woman was trying to leave the church.
``That [question] is absolutely asinine, she was just trying to go
to another Scientology building,'' Anderson said.
The incident occurred as the Clearwater Police Department, the
Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office and the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement are investigating the 1995 death of Lisa
McPherson, a Scientologist who was pronounced dead at a Pasco
County hospital.
Seventeen days before her death, McPherson, 36, was involved in a
minor car accident where she received no injuries. According to
police, she got out of her vehicle, exhibited ``unusual behavior''
and removed her clothing at the scene.
She was taken by ambulance to Morton Plant, where doctors wanted to
admit her for psychiatric treatment.
Scientologists, however, persuaded McPherson to leave with them to
return to the Fort Harrison Hotel. The hospital released her to the
church.
An autopsy by Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Joan Wood stated that
McPherson suffered from ``severe dehydration'' and had bruises and
bites that likely were caused by cockroaches. In comments to
reporters, Wood said McPherson was comatose for 24 to 48 hours
before a blood clot killed her.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>In article <34a9bd65...@news.relay.co.uk>, mdal...@kcii.com wrote:
>
>[quoting a letter from $cientologist Brian Anderson to Clearwater
>Police Chief Sid Klein]
>
>> But this is apparently standard procedure for the Clearwater Police.
>> Point in fact: 13 years after the DeRosa theft, a complaint was made on
>> behalf of Julie Schwartz (in March 1997) where your officers picked her
>> up, manhandled and assaulted her, and while she needed medical attention
>> had her put into a mental institution pursuant to the "Baker Act",
>> refusing her needed medical attention and instead abusing her through an
>> assult on her religious beliefs in an attempt to conduct an illegal
>> "deprogramming". This matter was reported to the CPD, who rejected the
>> report without a single statement.
>
>I assume this refers to the incident documented in the following
>newspaper articles at the time. Now we have a name to go with it:
>Julie Schwartz.
>
> Scientologist hospitalized after jump into harbor
<snip>
*Very* observant, Ron.
As for Brian Anderson, he needs a severe reality check. If a person
throws herself into the harbor, is not this person asking for help???
And given the fact that Lisa McPherson *died* under Scientology "help",
don't you think that the police were right to step in as they did?
Scientology doesn't care for the Lisa McPhersons or the Julie
Schwartzses. Scientology only cares for itself.
Deana
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
Defied David Miscavige's Intention Beams, November 1, 1997
mir...@super.zippo.com
Alan Barclay
In article <34a12b59...@snews2.zippo.com>,
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series) <mir...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>And given the fact that Lisa McPherson *died* under Scientology "help",
>don't you think that the police were right to step in as they did?
I'd go further than that. Now that it is public knowledge that there
may be dangers in releasing people to the care of scientologists, I'd
say that the police, hospitals and other similar organizations would
be neglegent in their duties unless they take positive actions to
ensure that anyone in similar circumstances is protected from any
possible harm.
Doe1thru5
>From: mir...@super.zippo.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series))
>As for Brian Anderson, he needs a severe reality check. If a person
>throws herself into the harbor, is not this person asking for help???
>
>
The question is whose? The lady had a police officer to ask for help but
wasn't inclined, had any number of directions she could have run in after
departing the Ft. Harrison, but ran to YET ANOTHER Scientology building, and
was NOT found in need of detention by psychiatric examiners. There is no
allegation that the woman didn't know how to swim, which I suspect most people
do know how to do, so going into shallow water refered to in the article is
hardly presumable as being an activity dangerous to herself.
It's typical that her children would have to be taken into custody here. Can't
let anyone's children stay with the church when there's an excuse to yank them
into state for evaluation. No one alleged the children did anything wrong
abnormal! Of course we all know it is less traumatic to be suddenly yanked
away by strangers and held in isolation by them while they figure out what
they'd like to do with you. Must have been a treat for the children.
Just because psychiatrists are helpful people of considerable education this
does NOT mean that they should be handed over vast powers, legally or
culturally. Here they were handed over possession of a person despite the lack
of demonstrated harm to self required. The lady was just acting unusually is
all.
Viewing the news stories as showing a proper exercise of state power, and as
proving some point about the incident beyond the facts recited, shows typical
ars-brainwashed think.
d15
Doe1thru5
>From: mdal...@kcii.com (Mark Dallara)
From Brian Anderson
================
> Here is more of the evidence you demanded I come forth with.
...
> Various reports were made by Church members, including police
> interviews and all of them described the circumstances of the theft, the
>individual who had stolen the money, and the reasons for their suspicions.
>
> We did not hear a single thing from the Clearwater Police for over 10
>years when we gained access to the Calzone Pizza files. It was only then
>that we discovered you had in fact located and apprehended the criminal,
>but instead of charging instead offered congratulations, attempted to
>gather intelligence on the Church, and then sent her on her way with all
>of the cash.
...
> You are on record in the Times stating my claims are "fantasy", yet
>this quote proves what I've said, showing you to be the liar.
> -- I think that
>is precisely what the above quote says, even if entirely disingenuous
>concerning the CPD attitude towards Scientologists. After all, when the
>4,000 or so made their voice clear to you, they similarly got the bigoted
>treatment.
.....
> Don't also forget Detective Miller went off bragging to Church
>officials about "what Mrs. Schwartz said", including the fact of it being
>on tape. Yet, when a copy of the tape was requested, the Police
>Department all of a sudden claimed it "didn't exist". Maybe now you
>understand why I wrote my original letter requesting you not destroy
>evidence. Had we not obtained a copy of the interview transcript of Ms.
>DeRosa, that interview transcript would also, no doubt, "not exist".
...
> While you complain about Scientologists marching around your
>headquarters and protesting the discriminatory treatment afforded them,
>having the temerity to call it "fantasy" while your hatchet-man calls us
>"schizophrenic", the acts the complain of are documentably true and no
>less than despicable in modern-day Clearwater.
>
>
Dallara comments:
==============
>Anderson needs to word-clear "evidence" because he obviously doesn't have
>a friggin' clue about the actual meaning.
Evidence means things introduced to prove a point. Anderson has done so.
Another limitation on the meaning of evidence is that is stems from "things
presented to the senses" which may be reported or introduced to prove a point.
A police transcript showing complicity in accomplishing a theft (perfecting,
but not initiating the act) is something presentable to the senses that would
help prove a point of a state of mind on someone's part of condoning or perhaps
encouraging illegal activities under the color of authority.
Not everyone, and particularly not people who care about the rule of law, are
going to take such an ars-brainwashed point of view on what Anderson
introduced. There is no rational reason to hold the Clearwater PD to a
ridiculously low standard of behavior while holding the CoS to a normal or
enhanced standard.
d15
Mike O'Connor
In article <rnewman-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>,
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
[...]
Cult:
> > up, manhandled and assaulted her, and while she needed medical attention
> > had her put into a mental institution pursuant to the "Baker Act",
[...]
Press:
> Police said the woman appeared distraught and was
> admitted to Morton Plant Hospital under the Baker Act,
So the Morton Plant Hospital isn't a place to get medical attention, it's
a mental institution? -Mike
Jim Bianchi
On 24 Dec 1997 19:09:07 GMT, Doe1thru5 <doe1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: mdal...@kcii.com (Mark Dallara)
>Evidence means things introduced to prove a point. Anderson has done so.
>Another limitation on the meaning of evidence is that is stems from "things
>presented to the senses" which may be reported or introduced to prove a point.
Ok. Thank you. Hubbard made more than just a few assertions he
claimed were backed by 'scientific evidence.' Can you point me to where this
scientific validation of Hubbard's discoveries and breakthroughs can be
found?
(Until the 'church' of scientology sees fit to come forth with this
evidence and show it is scientific in nature, I submit no scientologist has
aany right whatsoever to complain about the presence or lack of such in any
other organisation.)
