Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

RVY confesses: I am LRH (was Re: The Missing Ten Months)

23 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Vaughn Young

unread,
Feb 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/20/98
to


I tell you, the world of Scientology can be a very bizarre world but this
world out here in ARS-land can be even more bizarre! I'm talking about
this latest conspiracy theory that has LRH abducted for ten months and
starts with ME! Here, read it!

In a previous article, Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] (Anonymous) says:

>L. RON HUBBARD--THE MISSING TEN MONTHS
>
>In the next paragraph below is a shocking allegation. You will scoff--at
>first. You are welcome to scoff. But please read to the end of the
>document, even if only to prove how righteous you are in scoffing:
>
>On 4 December 1972, L. Ron Hubbard was abducted by agents of the United
>States government when the plane he was traveling on from Lisbon landed in
>New York City. Jim Dincalci--a former nurse--and Paul Preston--a former
>Green Beret--were the only two people with him when it occurred.
>
>LRH was "gone" for ten months, until mid-September 1973 when he "returned"
>to Flag.
>
>It is Dincalci's testimony that during this MISSING TEN MONTHS, LRH was
>"hiding out" in Queens, New York--with only Dincalci and Preston as
>witnesses--and that during this period LRH purportedly wrote the project
>that launched "Snow White."
>
>It is unknown whether LRH was replaced by a "ringer" during that ten
>months, or was PDHed and made dependent on pharmaceuticals. What is known
>is that after his "return," he was never remotely the same, that he never
>again gave another extemporaneous lecture (which he had done for the
>twenty-two years prior), and that he never personally wrote another
>Scientology book.
>
>But here is a sequence of things that DID happen WITHIN JUST OVER A YEAR
>after the MISSING TEN MONTHS:
>
>MID-SEPTEMBER 1973
>"L. Ron Hubbard" returns(?) to the Apollo.
>
>EARLY OCTOBER 1973
>Robert Vaughn Young is promoted to the USGO.
>

Zap! There you have it, folks! The preordained machine was being
nefariously slid into place, starting with moi! What happens next?


>EARLY NOVEMBER 1973
>Michael Meisner arrives in Washington DC as Director of the Information
>Bureau in the DC GO
>

For those of you who don't know MM's relevance, he is the guy who ended up
blowing the whistle on the burglaries and breakins of federal offices that
led to the massive FBI raid of 1977. So you can see the link there, right?
LRH "returns" and I go to the USGO and Meisner goes to DC. (Nyark, nyark!)

Ready for the next part?

>EARLY DECEMBER 1973
>Robert Vaughn Young is "assigned to the PR section of the most secret and
>largest program in the Guardian's Office--the Snow White Program" (his own
>words).

Yup, AceOfClubs, dat's probably my words. It sure was! And with THAT, it
was all in place! Yes, Ace-duecy, we took control! (Nyark, nyark!) We had
Meisner in DC, waiting to go to the feds. Now all we needed was...

>
>EARLY DECEMBER 1973
>"LRH" has a motorcycle accident on Tenarife in which he breaks an arm and
>several ribs, is massively bruised, and is put on pain-killers. Dincalci is
>his medical officer, but the wand then gets passed to Kima Douglas--another
>former nurse.
>

(rubbing hands together) And you know who bought these "pain-killers"?
Robert Minton! (nyark, nyark)

Okay, you got me. I confess. I am really L. Ron Hubbard. I went through
massive operations to look like RVY who was changed to be:

>EARLY JANUARY 1974
>Gerry Armstrong is in place as the Port Captain for the Apollo.
>

Yes, that is really RVY. What happened to Gerry Armstrong?

>EARLY JANUARY 1974
>Michael Meisner is promoted to Assistant Guardian for Information, District
>of Columbia (A/GI DC)

Meisner was really Armstrong.

>EARLY MARCH 1974
>Assistant Guardian DC Duke Snider becomes Assistant Guardian for
>Information for the United States, relocating to Los Angeles (where Robert
>Vaughn Young is working).

Well not really. It was Terry Milner and it was Deputy Guardian for Intell
for the US. But that's okay. What was important was that he came to work
where I was so I could direct him.

Look, let's cut to the chase. Can we get a movie on this, Ace? I want
Robert Redford to play me. Huh, huh?

Let's cast the rest of the movie!

Gee, this is sooooooo exciting!

RVY

(I left in the rest for the screenwriter)

