RVY confesses: I am LRH (was Re: The Missing Ten Months)
Robert Vaughn Young
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
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-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
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
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.
>
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
-----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
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.
>
>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
>>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
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
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
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
-----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
Rob Clark
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
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
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
Scott A. McClare <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
> Can someone tell me what "Veritas" is? The only publication I've ever
> 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
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
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
David Gerard
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?
--
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
"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
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
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
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
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
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-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
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.
>
>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
David Gerard
:>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.
--
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
"We've been here longer than you've been speaking in complete sentences"
- oddlystrange
David Gerard
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
re Veritas - I have no idea who veritas is, nor does anyone I know
and I know a lot of ex members, perhaps Im paranoid
when it comes to co$ but then Im not shy about that fact, and Id like
to know for sure that this whole lawsuit - has anyone checked the court to see
if this in fact exists? is real and not just an osa disinformation campaign.
I'd like to know you you guys are and know through someone I know who knows us
both. ny number is 703 241 1498. Arnie Lerma I'd prefer to die speaking my mind
than live fearing to speak
Secrets are the mortar, binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the
mind
The internet is the Liberty tree of the 90's
http://www.lermanet.com
In article , Dave says...
Diane Richardson
On 27 Mar 1998 00:54:10 +0100, Veritas <nob...@whozzat.com> wrote:
>
>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.
Believe whomever and whatever you like.
[snip]
>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.
My opinion is that of a well-informed professional in the discipline.
I stand by my comments as written.
I'd suggest you invite "Ms. Corea" to research the year of adoption of
AACR2 cataloging conventions. That should clear up her (or your)
confusion over why some of the records include the virgule in the
author field and others do not.
>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.
Perhaps you might do better to retain an intellectual property lawyer
-- if you really do care to speak from authority. As it stands, your
statements, and those you claim are those of a Copyright Office
employee, are nothing more than the mouthings of an anonymous poster
with no (I repeat NO) responsibility for the statements you make.
>In the meantime, I hope you found the rest of the information on our site
>to meet with your exacting standards.
>
> Sincerely,
> Marie
> Associate Editor, Veritas
Actually, "Marie," I found your website to bear all the markings of
the typical conspiracy-nutcase fringe group. All flash, dazzle, and
outrageous accusation, with little or no verifiable documentation.
You're going to have to do better than that if you're looking for
credibility from anyone besides Capt. Bill's space rangers.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Robert Vaughn Young
tall...@storm.ca (tall...@mail.storm.ca) wrote:
snipping to...
: 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?
Pop corn.
Veritas
Dear Mr. Bird:
I wrote a message to Diane Richardson, and you saw fit to comment on it,
despite having nothing to say.
I had informed Ms. Richardson that we had verified our information with the
United States Copyright Office. I fully informed her of our contact there,
and urged her to contact that same person at the Copyright Office if she
doubted the information I was presenting. I invite you do the same. The
contact is:
Robin L. Coreas, Senior Copyright Research Specialist, Reference &
Bibliography Section, Library of Congress Copyright Office. The phone
number is (202) 707-3000.
Regarding Ms. Coreas vs. Ms. Richardson, you correctly quoted me as saying
to Ms. Richardson:
>>I'm afraid that we at Veritas will have to continue to
>>rely on Ms. Coreas's interpretation rather than yours.
Then you chimed in:
>Wouldn't it be better to check who was right...
What a novel idea! Yes, you're right. We'll check with the United States
Copyright Office and find out. I'll get back to you.
>...as opposed to who could piss furthest or had the
>fanciest title?
I don't know if your compulsion toward crassness is congenital or the
result of upbringing, but we relied on neither title nor urinary prowess.
If your comprehension skills come up sufficiently, re-read my message to
Ms. Richardson and you will find, to your wide-eyed surprise, that I said:
>we have relied on her (Ms. Coreas's) informed expertise.
But thank you for woofing and glugging:
>Woof Woof, Glug Glug
Indeed.
Sincerely,
Marie
Associate Editor, Veritas
----------------------------------------------
Veritas
Dear Tallulah:
In a recent message on this newsgroup, you wrote:
>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.
I personally know of no "conspiracy theory" amongst the people who work on
Veritas--including its editor, who I know well. We all have questions, many
questions, and have informally thrown around many ideas between us to try
and explain the facts as we know them, trying to fill in what we don't
know. That is a common human trait, and I am certainly not immune to it.
But we do make an effort to keep unfounded conclusions or theories out of
our final presentation, and stick to the facts. If you will look closely at
the web site, I hope you will find that we have done a yeoman-like job of
keeping the "theorizing" exterminated. Out of almost editorial necessity,
we have asked questions, but they are questions we hope to see answered,
because they are questions that naturally arise from the seemingly
incongruous facts that we do know, and are well-documented.
You continued to state what you characterized as "our" conspiracy theory:
>The CST was started by non-scientoogist wog lawyers... .
That is not theory. That is a matter of court record, which is very
specifically documented--not on our site, but on Operation Clambake, which
is where we got the information. Here is the url:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf72.html
(And our thanks and appreciation go out to Andreas Heldal-Lund for
providing such an invaluable resource, which we access often.)
>...led by the nefarious Meade Emory...
Neither our web site nor the court record we used for our source say it was
"led by...Meade Emory." Our web site correctly reflects that he was one of
four co-founders. It could well have been "led" by Lyman Spurlock, who is
the only Scientologist among the four. Or by Sherman Lenske, who wrote the
wills. But now I am getting into my own, personal speculation (sorry).