--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS, (707) 539-1279
Ex Mudder
>
> You haven't answered any of my letters. That, too, I consider
>discriminatory. I am reporting matters to you of great import and
>significance and since the Church is a member of the community, you have a
>duty to serve us.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I love this. the chief of police has DUTY to
respond to the ravings of a lunatic.
He better check that with the Clammy Judge Whyte, who previously
ruled that the SJPD does not have an obligation to protect the
citizens.
Conner
On 24 Dec 1997 18:59:48 GMT, in message
<19971224185...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, doe1...@aol.com
(Doe1thru5) wrote:
>>From: mir...@super.zippo.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series))
>
>>As for Brian Anderson, he needs a severe reality check. If a person
>>throws herself into the harbor, is not this person asking for help???
>>
>The question is whose?
the person behaved unusually, appeared excessively distraught, was
taken to Morton Plant Hospital for evaluation, was released. i can't
think of a more appropriate handling end-to-end than this. what's
the problem?
The lady had a police officer to ask for help but
>wasn't inclined,
avoiding him could have been perceived as
evidence of mischief afoot. one could almost
describe the officer's behavior as muted.
had any number of directions she could have run in after
>departing the Ft. Harrison, but ran to YET ANOTHER Scientology building, and
>was NOT found in need of detention by psychiatric examiners. There is no
>allegation that the woman didn't know how to swim, which I suspect most people
>do know how to do, so going into shallow water refered to in the article is
>hardly presumable as being an activity dangerous to herself.
all of this is really pointless distraction, so far as i can
determine.
>
>It's typical that her children would have to be taken into custody here. Can't
>let anyone's children stay with the church when there's an excuse to yank them
>into state for evaluation.
the reasons weren't made clear, but i'm sure they followed a
formal procedure that is intended to protect the children from
possible harm. i'm also pretty sure that that procedure said
nothing about scientology or non-scientology.
>No one alleged the children did anything wrong
>abnormal! Of course we all know it is less traumatic to be suddenly yanked
>away by strangers and held in isolation by them while they figure out what
>they'd like to do with you. Must have been a treat for the children.
more distraction. mindless wandering, almost. doesn't
go anywhere.
>
>Just because psychiatrists are helpful people of considerable education this
>does NOT mean that they should be handed over vast powers, legally or
>culturally. Here they were handed over possession of a person despite the lack
>of demonstrated harm to self required. The lady was just acting unusually is
>all.
and they didn't hold her. what are you so excited about?
on the other hand, maybe if someone would have been present
to invoke an examination of Lisa McPherson under the Baker
act, she'd be alive today.
>
>Viewing the news stories as showing a proper exercise of state power, and as
>proving some point about the incident beyond the facts recited, shows typical
>ars-brainwashed think.
>
and you have invented a straw man for your comments. Ron merely
noted that the person who jumped into the bay now had a name.
Mirele merely noted (and I agree) that a person behaving bizarrely
frequently *is* asking for help at some level, which you and brian
seem to have problems understanding.
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner, nee Number 3)
Note: the header address is wrong!
Friends of Dennis Erlich Club (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Doe1thru5
>From: ji...@bolt.sonic.net (Jim Bianchi)
>
>On 24 Dec 1997 19:09:07 GMT, Doe1thru5 <doe1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>From: mdal...@kcii.com (Mark Dallara)
>
>>Evidence means things introduced to prove a point. Anderson has done so.
>>Another limitation on the meaning of evidence is that is stems from "things
>>presented to the senses" which may be reported or introduced to prove a
>point.
>
> Ok. Thank you.
Meaning what? Meaning you concede what I've said about Anderson offering
evidence?
> Hubbard made more than just a few assertions he claimed were backed by
'scientific evidence.'
As I'm well aware. I'm familiar with a long string of such assertions.
> Can you point me to where this scientific validation of Hubbard's
> discoveries and breakthroughs can be found?
Nope. However there is a considerable amount of evidence of Hubbard's claims.
I just don't happen to think that evidence fits well into the "scientific"
paradigm. Scientific validation of Hubbard's work is likely absent in any
sense used in academia. A claim by Hubbard to the contrary would strike me as
unfounded.
> (Until the 'church' of scientology sees fit to come forth with this
> evidence and show it is scientific in nature, I submit no
> scientologist has any right whatsoever to complain about the
> presence or lack of such in any other organisation.)
Well it's a good thing you don't exercise any control over society, like a
judge would, then. I submit that in the rule of law police departments should
make assertions based on evidence. Also citizens have rights whether or not
their can prove their religious ideology, one of those rights being to complain
to the government. That is what Brian Anderson is disputing with the chief,
either well or poorly: does CWPD act in accordance with its duties and in
accordance with the best evidence? I didn't understand Anderson to be
disputing whether or not Hubbard offers validated proof of his claims. I have
to wonder if it would even be proper for a police chief to try and enter such a
dispute.
I somewhat take it that skipping right along to the question "Did Hubbard
provide evidence" concedes the point that Anderson did and moves along to some
other place you think there would be vulnerability. Please indicate if this is
not so.
d15
Doe1thru5
From: see...@cyberpromo.com (Conner)
> the person behaved unusually, appeared excessively distraught, was
> taken to Morton Plant Hospital for evaluation, was released. i can't
> think of a more appropriate handling end-to-end than this. what's
>the problem?
The problem is something in the US called the Bill of Rights. You can't seize
and detain a person without violating this insignificant scrap of paper unless
you have reasonable grounds to do so. Those reasonable grounds are generally
conceded to be danger to self and others, and sometimes grave incapacity to
care for oneself (grave meaning serious health hazard, not just very offbeat
behavior suggesting that one may be developing a psychiatric illness). Simply
doing something abnormal does not met that test. There was not grounds for
forcing anyone to submit to psychiatric evaluation in circumstances of
incarceration unless that someone seemed to pose a danger to themself or
another. Nothing in the tale indicates either of these risks of harm, just odd
behavior.
It is an indication of something grossly wrong when a police department
considers that acting unusual is grounds for psychiatric evaluation outside of
its role in detecting when a person is in DANGER without it. I've read of so
many accounts that start with the "let's just chuck this oddball into the
psych's path, the ball is in their court" that wind up being tragic, because
not ALL psychiatrists in the US have caught on to the idea yet that the ability
to define someone a temporary "nonperson" (i.e. a psychiatric patient) in legal
terms does not actually put them above the law, but there are still some
psychiatrists in this country who think they are entitled to define reality and
acceptable or unacceptable behavior all on their own.
> The lady had a police officer to ask for help but
>>wasn't inclined,
>
> avoiding him could have been perceived as
> evidence of mischief afoot. one could almost
> describe the officer's behavior as muted.
Avoiding a police officer, or more generally acting surreptitiously, is indeed
something any competent police officer is expected to take notice of and
exercise "a policeman's curiousity" about. That is generally in the context of
CRIMINAL investigation, the detection of crime, not in arbitrarily deciding
that one shall determine who is best seized and detained for pyschiatric
evaluation. If the security gaurd was avoiding the police officer, I could
understand a perception of mischief afoot. I don't understand what is so
suspicious about a person running around town and wanting to handle whatever
freaking business has got them in such a rush by themselves, without the
intervention of state authorities. The state is not god, and the person
nothing, in terems of managing one's own affairs.
I cannot describe the policeman's behavior as muted when it involves a seizure
and detention of a person outside of constitutional rights, which include being
eccentric or acting oddly without apparent harm to self or others.
>> had any number of directions she could have run in after
>> departing the Ft. Harrison, but ran to YET ANOTHER Scientology building, and
>>was NOT found in need of detention by psychiatric examiners. There is no
>>allegation that the woman didn't know how to swim, which I suspect most
>people
>>do know how to do, so going into shallow water refered to in the article is
>>hardly presumable as being an activity dangerous to herself.