>
>MID SEPTEMBER 1974
>Cindy Raymond, Collections Officer for GO US (also in Los Angeles), informs
>Michael Meisner that she has selected Gerald Wolfe to "infiltrate IRS."
>(There is absolutely no background given on Wolfe, where he came from, what
>his qualifications are, what his Scientology credentials are--nothing.)
>
>EARLY OCTOBER 1974
>Gerald Wolfe arrives in DC from LA for the express purpose of infiltrating IRS.
>
>7-9 OCTOBER 1974
>Jim Dincalci is running a port office in Funchal, Madeira (which should be
>handling local Public Relations for the Apollo). The Apollo arrives there,
>and is subsequently driven out of the port by a mob that attacks the ship,
>believing it is a CIA operation.
>
>10-18 OCTOBER 1974
>The Apollo sails to Bermuda for refueling and supplies, and then sails for
>Charleston, South Carolina. Just off the coast of South Carolina, a coded
>radio message "from the Guardian's Office" warns "the Commodore" that the
>FBI are waiting on the dock to meet the ship, so the ship turns back for
>the Caribbean. (But WHO in the Guardian's Office did the message come from?
>HOW did they know FBI agents were congregating at Charleston? HOW did the
>FBI know that the Apollo was headed for Charleston in the first place? None
>of these obvious questions have been answered. The obvious answer is one or
>more double agents.)
>
>21 OCTOBER 1974
>Guardian Order 1361 is issued, ostensibly by Jane Kember, Guardian WW.
>According to Michael Meisner, certain targets (target number 10, 16 and
>17), were specifically assigned to him to carry out in the District of
>Columbia. Those targets say:
>"10. Immediately get an agent into DC IRS to obtain files on LRH,
>Scientology, etc. in the Chief Council's [sic] office, the Special Services
>staff, the intelligence division, Audit Division, and any other areas."
>"16. Collect data on the Justice Dept. Tax Division for the org board, the
>current terminals, and the people handling Scientology.
>"17. When the correct areas are isolated, infiltrate and get the files."
>(The outpoints in this are legion, but this question begs to be asked: WHY
>is this Guardian Order issued, put in writing, by Jane Kember AFTER Wolfe
>has already been selected to infiltrate IRS, and has already been sent to
>D.C. for this express purpose? Why? WHY? Is anybody, anywhere, REALLY this
>stupid? [And does Jane Kember, The Guardian WorldWide, REALLY not know how
>to spell "counsel?" Please!] We're also supposed to believe that Jane
>Kember, Mary Sue's immediate junior, issued this within three or four days
>of Mary Sue being on the Apollo during the FBI scare.)
>
>C. 27 OCTOBER 1974
>The government's version is: A few days before November 1, 1974, Don
>Alverzo, Deputy Information Branch I Director US, telephones Michael
>Meisner from Los Angeles, California, to say that he is coming to the
>District of Columbia to place an electronic bugging device in the Chief
>Counsel's conference room at the Internal Revenue Service where a major
>meeting concerning Scientology is going to be held. (Well, this entry
>certainly rings true. If you were going to bug the IRS's Chief Counsel's
>conference room, wouldn't you place a long distance telephone call on open
>lines to announce it in advance? Well, wouldn't you?)
>
>30 OCTOBER 1974
>The government's version is: Michael Meisner meets Don Alverzo at the
>Guardian's Office located at 2125 S Street, Northwest, in the District of
>Columbia. Also present at this meeting are Mitchell Hermann and Bruce
>Ullman (Information Branch II Director DC). Alverzo shows Meisner the
>bugging device he has brought with him from Los Angeles--a multiple
>electric outlet containing a transmitting device. In the late afternoon,
>Meisner and Mitchell Hermann enter the main IRS building located at 1111
>Constitution Avenue, Northwest, for the purpose of locating the conference
>room of the Chief Counsel's office where the meeting is to be held on
>November 1, 1974. (Why, sure, they just stroll right into the IRS building
>and snoop around. You believe it. You do. You are getting sleepy,
>sle-e-e-epy... .)
>
>1 NOVEMBER 1974
>Mitchell Hermann enters the main IRS building in the morning, goes to the
>fourth-floor conference room where the meeting on Scientology is to be
>held, and places the bugging device (FM transmitter) in a wall socket.
>Hermann leaves the building and waits in a car with Don Alverzo and Carla
>Moxon (Assistant Guardian Communicator DC) and overhears and tapes the
>entire meeting over the FM radio of the car. Following the meeting, Hermann
>re-enters the building, removes the bug, and takes various papers,
>including the agenda for the meeting, which had been left by the
>participants. In the evening, Hermann meets with Meisner and describes
>what had taken place. (Because of other "pressing business," Meisner hadn't
>gone with them to the bugging.) (PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE
>CURTAIN! OR TO THE FACT THAT MITCHELL HERMANN IS ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE HE
>WANTS TO IN THE IRS BUILDING AND PLANT BUGS WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM! OR TO THE
>INCORRECTLY-INCLUDED-MOXON! PAY NO ATTENTION!)
>
>11 NOVEMBER 1974
>A telex is purportedly sent from AGI DC Michael Meisner to DGI US Duke
>Snider, via DG US Henning Heldt stating that Gerald Wolfe, the "FSM," has
>apparently passed the hiring freeze and that they "will know for sure"
>whether he has received employment by November 18 at the latest. A notation
>on the telex indicates that it was received on "11.11.74" at "2000" hours
>(8:00 p.m.). (How did Wolfe get past a hiring freeze? Inside help? There is
>no explanation for this. Another oddity: November 18 is the exact date that
>Wolfe is actually hired--according to the government's Stipulation of
>Evidence. But see also the next entry: a telex purportedly stating that
>Wolfe has "accepted employment" at IRS.)
>
>14 NOVEMBER 1974
>According to the Stipulation of Evidence, a telex is purportedly sent by
>DGI US Duke Snider to DGI WW Mo Budlong, "Re: GO 1361 Tar [target] 10,"
>saying that despite the national hiring freeze defendant Gerald Wolfe has
>"accepted employment" at the IRS. (This is odd, because the same
>Stipulation of Evidence says that Gerald Wolfe got hired at IRS on 18
>November. One of these "facts," or both, must be false. The language of the
>Stipulation is also odd: it says Wolfe "accepted employment," as though it
>were offered to him, yet there is purportedly a hiring freeze at IRS. It
>seems that it would say Wolfe was "accepted for employment." A further
>oddity is that a hiring freeze was violated to take Wolfe on--not as some
>high-powered specialist who would warrant violating the freeze, but as a
>clerk typist!)
>
>15 NOVEMBER 1974
>A telex received "15.11.74" (November 15, 1974) at "2000" hours (8:00 P.M.)
>is purportedly sent from Mo Budlong to Duke Snider, the DGI US,
>congratulating him on the placement of a covert agent [Gerald Wolfe] at IRS.
>
>18 NOVEMBER 1974
>Gerald Wolfe gets employed at the IRS as a clerk typist. (For some reason,
>IRS saw fit to violate its hiring freeze in order to take on...a clerk
>typist. Go figure. By the way, wonder why all the congratulations were
>flying back and forth before he actually got hired.)
>
>26 NOVEMBER 1974
>CSC files a complaint against Internal Revenue Service, Donald C. Alexander
>(Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury of the United
>States), and William Simon, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States,
>entitled, "Verified Complaint for Injunction Against the Unlawful
>Withholding of Records and for Order for Production of Records Pursuant to
>Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, the Freedom of Information
>Act." CSC also files a motion for an order to show cause re: preliminary
>injunction to enjoin withholding of records and compel production of
>records, with supporting memorandum of points and authorities, and
>affidavit of the Reverend James C. Mulligan. (Uh, they just got Gerald
>Wolfe in place inside IRS to get them everything their hearts desire, and
>they file a COMPLAINT against the COMMISSIONER of IRS and the SECRETARY OF
>THE TREASURY! Why...oh, never mind.)
>
>C. 2 DECEMBER 1974
>Government version: Michael Meisner and Mitchell Hermann enter the IRS
>building and remain inside until sometime after 7:00 p.m. They then enter
>offices of the Exempt Organization Division on the seventh floor, remove
>from the building one file relating to Scientology, and take it to the
>Guardian's Office and photocopy it. The purpose is "to show Gerald Wolfe
>that documents can easily be taken from IRS offices." Meisner then calls
>Duke Snider in Los Angeles and tells him what he and Hermann have
>accomplished, what documents have been stolen. He tells Snider that this
>proves conclusively the ease with which documents can be taken from the
>IRS. (No exact date for this incident; just "During the first week of
>December 1974." The date almost HAS to be 2 December, which is a Monday. It
>can't be 1 December, which is a Sunday, and by Wednesday, 4 December,
>copies of whatever were taken are allegedly already in Los Angeles! If it
>was so easy for them to get documents, why did they need Wolfe employed
>there? Also, the entry for 4 December 1974 says Wolfe was with them on this
>trip; this just names Meisner and Hermann as going.)
>
>C. 3 DECEMBER 1974
>Government version: Mitchell Hermann returns the file on Scientology--which
>he and Michael Meisner had stolen the day before--to the IRS files.
>(Ri-i-i-i-ght. Just strolled in, slipped it back into a filing cabinet, and
>strolled back out. The Stipulation of Evidence doesn't say ANYTHING about
>HOW Hermann did this; uh, he just, uh, DID--that's all! One small problem,
>though, is that according to the 4 December 1974 entry, he had to stroll in
>with a file that was at LEAST TEN INCHES THICK!)
>
>4 DECEMBER 1974
>A telex purportedly is sent on December 4, 1974 at "2200" hours by DGI US
>Duke Snider to DGI WW Mo Budlong regarding "GO 1361 TAR 10." The telex
>informs Mr. Budlong that Snider has received "two shipments from DC...about
>ten inches" thick containing documents which "Mitchell Hermann, Gerald
>Wolfe and Michael Meisner" had stolen from the IRS. (The Stipulation of
>Evidence says only Hermann and Meisner--not Wolfe--had entered the IRS
>building, and they had only taken "one file" [see entry for 2 December
>1974]. That file, then, had to have been AT LEAST TEN INCHES THICK--MAYBE
>EVEN TWENTY [depending on how you interpret the telex]! This means that on
>3 December, Hermann had to just stroll back into the IRS building with a
>file TEN INCHES THICK, and unobtrusively put it back into the file cabinet
>from which it had been stolen! Right!)
>
>12 DECEMBER 1974
>District Judge KELLEHER, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
>California, issues an adverse ruling against CSC's 26 November 1974
>filings, denying release of documents by IRS. (Well, isn't that special!
>And WHAT a coincidence!)
>
>C. 17 DECEMBER 1974
>Government version: Mitchell Hermann is going on vacation, and Meisner is
>"taking over supervision" of Gerald Wolfe. Hermann "arranges for Meisner to
>meet Wolfe" in an Arlington, Virginia, parking lot and bring him over to
>Hermann's house on Fessenden Street, Northwest, to coordinate. Meisner
>"introduces himself (sic--see below) to Wolfe" using his real name; Wolfe
>reportedly feels more comfortable being called "Kelly." During the
>half-hour meeting at Hermann's house, Meisner and Wolfe discuss Wolfe's job
>and background. Wolfe is told that he can call Meisner any time at his
>office at 2125 S Street, Northwest, or at his home in Arlington. Hermann
>instructs Wolfe to "continue" (sic) obtaining all documents related to
>Scientology from the IRS office of Barbara Bird, an attorney in Refund
>Litigation Service. (There is NO previous indication of Wolfe having taken
>ANYTHING from Bird's office. Also, what about Meisner's 2 December escapade
>to "show Wolfe" how "easy" it is to take documents from IRS? Now this entry
>alleges they had never met!)
>
>C. 27 DECEMBER 1974
>Government version: "A few days prior to December 30, 1974," Gerald Wolfe
>allegedly enters the office of Barbara Bird in the main building of the IRS
>and takes from her files "many documents" related to Scientology. He
>photocopies them on a machine in the IRS Building, then returns the
>documents to Ms. Bird's office. (NOTE: Must be 27 December, as 28 and 29
>December are Saturday and Sunday. Now, WHY does this one related incident
>of something being taken from Bird's office come AFTER Wolfe being
>admonished by Mitchell Hermann to "continue" taking documents from her
>office?)
>
>30 DECEMBER 1974
>A memorandum from Michael Meisner to Cindy Raymond entitled "Raw Data
>Report Re: IRS-Charlotte Murphy Scientology File." It summarizes documents
>purportedly taken by Gerald Wolfe from the offices of Barbara Bird at the
>IRS. Meisner appends at least ninety-eight pages of documents taken from
>the IRS.
>
>C. EARLY JANUARY 1975
>Meade Emory, co-founder of Church of Spiritual Technology, which now owns
>all of L. Ron Hubbard's copyrights, and which has the power to seize all
>rights to all trademarks and Advanced Technology, is appointed by Donald C.
>Alexander as Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>There you have it, boys and girls: all the above occurred within ONE YEAR
>AND THREE MONTHS after LRH was MISSING FOR TEN MONTHS--allegedly holed up
>in a flat in Queens with a former male nurse and a former Green Beret,
>where he allegedly dreamed up the project that ultimately led to the utter
>destruction of his wife, his reputation, and the GO.
>
>Now you can re-read the second paragraph of this message, and scoff all you
>want. Or don't even bother--just go on believing the official version. Only
>don't pay very close attention to it. And don't ever get it all plotted in
>sequence.
>
>EPILOGUE: C. EARLY JUNE 1975
>Pam Kemp, LRH's old friend from Saint Hill days, arrives at the Apollo for
>courses. She is shocked to see how much he has aged. "I saw this figure
>coming on board in a big hat and red-lined Navy Cloak and I thought if I'm
>not mistaken that's LRH, although he was very slow and old looking. I went
>up to him and said, 'Hi, Ron.' He looked through me like he didn't know who
>I was. I thought maybe he was a little deaf so I went around another way
>and as he was coming towards me I said, 'Hi, Ron. How are you?' He didn't
>recognize me, didn't know who I was. I thought, how weird. Later I
>discovered he probably didn't see me properly because he needed glasses,
>but would never wear them."
>
>
>


--

--
*----------------------------------------------*
Robert Vaughn Young * The most potent weapon of the oppressor is *
wri...@eskimo.com * the mind of the oppressed. - Steve Biko *
*----------------------------------------------*

ace of clubs

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

In message <Pine.SUN.3.96.98022...@eskimo.com>, while
gripped, I guess, in a fit of paranoia, and not realizing the occult
significance of his thoughtless act, Robert Vaughn Young invoked my name
thrice:

<SNIP>

>Yup, AceOfClubs,

THAT'S ONE, RV.

>dat's probably my words. It sure was! And with THAT, it was all
>in place! Yes, Ace-duecy,

THAT'S TWO, RV.

>we took control! (Nyark, nyark!) We had Meisner in DC, waiting
>to go to the feds. Now all we needed was...

<SNIP>

>Can we get a movie on this, Ace?

BINGO! THAT'S THREE, RV! AND WITH A PUFF OF SMOKE, AND A
<GLINT> OF TEETH, HE-E-E-E-E-RE'S ACE!

But I can't help you with the movie. I don't do movies, RV. You had a guy
out in the desert that did movies; whatever happened to him?

Now, RV, you're beginning to worry me; did you cry out my name thrice just
because you're beginning to see me in every fuckin' anonymous post that
shows up in this message group, is that it? Spooky, RV. Ver-r-r-ry spooky.