Veritas does not claim that the founding of CST was "led" by anyone, since
that is something we do not have documentation for.
>...to give the IRS control of the tech...
That "theory" is nowhere on our website. We do present a quote by L. Ron
Hubbard where he says that IRS was trying to seize Scientology. That is not
a "conclusion" or "theory" made by Veritas; that is a direct quote from a
taped lecture by L. Ron Hubbard.
>...after the GO kids were framed with the help of Double
>Agent RVY...
We have nothing anywhere on our web site saying the GO was framed. That
theory or conclusion is not from Veritas, and I believe you have confused
your sources. We present time-lines of meticulously verified dates. We feel
that if we can present accurate information, people can form their own
theories or conclusions, if they want. Or, better yet, we hope that it will
motivate others to search out the missing facts, so that we can all fill in
the gaps, and all have a factual understanding of events--not mere theory
or specutlation.
And we have absolutely nothing about "RVY" on our web site. (?)
You then posed several questions:
>What evidence do you have that it is the special directors,
>not the directors or the trustees, that control the
>operations of CST?
Our web site doesn't say that the special directors "control the operations
of CST." I'm not sure where you got that idea. In fact, regarding the
special directors, our web site specifically says that "Their exact role is
unknown, but they seem to wield quite a lot of power." We did not take that
up at any length, because it is covered in the U.S. Claims Court ruling
where they are described. Our web site also points people to that court
case (on Operation Clambake) and urges Veritas visitors to study that case
for a full understanding.
We charted them out to the side of the Trustees, Directors, and Officers
specifically because their exact relationship to and power over those
officials is unknown. But since the court document says they are there to
make sure the organization doesn't do anything to jeapordize CST's tax
exempt status (Personal Speculation Mode On): it would seem to me
(personally, not as a Veritas representative) that they would minimally
have to have review and veto power over decisions made by the elected
officers (Personal Speculation Mode Off).
>Who are Marion Meisler and Greg WIlhere, and what is
>their agenda within the organization?
>Who is Russell Bellin?
No information, except that Russell Bellin apparently signed as President
of CST on their d.b.a. as "L. Ron Hubbard Library." That is our reading of
the signature on the document. But we also scanned that and put it on the
web site so everyone could see it and make their own reading of it.
>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?
Again, we make no assertions of any "plot," and have no other information
except what is there on the site: Sherman Lenske, by his own testimony (in
a declaration) is the one who wrote those wills. The veracity of those
wills have been challenged by many who have gone before us, and the Veritas
site draws no conclusions or theories about them. It presents the
unassailable fact that Lenske wrote the wills, and also presents the
incontrovertible relationship of Lenske to CST (ultimate beneficiary of the
will), RTC, ASI, and Norman Starkey as the executor and trustee of the will
and estate. These are easily-verified facts. I leave the conclusions and
theories to others.
>Who is Arthur Bolstad?
>Who is Jane McNairn?
Absolutely no information.
>Who owns the mysterious vaults in the desert?
My understanding is that it is CST, although we are pursuing more
information on that.
>Why did Stephen Lenske sue Hubbard's personal attorney,
>Norton Karno?
We have no information about that, but I am very interested in learning
more about it. If you have a cite, or can tell us where we can find
documents on that case, I would be grateful if you would post that to this
newsgroup.
>Who *is* Norton Karno, anyway?
Can't help you, but we are following this line if inquiry, too.
>Not part of the conspiracy,
Nor I.
>K
>http://www.storm.ca/~tallulah/loose-ends/cst
Haven't had an opportunity to visit your site, but will soon!
I hope this has cleared up what appears to have been a confusion between
the facts presented on Veritas, and "theories" presented by others
regarding some of those facts. The information on Veritas has been compiled
from a wide variety of sources, all of them public information. We are not
the only ones with access to Library of Congress records, and in fact were
led to look into that by posts that first appeared here in this newsgroup
(and thanks to those who brought that up). The Mitchell case documents are
also public record, easily available through L.A. Superior Court, which is
where we got copies from. We are currently working on getting the latest
documents from the clerk, and hope to have our site updated soon, as quite
a lot of new filings and court-appearance records are now in the file since
our last round of OCRing.
I am somewhat dismayed (but mostly amused) by the relentless challenges to
the veracity of those documents that keep appearing in this newsgroup.
Nobody here at Veritas can figure out why this keeps coming up. I hope that
Mr. Berry or Mr. Henson, or somebody who has cause to visit the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles will take a minute to drop in to
see the clerk, and ask to see the file for case number BC175367. It is so
ridiculously easy to verify (and so impossible to "fake"), that I find this
constant suspicion one of the most amusing things I have ever witnessed.
Oh, well.
Thank you for your thoughtful questions. I hope you have Veritas now
distinguished from the "theorists" who, with access to some of the same
facts we have at our disposal, have chosen to wax conspiratorial.
Thad Beier
Veritas wrote:
>
> >Why did Stephen Lenske sue Hubbard's personal attorney,
> >Norton Karno?
>
> We have no information about that, but I am very interested in learning
> more about it. If you have a cite, or can tell us where we can find
> documents on that case, I would be grateful if you would post that to
> this newsgroup.
... snip ...