>
> all of this is really pointless distraction, so far as i can
> determine.
Then you have a hard time determing important things. Policemen have certain
rights to detain people, but that does not include, for instance, because they
are smoking cigarettes and this is behavior that is hazardous to oneself. It
does not include because they declare they were a butterfly in a past life. It
does not include running around town and acting nonsensical, with no apparent
harm to oneself or another.
It doesn't surprise me that the average ars-oid doesn't want to stop and
evaluate the ways in which evidence does not met the tests it is supposed to.
The point is to howl along and not stop and think about things, for most in
ars. Indeed, anything that could cause one to stop and think about things is
indeed a "distraction" if the point is simply to find all reports of events
proof of something about the party alleged against.
>>It's typical that her children would have to be taken into custody here.
>Can't
>>let anyone's children stay with the church when there's an excuse to yank
>them
>>into state for evaluation.
>
> the reasons weren't made clear, but i'm sure they followed a
> formal procedure that is intended to protect the children from
> possible harm.
The possible harm being? I'm sure that the Soviet Union protected political
dissidents from the possible harm of wandering around loose in society and
spouting dangerous ideas that would get devout communists upset, and maybe one
would punch out the dissident. On the other hand children known to be in an
abusive environment are frequently taken into custody in this fashion by the
state to prevent harm, reasonably. Between these two standards, the capricious
exercise of power and the reasonable intervention, the action of Florida
towards the lady's children lies. Of course we could assume that being within
the Ft. Harrison and being a child is in itself presumably exposure to harm, if
we happen to be a raving bigot. I have little reason to doubt that is what
motivated the behavior of Florida child welfare authorities, since the fact
that there mother was having a hard time goes to show NOTHING about any harm
they might have been exposed to. Such harm would be entirely speculative at
best.
> i'm also pretty sure that that procedure said
> nothing about scientology or non-scientology.
The usual practice when parents are taken for psych eval is not to seize and
detain children too. Usually if there is a responsible adult the children
would be more comfortable staying with, that's who the children stay with while
the parent is being evaluated. There are thousands and thousands of
involuntary psych evals done every year, but each one does NOT result in the
children being seized and detained by the state.
>> No one alleged the children did anything wrong
>>abnormal! Of course we all know it is less traumatic to be suddenly yanked
>>away by strangers and held in isolation by them while they figure out what
>>they'd like to do with you. Must have been a treat for the children.
>
> more distraction. mindless wandering, almost. doesn't
> go anywhere.
More distraction? So you're cool with children being yanked into an unfamiliar
environment, with strangers, subject to detention and isolation from familiar
people there, while an overawing power (compared to them) is pondering their
fate? You have an odd idea of distraction and mindless wandering. It goes to
the issue of whether children should be seizable and detainable by the state
when there is no evidence of harm to them. Of course if you automatically
presume that being a child and being within the Ft. Harrison is some hazardous
state of being, why your point follows naturally.
>>Just because psychiatrists are helpful people of considerable education this
>>does NOT mean that they should be handed over vast powers, legally or
>>culturally. Here they were handed over possession of a person despite the
>lack
>>of demonstrated harm to self required. The lady was just acting unusually
>is
>>all.
>
> and they didn't hold her. what are you so excited about?
That they seized and detained her without authority, and they did the same to
her children. Doesn't seizing and detaining a person have something to do with
the fundamental idea of constitutional rights?
Oh yes. I forgot that its a truism of arsoids that Scientologists are entitled
to none. Congratulations, you're absorbing (or reabsorbing, as the case may
be) Hubbard-think more and more every day. Only "honest people" (your own
side) have rights. Hey, didn't you leave that behind? Isn't this the sort of
thing ars is supposed to decry?
> on the other hand, maybe if someone would have been present
> to invoke an examination of Lisa McPherson under the Baker
> act, she'd be alive today.
She was examined by staff at the ER, precisely what involuntary psychiatric
exams involve in most cases. She did not pose a danger to herself or others.
She was apparently suffering under a panic attack, which are frequently
triggered by a decision to leave a place or abandon a relationship after a long
spell of increasing anxiety about one's situation, which matches up with what
we know Lisa was intending. Since people who have no training in medicine or
psychiatry (most of us) are usually able to interpret the events involved in
panic attacks only as the onset of insanity she probably interpreted this as an
incipient psychotic event, and interpreted this within Scientology's concept of
the consequences of deciding to blow. Had she been diagnosed in this fashion
(I admit, telediagnosis using only the facts that have been put on the net is a
bit farfetched, but the scenario I'm using is extremely plausible) she may or
may not have taken the medication that would be offered to her to restabilize
her limbic system and restore her ability to control her own destiny in a
relatively calm & rational way. I don't know how psychiatrists would have
gained the ability to medicate her against her own will, though, under the
facts as given, as she was not violent, nor that they could hold her beyond a
few days. There is no reason for me to suppose she would have acted
differently had she had a few days breathing space while being psych evaluated.
I think she would have let Flag staff offer her their brand of help for a
"psychotic episode" when she got out all the same, since she didn't have the
background to understand that she was most likely suffering from one of
America's most frequent psychiatric disorders, one highly treatable and
typically short term. Why would she have gone back to her family when
suffering from a mental condition that so mystified and terrified her? What
the heck did they know about helping out when you think you're going nuts?
>> Viewing the news stories as showing a proper exercise of state power, and as
>>proving some point about the incident beyond the facts recited, shows
>typical
>>ars-brainwashed think.
>>
> and you have invented a straw man for your comments.
A strawman is a rhetorical term for an imaginary opponent to whom one
attributes the weaker rival arguments rather than the stronger ones a real
opponent would force one to overcome. Since it is rare for most arsoids to
even bother to look for the stronger argument, looking just as far as is needed
to feel justified in howling in approval of anything nasty said about the CoS
and Scientologists seems to be the stretch most are capable of, I wonder how in
the world "strawman" ever came to be part of the vocabulary.
I have invented no strawman. I have reviewed information in reports about a
woman who was unconstitutionally seized and detained, and her children as well
(what a TREAT it must have been for them to be seized by strangers in this
fashion!) and pointed out why there is something wrong with that. I have
examined the strongest arguments the facts permit. I have reasonably supposed
the norms for people involved where I have made assumptions in my own
arguments.
> Ron merely noted that the person who jumped into the bay now
> had a name.
When I have something critical to say about Ron Newman, I will name him
personally. I don't agree with everything he might think, but don't consider
him a half-baked arsoid. Since I didn't direct anything against Ron
personally, we seem to have a "strawman" argument going here. See above.
> Mirele merely noted (and I agree) that a person behaving bizarrely
> frequently *is* asking for help at some level,
Whose? I already asked that question once. Why doesn't someone offer evidence
that it was the psychiatric authorities of the State of Florida she was "asking
help" of it that's such an easy thing to prove? Why the hell would someone
asking for help from a psychiatrist run from one Scientology facility to
another? Seems to me it wouldn't be at all necessary to complete that journey
under this "asking for help" scenario.
Is every person having some distress or difficult circumstances in life thereby
subscribing to the materialistic ideology of psychiatry? Is it simply a matter
of fiat, an exercise of state power, that attributes this presumed request in
that direction?
> which you and brian seem to have problems understanding.
I have a hard time understanding how 1 + 1/2 = 2. I believe Brian probably
does too. And seizing and detaining this lady was just that sort of equation
in operation, from the information I have about the incident.
d15
Tilman Hausherr
In <19971224190...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, doe1...@aol.com
(Doe1thru5) wrote:
>A police transcript showing complicity in accomplishing a theft (perfecting,
>but not initiating the act) is something presentable to the senses that would
>help prove a point of a state of mind on someone's part of condoning or perhaps
>encouraging illegal activities under the color of authority.