Do you see me behind the bushes, too, RV? There with the FBI agents and
B.E.M.s? (Still laughin' 'bout those B.E.M.s, RV?) Or maybe I'm even
starin' back at you through the eyes of that cat, the strange one, the one
with the weird eyes that keeps lookin' at you. Spooky, RV.

If you keep seein' me everywhere, RV, maybe you should consider
professional help, a little psychiatric help. I'm sure they'd treat you
real good. And even if they decide you need a little shock treatment, it's
bound to be better than seein' old Ace every time you turn around or turn
on your computer and see "Anonymous" on a post. Ver-r-r-y spooky, RV.

In the meantime, RV, maybe this will give you some comfort: If I have
anything to say on this newsgroup, you'll fuckin' know it.

Till then, don't call me; I'll call you. Or not.

By the way, did you ever drop in on Meade Emory and have a good old
let-bygones-be-bygones chat? I mean, it seems like the neighborly thing to
do, you having been part of the Snow White operation, and all, and him
being right there nearby--then and now. If you do, will you ask him for me
what happened to Gerald Wolfe?

And, by the way again, RV, since you refuse to answer this question, I'm
finally going to answer it for you. Ready? There might be a test, so listen
up--I'm only going to say this once:

THE CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, DOING BUSINESS AS THE L. RON HUBBARD
LIBRARY, CONTROLS THE TECH. THEY OWN >>ALL<< THE COPYRIGHTS. THEY HAVE THE
RIGHT TO SEIZE THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND THE TRADEMARKS AT THEIR SOLE
DISCRETION. THEY IRREVOCABLY EARNED THAT RIGHT ON 1 OCTOBER 1993 WHEN THEY
WERE GRANTED TAX EXEMPTION. WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF GETTING TAX EXEMPTION,
NORMAN F. STARKEY TRANSFERRED ALL 7,000+ LRH COPYRIGHTS TO THEM.

Did you get that, RV? So now you know who controls the tech. Even though
you knew it all along, didn't you? So next time somebody asks you who
controls the tech, you won't have to be so fucking evasive. Just show 'em
this message, and blame it on Ace.

See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number
of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not
admit in public.
--Ossip Gabrilowitsch

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

ace of clubs

Martin Hunt

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

In article <1998030509...@basement.replay.com>,
a...@blackjack.no (ace of clubs) wrote in all caps mode:

>The church of spiritual technology, doing business as the l. Ron hubbard
>library, controls the tech. They own >>all<< the copyrights. They have the
>right to seize the advanced technology and the trademarks at their sole
>discretion. They irrevocably earned that right on 1 october 1993 when they
>were granted tax exemption. Within two months of getting tax exemption,
>norman f. Starkey transferred all 7,000+ lrh copyrights to them.

[De-capped with Xlate]

And your reference for this claim is....? I'm not saying it's
not true, but I'm hardly going to take some flaming anonymous
jackass's all-caps rant as The Truth[tm] on the subject.

When I was in Scientology, RTC was the sole copyright holder.
Why would they confer them to another organization? Escaping
a legal claim in one of the closer lawsuits? Or just as a tax
dodge after the IRS decision?

--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/

L. Ron Hubbard: "Clears do not get colds." - Dianetics.
David Miscavige: "I guess one could." - Koppel interview.


Curious guy

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

In article <1998030509...@basement.replay.com>, a...@blackjack.no says...
>
[much hot air and snide comments snipped]

>
>And, by the way again, RV, since you refuse to answer this question, I'm
>finally going to answer it for you. Ready? There might be a test, so listen
>up--I'm only going to say this once:
>
>THE CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, DOING BUSINESS AS THE L. RON HUBBARD
>LIBRARY, CONTROLS THE TECH. THEY OWN >>ALL<< THE COPYRIGHTS. THEY HAVE THE
>RIGHT TO SEIZE THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND THE TRADEMARKS AT THEIR SOLE
>DISCRETION. THEY IRREVOCABLY EARNED THAT RIGHT ON 1 OCTOBER 1993 WHEN THEY
>WERE GRANTED TAX EXEMPTION. WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF GETTING TAX EXEMPTION,
>NORMAN F. STARKEY TRANSFERRED ALL 7,000+ LRH COPYRIGHTS TO THEM.
>
>Did you get that, RV? So now you know who controls the tech. Even though
>you knew it all along, didn't you? So next time somebody asks you who
>controls the tech, you won't have to be so fucking evasive. Just show 'em
>this message, and blame it on Ace.
>
>See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.
>
> ace of clubs

Controlling the copyrights of the "L Ron Hubbard Library" and controlling
the "tech" are not necessarily the same thing.

What's your problem with RVY, "ace" ?

Curious guy
<blac...@number1.org>

Zed

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Martin Hunt wrote:

>In article <1998030509...@basement.replay.com>,


>a...@blackjack.no (ace of clubs) wrote in all caps mode:
>
>>The church of spiritual technology, doing business as the l. Ron hubbard
>>library, controls the tech. They own >>all<< the copyrights. They have the
>>right to seize the advanced technology and the trademarks at their sole
>>discretion. They irrevocably earned that right on 1 october 1993 when they
>>were granted tax exemption. Within two months of getting tax exemption,
>>norman f. Starkey transferred all 7,000+ lrh copyrights to them.
>
>[De-capped with Xlate]
>
>And your reference for this claim is....? I'm not saying it's
>not true, but I'm hardly going to take some flaming anonymous
>jackass's all-caps rant as The Truth[tm] on the subject.

Take it from me - CST owns _all_ the copyrights. Hubbard left them
to CST in his will, but only on the condition that CST became
tax-exempt. They sat gathering cash in the Author's Family Trust B
(of which Norman Starkey was the trustee) until shortly after the
entire Co$ structure became tax-exempt in 1993. Starkey then
transferred the lot to CST.

>When I was in Scientology, RTC was the sole copyright holder.

Oh, they fooled you too? This is a common misconception, and one
that I think RTC actively encourages. RTC owns no copyrights. They
never have. They license the use of the Sekret Skriptures from CST,
and that's it.

>Why would they confer them to another organization? Escaping
>a legal claim in one of the closer lawsuits? Or just as a tax
>dodge after the IRS decision?

The copyrights sit in a separate organisation, and the membership of
the Co$ are fooled into thinking that they sit with RTC, in order to
prevent the possible seizure of the "tech" by someone suing RTC, IMHO.

Zed
Xenu Remailer: http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQEVAgUBNP7esCsxIzhyTOOxAQGmBgf/fs+uklIIhXLyyA/xe++8WfbWfhVk69Uh
XrEIwlIacg9dfrzcoIVx76MOk4rUL0U0kIOP0GF43Vx1o2JTgiPbONkV/DDSD09r
TSMcgA234DxaJqe7kvQtQzuIH0PA+7UcqTnsRiRGoNNhXvnGTzX4CqT991fLTxTZ
c0Iag3qdY5Ef2Q+np2wpG+IDgMjkcUHYJsrKl4hsj3kAMS8VE7CzpsDvAiHjtPiP
XUIiA7scY5KaLU8RoIbL4O/Pir6xtjPQe8ftfsTmsSWZOIPxAtvUW4BsNZEU43el
RSFrSMgP5j7zH7jOhwLISWRIEHcHTd7SErnzUdPXps5BJFjBkhJv6Q==
=DYBV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

tall...@mail.storm.ca

unread,
Mar 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/5/98
to

In article <nVr/0MdlgA...@islandnet.com>, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <1998030509...@basement.replay.com>,
>a...@blackjack.no (ace of clubs) wrote in all caps mode:
>
>>The church of spiritual technology, doing business as the l. Ron hubbard
>>library, controls the tech. They own >>all<< the copyrights. They have the
>>right to seize the advanced technology and the trademarks at their sole
>>discretion. They irrevocably earned that right on 1 october 1993 when they
>>were granted tax exemption. Within two months of getting tax exemption,
>>norman f. Starkey transferred all 7,000+ lrh copyrights to them.
>
>[De-capped with Xlate]
>
>And your reference for this claim is....? I'm not saying it's
>not true, but I'm hardly going to take some flaming anonymous
>jackass's all-caps rant as The Truth[tm] on the subject.
>
>When I was in Scientology, RTC was the sole copyright holder.
>Why would they confer them to another organization? Escaping
>a legal claim in one of the closer lawsuits? Or just as a tax
>dodge after the IRS decision?
>

Bzzzzt!!! And the ARS founder gets one WRONG!

(Whoops, been reading too many Ace posts, I think.)

CST has *always* been the sole copyright holder of LRH's works, since the
transfer of Author's Trust B, which was established in the Commodore's will.
CST owns the copyrights, but RTC has a licence to enforce and re-licence the
works to other scientology entities. BTW, much of RTC's power rests in this
exclusive licence to 'inspect and enforce' - but here's the kicker - if, at
any time, the powers that be at CST decide that it's not doing its job
properly, it can withdraw that right, leaving RTC essentially powerless.

For more information on the mysterious CST, check out
http://www.storm.ca/~tallulah/loose-end/cst

K
not part of the Vegas conspiracy, though


Martin Hunt

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

In article <6dmmaq$8mm$1...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au (Zed) wrote:

>>When I was in Scientology, RTC was the sole copyright holder.
>

>Oh, they fooled you too? This is a common misconception, and one
>that I think RTC actively encourages. RTC owns no copyrights. They
>never have. They license the use of the Sekret Skriptures from CST,
>and that's it.

Huh; when they incorporated, they went around doing this survey
at Cedars asking people what they thought of them, and saying
they were the guardians of the tech. However, looking in the
Vol 0 copyright page, RTC is listed as owning a pile of trademarks
and service marks: Dianetics, Scientology, Scientologists,
Celebrity Centre, E-Meter, Flag, HCO, ... the Scientology symbol,
etc., but *not* the copyright holder: "Copyright (c) 1986 L.
Ron Hubbard Library. All Rights Reserved." So, what was Ace
of Clubs point? If this is common knowledge, why focus on it,
why berate RVY over it? It's not like it's some revelatory
new insight into the heart of Scn: there it is, right in their
books. I doubt any of this is knowlege for the lawyers suing
the cult right now?