I looked this up at the below-mentioned courthouse, and it was,
very breifly, a employment dispute. Lenske worked for Karno, then
quit/was-fired, and sued for salary and fees that he felt he was
owed. The court case went on for years, with multiple vituperative
letters and depositions back and forth, and was finally, I believe,
settled in arbitration.
> I hope that
> Mr. Berry or Mr. Henson, or somebody who has cause to visit the Superior
> Court of California, County of Los Angeles will take a minute to drop in to
> see the clerk, and ask to see the file for case number BC175367.
Next time I'm at the courthouse, I'll look it up. You know, people
would treat you with a little more credulity if you were a little more
communicative. Posting more often, and less elliptically, and perhaps
publishing an e-mail address would help. Hey, you can even fairly
anonymously meet picketers on the street -- there seems to be plenty
of opportunity for that these days!
... snip ...
> Sincerely,
> Marie
> Associate Editor, Veritas
thad
William Barwell
In article <6fa6vh$lth$1...@usenet53.supernews.com>,
wgert <wg...@loop.com> 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.
Standing around smoking.
>
>The few disgruntled ones here on ars are under the illusion that they
>represent the views about Scientology.
"Represent the views"? Stop speaking pigden, son!
The ex-members and more knowledgable critics tell the truth
about Goofyology this cult dares not tell.
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.
They tell about the things that make this cult a collection
of silly brainfarts from Hubbard. Xenu, BTs, Fac One Bap!
Bap! Bap! Bap! and worse, the cult's hatefullness and crude
harassment of all that oppose it.
>
>Warrior, Zane, Ward are examples of such.
>
Tell us about Xenu, oh feeble minded one!
Make this bit of goofy nonsens elook intelligent and thoughtful!
Can't can you?
>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.
The lies, the stupidities of sea org life, the disconnections, quackery,
dirty tricks. Why wait on Warrior's contact to fix the obvious that has
given your creepy cult a world wide bad reputation?
Because you can't. Davie won't let you.
His only forward motion then
>consists of trying to destroy that which he once embraced:
>Scientology.
No, he finally can tell the truth to himself and to the world
that may fall for the lies he once did.
Hubbard lied. About everything. Scientology still lies.
Warrior opted out from all the lying.
Some day Wgert, you will too.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <1998032801...@basement.replay.com>,
>
>Dear Mr. Bird:
>
>I wrote a message to Diane Richardson, and you saw fit to comment on it,
>despite having nothing to say.
>I had informed Ms. Richardson that we had verified our information with the
>United States Copyright Office. I fully informed her of our contact there,
>and urged her to contact that same person at the Copyright Office if she
>doubted the information I was presenting. I invite you do the same. The
>contact is:
>
>Robin L. Coreas, Senior Copyright Research Specialist, Reference &
>Bibliography Section, Library of Congress Copyright Office. The phone
>number is (202) 707-3000.
OK, I was wrong. I misread you message as "we checked with OUR legal
officer, and he's a lawyer so nyah". Lawyers can be wrong and lay
people right, particularly when commenting aboiut the lay person's
own field. I have not checked the primary facts on this, so I do
not know who is right on the facts.
Warrior
In article <6fa6vh$lth$1...@usenet53.supernews.com>,
wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>
> But he has also refused any individual contact that could result in a
> handling of whatever he is upset about.
>
Wgert:
I challenge you to give specifics here.
Show me whether you have any integrity.
Who have I "refused any individual contact" from?
Warrior
see http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
pam...@medstud.gu.se
> The few disgruntled ones here on ars are under the illusion that they
> represent the views about Scientology. Factually they represent just
> that: a handful of people who haven't gotten anything better to do
> than express themselves - in mainly vulgar - form on the net.
>
> Warrior, Zane, Ward are examples of such.
I've yet to see Warrior "express himself in vulgar form on the net".
Another case of re-defining words? "Vulgar: giving details, such as names,
dates and places, that Scientology doesn't want to be known"
Wgert: Scientology in a nutshell
Catarina --sp2
Scott A. McClare
In article <6fa6vh$lth$1...@usenet53.supernews.com>,
wgert <wg...@loop.com> 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.
A few "facts" about Scientology's <tm> Real World:
1. In the Real World, Scientologists are covered with the dead souls of
space aliens, and the only way to get rid of them is to hold soup cans.
2. In the Real World, drugs from past lives can have effects on your
current body, but smoking has no effect.
3. In the Real World, you can improve your communication skills by
yelling at an ashtray.
4. In the Real World, you're a kleptomaniac because Daddy beat up Mommy
before you were born.
5. In the Real World, L. Ron Hubbard was a war hero, not a bumbling,
self-important second lieutenant whose superior officers all did their
best to get rid of him PDQ.
6. Finally, in the Real World, if you doubt any of the above, you are
"insane," but if you accept it as true, you are "sane." Oh, the irony!
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
Warrior
In article <6fntop$3ae$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, pam...@medstud.gu.se says...
>
>In article <6fa6vh$lth$1...@usenet53.supernews.com>,
> wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I've yet to see Warrior "express himself in vulgar form on the net".
>
>Another case of re-defining words? "Vulgar: giving details, such as names,
>dates and places, that Scientology doesn't want to be known"
>
>Wgert: Scientology in a nutshell
Wgert creates his own "reality".
Veritas
Dear Mr. Bird:
You graciously wrote:
>OK, I was wrong. I misread you message as "we checked
>with OUR legal officer, and he's a lawyer so nyah".