The transcript does not say this. It is not claimed that it is the full
transcript. Besides, it is a normal tactic to accuse critics of theft.
Has been done with that guy who later collected $50,000 (forgot his
name) in a lawsuit, and had been done with Deirdre. If that person had
really stolen money and the police declined to investigate, they could
have sued her in civil court. They haven't done it.
Besides, it is certainly not the first time they got this transcript. If
"Big Sid" was covering up a crime, scientology would have called the
FBI. They haven't done it.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Jim Bianchi
On 25 Dec 1997 01:30:41 GMT, Doe1thru5 <doe1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: ji...@bolt.sonic.net (Jim Bianchi)
>>
>>On 24 Dec 1997 19:09:07 GMT, Doe1thru5 <doe1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>From: mdal...@kcii.com (Mark Dallara)
>>>Evidence means things introduced to prove a point. Anderson has done so.
>>>Another limitation on the meaning of evidence is that is stems from "things
>>>presented to the senses" which may be reported or introduced to prove a
>>>point.
>>
>> Ok. Thank you.
>
>Meaning what? Meaning you concede what I've said about Anderson offering
>evidence?
Did I say I'd conceeded? Word clear 'thank you.' I was attempting to
politely acknowledge what you'd said before moving along to a new topic. An
acknowledgement is a way to let someone know their you have received and
duplicated their communication. See, it's called a 'cycle of communication.'
You say something and I duplicate it and acknowledge it and then _I_ get
to say something and _you_ get to duplicate and acknowledge _it_. You see,
lack of acknowledgement is very common in society today and is the cause of
a lot of communication difficulties. (As is, of course, claiming a concept
or discovery has scientific evidence to support it when it doesn't.)
>> Hubbard made more than just a few assertions he claimed were backed by
>'scientific evidence.'
>
>As I'm well aware. I'm familiar with a long string of such assertions.
You ARE? Great! Can you give me the basis on which they were made?
>> Can you point me to where this scientific validation of Hubbard's
>> discoveries and breakthroughs can be found?
>
>Nope.
Hmmm, guess not.
>However there is a considerable amount of evidence of Hubbard's claims.
Ok! Hey, great. Now where is it? Ahh, scratch that. I'm not inter-
ested in subjective, anecdotal, evidence such as meaningless 'big win' stor-
ies; I'm looking for the scientific, objective, evidence Hubbard claimed
existed in support of his man discoveries.
>I just don't happen to think that evidence fits well into the "scientific"
>paradigm. Scientific validation of Hubbard's work is likely absent in any
>sense used in academia. A claim by Hubbard to the contrary would strike me
>as unfounded.
Well, gee that's disappointing, inasmuch as Hubbard quite a few
times used language that would make one reading it feel that there was
actual, objective, scientific evidence (with no "but it doesn't fall into
the scientific par- adigm" disclaimers) to support his claims regarding the
topic under discussion. Would Hubbard LIE? (Or was this written *before* he
discovered the technology that would allow perfect communication and he
simply said things because they sounded neat?)
>[snip]
>I somewhat take it that skipping right along to the question "Did Hubbard
>provide evidence" concedes the point that Anderson did and moves along to
About as much as your inability to provide pointers to where the
requested evidence can be found conceeds that Hubbard wasn't wrapped too
tightly.
>someother place you think there would be vulnerability. Please indicate
>if this is not so.
Quite frankly, I've no opinion either way on this matter to which
you refer. And the question is not "did Hubbard provide evidence?" It was
"Where is the evidence Hubbard claimed existed that proved the validity of
his various discoveries and breakthroughs?" I was trying to change the subj-
ect by way of pointing out the real basis behind a lot of skepticism of sci-
entology/dianetics: Many (most) of the claims of Hubbard that 'scientific
evidence' exists in support of his many discoveries and breakthroughs were
untrue, false, (dare I say fraud?).
Should we move this to a different thread perhaps? I'd kinda like to
continue this discussion. You see, I feel that if this proof Hubbard claimed
existed in support of his theories were actual, hard, scientific evidence as
he claimed it was, and if it could be brought out, presented to the world to
judge for themselves its validity, that'd go a *long* way to quelling most
of the criticism of scientology, which seems to me to fall into two basic
categories: "Hubbard's outright fraudulence" and "the unethical acts of
scientology." N'es pas?
#include: global_thank_you()
Conner
On 25 Dec 1997 02:29:10 GMT, in message
<19971225022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, doe1...@aol.com
(Doe1thru5) wrote:
[clip most everything to get to the point]
doe, wading through your rather longish rant (may
i use that term in consideration of the tone?), it seems
to me our differences concerning the case of Julie
Schwartz come down to one or two issues.
first, was julie behaving in a manner where she could
be considered a danger to herself or others? if so,
then i think we have agreed that the state was justified
in holding her for evaluation, and that her civil rights
were not improperly justified. and further, i think we
have agreed that upon this holding of her, the state really
had no option but to take [protective] custody of her
children.
you have claimed she was not acting a a manner
where she could be considered a danger ... If this
was the case, then i would generally agree with you.
so, if you have evidence for this, i urge you to share it.
the newspaper article gave indications that would lead
me to think she was acting strangely enought to be
considered a danger. in the absence of
other information, it seems appropriate to rely on
the judgement of the officer at the scene, and on the
undisclosed contents of the note at the Fort Harrison.
you claimed that the police treated her differently
because she was a scientologist. if you have evidence
for this, i urge you to share it.
otherwise, it looks to me a very insubstantial conjecturing
wrapped in inappropriate emotionalism.
if you'll remember, even the 'church' claimed it was
not their matter to deal with, and made no fuss about it
at the time.
and your concern for julie's children is touching, but somehow
a bit hollow. you again hypothesize conditions that you
apparently have no specific evidence for.
David Gerard
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:52:21 GMT, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:
:Awesome Mark. Much appreciate the work you put into posting this madness
:on paper. Keith Henson
Mark, I certainly hope you or someone is webbing this stuff ...
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/
Boycott amazon.com until they *stop* sending junk email:
http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Study hard and do your homework/That's the way to fill your phonebook" - NW
Ted Mayett (KoX)
>
>Mark, I certainly hope you or someone is webbing this stuff ...
>
Beautifully webbed here:
http://www.scientology-kills.net/Brian_Anderson/
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
st...@swhitlat.com
|> Beautifully webbed here:
|>
|> http://www.scientology-kills.net/Brian_Anderson/
Absolutely hilarious stuff, no need to feel any let down
now that Christmas is over; read and enjoy.
As Sid Klein said to Brian Anderson, "Your letter is a fascinating
mix of fact, fantasy, baseless allegation and absurd conclusions."
We've got to get the meme investigators onto this stuff.
OK, well, the scienos make such funny fools, it is almost shameful
to taunt them. However, we cannot allow this despicable
spectacle this scientology to go unstudied. scienos are infected
with the insanity that was once hubbard's. How did it happen?
Unleash the meme team. It's going into the school books.
Steve Whitlatch
swhi...@primenet.com
--
Honesty cures scientology, but lions lie with lambs only after
both have fed on heroes and shepherds.
Phillip Zadarnowski
doe1...@aol.com (Doe1thru5) wrote:
[...]
>Evidence means things introduced to prove a point. Anderson has done so.
>Another limitation on the meaning of evidence is that is stems from "things
>presented to the senses" which may be reported or introduced to prove a point.
>A police transcript showing complicity in accomplishing a theft
Hey. This is a hot exercise by Scientology. If they have any
evidences of wrongdoing, it's time to get the lawyers and
get it seen to. In this case, they're doing their usual
'noisy investigation' and other tactics to make a public
case against their 'enemies'.