>The copyrights sit in a separate organisation, and the membership of
>the Co$ are fooled into thinking that they sit with RTC, in order to
>prevent the possible seizure of the "tech" by someone suing RTC, IMHO.

Hmm; still, it seems like rather common knowledge. RTC is certainly
concentrated on in Scn as the focus of the precious "technology"
(and haven't I seen HKK spouting away about RTC?), but I can't
see it thwarting a good lawyer or confusing them for more than
a second. I mean, far from it being some conspiracy on RVY's part,
I see it as a simple error - the same error I made in assuming that
RTC owns the works, when in fact they only own the trademarks,
not the copyrights.

HKK:
> Dear Mr. Hunt:
>
> As you are aware, I represent Religious Technology Center
> ("RTC"), the owner of the Advanced Technology of the Scientology
> religion and the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights
> applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced
> Technology materials are confidential, unpublished, copyrighted
> works. RTC's works include, among others, the individual works
> comprising a level known as "OT III."

Ah, yes; she certainly did lie then, didn't she? I wonder why.
Feel free to pop in here, Helena. Why are you a lying cunt?

> I found out this evening that you have posted certain of the
> OT III works to alt.religion.scientology without my clients
> approval. These works are registered with the U.S. Copyright
> Office under Registration No. TXu 292496.

OK. So who owns copyright reg # TXu 292496, RTC or CST or LRH
Library for CST? That should settle it.

> Sincerely,
> Helena K. Kobrin

Sincerely screw you, you baratrous, libelling fraud yank cult
scum-sucking lawyer. If I could make a law, it would be that people
like you not be allowed in Canada or to communicate with Canadians,
period.

Sorry; got a bit carried away, there. :-)

Scott A. McClare

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

tall...@storm.ca (tall...@mail.storm.ca) writes:

> CST has *always* been the sole copyright holder of LRH's works, since the
> transfer of Author's Trust B, which was established in the Commodore's will.
> CST owns the copyrights, but RTC has a licence to enforce and re-licence the
> works to other scientology entities. BTW, much of RTC's power rests in this
> exclusive licence to 'inspect and enforce' - but here's the kicker - if, at
> any time, the powers that be at CST decide that it's not doing its job
> properly, it can withdraw that right, leaving RTC essentially powerless.

Interesting. As it happens, I was at the library today reading through
some of Scientology's "public" books (e.g. WiS, the _Scientology Handbook_
etc.). I think it was _What is Scientology?_ that says, at one point,
that RTC controls all Church operations.

I'll have to go back and get the quote, in case I'm misremembering it.
(If I'd known I'd be responding to this post, I'd have gotten page number
and context yada yada yada)

Scott

--
Scott A. McClare SP 4 Men never do evil so completely
cj...@freenet.carleton.ca GGBC #42 and cheerfully as when they do
PGP: 1024/E7950B29 on key servers it from religious conviction.
or finger cj...@freenet.carleton.ca - Blaise Pascal

tall...@mail.storm.ca

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

In article <Jp5/0Mdlgw...@islandnet.com>, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <6dmmaq$8mm$1...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au (Zed) wrote:
>
>>>When I was in Scientology, RTC was the sole copyright holder.
>>
>>Oh, they fooled you too? This is a common misconception, and one
>>that I think RTC actively encourages. RTC owns no copyrights. They
>>never have. They license the use of the Sekret Skriptures from CST,
>>and that's it.
>
>Huh; when they incorporated, they went around doing this survey
>at Cedars asking people what they thought of them, and saying
>they were the guardians of the tech. However, looking in the
>Vol 0 copyright page, RTC is listed as owning a pile of trademarks
>and service marks: Dianetics, Scientology, Scientologists,
>Celebrity Centre, E-Meter, Flag, HCO, ... the Scientology symbol,
>etc., but *not* the copyright holder: "Copyright (c) 1986 L.
>Ron Hubbard Library. All Rights Reserved." So, what was Ace
>of Clubs point? If this is common knowledge, why focus on it,
>why berate RVY over it? It's not like it's some revelatory
>new insight into the heart of Scn: there it is, right in their
>books. I doubt any of this is knowlege for the lawyers suing
>the cult right now?

L. Ron Hubbard Library is a Doing Business As alias for -- you guessed it, the
CST. It used to be a corporate alias for -- I *think* Author's Trust B, but
someone will correct me if I'm wrong. When the trust, which held all LRH's
copyrights, was transferred to CST, the alias went along for the ride.

Ace of Clubs, on the other hand, has his own agenda. If you read his posts,
and those of the Librarian and a particular Anonymous, carefully, it shouldn't
be much of a mystery.

Although personally, I don't agree with Ace and the gang on the answer to the
question 'Who runs CST?' I couldn't agree more that the question is a very
interesting one.

(As for Ace's fixation on RVY, that all goes back to the secret deal with the
IRS and the 'framing of the GO', nefarious operations in which Ace seems
convinced that he sees the hand of RVY. Whatever turns his crank.)

>>The copyrights sit in a separate organisation, and the membership of
>>the Co$ are fooled into thinking that they sit with RTC, in order to
>>prevent the possible seizure of the "tech" by someone suing RTC, IMHO.
>
>Hmm; still, it seems like rather common knowledge. RTC is certainly
>concentrated on in Scn as the focus of the precious "technology"
>(and haven't I seen HKK spouting away about RTC?), but I can't
>see it thwarting a good lawyer or confusing them for more than
>a second. I mean, far from it being some conspiracy on RVY's part,
>I see it as a simple error - the same error I made in assuming that
>RTC owns the works, when in fact they only own the trademarks,
>not the copyrights.

I don't know if anybody has *ever* sued the CST. It would be interesting to
check.

>HKK:
>> Dear Mr. Hunt:
>>
>> As you are aware, I represent Religious Technology Center
>> ("RTC"), the owner of the Advanced Technology of the Scientology
>> religion and the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights
>> applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced
>> Technology materials are confidential, unpublished, copyrighted
>> works. RTC's works include, among others, the individual works
>> comprising a level known as "OT III."
>
>Ah, yes; she certainly did lie then, didn't she? I wonder why.
>Feel free to pop in here, Helena. Why are you a lying cunt?

Not to defend our Helena, but she didn't lie - you just need to know how to
read her words. She says she is the 'holder of exclusive rights under the
copyrights applicaple to the Advanced Technology materials. Which she is - RTC
has an exclusive deal with CST to licence and enforce the tech.

>> I found out this evening that you have posted certain of the
>> OT III works to alt.religion.scientology without my clients
>> approval. These works are registered with the U.S. Copyright
>> Office under Registration No. TXu 292496.
>
>OK. So who owns copyright reg # TXu 292496, RTC or CST or LRH
>Library for CST? That should settle it.

It will be CST. It's possible that the work was originally registered by
LRH LIbrary, but that would have been during the process of transferring all
the rights to CST, as established under the Commodore's will.

K

tall...@mail.storm.ca

unread,
Mar 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/6/98
to

In article <6do0n0$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Scott A. McClare) wrote:
>
>tall...@storm.ca (tall...@mail.storm.ca) writes:
>
>> CST has *always* been the sole copyright holder of LRH's works, since the
>> transfer of Author's Trust B, which was established in the Commodore's will.
>> CST owns the copyrights, but RTC has a licence to enforce and re-licence the
>> works to other scientology entities. BTW, much of RTC's power rests in this
>> exclusive licence to 'inspect and enforce' - but here's the kicker - if, at
>> any time, the powers that be at CST decide that it's not doing its job
>> properly, it can withdraw that right, leaving RTC essentially powerless.
>
>Interesting. As it happens, I was at the library today reading through
>some of Scientology's "public" books (e.g. WiS, the _Scientology Handbook_
>etc.). I think it was _What is Scientology?_ that says, at one point,
>that RTC controls all Church operations.

Yes. But how does it *control* the rest of the corporate body? Well, there are
a number of ways, but the most direct and clearcut is through enforcement of
the 'proper use' of scientology materials. RTC signs deals with the publishing
wings of the CoS and polices the use of trademarks and copyrights throughout
all aspects of the operation. But it derives such power largely through its
deal with CST, which can at any point rescind that right. I don't think they
mention that in _What is Scientology_. I can't imagine why they wouldn't, but
when it comes to CST, the CoS seems downright modest over its true power
within the corporate structure.

K

Zed

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

tall...@storm.ca wrote:

>In article <Jp5/0Mdlgw...@islandnet.com>, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:

[snippety]

>L. Ron Hubbard Library is a Doing Business As alias for -- you guessed it, the
>CST. It used to be a corporate alias for -- I *think* Author's Trust B, but
>someone will correct me if I'm wrong. When the trust, which held all LRH's

>copyrights, was transferred to CST, the alias went along for the ride.

That's about right. Technically the alias wasn't transferred - it
was registered by Sherman Lenske on behalf of CST shortly before
the Author's Family Trust B's use of the alias was due to expire,
but the effect is much the same.

>>Hmm; still, it seems like rather common knowledge. RTC is certainly
>>concentrated on in Scn as the focus of the precious "technology"
>>(and haven't I seen HKK spouting away about RTC?), but I can't
>>see it thwarting a good lawyer or confusing them for more than
>>a second. I mean, far from it being some conspiracy on RVY's part,
>>I see it as a simple error - the same error I made in assuming that
>>RTC owns the works, when in fact they only own the trademarks,
>>not the copyrights.

Oh, it gets better. There's a clause in the documents setting up RTC
that says that CST has an option to purchase back all the trademarks
from RTC for $100 if CST is unsatisfied with their use, at the sole
discretion of CST. Stuart's Lamont's book "Religion Inc." states
that this section of the document was not shown when RTC provided
their articles in a lawsuit in Omaha.

>I don't know if anybody has *ever* sued the CST. It would be interesting to
>check.

Only one possible lawsuit that I know of: that $190 million libel
suit that is mentioned in Veritas.