>Lawyers can be wrong and lay people right, particularly
>when commenting aboiut the lay person's own field.
And now I am embarrassed for having been so snide.
Thank you for taking the time to follow up so decently, and for your
guileless, honest answer.
We not only invite, but URGE people to verify the information we have
presented on Veritas. That's why all our sources of information are
identified, and why we put as much documentation as possible right there on
the site, with links to things that are already webbed by others.
If anyone has any constructive suggestions for how the site can be made
better, we welcome them. If anyone can demonstrate (and back it up with
documentation) that any of the facts we present are incorrect, we will make
corrections in all haste.
In the meantime, please accept my apologies for my untoward snappishness
(pun intended), for my clammy disdain (pun intended), and for my cheap-shot
desecration of your sig.
Sincerely,
Marie
Associate Editor, Veritas
----------------------------------------------
tall...@mail.storm.ca
In article <1998032821...@basement.replay.com>, Veritas
>
>Dear Tallulah:
>
>In a recent message on this newsgroup, you wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>I personally know of no "conspiracy theory" amongst the people who work on
>Veritas--including its editor, who I know well. We all have questions, many
>questions, and have informally thrown around many ideas between us to try
>and explain the facts as we know them, trying to fill in what we don't
>know. That is a common human trait, and I am certainly not immune to it.
>But we do make an effort to keep unfounded conclusions or theories out of
>our final presentation, and stick to the facts. If you will look closely at
>the web site, I hope you will find that we have done a yeoman-like job of
>keeping the "theorizing" exterminated. Out of almost editorial necessity,
>we have asked questions, but they are questions we hope to see answered,
>because they are questions that naturally arise from the seemingly
>incongruous facts that we do know, and are well-documented.
You have indeed done a remarkable job of collecting information, and I
definitely have you (in the collective) to thank for bringing my attention,
humble though it may be, to the mysterious matter of the CST. Wherever we may
disagree in speculation, I think y'all have done a service in putting so much
information online in such a well-presented format.
>
>You continued to state what you characterized as "our" conspiracy theory:
>
> >The CST was started by non-scientoogist wog lawyers... .
>
>That is not theory. That is a matter of court record, which is very
>specifically documented--not on our site, but on Operation Clambake, which
>is where we got the information. Here is the url:
>
>http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf72.html
>
>(And our thanks and appreciation go out to Andreas Heldal-Lund for
>providing such an invaluable resource, which we access often.)
As do mine (better late than never). I think my immediate -- and needless to
say terribly subjective -- interpretation of making particular mention of the
religous persuasion of the founding lawyers was to take it as an indication
that somehow, this bears relevence to their role in the corporation itself.
> >...led by the nefarious Meade Emory...
>
>Neither our web site nor the court record we used for our source say it was
>"led by...Meade Emory." Our web site correctly reflects that he was one of
>four co-founders. It could well have been "led" by Lyman Spurlock, who is
>the only Scientologist among the four. Or by Sherman Lenske, who wrote the
>wills. But now I am getting into my own, personal speculation (sorry).
>Veritas does not claim that the founding of CST was "led" by anyone, since
>that is something we do not have documentation for.
Did Lenske write the wills? When did he become Hubbard's personal attorney, do
you know? I ask, because it seems to me that the creation of Author's Family
Trust B was a new development in LRH's final will, which was noticeably absent
from previous versions. I wonder whether separating it from the rest of the
estate was in order to ensure that it would be impossible for the tech to be
considered an "asset", thereby opening the possibility that it could be
'seized' should the wrong corporate entity be found liable.
This would not seem out of line with Hubbard's wishes, although it is
difficult to be sure whether he was capable of making such a decision at the
time the will itself was drafted.
> >...to give the IRS control of the tech...
>
>That "theory" is nowhere on our website. We do present a quote by L. Ron
>Hubbard where he says that IRS was trying to seize Scientology. That is not
>a "conclusion" or "theory" made by Veritas; that is a direct quote from a
>taped lecture by L. Ron Hubbard.
Alright. Do you believe that the IRS was trying to seize scientology, for
whatever gain? Or do you think Hubbard was suffering from persecution complex
at that time?
> >...after the GO kids were framed with the help of Double
> >Agent RVY...
>
>We have nothing anywhere on our web site saying the GO was framed. That
>theory or conclusion is not from Veritas, and I believe you have confused
>your sources. We present time-lines of meticulously verified dates. We feel
>that if we can present accurate information, people can form their own
>theories or conclusions, if they want. Or, better yet, we hope that it will
>motivate others to search out the missing facts, so that we can all fill in
>the gaps, and all have a factual understanding of events--not mere theory
>or specutlation.
If you search a.r.s., you will find a pair of posts from me wherein I've
attempted to do just that. Again, I am in your debt - it was thanks to the
delicious possibilities raised by your website that I - and many others, more
skillful but less loquacious than me -- was moved to begin prying loose some
of the details surrounding CST.
BTW, do you believe the GO agents were framed,. or do you believe they were
acting on Hubbard's orders?
>And we have absolutely nothing about "RVY" on our web site. (?)
True enough. What about the speculations posted by other seminonymous CST
enthusiasts Anonymous and the Librarian? Any thoughts on their speculation
about RVY?
>You then posed several questions:
>
> >What evidence do you have that it is the special directors,
> >not the directors or the trustees, that control the
> >operations of CST?