Shit, I really thought you would know better. I've had them
knocking at my door and claiming that the police were after
me. I told the stupid Scn PR Bitch she was talking hot air.
I'd take most of Andersons low shots and his idea of facts
and legality with a tonne of salt. Whatever real facts
that remain mean nothing in supporting his Scientologistic
view.
Doe1thru5
>From: til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr)
>In <19971224190...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, doe1...@aol.com
>(Doe1thru5) wrote:
>
>>A police transcript showing complicity in accomplishing a theft (perfecting,
>>but not initiating the act) is something presentable to the senses that
>would
>>help prove a point of a state of mind on someone's part of condoning or
>perhaps
>>encouraging illegal activities under the color of authority.
>
>The transcript does not say this. It is not claimed that it is the full
>transcript.
Where is the full transcript posted?
> Besides, it is a normal tactic to accuse critics of theft.
I thought the lady was accused of theft upon her departure. That would be very
prescient behavior on the part of Flag, to foresee that they would need to DA
her with a theft charge. And did or did not the lady attempt to transact an
exchange of the money at the airport?
By the way, it has happened in the past that people have stolen funds from the
church and by cooperating with police who want a story of inside activities
more than to halt crime these people have been let go. An IRS informant did
this in Los Angeles in the 70's. It was futile to press a case against him, as
his being an IRS informant seemed to exonerate all. See the works of Omar
Garrison and others.
>Has been done with that guy who later collected $50,000 (forgot his
>name) in a lawsuit, and had been done with Deirdre. If that person had
>really stolen money and the police declined to investigate, they could
>have sued her in civil court. They haven't done it.
They may or may not have anticipated success. Not all people charged with
crimes in the US are actually prosecuted for them. This happens all the time.
The District Attorney has wide discretion as to whether or not to pursue any
charges, and often doesn't if the case is problematic enough.
>
>Besides, it is certainly not the first time they got this transcript. If
>"Big Sid" was covering up a crime, scientology would have called the
>FBI. They haven't done it.
The presumption is possible, but hardly proves the point. It does tend to
suggest that the charges against the lady who is said to have stolen the money
are not as solid as Anderson implies. It doesn't prove much that they aren't
complaining to the FBI about the Chief of Police. One of the primary duties of
local FBI Special Agents is to establish friendships with local police
officials and maintain rapport. It is far from given that complaining to the
FBI would produce action against any particular Chief of Police. Neither do we
know that the CoS has not complained to the FBI in this matter.
d15
Doe1thru5
>From: fan...@nilspam.iinet.com.au (Phillip Zadarnowski)
>doe1...@aol.com (Doe1thru5) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Evidence means things introduced to prove a point. Anderson has done so.
>>Another limitation on the meaning of evidence is that is stems from "things
>>presented to the senses" which may be reported or introduced to prove a
>point.
>>A police transcript showing complicity in accomplishing a theft
>
>Hey. This is a hot exercise by Scientology. If they have any
>evidences of wrongdoing, it's time to get the lawyers and
>get it seen to.
Maybe they are getting with their lawyers. Maybe their lawyers want to see
stronger evidence. Maybe they want to rack up far more specific denials out of
Klein, who dismisses the allegations in a hand waving way, simply calling them
ludicrous. No doubt every defendant in the US would like to have so much
weight attributed to a similar denial. Anyway, I don't know what the current
state of legal action on these charges, if there are any at all, and find it
hard to infer anything from it therefore.
> In this case, they're doing their usual 'noisy investigation' and
> other tactics to make a public case against their 'enemies'.
Maybe they'll find something. They've already turned up a slush fund and what
looks like obstruction of justice under the color of authority to help someone
get away with an alleged theft.
You're perhaps a little knew to the CoS wars to understand that law enforcement
agencies do indeed pull Nixon style dirty tricks and do other naughty things
when Scientologists are involved. They don't do them everytime, and sometimes
its the CoS that is playing the dirty hand. It's rash to assume there is
invariably one side in the wrong in these disputes.
> Shit, I really thought you would know better.
Now you know that I listen to evidence, not sneering and innuendo. It's what
lead me to dump my CoS affiliation, so it can't be that bad a habit. In the
matter of these letters, snips of evidence tend to suggest there may well be
more snips of evidence turned up after a noisy investigation that indicate, not
very surprisingly, that some law enforcement agencies feel they can safely go
outside the law, abusing their public trust, as long as its a disfavored or
little credited party their doing a dirty op on. Then again, there may well
just be a few things that don't pan out. I wait and watch in anticipation.
> I've had them knocking at my door and claiming that the police
> were after me.
According to others in this thread, if you haven't reported that to the FBI or
filed suit against them you're some kind of liar. I don't buy that argument,
but thought I should let you know the types of things others say about these
kinds of allegations.
> I told the stupid Scn PR Bitch she was talking hot air.
Good. Always better to answer back than just sit there and take it.
Hope you don't waste too much time on it, as Scn PR Bitch's are loyal to their
side and won't be much swayed by what you say.
>I'd take most of Andersons low shots and his idea of facts
>and legality with a tonne of salt. Whatever real facts
>that remain mean nothing in supporting his Scientologistic
>view.
Andersons' innuendo or surmise does seem to overreach what he offers as
evidence. Maybe he'll come up with more, maybe not. Whatever the real facts,
they aren't going to come to light by him and his side sitting on their butts
bemoaning their fate. So I suppose if they continue their noisy investigation
another year or so it will be about time for me to make up my mind as to
whether they have anything of substance to support their point of view.
Personally I don't subscribe to the idea of one set of laws and standards of
evidence for Scn and another for everyone else.
d15
Doe1thru5
>From: ji...@bolt.sonic.net (Jim Bianchi)
>
>On 25 Dec 1997 01:30:41 GMT, Doe1thru5 <doe1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>From: ji...@bolt.sonic.net (Jim Bianchi)
>>>
>>>On 24 Dec 1997 19:09:07 GMT, Doe1thru5 <doe1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>From: mdal...@kcii.com (Mark Dallara)
>>>>Another limitation on the meaning of evidence is that is stems from
>"things
>>>>presented to the senses" which may be reported or introduced to prove a
>>>>point.
>>>
>>
>>Meaning what? Meaning you concede what I've said about Anderson offering
>>evidence?
>
> Did I say I'd conceeded?
No, you didn't. That's precisely why I asked if you did. As you can see later
in my post that you are responding to, I note that there is no reply to the
essence of the allegations being made, rather there is a foray off into the
question of someone else's credibitility. When someone traipses off into a
diversionary issue in response to something, I wonder if they are conceeding
what they are avoiding, and so I ask if they are conceeding. Just a bad habit
of mine, trying to clarify what is being argued. Since the "acknowledgment"
was the only comment on the point avoided, I wondered if that contained the
essence of the reply to the previous point in the thread under discussion.
Hope this clarifies matters.
Slippery word, that "okay". I don't follow any conventions about regarding its
meaning as limited to Scientology "acknowledgment".
> Word clear 'thank you.'
Don't need to. If you wish to clarify what "okay" means for me, that's more
appropriate at this point.
> I was attempting to politely acknowledge what you'd said before
> moving along to a new topic. An acknowledgement is a way to let
> someone know their you have received and duplicated their
> communication. See, it's called a 'cycle of communication.'
>You say something and I duplicate it and acknowledge it and
> then _I_ get to say something and _you_ get to duplicate and
> acknowledge _it_. You see, lack of acknowledgement is very
> common in society today and is the cause of a lot of
> communication difficulties.
Unfortunately communication relies on a common means of symbolic expression,
also. Since I don't follow a convention of acknowledging people by use of the
5 Scientology acknowledgement words, I need to clarify what "okay" will mean.
Does it mean agreement, concession of a point, or what? Really the words
"okay" and "good" should not be used as mere acknowledgements due to this type
of confusion.