>>HKK:
>>> Dear Mr. Hunt:
>>>
>>> As you are aware, I represent Religious Technology Center
>>> ("RTC"), the owner of the Advanced Technology of the Scientology
>>> religion and the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights
>>> applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. The Advanced
>>> Technology materials are confidential, unpublished, copyrighted
>>> works. RTC's works include, among others, the individual works
>>> comprising a level known as "OT III."
>>
>>Ah, yes; she certainly did lie then, didn't she? I wonder why.
>>Feel free to pop in here, Helena. Why are you a lying cunt?
>
>Not to defend our Helena, but she didn't lie - you just need to know how to
>read her words. She says she is the 'holder of exclusive rights under the
>copyrights applicaple to the Advanced Technology materials. Which she is - RTC
>has an exclusive deal with CST to licence and enforce the tech.

She did say that RTC was the owner, but that just may be an
acceptable truth. What kind of ownership is she talking about?
Copyright ownership? "Spiritual" ownership?

>>> I found out this evening that you have posted certain of the
>>> OT III works to alt.religion.scientology without my clients
>>> approval. These works are registered with the U.S. Copyright
>>> Office under Registration No. TXu 292496.
>>
>>OK. So who owns copyright reg # TXu 292496, RTC or CST or LRH
>>Library for CST? That should settle it.
>
>It will be CST. It's possible that the work was originally registered by
>LRH LIbrary, but that would have been during the process of transferring all
>the rights to CST, as established under the Commodore's will.

The registration number is wrong. It should be TXu 290496. LOCIS has
it registered by Starkey, but the transfer to CST is also recorded.
That should be enough to prove ownership. The license agreement with
RTC is also on record.

Zed
Xenu Remailer: http://www,magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQEVAgUBNQKq2isxIzhyTOOxAQFX8gf/enMpN5Gt9apz5RICej3zAf439WxvrqLm
62dH5W5f20w0qlNwPajLwqPOSFxm0OlAL8rcVsWE7CmeAfpEExBuXW1WlSMMBFn+
EUXaU3Lhsu/Bu0wKkE7Bmb87jOOHW90Ufwv3uJUYZPLnMSwrBMWYROXzCsODPpX+
+YX24Zi5r8aKsk69QTNMnhfRQCxZsDMcZQn9G4wAbcwl1ecNpFIMkvPD5mBHRjDo
0kxhACktUYy2Qw5hS91R3kdHs8pS/zdvNU7C5M5B+oMyfFmn9av6bJk+NrrELowf
VYLuTIE73E7GEJC/qOwnzEDeQn2SUxi3ThfiJWpIPoXrINahQpJJVw==
=GwC4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Zed

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

Rob Clark

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

On Sun, 08 Mar 98 14:33:36 GMT, z...@magna.com.au (Zed) wrote:

>Only one possible lawsuit that I know of: that $190 million libel
>suit that is mentioned in Veritas.

why has the cult not even MENTIONED that lawsuit, or even responded to
it, choosing to allow a default judgment to be entered?

the only "mention" and peripheral it was, was a series of canned DA
against "tax protesters" that makes more sense now than it did at the
time.

rob

David Gerard

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to


I still want a couple of things on that 'Veritas' suit:

1. Some a.r.s regular to go and look at the court files in LA and say they
exist. I received an email saying they existed, but I have no knowledge
whatsoever of the person who sent it. (This is not meant to be a slight
upon you, it's simply the case :-( )

2. Why the heck the 'Veritas' web page is buried five empty directory
levels down.


--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
Picket $cientology: 14/15 Mar 1998 http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
LA, DC, Atlanta, Sacramento, Toronto, Poole UK, Melbourne ... add YOUR city!

Scott A. McClare

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

David Gerard (f...@thingy.apana.org.au) writes:

> I still want a couple of things on that 'Veritas' suit:

Another tangential info request:

Can someone tell me what "Veritas" is? The only publication I've ever
heard of with this name, is an "intelligence" newsletter put out by a
well-known UFO kook and conspiracy loon named William Cooper in Arizona.
I assume this is not the same publication.

(BTW, what's this web site's URL?)

Scott

--
Scott A. McClare SP4 GGBC#42 "I see you now and then in dreams
cj...@freenet.carleton.ca Your voice sounds just like it used to
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj871/ I believe I will hear it again
PGP 1024/E7950B29 via finger/keyserver God how I love you" - Mark Heard

Feadog

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

Scott A. McClare <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>

> Can someone tell me what "Veritas" is? The only publication I've ever
> (BTW, what's this web site's URL?)
> Scott

Here's the web page for 'Veritas':
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/overseas/journal/meteya/veritas/
I did a little research into it (look at the bottom of this post for the
results), but came away with very little.

For all the interesting info on the 'Veritas' page, it smells like the
beach at low tide. Especially considering the latest thread by Ray
Randolph on the Karno/Ellenburg Fraud.

Feadog
--
Critical Scientology Links:
http://www.xenu.net/, http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm
Boston Herald - Series on Scientology; March 1998 (link may expire soon):
http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/

--- BEGIN OLD POST ---

Cybercom Consulting, Inc <cybe...@diac.com> wrote in article
<34E690...@diac.com>...
> The Public Research Foundation in Las Vegas, Nevada issued a statement
> February 5, 1998 claiming that Scientology's Church of Spiritual
> Technology defaulted on a $190 million lawsuit...
<snip>
> The Public Research Foundation itself is a bit of a mystery. For more
> details, see the foundation's February 5, 1998 press release at
> alt.religion.scientology, or contact them directly:
> Public Research Foundation
> HCR 38, Box 66
> Las Vegas, NV 89124
> Phone: 702-873-2343
> Fax: 702-873-2115
> Email: p...@mailcity.com

OK; here's my research so far on this $190 Million lawsuit-thingie:

Cyber Consulting Inc. has a web page on Denver Internet Access Corp:

Web: http://www.diac.com/
Address: 1450 S. Havana, Suite 340, AURORA, CO 80012
Phone: (303)745-9588, Email: in...@diac.com
From their page:
"DIAC is a Denver based Internet Service provider that offers a complete
range of services to individuals and organizations who want a presence on
the Internet."

Looking for Cybercom Consulting, Inc at DIAC produces this:

Web: http://www.diac.com/~cybercom/
Address: PO Box 7312, Golden, Co 80403-0100
Phone:303-510-4930  Email: cybe...@diac.com
From their page:
"Cybercom Consulting Inc, is a computer consultant company that prides in
giving it's customers help with their computers at their convenience....
Referral Information - Cybercom Consulting, Inc always incourages
referrals. If you know someone you would like to refer, please go to
Contacting Cybercom and select Referring Someone. Fill in their name and
phone number and Cybercom will call them. In the suggestion box, please
type your name. If the person you referred becomes a customer, you will
receive 1/2 hour FREE consulting. So the more you refer, the more free
advise you can get!"

Looking for Public Research Foundation on the web produces nothing so far.
The email address quoted (p...@mailcity.com) is for a web mail service:

Web: http://www.mailcity.com/
From their page:
"What is MailCity? MailCity is a free web-based e-mail account which
allows you to access your e-mail from any computer in the world with a
browser."

Finally, here is the page that discusses the $190M lawsuit:

Web:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/overseas/journal/meteya/veritas/
From the page:
"VERITAS. In these pages you will find the one thing that merchants of
fear and chaos abhor: TRUTH... Why has David Miscavige, head of the
Religious Technology Center, been served with a $190 million suit..."

Has anyone turned up more on the suit, CC Inc or VERITAS?

Feadog
--
Critical Scientology Links:
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm


, possibly the largest
> dollar-amount default.
>
> According to the foundation, the Church of Spiritual Technology (CST)
> was named as a defendant in the lawsuit in October, through an amendment
> to the original suit which was issued in July, 1997. The CST did not
> file legal motions or respond in any way, resulting in a default in the
> lawsuit on February 2, 1998.
>
> The reasons behind CST's failure to act are unknown, says the Public
> Research Foundation, but it may be connected with the organization's
> secrecy. CST's Articles of Incorporation guarantee the anonymity of its
> trustees, directors, special directors, and officers. Responding to the
> lawsuit may have meant disclosing the identities of these anonymous
> individuals.
>
> The lawsuit is a libel case. Plaintiffs Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Precious,
> and Kathleen Carey are accusing Scientology-related organizations and
> individuals with producing a publication called "Public Warning" which
> defamed the plaintiffs. The publication contains a "Special Briefing"
> from the "Office of Special Affairs International" and copyright
> permissions from the L. Ron Hubbard Library, the name under which CST is
> doing business -- all this according to the Public Research Foundation.
>
> The Public Research Foundation itself is a bit of a mystery. For more
> details, see the foundation's February 5, 1998 press release at
> alt.religion.scientology, or contact them directly:
> Public Research Foundation
> HCR 38, Box 66
> Las Vegas, NV 89124
> Phone: 702-873-2343
> Fax: 702-873-2115
> Email: p...@mailcity.com

---END OLD POST ---

David Gerard

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

On 11 Mar 98 22:51:49 GMT, "Feadog" <fea...@snip.net> wrote:

:Here's the web page for 'Veritas':


:http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/overseas/journal/meteya/veritas/
:I did a little research into it (look at the bottom of this post for the
:results), but came away with very little.
:For all the interesting info on the 'Veritas' page, it smells like the
:beach at low tide. Especially considering the latest thread by Ray
:Randolph on the Karno/Ellenburg Fraud.


Yep. That's the URL I mean - every directory above the 'veritas' one was
empty.

http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/overseas/journal/meteya/
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/overseas/journal/
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/overseas/
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/clients/
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/

All of these are empty. Not even an index page. Whoever is doing this is
trying to puff themselves up bigger. Why?

That said, the site is a lovely source of enturbulating materials. But so
far, that's all I can say about it.

Anonymous

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard), in message
<351367ef...@thingy.apana.org.au> said (regarding Veritas):

<SNIP>

>That said, the site is a lovely source of enturbulating >materials. But so
>far, that's all I can say about it.