>
>Our web site doesn't say that the special directors "control the operations
>of CST." I'm not sure where you got that idea. In fact, regarding the
>special directors, our web site specifically says that "Their exact role is
>unknown, but they seem to wield quite a lot of power." We did not take that
>up at any length, because it is covered in the U.S. Claims Court ruling
>where they are described. Our web site also points people to that court
>case (on Operation Clambake) and urges Veritas visitors to study that case
>for a full understanding.
Again, subjectively - it seems to me that you focus almost exclusively on the
Special Directors, to the virtual exclusion of all other parties with a role
in the creation and current operations of CST, all of whom -- as it happens --
are scientologists.
>We charted them out to the side of the Trustees, Directors, and Officers
>specifically because their exact relationship to and power over those
>officials is unknown. But since the court document says they are there to
>make sure the organization doesn't do anything to jeapordize CST's tax
>exempt status (Personal Speculation Mode On): it would seem to me
>(personally, not as a Veritas representative) that they would minimally
>have to have review and veto power over decisions made by the elected
>officers (Personal Speculation Mode Off).
Are the Special Directorships perpetual, or can they be replaced by a decision
of the board? What specific responsibilities do they have - attendance at the
annual general meeting? Approving policy? Why is CST the only CoS entity with
Special Directors, anyway?
> >Who are Marion Meisler and Greg WIlhere, and what is
> >their agenda within the organization?
> >Who is Russell Bellin?
>
>No information, except that Russell Bellin apparently signed as President
>of CST on their d.b.a. as "L. Ron Hubbard Library." That is our reading of
>the signature on the document. But we also scanned that and put it on the
>web site so everyone could see it and make their own reading of it.
Russell Bellin and Jane McNairn are both mentioned by name in the part of
Hubbard's will that deals with the creation of AFTb and the subsequent
transfer of the copyrights to CST. So whoever drafted the will intended was
aware that he would be, at least officially, in charge of the organization
charged with preservation of the tech.
> >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?
>
>Again, we make no assertions of any "plot," and have no other information
>except what is there on the site: Sherman Lenske, by his own testimony (in
>a declaration) is the one who wrote those wills. The veracity of those
>wills have been challenged by many who have gone before us, and the Veritas
>site draws no conclusions or theories about them.
You will excuse me if I find this just a little hard to believe. Even I,
objective creature that I am, find it hard to avoid a little afterhours
theorizing, as long as I'm careful to keep speculation out of the strict
presenation of information and evidence.
The will that interests me most at the moment is that which was written in
December, 1979, which appointed Norton S. Karno as Executor, the position that
was later to be filled by our old friend Norm Starkey. Do you have any details
on what led to his removal from the final will?
>It presents the
>unassailable fact that Lenske wrote the wills, and also presents the
>incontrovertible relationship of Lenske to CST (ultimate beneficiary of the
>will), RTC, ASI, and Norman Starkey as the executor and trustee of the will
>and estate. These are easily-verified facts. I leave the conclusions and
>theories to others.
Does Lenske receive a stipend for serving as Special Director? Does he have
any pecuniary interest in CST? I ask because I'm still not certain what you
mean by "beneficiary". In what way does he benefit?
> >Who is Arthur Bolstad?
> >Who is Jane McNairn?
>
>Absolutely no information.
>
> >Who owns the mysterious vaults in the desert?
>
>My understanding is that it is CST, although we are pursuing more
>information on that.
I hope you have better luck than I have had in the same endeavor.
> >Why did Stephen Lenske sue Hubbard's personal attorney,
> >Norton Karno?
>
>We have no information about that, but I am very interested in learning
>more about it. If you have a cite, or can tell us where we can find
>documents on that case, I would be grateful if you would post that to this
>newsgroup.
Stephen Lenske sued Karno for fraud and breach of contract after he left
Karno's firm during the late seventies. I will post more details of the case
when I have properly perused the material, but it seems to me more than a
little coincidental that such an unlikely union occured without it having some
bearing on other events, including those surrounding CST.
> >Who *is* Norton Karno, anyway?
>
>Can't help you, but we are following this line if inquiry, too.
Race you to the databases :)
> >Not part of the conspiracy,
>
>Nor I.
>
> >K
>
> >http://www.storm.ca/~tallulah/loose-ends/cst
>
>Haven't had an opportunity to visit your site, but will soon!
I eagerly await your opinion.
K
Veritas
Dear Tallulah,
I know I cannot reasonably expect to hope for your forgiveness for the
tardiness of this reply, so I will merely invite your tolerance.
In the dim reaches of history (1 April), in message
<6fsj2u$o...@enews4.newsguy.com>, you wrote:
>You have indeed done a remarkable job of collecting information, and
>I definitely have you (in the collective) to thank for bringing my
>attention, humble though it may be, to the mysterious matter of the
>CST. Wherever we may disagree in speculation, I think y'all have done
>a service in putting so much information online in such a
>well-presented format.
Thank you again for your kind and thoughtful sentiments. Glad to be of any
service.
<SNIPS>
>I think my immediate -- and needless to say terribly subjective --
>interpretation of making particular mention of the religous persuasion
>of the founding lawyers was to take it as an indication that somehow,
>this bears relevence to their role in the corporation itself.