By the way, the cycle of communication you describe is based on the
Shannon-Weaver model, which is an excellent tool in discussing machine
communication. I don't know why I should ever regard it as apt for human
communication. I have some inklings of why Hubbard did, but that's not really
important. I'll spare you the long treatise on why the Shannon-Weaver model
is not suited to human communication.
>>> Hubbard made more than just a few assertions he claimed were backed by
>>'scientific evidence.'
>>
>>As I'm well aware. I'm familiar with a long string of such assertions.
>
> You ARE? Great! Can you give me the basis on which they were made?
>
>>> Can you point me to where this scientific validation of Hubbard's
>>> discoveries and breakthroughs can be found?
>>
>>Nope.
>
> Hmmm, guess not.
I'm not the man's apologist. If he wanted his ideas accepted based on robust
evidence it was his job to present good evidence. It's not my job to do it for
him. He did however present some types of evidence. I'm more interested in
not having the word "evidence" distorted beyond recognition than in defending
Hubbard.
>>However there is a considerable amount of evidence of Hubbard's claims.
>
> Ok! Hey, great. Now where is it? Ahh, scratch that. I'm not inter-
>ested in subjective, anecdotal, evidence such as meaningless 'big win' stor-
>ies; I'm looking for the scientific, objective, evidence Hubbard claimed
>existed in support of his man discoveries.
Well now that you've specified WHAT KIND of evidence it is you want, I won't
bother. People are convicted and governmental policies made all the time on
the strength of the kind of evidence Hubbard managed to scrounge up at his
best, but I agree that this isn't the kind of evidence that satisfies me very
much. The matter has been mooted by further specification of the very narrow
defintion of evidence you'd prefer.
>
>>I just don't happen to think that evidence fits well into the "scientific"
>>paradigm. Scientific validation of Hubbard's work is likely absent in any
>>sense used in academia. A claim by Hubbard to the contrary would strike me
>>as unfounded.
>
> Well, gee that's disappointing, inasmuch as Hubbard quite a few
>times used language that would make one reading it feel that there was
>actual, objective, scientific evidence (with no "but it doesn't fall into
>the scientific par- adigm" disclaimers) to support his claims regarding the
>topic under discussion.
Hubbard was a well known liar. That would seem to agree well with your
observation here. Of course there is no "scientific validation" that Hubbard
was a liar, mostly just anecdote, records, and other such evidence that people
rely on in the ordinary course of life. That tends to be good enough evidence
for most that Hubbard was a liar, though. I recall a judge coming to such an
opinion without first consulting any academic, peer reviewed journal on the
question.
What the hell does Hubbard having been a liar have to do with whether or not
Klien is involved in illegal abuse of police powers or not?
> Would Hubbard LIE?
In my opinion, Hubbard would lie even when he didn't need to, just for the hell
of it.
Would Klien lie? That's the thrust of this thread, I'd thought.
>>I somewhat take it that skipping right along to the question "Did Hubbard
>>provide evidence" concedes the point that Anderson did and moves along to
>
> About as much as your inability to provide pointers to where the
> requested evidence can be found conceeds that Hubbard wasn't
> wrapped too tightly.
You're losing me. You say "requested evidence" but this thread is discussing
two evidentiary questions. The first is the one germane to this thread,
discussing evidence cited by Anderson. The other you introduced as a side
argument about whether Hubbard is credible and presents credible evidence. You
don't indicate which type of requested evidence you mean here.
>>someother place you think there would be vulnerability. Please indicate
>>if this is not so.
>
> Quite frankly, I've no opinion either way on this matter to which
>you refer. And the question is not "did Hubbard provide evidence?" It was
>"Where is the evidence Hubbard claimed existed that proved the validity of
>his various discoveries and breakthroughs?" I was trying to change the subj-
>ect by way of pointing out the real basis behind a lot of skepticism of sci-
>entology/dianetics: Many (most) of the claims of Hubbard that 'scientific
>evidence' exists in support of his many discoveries and breakthroughs were
>untrue, false, (dare I say fraud?).
>
> Should we move this to a different thread perhaps? I'd kinda like to
>continue this discussion. You see, I feel that if this proof Hubbard claimed
>existed in support of his theories were actual, hard, scientific evidence as
>he claimed it was, and if it could be brought out, presented to the world to
>judge for themselves its validity, that'd go a *long* way to quelling most
>of the criticism of scientology, which seems to me to fall into two basic
>categories: "Hubbard's outright fraudulence" and "the unethical acts of
>scientology." N'es pas?
I have no interest in validating Hubbard's work. The kinds of statements
Hubbard offered tend towards the fraudulent, as you point out. Most religions
offer little better, but since Hubbard was claiming to present science rather
than religion so much of the time, it is a particularly worthwhile point to
make. I don't plan to waste any time on making it, though. I consider it well
enough made by others already.
I don't see any question of validating Hubbard's work as relevant to this
thread. "Hubbard was a liar" does not tell us the first thing about whether
or not Klien illegally abused police powers. It seems senseless to me that
allegations against Klien should be looked at using a set of princples to be
applied where Scientologists are involved, while general principles of
assessing allegations against others are different.
d15
Doe1thru5
>From: gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay)
>There was reasonable grounds to suspect that the woman may
> pose a danger to herself or others, and the police followed the
> law by putting her in protective custody and and evalulating
> what further action, if any, is required.
Here at least we have merely a difference of opinion about what those
reasonable grounds are, which I can understand raising. I can't see that the
police did have reasonable grounds. They had reasonable grounds to believe the
lady was acting oddly, and that alone.
>Running down a street barefoot and apparently not acting very
>rationally can be a very good indication of possible danger. If
> she'd run into the path of a car, like Roger Nind, she could have
> been hurt or killed.
I understood this to be very early morning, not a high traffic time. There are
no facts indicating the lady ran in a manner putting herself at risk of
traffic. People have automobile veruses pedestrian accidents all the time,
aside from any abnormal mental state, yet it is not enough reason, in my
opinion, to seize and detain them.
>Jumping off a 6 foot wall into the harbour is a very good indication
>of possible danger, water can be very dangerous,
There's a quite a stretch from "water can be very dangerous" to actual danger.
In that Clearwater is a vacation destination, I tend to believe people jump
into its bay often, perhaps even from walls. This is not in itself an
indication that they are in need of involuntary seizure and detention.
> even if you're a good swimmer, especially if you're not clearly
> thinking,
Determining clarity of thought is not something policemen are well trained for.
If the policeman could cite behavior beyond a strangely hectic early morning
swim I could understand the conclusion.
The problem here is that something offered as evidence is presuming the
existence of the evidence in the first place. It's assumed she was not clearly
thinking (maybe, but where's the evidence beyond the behavior, which is odd but
not an indication of mental defect of a dangerous sort) and then invoked as
evidence. This piles inference upon inference.
> Allowing 2 and 7 year old children to sleep on the floor also
> indicates that the woman may not have been capable of making
> the best decisions for others.
Depends on whether they had bedding, in my opinion. As a child and adult I've
slept on floors when away from home many many times. What saved me from
seizure and detention by the state is apparently that fact that I had a
sleeping bag around me.
>Finally, the SP Times article says:
>
>"Police placed her into protective custody and took her to
> headquarters to be interviewed, Shelor said.
So they didn't seize and detain her according to any psychiatric intervention
law at all. Apparently there was something they were entitled to cite her for
- illegal jumping into the bay?
> They decided to admit her under the Baker Act in part because
> of a note they found in her room at the Fort Harrison, he said.
> Shelor would not disclose the note's contents."
>
>Unless you know the note's contents (and if you do, we would like to
>know exactly HOW you know,) you are not in full possession of the facts
>and cannot rationally claim that there was no basis for the police's
>actions.