I just came from there, and if you thought it was enturbulating BEFORE, you
just ought to see it NOW!

The place has been majorly expanded since I was there last. They have a
story on the default entered against CST in the Mitchell case (with a scan
of the actual document), and lots of new pages, mainly about the "L. Ron
Hubbard Library," which is really CST.

There ARE case documents on the web site, so I don't know why people who
have been there keep asking if the case really exists or whatever (sorry, I
don't remember who's been asking that and didn't keep the posts). Anyway,
you can download the case docs, and the entry of default - is a scan of the
document.

And, by the way, they have a new, improved (er, shorter) url (maybe by
popular demand?). If you go to the old, long one, it points you to the new
one (with what I thought was a pretty clever graphic. whoever these people
are, they seem to be pretty good at waht they do.). Anyway, the new url is:

http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas

This gets a very high enturbulating rating if you ask me, and if anybody
knows who the Xenu they are, I nominate them for an official arscc (wdne)
SP rating. Phew!

Anonymous

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

David Gerard

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

On 16 Mar 1998 09:09:07 +0100, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:

:There ARE case documents on the web site, so I don't know why people who


:have been there keep asking if the case really exists or whatever (sorry, I
:don't remember who's been asking that and didn't keep the posts). Anyway,
:you can download the case docs, and the entry of default - is a scan of the
:document.


The reason I keep asking is because I have yet to hear of any a.r.s regular
going to the courthouse and looking at the documents.

You know, verifying that the paper purported to be on-file is in fact
on-file. A web page is just bits and bytes.

Has anyone done this?

Still no-one?

"Paperbacks were therefore one material basis and precondition for 'post-
modernism', a dummy movement created by my generation as an alibi for its
reading habits" - Fred Vermorel

Anonymous

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to

In message <352c7adc...@thingy.apana.org.au>, regarding the website at

http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/

David Gerard wrote:

>On 16 Mar 1998 09:09:07 +0100, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) >wrote:
>
>:There ARE case documents on the web site, so I don't know why
>:people who have been there keep asking if the case really
>:exists or whatever (sorry, I don't remember who's been asking
>:that and didn't keep the posts). Anyway, you can download the
>:case docs, and the entry of default - is a scan of the
>:document.
>
>The reason I keep asking is because I have yet to hear of any
>a.r.s regular going to the courthouse and looking at the
>documents.
>
>You know, verifying that the paper purported to be on-file is in
>fact on-file. A web page is just bits and bytes.
>
>Has anyone done this?
>
>Still no-one?
>

I have not been to the courthouse and looked at the documents. But I have
seen conformed copies. They exist. The case exists. The plaintiffs exist.
The judge exists. CST exists. Sherman Lenske exists. Meade Emory exists.
The copyright records exist.

*************************************************************

****END PLEASANT RESPONSE. BEGIN OIL-WELL-FIRE FLAMES****
****READ AT OWN RISK. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED****

*************************************************************

The %$&*#@! case EXISTS, okay? Do you understand that now? What part of
this can't you wrap your wits around?

Have you READ the case docs on the site? (Let me guess: NO!)

There are tens (if not over a hundred) of pages of documents on that site.
The Entry of Default is a SCAN of the ACTUAL SIGNED, STAMPED, CASE-NUMBERED
DOCUMENT!!!

There are SCANS of the actual d.b.a.s filed by Lenske for CST and farthead
Starkey.

The site even has a link to a 1992 Claim's Court ruling on Operation
Clambake's Case Documents page. (Ooooo! David! Those are just BITS AND
BYTES on Operation Clambake! Better have somebody fly to D.C. for you and
verify that THAT case document really exists!!!)

Do you REALLY believe that ANYBODY has the time to sit around and create a
website of that scope, and forge documents like that, and forge Rinder's
attorney's response, and all the other documents up there, JUST FOR A
TROLL?!?!?!?!? Just to entertain YOU?!?!?!?

What do you guys SMOKE over there down under--Kangaroo dung?

I lurk in this group, and see twits like Roland Assblurt-Dingleberry post
brainless crap on the order of, "Phlubbard humped goats! (pant, pant) He
did! I know he did!" and then watch the drooling lemming twits like Wilhelm
Barkwell chime in, "Hah! I knew it! Totally consistent with his
psychopathic sci-fi mentality and Black Magick background! Yes! Yes! Must
be true. See. he's a liar and blah blah blah."

THAT'S good enough! Oh, yes, that's all the PROOF needed. That's all the
frigging BITS AND BYTES needed to satisfy the pet FIXED IDEAS and BIGOTED
CONVICTIONS.

Then somebody (God bless them) does hard investigative research, amasses
stacks of documents, spends what must have been MONTHS of work evaluating
the facts, figuring out the truth, creating professional graphs and
graphics, getting photographs, writing, editing, paying for web space,
doing the countless THOUSANDS of things that must go into a website like
VERITAS, scans the documents, makes sure everything can be backed up with
documents, puts them up on the web, all so YOU can spend 45 seconds typing
with your pinky in the air: "Yes, quite nice, but has anybody gone and
stuck their noses up the judge's ass to find out whether she's been sitting
properly or not?" (Yes the judge IS a SHE!) "Oh, dear me, has anyone gone
down to the courthouse for me and dug through the files for me, because if
not, I just KNOW that the people at Veritas forged all their bits and
bytes, and don't have a LIFE, and so have NOTHING TO DO, but to sit around
and create a nice big troll for my benefit. How quaint."

THE CASE EXISTS!! Like it or lump it, take it or leave it! Who GIVES a
flying f*** whether you can deal with it or not!! Get on a plane and go
stick your OWN nose up the judge's ass!

Or better yet, go to the Veritas site and READ THE DOCUMENTS!

Do you ask for anyone to go verify Grady Ward's case docs? NO! Do you ask
for anyone to go verify Larry Wollersheim's case docs? NO! Do you ask for
anyone to go verify Keith Henson's case docs? NO!

Can you just not STAND the fact that for the past 15 years (at least) it's
been NON-SCIENTOLOGIST LAWYERS who have been behind the injustices that
have had people, rightfully, up in arms?

Are you in DENIAL on the FACTS? Does it just, somehow, not quite reconcile
with your own biases that it just HAS to be HUBBARD at fault somehow? Is
that the problem? WHAT?!?!? Jeeeesus!

Open your eyes and look at the facts, man! Wake up!

The case exists! Deal with it!

But guess what: if you don't, it will go right on existing anyway!

*************************************************************

****END OIL-WELL-FIRE FLAMES. RESUME PLEASANT RESPONSE****

*************************************************************

I, for one, am grateful to the people who have gone to what must have been
extreme lengths to provide the well-documented facts that I found on
Veritas. (My own miserable attempts at creating a web site have given me
insight to the amount of work that must have gone into it, and I take my
hat off to whoever did it.)

For the first time in 15 years, I finally have the truth - not just the
canned lies that have been spewed by Mouthpiece Miscavige.

I also salute Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Precious, and Kathi Carey for having
the guts to standup for what they believe in, and for saying "NO!" to
oppression.

And, just so the record is straight, I also salute Grady Ward and Keith
Henson for standing up for what they believe in, too, and for standing up
to the same oppression. I realize the reasons are different. I realize the
core beliefs of the individuals involved are entirely different. But
oppression is oppression. And it must be fought wherever found, by decent
people of every stripe.

So I also salute the makers of Veritas for providing a
thoroughly-researched, well-presented, easily-understood accounting of
complex and invaluable information.

Now I just want to know who the hell is running CST. And sooner or later,
one way or another, I, for one, intend to find out.

Di-Di De-Lurker


wgert

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to

nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:

snip.

>So I also salute the makers of Veritas for providing a
>thoroughly-researched, well-presented, easily-understood accounting of
>complex and invaluable information.

Randy Narcissus Mcdonald. This is a neat trick. Kissing your own ass
anonymously. Because nobody else wants to get their nose anywhere near
the Ass of Clubs.


Diane Richardson

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

On 19 Mar 1998 12:57:53 +0100, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:

[snip]

>I, for one, am grateful to the people who have gone to what must have been
>extreme lengths to provide the well-documented facts that I found on
>Veritas. (My own miserable attempts at creating a web site have given me
>insight to the amount of work that must have gone into it, and I take my
>hat off to whoever did it.)

There's at least one "fact" on this website that has been seriously
misinterpreted. It's an arcane point, but one that you and/or your
colleagues have repeated more than once on a.r.s. It's a point that
is also basic to your premise -- and it is incorrect.

Whoever interpreted the Copyright Office registration records does not
understand Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed. (AACR2). Because
of this, you/your colleagues are interpreting LRH's name appearing in
the record in the title line to mean that "L. Ron Hubbard" has been
removed as the author of record and that his name instead has been
added as part of the title. Based on this inaccurate interpretation,
you/your colleagues have gone on to make a whole series of incorrect
assumptions.

To set you straight: The line in the Copyright Office record showing
title is taken from the AACR2 MARC (machine-readable cataloging)
record. Following established rules, the line includes the *title* of
the work followed by a space and a forward slash/virgule. *Following*
the forward slash/virgule and another space comes what is designated
as the "statement of responsibility." The statement of
responsibility, in the cases shown on the Veritas website, indicates
that L. Ron Hubbard is the sole author of the works.

>For the first time in 15 years, I finally have the truth - not just the
>canned lies that have been spewed by Mouthpiece Miscavige.

Perhaps, in 15 more years, you'll get a little closer to that truth.
As it stands now, you've misinterpreted basic data and built a house
of straw on a very weak foundation.

[snip]

>So I also salute the makers of Veritas for providing a
>thoroughly-researched, well-presented, easily-understood accounting of
>complex and invaluable information.

I wish they had researched a little more thoroughly before they
reached their conclusions.

>Now I just want to know who the hell is running CST. And sooner or later,
>one way or another, I, for one, intend to find out.

Good luck.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net


Scott A. McClare

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

wgert (wg...@loop.com) writes:

> Randy Narcissus Mcdonald. This is a neat trick. Kissing your own ass
> anonymously. Because nobody else wants to get their nose anywhere near
> the Ass of Clubs.

Not pink and pig-like enough for you, eh?

Pervert and liar.

ace of clubs

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((


With a blood-curdling piggy squeal identified as message
<6es5pm$si6$3...@usenet76.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert) snurfed and
grunted:

>Randy Narcissus Mcdonald. This is a neat trick. Kissing your own
>ass anonymously. Because nobody else wants to get their nose
>anywhere near the Ass of Clubs.

Helllo-o-o-oh, Wigger'! My, my, my--such language!

Are you and RV goin' to group therapy together to deal with your "Ace of
Clubs paranoia?" Is this what is known as "contagion of aberration,"
Wigger'?

I'm humbled to learn that you think so highly of me that you see me
everywhere you look, boy, but, frankly, yer beginning to worry me, son.

And, frankly, Wigger', yer beginning to sound like a pig gettin' a root
canal without benefit of anaesthetic. Is somebody gettin' to ya', boy? Has
a nerve been touched?

Now, please--help me on this, Wigger'. I am tryin' to reform here, and go
straight, and be nice to people, and I'm beggin' for your forbearance,
because I'm confused.

Now this Di-Di whoever, she seemed to be saying some awfully supportive,
defensive things about L. Ron Hubbard, but now YOU are attacking HER? Am I
on solid ground here, Wigger'?

Now, that's the first thing that jest has ol' Ace scratchin' his head,
'cause I thought YOU wuz a fuckin' CHAM-PEEN of elRon. Now, why aren't you
pattin' her on the back, and saying, "Yes, ma'am! Right you are, Di-Di! You
go, girl! They oughta' quit taking shots at L. Ron Hubbard, and recognize
that these bad things are being done by WOG LAWYERS, and NOT by THE TECH!"

Now, that's what I'd 'spect you to do, Wigger', and--well, I guess I'm jest
not sophisticated enough to follow the twists of logic that would result in
YOU attacking HER, when it seems SHE is on YOUR side. I mean, she's flaming
all these CRITICS of L. RON and THE TECH, Wigger'! Why the fuck are you
shootin' at HER? I jest can't figure this one out, boy, and I'm pleadin'
with you to 'splain it to me.

But that's just the APPETIZER! Now I gots ta' figure THIS one out:

Yer sayin' she's not really Di-Di, she's Randy Narcissus Mcdonald, but not
really, 'cause she's me?

Wigger', when was the last time you got a weekend off? Are you gettin'
regular sleep and food? Do you EVER get any sex? I mean, jest WHAT,
exactly, is goin' on in yer life? Can you get out and see a movie, or
sumthin', maybe catch a little "March Madness"? That's a FUN madness,
Wigger'--not like this "Three Faces of Eve" shit that you seem to have
stepped in.

Take a walk, boy, and see if you can't get some of that off yer shoe. Get
some air. Go talk to some rocks, son. Read a "Freddy, the Talking Pig" book.

And when you get this all straightened out in yer own head, please come
back and explain it to poor old Ace.

And, no, I'm not the Armenian guy with the sandwich shop. Nor am I the
grocery-cart guy with black, cracked swollen feet that wears the green lawn
bags. Nope, they ain't me, either, Wigger'. No--you'll know me if you see
me, son--I'll smile real big, and you jest can't miss the way my teeth
<GLINT> in the sunlight. That is, if you ever see the sunlight.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

"Who are YOU?" said the Caterpiller.
Alice replied, rather shyly, "I--I hardly know, Sir,
just at present--at least I know who I WAS when I got
up this morning, but I think I must have been changed
several times since then."

--Lewis Carrol

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

ace of clubs

tall...@mail.storm.ca

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

In article <6es5pm$si6$3...@usenet76.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert)
wrote:
>nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>
>snip.

>
>>So I also salute the makers of Veritas for providing a
>>thoroughly-researched, well-presented, easily-understood accounting of
>>complex and invaluable information.
>
>Randy Narcissus Mcdonald. This is a neat trick. Kissing your own ass
>anonymously. Because nobody else wants to get their nose anywhere near
>the Ass of Clubs.

Tsk, wgert. Your valence is slipping. Whyfore does an anonymous poster with
distinctly unorthodox views cause you -- and your handlers -- such
consternation?

I haven't seen such unvarnished venom from you since -- well, the last time
you broke out of the prefab DA packs and got down and dirty in the sandbox
with Bob Minton. And, being the curious sort, it got me wondering just *why*
Randy McDonald, Ace, the Librarian, Anonymous and the rest of the gang on
Planet Veritas merit the personal touch.

Then again, from reading the McDonald papers, currently available through
Operation Clambake, I note that it isn't the first time that Randall McDonald
has rubbed shoulders with the elite.

The members of the Committee of Evidence, struck to determine his fate in
June, 1996, after relations between McDonald and the CoS had deteriorated
beyond hope of recovery through unofficial channels, were as follows:

Chairman: Warrant Officer Roman Giessauer
Secretary: Warrant Officer Jacqueline Kevenaar
Member: PO 1 Glen Stilo
Member. PO 2 Ken Long

Roman Giessuer shares an unusual last name with current RTC Inspector General
Ethics Kerstin Giessauer, possibly the highest-ranking female executive within
the current CoS power structure. As IG, Kerstin reports directly to David
Miscavige, and is a director of the ever-elusive "Inspector General Network".
What relation, if any, is Roman to Kerstin?

Jacqueline Kevenaar was the OSA agent who made a series of "visits" to the
home of Ariane Jackson in September, 1996, to try to persuade Jackson to drop
her complaints against the church. Although she claimed to be working for CSI,
she admitted in conversation that she was, in fact, with OSA. Relations
between Jackson and her OSA visitor, chilly at best when the encounters began,
descended into bitter acrimony and threats of retaliation by the CoS, should
Jackson pursue her claims of abuse at the hands of the organization.

Glen Stilo is an officer of the Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization, currently based in Clearwater. Also on the board of CSFSO: Brian
Anderson and Mary Voegeding; both high-level Flag officials.

There is a long-time, high-ranking OSA agent based in Los Angeles named Ken
Long, as well as a trustee of the California Association of Dianetics Auditors
with the same name. Is either of these Ken Longs the fourth horseman of
Randall McDonald's own personal spiritual apocalypse?

Seeing such interesting names turn up as members of this little ethics and
justice tea party does give one pause for thought, Wgert. Just why was David
Miscavige et al so frightened of his allegations? If he's just a loon, why
bring out the big guns? Unless you're afraid he might draw attention to
something best left in shadows, like the mysterious Church of Spiritual
Technology.

And one for the Veritas gang: to any or all of you who are lurking hither, I
have some questions for y'all. I think most of us have a pretty good grasp on
your CST conspiracy theory. The CST was started by non-scientoogist wog
lawyers, led by the nefarious Meade Emory, to give the IRS control of the
tech, after the GO kids were framed with the help of Double Agent RVY. Am I
missing anything? What I'd like, if it's not too much trouble, are the
answers to some questions that still linger in my mind.

What evidence do you have that it is the special directors, not the directors
or the trustees, that control the operations of CST?
Who are Marion Meisler and Greg WIlhere, and what is their agenda within the
organization?
Who is Russell Bellin?
Why did Hubbard's will specifically detail the creation of CST, if it was
really just a plot to steal the tech from real scientologists?
Who is Arthur Bolstad?
Who is Jane McNairn?
Who owns the mysterious vaults in the desert?
Why did Stephen Lenske sue Hubbard's personal attorney, Norton Karno?
Who *is* Norton Karno, anyway?

Not part of the conspiracy,

K

http://www.storm.ca/~tallulah/loose-ends/cst

David Gerard

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

On 19 Mar 1998 12:57:53 +0100, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
:In message <352c7adc...@thingy.apana.org.au>, regarding the website at

:>The reason I keep asking is because I have yet to hear of any


:>a.r.s regular going to the courthouse and looking at the
:>documents.
:>You know, verifying that the paper purported to be on-file is in
:>fact on-file. A web page is just bits and bytes.
:>Has anyone done this?
:>Still no-one?

:I have not been to the courthouse and looked at the documents. But I have
:seen conformed copies. They exist. The case exists. The plaintiffs exist.
:The judge exists. CST exists. Sherman Lenske exists. Meade Emory exists.
:The copyright records exist.

[snip abuse mixed with blank assertion]


I'll take that as 'no' then.

"We've been here longer than you've been speaking in complete sentences"
- oddlystrange

David Gerard

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:01:29 GMT, tall...@mail.storm.ca
(tall...@storm.ca) wrote:

:Tsk, wgert. Your valence is slipping. Whyfore does an anonymous poster with

:distinctly unorthodox views cause you -- and your handlers -- such
:consternation?


wgert frothing does appear to be a little more verification.

Still, I'd love to hear confirmation from an a.r.s regular going to the
courthouse and looking up the documents.

I'd also love to know why the website was initially buried several empty
directory levels down. Seems a damned weird thing to do.

Robert Vaughn Young

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:

snip snip snip snip...
: Now I just want to know who the hell is running CST. And sooner or later,


: one way or another, I, for one, intend to find out.

Minton and I run it as a front group for the Freezone.
--
*----------------------------------------------*
Robert Vaughn Young * The most potent weapon of the oppressor is *
wri...@eskimo.com * the mind of the oppressed. - Steve Biko *
*----------------------------------------------*

Warrior

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

In article <6es5pm$si6$3...@usenet76.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com says...

>
>Randy Narcissus Mcdonald. This is a neat trick. Kissing your own ass
>anonymously. Because nobody else wants to get their nose anywhere near
>the Ass of...

Keep it up, Wgert. You are setting a great example for all to see
how a Scientologist speaks. No wonder people have a problem accepting
Scientology as a "church". You almost singlehandedly destroy any hope
your cult might have at gaining acceptance as a religion.

Scientology: the cult of foul-mouthed members.

I wish to personally thank you for posting here, Wgert! ;-)

Warrior
see http://www.xenu.net
and http://www.entheta.net

Wulfen

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

> Keep it up, Wgert. You are setting a great example for all to see
>how a Scientologist speaks. No wonder people have a problem accepting
>Scientology as a "church". You almost singlehandedly destroy any hope
>your cult might have at gaining acceptance as a religion.

Oh yeah.. Definitely on that last point. wgert and the spam were the
reasons that I started posting to ARS instead of lurking, and
definitely contributed to my decision to picket the Toronto Org,
gaining for $cientology another Suppressive Person. Is this the kind
of Big Win the wgert account is here for?

----------------------------------------------------------------
SP, Quake/2 addict, amateur rationalist.

"Science is a method, not an ideology."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Warrior

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <3517baeb...@news.total.net>, Wul...@SPAMOFF.Total.net says...

>
>> Keep it up, Wgert. You are setting a great example for all to see
>>how a Scientologist speaks. No wonder people have a problem accepting
>>Scientology as a "church". You almost singlehandedly destroy any hope
>>your cult might have at gaining acceptance as a religion.
>
>Oh yeah.. Definitely on that last point. wgert and the spam were the
>reasons that I started posting to ARS instead of lurking, and
>definitely contributed to my decision to picket the Toronto Org,
>gaining for $cientology another Suppressive Person. Is this the kind
>of Big Win the wgert account is here for?

For sure. Thankfully, cultists like Wgert and Justin don't even
realize how irrational and foolish they are. Their efforts go a long
way in helping Scientology to gain disrepute. That's why I told Wgert
to keep up the good work!

Warrior
see http://www.entheta.net
and http://www.xenu.net

wgert

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Contrary to Warrior and other posters to a.r.s. - I am living my life
not in front of a computer but in the real world - as most all
Scientologists do.

The few disgruntled ones here on ars are under the illusion that they
represent the views about Scientology. Factually they represent just
that: a handful of people who haven't gotten anything better to do
than express themselves - in mainly vulgar - form on the net.

Warrior, Zane, Ward are examples of such.

Warrior used to be a Scientologist. He left Scientology which was his
choice. He can't leave it alone, even after many many years. But he
has also refused any individual contact that could result in a
handling of whatever he is upset about. His only forward motion then
consists of trying to destroy that which he once embraced:
Scientology.

wgert

Cristino

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

wgert wrote:
>
> Contrary to Warrior and other posters to a.r.s. - I am living my life
> not in front of a computer but in the real world - as most all
> Scientologists do.
>

Is your 'real world' the one where you can levitate ashtrays?
Is your 'real world' the one where you can fry cockroaches with the
power of your mind when no one else is present?
Is your 'real world' the one where you can place intention beams on
people to do what you want?
Is your 'real world' the one where you can exteriorize (leave the body)
at will?

Cristino, SP2

Rob Clark

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 06:09:03 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:

>Contrary to Warrior and other posters to a.r.s. - I am living my life
>not in front of a computer but in the real world - as most all
>Scientologists do.

yep, you're in the real world all right. rolling around squealing with a pig.

rob

Veritas

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

Dear Mr. Gerard:

I understand you had a question regarding our old url:

>I'd also love to know why the website was initially
>buried several empty directory levels down. Seems a
>damned weird thing to do.

We have heard similar comments from others. Without belaboring the point,
let me just say that around the office, we referred to the lengthy chain of
directories as "OSA bait." It was really nothing more than a late-night
pizza-fueled idea for a harmless troll. (We have to do something to keep it
fun, besides just throwing darts at pictures of...never mind.) Nobody here
expected it to generate "deeply significant" suspicions, except, possibly,
amongst the deeply suspicious (see office nickname, above).

But to end the speculation, we have accomodatingly shortened our url to the
following:

http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/

I hope this will help to put your mind at ease.

If you have any other questions about our site, I will be glad to answer
them if I can.

Sincerely,
Marie
Associate Editor, Veritas

----------------------------------------------
Veritas was last updated on 13 March 1998.
Please accept an invitation to visit our site:

http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
----------------------------------------------

Veritas

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

Dear Ms. Richardson:

I am one of the people who puts together and maintains the Veritas site. It
was brought to my attention that you had posted a message to this newsgroup
which purported to impugn the integrity of some information presented on
Veritas.

Quoting from your message, you said:

>There's at least one "fact" on this website that has

>been seriously misinterpreted. ,,,

>Whoever interpreted the Copyright Office registration
>records does not understand Anglo-American Cataloging
>Rules, 2nd ed. (AACR2).

I find that rather hard to accept, Ms. Richardson, since the person who
interpreted those Copyright Office registration records is Robin L. Coreas,
Senior Copyright Research Specialist, Reference & Bibliography Section,
Library of Congress Copyright Office.

Whereas I am given to understand that you are, yourself, a librarian, I'm
afraid that we at Veritas will have to continue to rely on Ms. Coreas's
interpretation rather than yours.

In your message you go on to assert that:

>The statement of responsibility, in the cases shown on the
>Veritas website, indicates that L. Ron Hubbard is the sole
>author of the works.

On the contrary, Ms. Coreas kindly confirmed that Mr. Hubbard is NOT the
sole author of the works which have other authorship attributed in the APAU
field. She affirmed that the very definition of the APAU field is: "Name(s)
of AUTHOR(s) on application if different from copy (meaning the copy of the
work submitted with the application)" [emphasis added].

L. Ron Hubbard's name is on the copy of the work submitted. But there are
names of OTHER authors on the application, and their names do NOT appear on
the copy of the work submitted; that is why the records correctly list the
other authors in the APAU field.

As for the virgule (forward slash) convention in the TITL (title
information) field, you are quite correct that authorship information CAN
be so recorded, but--according to Ms. Corea, and according to the official
list of definitions sent to us from the Copyright Office--only if such
authorship is "not indicated in CLNA (name of claimant[s]) or APAU" fields.

What is unusual in the cases presented on our site (and the many hundreds
that are not shown there, but which are on file) is the uniform inclusion
of Mr. Hubbard's name in the TITL field, the uniform listing of the OTHER
authors in the APAU field, and the uniform EXCLUSION of the very existence
of the other authors from the published copies of the works in question,
their packaging, and their advertising.

And just for your further enlightenment, the virgule standard is not
adhered to in all cases where other authors are recorded. A case in point
is: "THE ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE COURSE: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENTOLOGY
POLICY: basic staff v. 0; by L. Ron Hubbard." That is exactly the way that
title is listed in the TITL field, yet the "author on application" is
"Church of Scientology International, employer for hire" for "New matter:
compilation, some text, editorial revisions." You will see, in this case,
that only a semicolon sets off the phrase, "by L. Ron Hubbard," while
including it in title.

Ms. Coreas has confirmed that Mr. Hubbard cannot possibly be the SOLE
author of the works that have other AUTHORS listed; if he were, the
Copyright Office records could not possibly be the way they are. Yet, from
all that we can discover, we are of the opinion that any reasonably prudent
person considering the purchase of one of these works could be likely to
believe (as you have here demonstrated) that Mr. Hubbard IS the sole
author. Part of such a belief might be strongly influenced by the
appearance of Mr. Hubbard's name on the cover, without any other
attribution of authorship.

We also are informed and believe that the inclusion of his name in the TITL
field, while it IS an allowed convention in the copyright applications,
does make it POSSIBLE for his name to be presented in packaging and
advertising in such a way that a reasonably prudent person would be led to
believe that Mr. Hubbard is the SOLE author, when he evidently is not.

Although some others may have "interpreted" these facts in a way that you
found to be unsupportable, I have no personal knowledge of what that might
have been, as I have not seen what you are objecting to; but the verified,
documented facts we have presented on our site speak for themselves.

And Ms. Corea has spoken, in her capacity as Senior Copyright Research
Specialist for the Copyright Office, and said that Mr. Hubbard is NOT the
sole author of the works that have "Church of Scientology, employer for
hire" in the APAU field.

That is exactly what is reflected on our site.

And while I respect your right to your opinion, I believe I speak for all
of us at Veritas when I say that we would be grateful if, when opining on
the integrity of our site, you would identify your opinions AS opinions,
and not state them assertively as fact--which you did in this
instance--unless you have exercised all due diligence--as we did in
contacting the Copyright Office.

If you are so inclined, Ms. Corea can be reached at the Library of Congress
Copyright Office Public Information number, which is: (202) 707-3000. I
urge you to take up any disagreements you have with her--not with me--as we
have relied on her informed expertise.

In the meantime, I hope you found the rest of the information on our site
to meet with your exacting standards.

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

In <1998032623...@basement.replay.com>, Veritas
<nob...@whozzat.com> wrote:

>I am one of the people who puts together and maintains the Veritas site. It

And it is an example of very good web design! I wish we could hire you
for some web sites of the ars-cc.

Tilman

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

In article <1998032623...@basement.replay.com>, Veritas writes:
>Dear Ms. Richardson:
>
>I am one of the people who puts together and maintains the Veritas site. It
>was brought to my attention that you had posted a message to this newsgroup
>which purported to impugn the integrity of some information presented on
>Veritas.
>Quoting from your message, you said:
>
> >There's at least one "fact" on this website that has
> >been seriously misinterpreted. ,,,
> >Whoever interpreted the Copyright Office registration
> >records does not understand Anglo-American Cataloging
> >Rules, 2nd ed. (AACR2).
>
>I find that rather hard to accept, Ms. Richardson, since the person who
>interpreted those Copyright Office registration records is Robin L. Coreas,
>Senior Copyright Research Specialist, Reference & Bibliography Section,
>Library of Congress Copyright Office.
>Whereas I am given to understand that you are, yourself, a librarian,

A medical research librarian with an extensive knowledge of copyright
(NB nobody would count me an uncrticial fan of Diane Richardson).

>I'm afraid that we at Veritas will have to continue to rely on Ms.
>Coreas's interpretation rather than yours.

Wouldn't it be better to check who was right, as opposed to who could
piss furthest or had the fanciest title?

|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)


arnie_lerma

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98