Well, if we're going to be subjective, I would have to personally aver that
the appearance of non-Scientology lawyers in founding and Special Director
roles in the corporation that is at the very top of the Scientology heap is
one of the most curious anomolies in this entire...heap. I wouldn't find it
strange at all, I suppose, if they were merely hired attorneys, uninvolved
with the very existence of the church and its corporate structure, holding
no official corporate office. That would be entirely understandable. In
fact, even if they were actually on the payroll as "Corporate Counsel,"
well, that would be a sensible place to expect to see attorneys who are not
adherents to the religion, unmistakably hirelings of the corporation, and
unmistakeably in a role of professional service to the ecclesiastical
leadership. These would not seem unusual or out of place.
But to find three out of four FOUNDERS of the corporation as
non-Scientologists, and three out of three SPECIAL DIRECTORS of the
corporation as non-Scientologists--well, that crosses over into the bizarre
to me, particulary given a history of at least 26 years (from the founding
of HASI, Inc. to L. Ron Hubbard's disappearance in 1980) when NOT ONE
SINGLE NON-SCIENTOLOGIST WAS EVER in a corporate officer or director
position. Only AFTER L. Ron Hubbard disappeared did we find, ALMOST
IMMEDIATELY, these non-Scientologist attorneys rising to corporate
positions. I find that to be extremely curious. In fact, I find it SO
curious that it is my personal belief that only when we have the fully
exposed answer to the circumstances leading to that will we ever know what
really happened.
<SNIP>
>Did Lenske write the wills? When did he become Hubbard's personal
>attorney, do you know?
I have just excerpts from a Sherman Lenske declaration, dated 12 November
1995, which are in a document called (ready?): "MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER
HEREIN AND TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE." It was submitted
for FactNET by Graham Berry sometime in April 1997, so perhaps he can
provide the original Lenske declaration, which we do not have. Anyway,
Lenske says he:
"...represented Mr. L. Ron Hubbard in all aspects of estate
planning from the time he engaged me as his attorney in
approximately April 1981 until his death on January 24, 1986,
and also represented the Executor of his Estate through the
probate of his Will, which was concluded in January 1989. All
of the documents effectuating the estate plan were drafted
either by me or under my supervision..."
>I ask, because it seems to me that the creation of Author's Family
>Trust B was a new development in LRH's final will, which was noticeably
>absent from previous versions. I wonder whether separating it from the
>rest of the estate was in order to ensure that it would be impossible
>for the tech to be considered an "asset", thereby opening the
>possibility that it could be 'seized' should the wrong corporate entity
>be found liable.
Woman, your timing positively gives me chills sometimes. I begin to think
you are clairvoyant, or have somehow managed to ferret us out and bug the
offices of Veritas! We just recently came into possession of copies of some
of the wills and related documents. Maybe you have them, too, based on your
knowledge of the creation date of AUTHOR'S FAMILY TRUST - B. You are quite
right, it was created on 23 January 1986, according to the will of that
date. (Question: Since Sherman Lenske says he "represented Mr. L. Ron
Hubbard in all aspects of estate planning" post 1981; since L. Ron Hubbard
had allegedly had a stroke about a week before he died, and could have been
presumed to go pretty much any time; since Lenske claims to have been
Hubbard's personal attorney; and since a will was written, OBVIOUSLY by an
attorney, then executed on the day before Hubbard died (with Hubbard's many
initials, signatures, and fingerprints), why, then, do we have NO record or
account of LA-based Lenske's presence at the ranch, while another attorney,
Cooley, had to be flown all the way from the East coast to handle affairs
surrounding the death? Cue spooky music here and feel the crawling flesh.)
And now for even more electrifying related minutiae. Here's one that I
have, literally, taken a magnifying glass to. Maybe you can help explain
it.
I have a copy of a document dated 4 February 1986 (just about 10 days after
Hubbard's death) signed by one Daniel J. Przybylski. The title of the
document is "DECLARATION OF CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY." In it,
Przybylski avers that he is the "Vice President and a Director of Church of
Spiritual Technology." Then it's at numbered paragraph "3." where the
little, tiny weirdness is. I'm going to reproduce it below as accurately as
possible, and it will require close attention to details:
3. The Church [CST] is the principal beneficiary under the
provisions of that certain trust created by instrument [illegible]
January, 1986 and named the "Author's Family Trust - (the
"Trust").
I "trust" that the date is fully legible in the original document, and that
the bright white 4 spaces which stare back at me from the page, exactly
where I would expect to see: [SPACE]B"[SPACE] do, in fact, on the original,
contain the elusive B and a close-quotation mark. I suppose it is probably
attributable to a bad copy of a bad copy. But I keep trying to reconcile it
with the fact that Starkey later referred to himself sometimes as the
executor/trustee of "Author's Family Trust - B," and sometimes just as the
executor/trustee of "Author's Family Trust." No B. To B, or not to B, that
is the question.
>This would not seem out of line with Hubbard's wishes, although it
>is difficult to be sure whether he was capable of making such a
>decision at the time the will itself was drafted.
So very much of this is difficult, isn't it. One wonders how anything could
possibly be made so difficult without many overtime hours spent with that
specific goal in mind.
<SNIP>
>Alright. Do you believe that the IRS was trying to seize scientology,
>for whatever gain?
(Drumming fingers.) I don't know.
>Or do you think Hubbard was suffering from persecution complex at
>that time?
No.
<SNIP>
>BTW, do you believe the GO agents were framed,.
(Drumming fingers.) I don't know.
>or do you believe they were acting on Hubbard's orders?
No.
>>And we have absolutely nothing about "RVY" on our web site. (?)