I can rationally claim that if police are to seize and detain a person they
require a lawful foundation for the act. Since they did not take her to a
hospital but to a police station, they did not seize and detain her for the
purposes of psychiatric evaluation. That came later.
I can rationally claim that if the State of Florida wants to seize and detain
children it can have a sufficient reason for doing so, rather than a simple
desire to do so.
I can rationally claim that speculative and overreaching evidence that a lady
in question was not rational (THEN WHAT THE HELL WAS SHE DOING RELEASED SO
QUICKLY) is not something to be idly introduced as proof that, mirible dictu,
she was not rational.
I have no idea why the lady decided to overboard herself into Clearwater Bay on
that morning. It hardly seems sensible to me to rely on bias against all
things CoSy and simply up and decide that the police acted properly.
d15
Doe1thru5
>From: see...@cyberpromo.com (Conner)
> doe, wading through your rather longish rant (may
> i use that term in consideration of the tone?),
If you will allow that I may refer to ars as a longish rant, you may certainly
refer to my statements as a longish rant. Labels of this sort don't bother me.
I am more interested in the quality, or lack of quality, of thought than in
attaching the appropriate denigrating label.
> it seems
> to me our differences concerning the case of Julie
> Schwartz come down to one or two issues.
>
> first, was julie behaving in a manner where she could
> be considered a danger to herself or others?
There is no evidence of this. Stretching and distorting the reports to fit
such a picture after the fact may be some people's preferred course of action.
It was apparently NOT the psychiatric evaluator's opinion though!!! Gosh,
doesn't anyone bother to put any weight on that??? If the game is "rush to
judgment in any way that makes the CoS look bad" I suppose not weight needs to
be put on it.
> if so,
> then i think we have agreed that the state was justified
> in holding her for evaluation,
We most definitely have not. She behaved oddly. That is not enough reason for
a group of people who have conferred medical degrees and psychiatric
credentials on each other to overturn the idea of human rights and the US
implementation of it in the form of constitutional laws.
> and that her civil rights
> were not improperly justified.
In no way can I agree to that. Her civil rights were the essence of what was
trashed. According to another poster she wasn't even taken to a hospital at
first, just to a police station. That is NOT usual procedure for executing a
psychiatric evaluation.
> and further, i think we
> have agreed that upon this holding of her, the state
> really had no option but to take [protective] custody
> of her children.
It had the option of not seizing children without reason and subjecting them to
the detention by authorities, perhaps for the purpose of ... well what? I can
think of a parade of horribles a mile long that happens when an overly
aggressive state starts playing around with child custody without good reasons.
How long could YOU withstand not being coerced into saying something that
seriously interferes with familial attachments when someone locks you in a room
and heavily implies that you'd better say what the nice person wants to hear,
because THEY know the truth (which may be their own imagination, often enough).
An ever more frequent trend is the revelation of how child intervention
authorities of the state are sometimes working out their own agendas and
playing out their own pet biases, while using barbarous tactics in interveiwing
children (Locking them in rooms and revisiting frequently to tell the child
that until they say what is wanted they won't see their family again. I'm not
making this kind of stuff up!!) The kind of serious bullying and interference
in children's testimony that happened in the McMartin preschool fiasco and
others that I can think of in California is not all that rare.
I cannot agree that the state of Florida had no option than to subject the
children to seizure and detention among strangers who are hostile to the people
in the place they were seized from.
> you have claimed she was not acting a a manner
> where she could be considered a danger ... If this
> was the case, then i would generally agree with you.
Since it's the case shown by the available facts, okay.
> so, if you have evidence for this, i urge you to share it.
> the newspaper article gave indications that would lead
> me to think she was acting strangely enought to be
> considered a danger.
What we have going on here appears to be a different interpretation. I suspect
that because Scientology is involved you perceive "danger" in the events
reported. So why didn't the psychiatric
evaluators???????????????????????????????? Why did she walk just like that?
> in the absence of
> other information, it seems appropriate to rely on
> the judgement of the officer at the scene, and on the
> undisclosed contents of the note at the Fort Harrison.
If everyone did this law enforcement would still resemble a tragically ironic
farce as an institution of a democratic society in this country. Fortunately
over the last few decades "trust the officer and his unrevealed secret
knowledge" has not become the touchstone for evaluating the lawfulness of
police conduct. The contrary is the case.
> you claimed that the police treated her differently
> because she was a scientologist. if you have evidence
> for this, i urge you to share it.
I'm working off the same reports you are. I simply wonder why they don't
resemble police acting under proper authority.
> otherwise, it looks to me a very insubstantial
> conjecturing
> wrapped in inappropriate emotionalism.
We split ways on the interpretation of the US Constitution, above, I believe.
I decline to admit to conjecturing about whether the US Constitution is a
meaningful embodiment of civil rights.
> if you'll remember, even the 'church' claimed it was
> not their matter to deal with, and made no fuss about it
> at the time.
No here we get back to the real issue. Is what Anderson alleges relevant to
what they say about Klien.
> and your concern for julie's children is touching,
I don't know if it's concern for them as much as personal rage myself. You
take things from a different point of view when you know that because of who
you are associated with in the minds of the state's personnel you can be
subject to some very different treatments. It hasn't been so many years since
I was someone without rights against the state if it decided to "intervene" in
my case. I resent being viewed as a pawn, and resent people trying to
rationalize that someone in a situation similar to mine some years ago, such as
Julie's children, should simply be pawns of whatever state power is to be
exericsed against them. There are no governments I know of who are absent of
malice towards someone the "cultie Scientologist" label can be affixed to,
unless they happen to be ignorant of it in the first place. That's where I'm
coming from.
> but somehow
> a bit hollow. you again hypothesize conditions that you
> apparently have no specific evidence for.
I have invoked a few normative assumptions, such as ability to swim and the
usual course of events in involuntary psych evals, which I'm very well familiar
with from work experience. I've carried out a few, and would expect to get my
ass reamed if I claimed that a person acting oddly like this is thereby subject
to seizure and detention. What I see here is the usual "Scientologists - set
of laws one; everyone else - normal laws" assumptions at work in other's
interpretation of the reports.
I don't believe I've invoked any nonnormative assumptions. It is not ME that
is hypothesizing conditions unreasonably. It is others, who apparently never
want to let go of any instance in which anyone somehow having connection to the
CoS at some point, can be made a tool of showing the CoS as amenable to any
charge against it, as worthy of any unlawful activity directed against it, who
are introducing assumptions which stretch the norms. I cannot imagine people
rarely run, but rather always placidly walk, the streets of Clearwater. I
cannot imagine that there are not people who jump into the bay in Clearwater.
The two put together seem odd under the circumstances. But if the lady in
question, even when the contens of her sooooo mysterious note were revealed,
was not worthy of more than quick interview by psychiatric evaluators, why do
people so tenaciously cling to this warped interpretation? Well it's yet more
dirt on the CoS in this interpretation, so some people simply will not let go.
Been there. Lived through that. On the receiving end. Doesn't amuse me.
I detest the kind of bigotry I experienced as a Scientologist, the kind I often
read spouted in ars and which I have was already exposed to long before ars
came into existence, just as much as I detest the kind of capricious bullying I
experienced from the CoS when a Scientologist. I do not for 2 seconds presume
benign attitudes and law abiding behavior on the part of state agencies were
they to identify me with the CoS or Scientology. I simply have tooooooo much
experience to take such a naive point of view.
I'm an equal opportunity ranter on that basis.
d15
Doe1thru5
>From: ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon)
> Nothing in the tale indicates either of these risks of harm, just odd
>>behavior.
>
>There is insufficient evidence to make a determination whether there were
>in fact good grounds for the actions taken.
Ultimately we are short of necessary facts. However I consider the faint
praise given by psychiatric evaluators to the police's call on the "dangerous"
question as tending to prove something. What need it prove? As far as this
thread goes, that Anderson may have a point when he complains about police
treatment not backed up by psychiatric evaluation. If it was such a righteous
call on the officer's side, why didn't the psychiatric evaluation back that up?
Release to family is NOT the norm when you have a dangerous tendency in a
patient, unless there happens to be a psychiatric worker in the family who is
going to be in close contact.
So what's the point I'm making? If you're a Scientologist (as I once was) you
better watch out, because the state is NOT inclined to be evenhanded towards
you. There's a set of laws for you, which bigots support the application of,
and a set of laws for others. That's pretty much the same point Anderson was
making.
So nice to get back to the point of it.
d15
Doe1thru5
Evidence evidence evidence - it's golden. So someone please help poor
befuddled, benighted, me and point out where Klien offers adequate evidence to
refute a charge that someone on his force roughed up someone associated with
Scientology.
Is this the kind of allegation that police are supposed to take lightly?
You roughed her up.
Ah, you're a lunatic cultie. Get lost.
What even more interesting is that the setting for such an exchange might be a
place like Clearwater. Now we know that never incorrect, oh soooooo
authoritative journal of pure fact called Time magazine has written about the
CoS sometimes. It even did a piece about Flag early in its history in
Clearwater. Contained in that report is the interesting bit where a local is
qouting some Flag staff who had the stupidity to patronize her restaurant. One
of the Flag crew was pregnant, and the local qoutes the party as saying another
little communist is about to come into the world. Does Time magazine bother to
use reporters who have a clue about their subject? If so, why does this qoute
get into the story? Anyone who knows Scientologists knows communists rank in
the Scientology pantheon right alongside crack and horse pushers. Has Time
magazine ever indicated that what it reported was merely a smear designed to
poison Clearwaterian minds? That calling Scientologists communists to help wip
up hysteria in the community about the presence of Flag by trying to smear them
as communists pretty well indicates the hostility present in Clearwater? Nah.
Clearwater is the fair haired boy in the dispute with CoS. I suspect people
like Klien know this. You can call a bunch of people communists, even if they
are almost rabidly opposed to communism, so long as it would make them look
bad, and that's just straight news to be reported. Hell, even ars critics will
overlook it. It's dirt on the CoS, so why dredge it up and refute it?
I think Klien knows that ars and Clearwater nonscientologists alike don't
really care all that much what is said about the CoS, so long as it is bad and
vilifies them.
So I guess when I go around asking for evidence evidence evidence that Klien
successfully refuted Anderson's "roughing up" claim, I'm just on a futile
mission.
'Taint no crime to rough up a Scieno, anyhow.
d15
Dr. Benjamin Wog
Anyone who knows Scientologists knows communists rank in
>the Scientology pantheon right alongside crack and horse pushers.
Heavens to Xenu. Is it 1953? Are the McCarthy hearings going on? Is it
that horrendous to be compared to communists? For all Clearwater
residents, the next time a pregnant scieno is near, you should be aware the
proper phrase to use is "Another little clam is about to be shucked."
>Has Time magazine ever indicated that what it reported was merely a smear
designed to
>poison Clearwaterian minds? That calling Scientologists communists to help
wip
>up hysteria in the community about the presence of Flag by trying to smear
them
>as communists pretty well indicates the hostility present in Clearwater?
Hmmmm? Could that have been why Heber Jentz compared CAN to the Nazi's and
the KKK on tonight's 60 Minutes? You know, the show where Leslie Stahl told
the story of Xenu to millions of Americans.
Nah.
Tilman Hausherr
In <19971229012...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, doe1...@aol.com
(Doe1thru5) wrote:
>>The transcript does not say this. It is not claimed that it is the full
>>transcript.
>
>Where is the full transcript posted?
Nowhere, obviously.
>> Besides, it is a normal tactic to accuse critics of theft.
>
>I thought the lady was accused of theft upon her departure. That would be very
>prescient behavior on the part of Flag, to foresee that they would need to DA
>her with a theft charge. And did or did not the lady attempt to transact an
>exchange of the money at the airport?
Brian Anderson claims it. But he never filed charges.
>By the way, it has happened in the past that people have stolen funds from the
>church and by cooperating with police who want a story of inside activities
>more than to halt crime these people have been let go. An IRS informant did
>this in Los Angeles in the 70's. It was futile to press a case against him, as
>his being an IRS informant seemed to exonerate all. See the works of Omar
>Garrison and others.
Garrison was fed by scientology. I found the name I meant and it is the
one you mean. It was Gene Allard. The "church" brought evasive testimony
in proving that he stole money, and the charges were dismissed. He later
successfully sued back.
>>Has been done with that guy who later collected $50,000 (forgot his
>>name) in a lawsuit, and had been done with Deirdre. If that person had
>>really stolen money and the police declined to investigate, they could
>>have sued her in civil court. They haven't done it.
>
>They may or may not have anticipated success. Not all people charged with
>crimes in the US are actually prosecuted for them. This happens all the time.
>The District Attorney has wide discretion as to whether or not to pursue any
>charges, and often doesn't if the case is problematic enough.
Stealing $10,000 is certainly a reason to open a case. But the money
must have been stolen.
>>Besides, it is certainly not the first time they got this transcript. If
>>"Big Sid" was covering up a crime, scientology would have called the
>>FBI. They haven't done it.
>
>The presumption is possible, but hardly proves the point. It does tend to
>suggest that the charges against the lady who is said to have stolen the money
>are not as solid as Anderson implies. It doesn't prove much that they aren't
>complaining to the FBI about the Chief of Police. One of the primary duties of
>local FBI Special Agents is to establish friendships with local police
>officials and maintain rapport. It is far from given that complaining to the
I suggest you read the article in the WP from a few days ago. The FBI
was investigating a police department where members of the extorsion
division were extorting money from married people who had visited gay
bars.
>FBI would produce action against any particular Chief of Police. Neither do we
>know that the CoS has not complained to the FBI in this matter.
If the FBI had investigated it and it had not produced results,
scientology would have accused it publicly. The truth is simple: the
theft exists only in scientology's own mind and for PR. They would never
bring this up in a real court.
Tilman
Phillip Zadarnowski
doe1...@aol.com (Doe1thru5) wrote:
[...]
I said:
>> Shit, I really thought you would know better.
You say:
>Now you know that I listen to evidence, not sneering and innuendo.
Bollocks. Get your own personal copies of the letters and then
talk about it. Who's evidence? Some text in ARS?? Don't come
the mighty judge act here. You're in with us. You don't talk
to Klein and you don't talk to Anderson, so you read what we
read.
[...]
>Personally I don't subscribe to the idea of one set of laws and standards of
>evidence for Scn and another for everyone else.
No. We all want due justice. That means fucking over the liars and
the oppressive groups that prey on the unwary.
Conner
On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 16:42:18 GMT, in message
<34a28587...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, see...@cyberpromo.com (Conner)
wrote:
>On 25 Dec 1997 02:29:10 GMT, in message
><19971225022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, doe1...@aol.com
>(Doe1thru5) wrote:
>
>[clip most everything to get to the point]
>
> doe, wading through your rather longish rant (may
> i use that term in consideration of the tone?), it seems
> to me our differences concerning the case of Julie
> Schwartz come down to one or two issues.
doe, i intended to answer your response, although
we have been hit by the justin spam in response to 60
minutes, and the IRS agreement revealed.
but somehow i lost it. however, my reaction is that you
still are relying too much on a particular interpretation of what
is known to make a case that something is amiss in the case
under discussion. so i still do not agree.
sorry. repost or answer otherwise if you wish. i'll try to
follow up properly.