>
>True enough. What about the speculations posted by other
>seminonymous CST enthusiasts Anonymous and the Librarian? Any
>thoughts on their speculation about RVY?
I never saw any of the Librarian's posts referring to RVY. Can you post a
snippet? I thought I had seen all of her posts, but our news server, alas,
also has hitches and hiccoughs from time to time.
I have seen AOC post some explicit and interesting questions to RVY that I
never saw answered. And the questions raise interesting questions. But my
"Interesting Questions" basket is overflowing out into the hall, and I have
neither the time nor the inclination to go doing an in-depth check on RVY.
I don't know the man, and he isn't in our current particular line of
investigation. I just don't have enough data to formulate any thoughts.
<SNIP>
>Again, subjectively - it seems to me that you focus almost
>exclusively on the Special Directors, to the virtual exclusion of
>all other parties with a role in the creation and current
>operations of CST, all of whom -- as it happens -- are
>scientologists.
Because the Special Directors are odd. It's strange. It's a mystery. If all
the parties involved were Scientologists, it wouldn't be odd at all, and
there wouldn't be anything there for us to focus on. If all the information
about the Special Directors was readily available, there wouldn't be
anything for us to focus on. The focus is on those things that are
inexplicable. Obviously.
I already went over, earlier in this post, a question I still have, and
still have not seen answered: why are non-Scientologists in senior
corporate positions of the senior-most Scientology corporation? Why was it
majority-founded by non-Scientologists? Why was it incorporated by a
non-Scientologist? Corporations are not founded by and directed by the
attorneys who are consulted in the establishment of the corporations. It is
odd by any standard you can name. Anyone can sign the corporate papers.
Spurlock, a Scientologist, could have been the sole incorporator of CST,
but Sherman Lenske, a non-Scientologist is, and is also a Special Director.
The very establishment of "Special Directors" is also extremely unusual in
corporate structuring, according to our research so far on it, although I
certainly don't claim to be an expert. The only thing known about the role
of the Special Directors is from the Claims Court ruling, where it is
mentioned that they are there to keep the corporation from doing anything
to jeopardize its tax-exempt status. This is funny, because they didn't
HAVE tax exempt status when the Special Directors were instituted. And
whatever anybody speculates about possible "limited powers" of the Special
Directors, they are, adjectives notwithstanding, DIRECTORS.
On that subject, the California Corporations Code, Division 2, Part 1 has
this to say:
"5047. Except where otherwise expressly provided, "directors"
means natural persons, designated in the articles or bylaws or
elected by the incorporators, and their successors and natural
persons designated, elected or appointed by any other name or
title to act as members of THE GOVERNINIG BODY (caps added) of
the corporation."
There are no specific provisions anywhere in the Code, that WE have found
so far, that provide for designating any of these directors as "Special"
directors, but there is nothing anywhere in the Code, that WE have found,
that prevents them from being so designated. "Special" is an adjective.
"Director" is the operative word that DOES have definition in the code, and
I don't think I need to spell it out beyond what it clearly says in the
code. Since they can be "designated in the articles or bylaws or elected by
the incorporators," and since Sherman Lenske is the sole incorporator, AND
the drafter of the Articles and Bylaws (which can't be seen by non-members,
and there are no members), it makes a rather tight, neat package, doesn't
it?
I find it hard to believe that anyone WOULDN'T focus on these very strange,
non-Scientologist members OF THE GOVERNING BODY of the senior-most
corporation in Scientology, especially since all the paperwork, and the
wills, and the execution of the wills, and everything having to do with ANY
of it was ALL done by Sherman Lenske. GOD! I don't want to draw anymore
diagrams. NEVER MIND. IT'S REALLY ALL JUST DAVID MISCAVIGE! (Sorry. I went
off on you. I've taken a walk now, and feel much better. :-] )
>Are the Special Directorships perpetual, or can they be replaced by a
>decision of the board? What specific responsibilities do they have -
>attendance at the annual general meeting? Approving policy?
I swear that I, and we at Veritas, have told all we know. See above from
the California Corporate Codes. It is quite true, from those same codes,
that neither thee nor me can see the bylaws, so we have no idea what was
written into them. I know of nothing in the codes to prevent Lenske from
having appointed them for life. There could be many things in the bylaws
that we may never know.
>Why is CST the only CoS entity with Special Directors, anyway?
I wish I knew. It may be the only corporation in the world with "Special
Directors" for all I know, which may be why nobody knows what the hell they
do or what they are.
<SNIP>
>Russell Bellin and Jane McNairn are both mentioned by name in the part of
>Hubbard's will that deals with the creation of AFTb and the subsequent
>transfer of the copyrights to CST. So whoever drafted the will intended was
>aware that he would be, at least officially, in charge of the organization
>charged with preservation of the tech.
Thanks for the information on Bellin and McNairn, but could you post the
copy of the 23 January 1986 will that you have? Or web it? It doesn't seem
to tally with what I've got here. This is extremely odd. There is no
mention of CST in the copy of the 23 January 1986 will I have at all. Nor
is there any mention of Bellin or McNairn. The Przybylski declaration
refers to "Author's Family Trust - B" as being the "principal beneficiary"
of the will, and then asserts that CST is the "principal beneficiary" of
"Author's Family Trust - B." I do not have a copy of the actual trust
document that supposedly was executed on the same day. So maybe that's what
you have? If so, I would really like to see a copy. If not, then we have
two different wills for the same day, and we REALLY aren't in Kansas
anymore.
>>
>> >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?
>>
>>Again, we make no assertions of any "plot," and have no other information
>>except what is there on the site: Sherman Lenske, by his own testimony (in
>>a declaration) is the one who wrote those wills. The veracity of those
>>wills have been challenged by many who have gone before us, and the Veritas
>>site draws no conclusions or theories about them.
>
>You will excuse me if I find this just a little hard to believe. Even I,
>objective creature that I am, find it hard to avoid a little afterhours
>theorizing, as long as I'm careful to keep speculation out of the strict
>presenation of information and evidence.
Well, I'm obviously off on the toboggan ride with you here in this thread.
I see-saw between trying to speak for Veritas to answer factual questions
about the site, and speaking for myself, trying to answer questions put to
me, personally, about my opinions and speculation. What I said about
Veritas stands. Anybody going to that site--not knowing what goes on in
this newsgroup, anyway--may come away with questions, but I don't think
they are going to come away with some idea of a grand plot. I'm to the
point that I almost don't give a damn any more. We've done the best we
could at being factual. If somebody can do better, they won't find me
blocking their path (that wasn't directed at you personally, at all.)
>The will that interests me most at the moment is that which was written
>in December, 1979, which appointed Norton S. Karno as Executor, the
>position that was later to be filled by our old friend Norm Starkey.
>Do you have any details on what led to his removal from the final will?
I have not even had time to READ that will since we got it. (I'm going to
put my head down on the desk for just a minute, okay?) I do have it, and it
is in my mountainous stack. I really don't have any answer for you right
now.
>Does Lenske receive a stipend for serving as Special Director? Does
>he have any pecuniary interest in CST? I ask because I'm still not
>certain what you mean by "beneficiary". In what way does he benefit?
It doesn't matter how many times you hit me with the rubber hose, I still
don't know the answers. Can you please take that light out of my face now?
Would you like Sherman Lenske's phone number? It's publically listed as
(818) 716-1444. I think you need to be asking him. My prediction is it will
go something like this: The secretary will say he isn't in, no matter what
time of what day you call. She will know less about his business than the
fries cook at a McDonald's across town will know. She won't know what you
are talking about if you mention CST--never heard of it. She will ask you
to repeat it if you say anything like the word "Scientology," as though she
has never heard the word. She never heard of RTC, either. She will demand
your number, and offer to pass on your message. If you give your number and
your message, you will never hear anything. Just a prediction. I don't know
why.
>> >Who owns the mysterious vaults in the desert?
>>
>>My understanding is that it is CST, although we are pursuing more
>>information on that.
>
>I hope you have better luck than I have had in the same endeavor.
Not so far.
<SNIP>
>Stephen Lenske sued Karno for fraud and breach of contract after
>he left Karno's firm during the late seventies. I will post more
>details of the case when I have properly perused the material,
Well? Well?
>but it seems to me more than a little coincidental that such an
>unlikely union occured without it having some bearing on other
>events, including those surrounding CST.
(Sigh.)
>> >Who *is* Norton Karno, anyway?
>>
>>Can't help you, but we are following this line if inquiry, too.
>
>Race you to the databases :)
You win. I'm too darn worn out to run these days.
>> >Not part of the conspiracy,
>>
>>Nor I.
>>
But I may consider signing up. Just kidding. :-)
>> >K
>>
>> >http://www.storm.ca/~tallulah/loose-ends/cst
>>
>>Haven't had an opportunity to visit your site, but will soon!
>
>I eagerly await your opinion.
I loved it! When are you going to add more? Your copy of the will, scanned
or OCRed, would make a FINE addition!
Thank you for caring.
Inducto
"Marie, Associate Editor, Veritas":
>Well, if we're going to be subjective, I would have to personally aver that
>the appearance of non-Scientology lawyers in founding and Special Director
>roles in the corporation that is at the very top of the Scientology heap is
>one of the most curious anomolies in this entire...heap.
I see a couple of possibilities here that I'll list in approximately descending
order of what I estimate their likelihood as:
1. The arrangement with outside Special Directors of CST was done to make the
IRS happy, either because the IRS asked for it or one of the tax attorney knew
they would like it. CST perhaps has a moderate amount of power and influence
that provides some restraints and counterbalances to the CoS and its
leadership.
2. The arrangement was set up at the insistence of the IRS to provide a
strong counterbalance to the CoS and/or its leaders. CST does have the power
and the free will to pull the copyrights from the CoS based on the foibles and
failures of current management, but is hesitant to do so because there would
not likely be any other "licensee" who would provide anywhere near the income
-- which they presumably have a fiduciary duty to guard -- and because it would
obviously create a mess out of a relatively happy and lucrative situation (for
the directors, anyway).
3. The arrangement was done as "window dressing" to make things look good for
the IRS and/or other legal considerations. The CST has no real power, perhaps
because CoS and/or its leaders exert some sort of ultimate influence --
blackmail, pre-signed letters of resignation, a strong financial carrot (like
swiss bank accounts as I proposed) -- or could there even be a "regular" board
of Directors that exerts the real control and for whom the "Special" directors
are just some sort of public figurehead?
4. The arrangement was set up by the IRS and other Forces of Darkness to
install covert goverment control of the CoS. This theory seems to be favored
by some factions of Veritas and/or its supporters.
I.
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths