The problem is Stacy Brooks
Shy David
and various web sites: no doubt much is missing) seems to indicate one
massively obvious trait throughout---- without Ms. Brooks "helping,"
Mister Minton would probably be a happy, healthy, satisfied man with
the knowledge that he helped further justice and punish evil; he would
be basking in the Bahama sun instead of sweating in a Florica court.
Without Ms. Brooks "helping," the civil suit against Scientology Inc.
would have been concluded four months ago. I also have a suspicion
that without Ms. Brooks "helping," the Lisa McPherson Trust would
still exist and would still be helping victims of Scientology and
Scientology Inc. While she giggled and played patty-cake with Mike
Rinder (litterally: there were witnesses), she sold Mister Minton to
the wolves.
What did Mister Minton do to deserve her overt and covert enmity? He
gave her and her spouse a loan to buy a house; he help fund the
Young's animal sanctuary. I know of no instance where he treated her
with anything less than respect. Only Ms. Brooks (and Mike Rinder)
know what she torpedoed Minton and the civil suit against Ms.
McPherson's torturers.
In my opinion, Mister Minton is a great human being, worthly of
respect, honor, and gratitude. He helped several people survive
Scientology Inc.'s criminal "Fair Game" policy, and their lives will
forever be blessed by that help.
The last thing Mister Minton needed was Ms. Brooks in hbis life.
----
http://www.norahjones.com
http://narconon-exposed.org
Greg Bashaw ended his life just like Scientology's founder L Ron Hubbard's
son had 25 years earlier. The police found a suicide note in his hotel room.
It said simply, 'Goodbye [son], you were a good buddy. Love dad.'
Dianna Wagner
"Shy David" <deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e34...@news2.lightlink.com...
. While she giggled and played patty-cake with Mike
> Rinder (litterally: there were witnesses), she sold Mister Minton to
> the wolves.
Not that it matters in the least, but mixed metaphors are a pet peeve of
mine. Stacy might have "sold Mister Minton to the Gypsies," or "sold Mister
Minton down the river," or "sold Mister Minton out." Wolves, for the most
part, however, rarely engage in buying and selling. Few wolves make that
kind of money, and they generally invest what they do earn in disguises
("Grandma" costumes being the most popular) for entrapping young girls with
picnic baskets.
So, people actually saw Stacy giggling and playing patty-cake with Mike
Rinder?
Cheers,
D
Zinj
wagner...@prodigy.net says...
Can 'People' remote view? 'People' can.
(The names have been deleted to protect the cowardly)
Zinj
--
Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs
'We didn't think it was a big deal'
'She died! People die! - David Miscavige
Tigger
deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com (Shy David) wrote:
>So, the massive reams of court
> transcripts (those available via a.r.s.
> and various web sites: no doubt much is
> missing) seems to indicate one
> massively obvious trait throughout----
> without Ms. Brooks "helping," Mister
> Minton would probably be a happy,
> healthy, satisfied man with the
> knowledge that he helped further justice
> and punish evil; he would be basking in
> the Bahama sun instead of sweating in
> a Florica court.
I agree with you, that without "Ms Brooks 'helping'", Minton would not
be kissing Rinder's ass or be in the "same" mess he is in.
However, if Minton got into the Scientology go-round to "impress"
someone with whom he wanted a "relationship", he might not have became
involved to the extent he did.
>Without Ms. Brooks "helping," the civil
> suit against Scientology Inc. would have
> been concluded four months ago.
That would depend upon how many other dirty tricks Scientology had up
its sleeve, but it certainly would not have had the same wear, tear and
expense on Lisa's family and the Estate's attorney, not to mention all
the bad PR for Scientology critics and the dogfights on a.r.s.
>I also have a suspicion that without Ms.
> Brooks "helping," the Lisa McPherson
> Trust would still exist and would still be
> helping victims of Scientology and
> Scientology Inc.
I understood the real reason why the LMT closed was so Brooks could
plead the Fifth Amendment (like Minton) and to stop her having to
testify about the LMT and Minton's money "transactions". Since Minton
was responsible for those "transactions", it all can't be blamed on
Brooks.....although IMO, she is responsible for whispering black PR in
his ear, turning him against his friends and leading him to the Devil
(Rinder).
>While she giggled and played patty-cake
> with Mike Rinder (litterally: there were
> witnesses), she sold Mister Minton to
> the wolves.
Geessh, IMO anyone who gets that close to Rinder needs help.....When
I've seen him on tv, he looked like he would be the perfect person to
play a Nazi SS officer.....
>What did Mister Minton do to deserve
> her overt and covert enmity?
Who can explain "Why Fools Fall in Love or "Love is Blind"? Eve
offered Adan an apple.......He didn't have to take it.
He gave her and her spouse a loan to
>buy a house; he help fund the Young's
> animal sanctuary.
It was my understanding that the "house" was bought in the name of
Minton and his spouse and Robert Vaughn and Stacy were allowed to live
there rent free. However, it is also my understanding that Brooks, who
was broke before she "met" Minton, now owns a $350,000 house in George
and has an investment portfolio.
>I know of no instance where he treated
> her with anything less than respect.
Well I imagine she treated him with respect, devotion, etc.......Good
manipulators don't let the manipulated know they are being manipulated.
> Only Ms. Brooks (and Mike Rinder)
> know what she torpedoed Minton and
> the civil suit against Ms. McPherson's
> torturers.
Surely Minton knows by this time.
>In my opinion, Mister Minton is a great
> human being, worthly of respect, honor,
> and gratitude. He helped several people
> survive Scientology Inc.'s criminal "Fair
> Game" policy, and their lives will forever
> be blessed by that help.
That was one side of Minton. We now have seen the other side....the
ugly side, which was never quite hidden unless you looked the other way.
>The last thing Mister Minton needed was
> Ms. Brooks in his life.
True.....but the last thing the McPherson family, Ken Dandar and others
needed was Mister Minton sticking his big mouth and stomping his big
foot all over the cases he was supposed to be helping. And it may take
some time for Scientology critics to live down the legacy Minton is
leaving behind him.
Tigger
>Greg Bashaw ended his life just like
> Scientology's founder L Ron Hubbard's
> son had 25 years earlier. The police
> found a suicide note in his hotel room. It
> said simply, 'Goodbye [son], you were a
> good buddy. Love dad.'
**************************************************************
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the
people... Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing
with the utmost freedom...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of
your liberty by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names for
hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice." -- John Adams
**************************************************************
Rod Keller
> "Shy David" <deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com> wrote in message
>> Rinder (litterally: there were witnesses), she sold Mister Minton to
>> the wolves.
> Not that it matters in the least, but mixed metaphors are a pet peeve of
> mine. Stacy might have "sold Mister Minton to the Gypsies," or "sold Mister
> Minton down the river," or "sold Mister Minton out." Wolves, for the most
> part, however, rarely engage in buying and selling. Few wolves make that
> kind of money, and they generally invest what they do earn in disguises
> ("Grandma" costumes being the most popular) for entrapping young girls with
> picnic baskets.
>
> So, people actually saw Stacy giggling and playing patty-cake with Mike
> Rinder?
That sort of thing only happens in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Mark Bunker
<wagner...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>"Shy David" <deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3e34...@news2.lightlink.com...
>. While she giggled and played patty-cake with Mike
>> Rinder (litterally: there were witnesses), she sold Mister Minton to
>> the wolves.
>
>Not that it matters in the least, but mixed metaphors are a pet peeve of
>mine. Stacy might have "sold Mister Minton to the Gypsies," or "sold Mister
>Minton down the river," or "sold Mister Minton out." Wolves, for the most
>part, however, rarely engage in buying and selling. Few wolves make that
>kind of money, and they generally invest what they do earn in disguises
>("Grandma" costumes being the most popular) for entrapping young girls with
>picnic baskets.
>So, people actually saw Stacy giggling and playing patty-cake with Mike
>Rinder?
Patricia would like you to believe that. She also reported that I
carried a weeping Stacy out of the courtroom at the first Baird
hearing which was also a lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm really disappointed that you're being like this, Jeff. But then again,
you have hostile thoughts about me, so we're even."
"But of course, you're so German and you dislike me so much you'd nitpick
about anything I did."
--- Deana M. Holmes, the Lucy Van Pelt of a.r.s
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starshadow
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:31:15 GMT, "Dianna Wagner"
> <wagner...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Shy David" <deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3e34...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>. While she giggled and played patty-cake with Mike
>>
>>>Rinder (litterally: there were witnesses), she sold Mister Minton to
>>>the wolves.
>>
>>Not that it matters in the least, but mixed metaphors are a pet peeve of
>>mine. Stacy might have "sold Mister Minton to the Gypsies," or "sold Mister
>>Minton down the river," or "sold Mister Minton out." Wolves, for the most
>>part, however, rarely engage in buying and selling. Few wolves make that
>>kind of money, and they generally invest what they do earn in disguises
>>("Grandma" costumes being the most popular) for entrapping young girls with
>>picnic baskets.
>
>
> http://www.theprofit.org/
>
>
>>So, people actually saw Stacy giggling and playing patty-cake with Mike
>>Rinder?
>
>
> Patricia would like you to believe that. She also reported that I
> carried a weeping Stacy out of the courtroom at the first Baird
> hearing which was also a lie.
Patricia isn't posting lies to ars, Bunksquad. Patricia has never said
any of those things to me that you accuse her of saying or wanting
people to believe.
You're the one who has spun tales since you first got your nose brown
shoving it so far up your "friend's" butt I'm surprised you can see
daylight.
---
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow KoX, Sp4, and now on a "cult critic's" hate page
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html
for the High Crime of Disagreeing with self-made cult victim Gerry
Armstrong and Caroline Letkeman.
For the real truth about cults go to www.xenu.net
Mike O'Connor
booboo...@webtv.net (Tigger) wrote:
> I agree with you, that without "Ms Brooks 'helping'", Minton would not
> be kissing Rinder's ass or be in the "same" mess he is in.
I don't know, if the players were different, the cult would simply have
taken other routes to the same end. They did the absolutely LRH-ordered
standard thing to Mr. Minton. They investigated him and dug up some big
bursting crimes of his, presumably some tax thing. They blackmailed him
with threats, making him quail and willing to sue for peace. He now does
whatever the puppeteers say, things which will help them derail the
justice system, allowing them to get away with their own crimes. After
that, I predict, they will pull the trigger, carrying out the threatened
things anyway, perhaps driving Mr. Minton to figurative or literal
suicide over what he has done, thus ruining him utterly. All done
standardly as dictated by the scriptures in the cult's Unholy Bible.
Brooks or no Brooks, that's how it would go down. As with all its mortal
enemies. IMO.
--
LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Mike O'Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>
mimus
This is far and away the most probable scenario with regard to the
whole present Minton- LMT- McPherson case mess . . . :
"Standard tech".
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Phil Scott
wrote:
>In article <21368-3E...@storefull-2275.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
Thats about right, except scientology inc. is not able to take down its most
effective critics...or stop the expose'. But they are expanding in the
corporate world and inside govt covertly .... faster than ever.
thats not going to bode well for anyone except the criminals inside
scientology or coperating with them...(called by the cult 'scientology pals')
that includes about half of Calif State govt, and entire US justice dept for two
examples. not to mention the CIA etc that is solidly in bed with scientology
for decades and involved in Mikie Kobrins pump and dump scam ATEG.
Phil Scott
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>In article <21368-3E...@storefull-2275.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> booboo...@webtv.net (Tigger) wrote:
>> I agree with you, that without "Ms Brooks 'helping'", Minton would not
>> be kissing Rinder's ass or be in the "same" mess he is in.
>I don't know, if the players were different, the cult would simply have
>taken other routes to the same end. They did the absolutely LRH-ordered
>standard thing to Mr. Minton. They investigated him and dug up some big
>bursting crimes of his, presumably some tax thing. They blackmailed him
>with threats, making him quail and willing to sue for peace. He now does
>whatever the puppeteers say, things which will help them derail the
>justice system, allowing them to get away with their own crimes.
Rinder and the other you-know-whats made a mistake, though, and quickly
found out that Mr. Minton _isn't_ a Marcabian from outerspace who had
the magical ability to derail the Wollersheim kidnapping/torture case
or the McPherson murder case. When they blackmailed and extorted him
with their "RICO" and 43/10 million $ and following his children to
and from school racketeering threats, they must have really believed
he had magical German/marcabian powers to control the insane conspiracy
Hubbard hacked up while on dope.
--
George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil
http://www.gwbush.com/ http://www.bushwatch.net/
Soon to come: http://www.notserver.com/
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2003, 8:58pm (CST+6) From:
>deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com (Shy=A0David) wrote:
>> So, the massive reams of court transcripts (those available via a.r.s.
>> and various web sites: no doubt much is missing) seems to indicate one
>> massively obvious trait throughout---- without Ms. Brooks "helping,"
>> Mister Minton would probably be a happy, healthy, satisfied man with the
>> knowledge that he helped further justice and punish evil; he would be
>> basking in the Bahama sun instead of sweating in a Florica court.
>I agree with you, that without "Ms Brooks 'helping'", Minton would not
>be kissing Rinder's ass or be in the "same" mess he is in.
It's not nearly as black and white as Shydavid seems to think it was.
The fault can't be pinned on Ms. Brooks or any one individual -- though
a racketeering case _might_ be possible against Rinder if a "smoking
gun" -- or a Tom Cruise Missle -- could be found by McCabe once the
Judge hands everything over.
I'm not ready to hang Ms. Brooks, Mr. Minton, TFCVP, or anyone else
just yet. We're _years_ ahead of the time when the victims are ready
to actually start talking about what really happened and why. Pointing
the finger only divides activists who are working to stop Scientology
and its crimes; of which this McPherson racketeering after the murder
is one of the latest we might consider focusing on.
Charlie
> So, the massive reams of court transcripts (those available via a.r.s.
> and various web sites: no doubt much is missing) seems to indicate one
> massively obvious trait throughout---- without Ms. Brooks "helping,"
> Mister Minton would probably be a happy, healthy, satisfied man with
> the knowledge that he helped further justice and punish evil; he would
> be basking in the Bahama sun instead of sweating in a Florica court.
> Without Ms. Brooks "helping," the civil suit against Scientology Inc.
> would have been concluded four months ago. I also have a suspicion
> that without Ms. Brooks "helping," the Lisa McPherson Trust would
> still exist and would still be helping victims of Scientology and
> Scientology Inc. While she giggled and played patty-cake with Mike
> Rinder (litterally: there were witnesses)
David,
There were 'witnesses' who also saw me give Stacy a {{{hug}}} in
court, and this eye-witness account was widely reported here on a.r.s.
It never happened. And when the person who actually did give Stacy
that hug wrote this in a private e-mail to one of the 'accusers' to
clear up any "misunderstanding" (and I'm being kind) this wasn't
brought forth by anyone who had spread what they then knew to be a
falsehood. That's just a little FWIW report.
Zinj
tawny...@hotmail.com says...
<snip>
> There were 'witnesses' who also saw me give Stacy a {{{hug}}} in
> court, and this eye-witness account was widely reported here on a.r.s.
> It never happened. And when the person who actually did give Stacy
> that hug wrote this in a private e-mail to one of the 'accusers' to
> clear up any "misunderstanding" (and I'm being kind) this wasn't
> brought forth by anyone who had spread what they then knew to be a
> falsehood. That's just a little FWIW report.
<snip>
I'm certainly not one to support Stacy without question. As much as I
respect her, and as much as I like her personally, RVY's own testimony
about his earlier 'offer' from Mike Rinder has enough similarities that
anyone, even those *not* privy to Bob's 'cave' can recognize it. My own
feelings of sadness for Stacy's own exhaustion and desire to escape
doesn't really offer an 'excuse'.
That's a long way from buying into theories of Stacy being a deep cover
mole, or Bob being a victim of Stacy's manipulations.
I think Bob made a huge mistake. I think Stacy did too. I don't think
that mistake still has any particular relevance to any trial, or to the
'critical community' in general, but, I also don't see any reason that I
can't continue to consider both Stacy (and Bob) as friends. Flawed
friends certainly, but unworthy of the excoriation those who wish to
exploit their fall would take.
The same people who are most virulent about Bob and Stacy *now* were no
less so in '98. How they figure that other people's personal lives are
their business is beyond me.
Unfortunately, Bob's current 'cave' and other problems has allowed them a
gloating lip smacking orgy of self-aggrandizing hyena-packing.
So be it.
Hopefully you both get well soon, Bob and Stacy. I don't think there is
*any* doubt that, no matter how disgusting the so called 'critical
community', it's *never* as essentially duplicitous or malignant as the
so called 'Church' of Scientology.
Martin Ottmann
> So, the massive reams of court transcripts (those available via a.r.s.
> and various web sites: no doubt much is missing) seems to indicate one
> massively obvious trait throughout---- without Ms. Brooks "helping,"
> Mister Minton would probably be a happy, healthy, satisfied man with
> the knowledge that he helped further justice and punish evil; he would
> be basking in the Bahama sun instead of sweating in a Florica court.
> Without Ms. Brooks "helping," the civil suit against Scientology Inc.
> would have been concluded four months ago. I also have a suspicion
> that without Ms. Brooks "helping," the Lisa McPherson Trust would
> still exist and would still be helping victims of Scientology and
> Scientology Inc. While she giggled and played patty-cake with Mike
> Rinder (litterally: there were witnesses), she sold Mister Minton to
> the wolves.
>
> What did Mister Minton do to deserve her overt and covert enmity? He
> gave her and her spouse a loan to buy a house; he help fund the
> Young's animal sanctuary. I know of no instance where he treated her
> with anything less than respect. Only Ms. Brooks (and Mike Rinder)
> know what she torpedoed Minton and the civil suit against Ms.
> McPherson's torturers.
Oh, oh, the great Greek drama: King Agamemnon (Bob Minton) returns
tired to his palace (barn) in Mykonos (New Hampshire) after having
fought (litigated) the Troyans (Scientologists) on the shores of
Turkey (Clearwater). Upon his arrival his treacherous wife
(girlfriend) Klytaimnestra (Stacy) invites him to take a bath in the
cave (arranges settlement talks with the CoS). Agamemnon (Minton)
agrees and finds himself naked (without attorney present) in the
bathtub (Wally Pope's office). Exploiting his vulnerable position his
former confidant, but secret rival Aigisthos (Dandar or Patricia
Greenway) leaves his hideout and ambushes Agamemnon (Minton) with
dagger (Internet postings) and spear (testimonies by Jesse Prince,
Peter Alexander, etc.).
Diane Richardson
Ottmann) wrote:
[snip]
>Oh, oh, the great Greek drama: King Agamemnon (Bob Minton) returns
>tired to his palace (barn) in Mykonos (New Hampshire) after having
>fought (litigated) the Troyans (Scientologists) on the shores of
>Turkey (Clearwater). Upon his arrival his treacherous wife
>(girlfriend) Klytaimnestra (Stacy) invites him to take a bath in the
>cave (arranges settlement talks with the CoS). Agamemnon (Minton)
>agrees and finds himself naked (without attorney present) in the
>bathtub (Wally Pope's office). Exploiting his vulnerable position his
>former confidant, but secret rival Aigisthos (Dandar or Patricia
>Greenway) leaves his hideout and ambushes Agamemnon (Minton) with
>dagger (Internet postings) and spear (testimonies by Jesse Prince,
>Peter Alexander, etc.).
The funniest thing about this is that the "other side" is following
the same drama -- notice Bunker and Lerma never accuse Peter
Alexander of "stealing Minton's $2.5 million" -- it's always the
eeeeeeeevil Patricia Greenway whom they accuse of perpetrating
the dastardly deed against Hero Minton.
It makes me wonder just how many of these people see all men as
innocent dullards, easily manipulated by deceitful women, who (in
their view) are all essentially evil.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
roger gonnet
"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3e35321b...@news.bway.net...
> On 27 Jan 2003 05:00:45 -0800, martin...@yahoo.com (Martin
> Ottmann) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Oh, oh, the great Greek drama: King Agamemnon (Bob Minton) returns
> >tired to his palace (barn) in Mykonos (New Hampshire) after having
> >fought (litigated) the Troyans (Scientologists) on the shores of
> >Turkey (Clearwater). Upon his arrival his treacherous wife
> >(girlfriend) Klytaimnestra (Stacy) invites him to take a bath in the
> >cave (arranges settlement talks with the CoS). Agamemnon (Minton)
> >agrees and finds himself naked (without attorney present) in the
> >bathtub (Wally Pope's office). Exploiting his vulnerable position his
> >former confidant, but secret rival Aigisthos (Dandar or Patricia
> >Greenway) leaves his hideout and ambushes Agamemnon (Minton) with
> >dagger (Internet postings) and spear (testimonies by Jesse Prince,
> >Peter Alexander, etc.).
hihi!
>
> The funniest thing about this is that the "other side" is following
> the same drama -- notice Bunker and Lerma never accuse Peter
> Alexander of "stealing Minton's $2.5 million" -- it's always the
> eeeeeeeevil Patricia Greenway whom they accuse of perpetrating
> the dastardly deed against Hero Minton.
>
> It makes me wonder just how many of these people see all men as
> innocent dullards, easily manipulated by deceitful women, who (in
> their view) are all essentially evil.
Hi Diane: for once, I agree with you about that.
roger
>
>
> Diane Richardson
> ref...@bway.net
Anonymous
million slant three million six hundred fifty-one thousand nine
hundred seventy-four, indicting Minton, Robert S.:
Organs of State Security have arrested the accused in the said case,
Minton, R.S. The investigation has established that Minton, who was
a military leader in the brilliant A.R.S. Army, with the rank of
prince, in the post of troop commander, turned out to be a foul
traitor to his news group. His traitorous activities consisted of
voluntarily surrendering and becoming a prisoner of the accursed
enemy of our readers, Mike Rinder. In addition he surrendered his
own family, friends, and the money he had been giving to Ken Dandar
and other critics.
His traitorous activity was manifest from the very beginning, during
the great Greek drama in which
King Agamemnon (Bob Minton) returned tired to his palace (barn)
in Mykonos (New Hampshire)
(Indictment, Volume 1, Sheet 88)
Yet even more foul,
after having fought (litigated) the Troyans (Scientologists) on
the shores of Turkey (Clearwater), his treacherous wife
(girlfriend) Klytaimnestra (Stacy) invited him to take a bath
(Ibid., Volume 1, Sheets 123, 124,
testimony of Martin Ottman)
And further:
in the cave (arranges settlement talks with the CoS). Agamemnon
(Minton) agreed and found himself naked (without attorney present)
in thebathtub (Wally Pope's office).
(Ibid., Volume 1, Sheet 300).
A more careful investigation revealed that:
'Exploiting his vulnerable position his former confidant, but
secret rival Aigisthos (Dandar or Patricia Greenway) leaves his
hideout and ambushes Agamemnon (Minton) with dagger (Internet
postings) and spear (testimonies by Jesse Prince, Peter Alexander,
etc.).'
(Ibid.)
All this objectively characterizes the accused as an active accomplice
of Mike Rinder, and a long-term Scientology agent and spy.
On the basis of the above, Minton, Robert S., born 1941, a resident of
New Hampshire, a citizen of the United States, previously unconvicted,
by profession a free speech advocate, serving in the position of troop
commander with the rank of prince, decorated with multiple
commendations,
is accused of the following:
That he willfully executed vile treason against his own news group,
combined with sabotage, espionage, and collaboration over a period of
many years with Scientologist Mike Rinder.
In other words he is guilty of crimes provided for in Sections 58-1B,
58-6, 58-9 and 58-11 of the Criminal Code of Alternate Religion
Scientology.
To the accusations herewith presented Minton has confessed his guilt,
and has been exposed by testimony of many witnesses, including on
stage and
in the media.
Warrior
>
>On the basis of the above, Minton, Robert S., born 1941,... <snip>
Wrong.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Tigger
quote:
"Oh, oh, the great Greek drama: King Agamemnon (Bob Minton) returns
tired to his palace (barn) in Mykonos (New Hampshire) after having
fought (litigated) the Troyans (Scientologists) on the shores of Turkey
(Clearwater). Upon his arrival his treacherous wife (girlfriend)
Klytaimnestra (Stacy) invites him to take a bath in the cave (arranges
settlement talks with the CoS). Agamemnon (Minton) agrees and finds
himself naked (without attorney present) in the bathtub (Wally Pope's
office). Exploiting his vulnerable position his former confidant, but
secret rival Aigisthos (Dandar or Patricia Greenway) leaves his hideout
and ambushes Agamemnon (Minton) with dagger (Internet postings) and
spear (testimonies by Jesse Prince, Peter Alexander, etc.)." (unquote)
ROFL.....that's the funniest thing I've read in months says Tigger as
she wipes the tears from her eyes. :-)
Thanks for a good belly laugh, Martin.
Tigger
Dave Bird
This attempt to blame everything on Stacy and nothing on Saint Bob
simply will not hold. They are both responsible for their joint
downfall. I don't doubt for a moment that they had and have
genuine affection for each other, and they entered this business
with good intentions. If the worst mistakes and betrayals were
made though the incompetent, clinging, emotionally unstable twit
he involved himself with, at least part of the blame must attach
to his own megalomaniac arrogance which brought him to want such
a partner in the first place. You have to ask: if I had been
standing in the picket line and KNOWN there was material around
which could jail me, and KNOWN these bastards were bound to find it
out and use it, would I really have made myself the main man and
everyone else dependent on me? which was wonderful when I brought
resources to back them, and not at all wonderful in the inevitability
it would bring their downfall with my own??
--
"Mr Minton was questioned by attorney's for the dead woman's family
on three areas where the cult may have threatened him with lawsuit
or prosecution, but there was only one upon which he took the fifth
amendment: whether Cof$ threatened to report him for tax evasion."
alt.religion.scientology<tTDpR5Il...@xemu.demon.co.uk>2002apr28+
"I think MrMinton is in all manner of trouble," Judge Schaeffer said.
"Mr. Minton has perjury problems. Mr. Minton has contempt problems...
I think Mr. Minton has IRS problems."+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Court documents: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
Shy David
wrote:
> In article<3e34...@news2.lightlink.com>, Shy David
> <deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com> writes:
(Ommitted: see original if interested)
> This attempt to blame everything on Stacy and nothing on Saint Bob
> simply will not hold. They are both responsible for their joint
> downfall. I don't doubt for a moment that they had and have
> genuine affection for each other, and they entered this business
> with good intentions. If the worst mistakes and betrayals were
> made though the incompetent, clinging, emotionally unstable twit
> he involved himself with, at least part of the blame must attach
> to his own megalomaniac arrogance which brought him to want such
> a partner in the first place. You have to ask: if I had been
> standing in the picket line and KNOWN there was material around
> which could jail me, and KNOWN these bastards were bound to find it
> out and use it, would I really have made myself the main man and
> everyone else dependent on me? which was wonderful when I brought
> resources to back them, and not at all wonderful in the inevitability
> it would bring their downfall with my own??
By no means do I consider Mister Minton a "saint" (by-the-way, history
shows that most saints were evil, despicable people). Some times one
must take a person at their word: Mister Minton explained his motives
for protesting Scientology Inc.'s crimes and human rights abuses, and
his motives for helping several people defend themselves against
fraudulent and abusive law suits. Nor have I written that he has not
made major mistakes.
My intent was to express my opinion that Mister Minton is not the evil
and foolish puppet some people in a.r.s. have wished to make him out
to be. Has everyone forgotten the *MASSIVE* good-will and important
contributions he has provided in the fight against Scientology Inc.'s
tyranny?
A person has the right to make mistakes, since all humans make
mistakes.
A person has the right to defend herself or himself.
Mark Bunker
Nor is Stacy Brooks the evil and foolish puppetmaster some others wish
to make her out to be.
>A person has the right to make mistakes, since all humans make
>mistakes.
>
>A person has the right to defend herself or himself.
>
>----
>http://www.norahjones.com
>http://narconon-exposed.org
>
>Greg Bashaw ended his life just like Scientology's founder L Ron Hubbard's
>son had 25 years earlier. The police found a suicide note in his hotel room.
>It said simply, 'Goodbye [son], you were a good buddy. Love dad.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
grouchomatic
I have a very high regard for people who remain loyal to their friends
particularly in very trying times and I'm not in any way suggesting you
should drop Stacy as your friend. I want to ask you a few questions
about you knowledge of Stacy's background. Her complete and unabridged
history in Scientology as it were. For example, do you know how many
times she has actually been married? To whom? Who she left each
succeeding husband for and the result of each move? Now I have friend's
who've been married lots of times and I'm certainly not suggesting that
multiple marriages makes a person bad. I am, however, asking if you see
any pattern in *her* marriages, *her* personal conduct, that does tell
you anything about her character and, therefore, her worthiness of your
loyalty?
Not that any of this is really my business, but I do ask out of respect
for your past good works and because I believe you to be a person of
character and conscience.
Grouch
Say What?!
>deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com (Shy David) wrote in message
>news:<3e34...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> What did Mister Minton do to deserve her overt and covert enmity? He
>> gave her and her spouse a loan to buy a house; he help fund the
>> Young's animal sanctuary. I know of no instance where he treated her
>> with anything less than respect. Only Ms. Brooks (and Mike Rinder)
>> know what she torpedoed Minton and the civil suit against Ms.
>> McPherson's torturers.
>Oh, oh, the great Greek drama: King Agamemnon (Bob Minton) returns
>tired to his palace (barn) in Mykonos (New Hampshire) after having
>fought (litigated) the Troyans (Scientologists) on the shores of
>Turkey (Clearwater). Upon his arrival his treacherous wife
>(girlfriend) Klytaimnestra (Stacy) invites him to take a bath in the
>cave (arranges settlement talks with the CoS). Agamemnon (Minton)
>agrees and finds himself naked (without attorney present) in the
>bathtub (Wally Pope's office). Exploiting his vulnerable position his
>former confidant, but secret rival Aigisthos (Dandar or Patricia
>Greenway) leaves his hideout and ambushes Agamemnon (Minton) with
>dagger (Internet postings) and spear (testimonies by Jesse Prince,
>Peter Alexander, etc.).
It's a pleasure having you on the newsgroup, Martin.
SW
Dave Bird
>On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:55:45 +0000, Dave Bird wrote:
No, he's not ONLY an evil and foolish puppet. He began from good
motives. He helped a lot of people. He was blackmailed. He was
lead into betrayal by unscrupulous associates. He sold out to
an extremely evil organisation. He began to undermine and betray
everyone he once helped. He will almost certainly spend time
in jail for perjury. All of the above is true.
>to be. Has everyone forgotten the *MASSIVE* good-will and important
>contributions he has provided in the fight against Scientology Inc.'s
>tyranny?
>
>A person has the right to make mistakes, since all humans make
>mistakes.
>
>A person has the right to defend herself or himself.
Unfortunately there are people who committed other crimes such as
armed robbery in circumstances where they can make the same excuses,
and still are sat in jail today.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
Have A Cow
wrote:
<snip>
> No, he's not ONLY an evil and foolish puppet. He began from good
> motives. He helped a lot of people. He was blackmailed. He was
> lead into betrayal by unscrupulous associates. He sold out to
> an extremely evil organisation. He began to undermine and betray
> everyone he once helped.
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Grady Ward?
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Keith Henson?
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Beverly Rice?
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Mark Bunker?
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Jesse Prince?
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Stacy Brooks?
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Tory (Magoo)?
I'm really not trying to disagree with you. I'm respectfully asking
for pointers to information which might assist me in verifying your
claim that Bob began to undermine and betray *everyone* he once
helped.
> He will almost certainly spend time
> in jail for perjury. All of the above is true.
I respectfully recommend you use greater discretion when choosing
words such as "everyone" and "all". An argument based upon such all
encompassing terms is often easily proven wrong using proof by
contradiction and a single counterexample.
<snip>
Xavier Hollander
Shouldn't it be expected that someone like "Bob Minton" would eventually
fizzle out? He was just a stepping stone for a group of blown Scientologists
to try to gain some footing in life, that is all.
Xavier
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Have A Cow" <ac...@acow.com> wrote in message
news:3e35e76b...@news.prodigy.net...
Mark Bunker
wrote:
This information would be important to me if Stacy claimed to have
developed the tech for a perfect marraige and then charged an
exorbitant fee for courses on the subject.
I'll see if I can go through her PC folder for you and publish her 2D
history.
Michael Reuss
> So, the massive reams of court transcripts (those available via a.r.s.
> and various web sites: no doubt much is missing) seems to indicate one
> massively obvious trait throughout---- without Ms. Brooks "helping,"
> Mister Minton would probably be a happy, healthy, satisfied man with
> the knowledge that he helped further justice and punish evil;
You cannot possibly know how things would have turned out had Bob not
paired up with Stacy.
I admit that it's hard for me to imagine a much worse scenario for the
two of them than what's come to pass. But to presume Bob's ego and
fortune would have ever allowed him to quit while he was ahead, is a
pretty big stretch.
> Without Ms. Brooks "helping," the civil suit against Scientology Inc.
> would have been concluded four months ago.
This supposition is naive and unfounded. Without the mismanagement of
the LMT, Scientology would have simply found other ways to try and delay
the case.
> I also have a suspicion
> that without Ms. Brooks "helping," the Lisa McPherson Trust would
> still exist and would still be helping victims of Scientology and
> Scientology Inc.
I suspect that without a strong personal relationship between Bob and
Stacy, there never would have been a Lisa McPherson Trust in the first
place.
> While she giggled and played patty-cake with Mike
> Rinder (litterally: there were witnesses), she sold Mister Minton to
> the wolves.
Bob is a big boy. Stacy didn't hold a gun to his head. I know for a fact
that there were times when he ignored good advice from her (and others),
only to go on to do something to shoot himself in the foot.
> What did Mister Minton do to deserve her overt and covert enmity?
David, this is unfair, and wrong. Stacy cares for Bob, and Bob for her.
They just didn't appear to have a clue between them as to the peril of
ignoring court orders and digging a hole for themselves, until they felt
forced into their current Faustian bargain with Rinder.
Like Scientologists who unknowingly support wrongheaded acts, Bob and
Stacy didn't set out to destroy and betray, they merely ended up
destroying and betraying out of arrogance and ignorance and stupidity.
> Only Ms. Brooks (and Mike Rinder)
> know what she torpedoed Minton and the civil suit against Ms.
> McPherson's torturers.
To hold Bob blameless and try to pin this all on Stacy is stupid and
wrong.
> In my opinion, Mister Minton is a great human being, worthly of
> respect, honor, and gratitude. He helped several people survive
> Scientology Inc.'s criminal "Fair Game" policy, and their lives will
> forever be blessed by that help.
Bob did good things, and now Bob is doing bad things. The bad things are
too bad for me to call him a great human being. Certainly the people he
helped with his money and his compassion owe him a debt of gratitude for
that. But that does not undo his current efforts to help Rinder torpedo
the quest by Lisa's family for civil punishment of her killers.
> The last thing Mister Minton needed was Ms. Brooks in hbis life.
That's easy to say, in retrospect. But both parties bear responsibility
for their own deeds. I can see absolutely no good coming from trying to
assign 100% of the blame to Stacy, and of absolving Bob. Nor even of
trying to more accurately figure out a percentage of blame.
All we need to know is that Bob is finished, credibility-wise, as a
reasonable critic of the cult of Scientology. He's shot his wad, as it
were. Bob and Stacy are history. I hope they will quietly go away
somewhere and try to find some peace, never again to be seen tilting
with Scientology or anti-Scientology forces.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
grouchomatic
And if the information demonstrated something that was relevant, that
bespoke of something important to know about someone you've given
unconditional support to?
>
> I'll see if I can go through her PC folder for you and publish her 2D
> history.
I know her 2D history. I'm not asking you to disconnect from anyone,
severe ties with anyone, or not to be the loyal friend you have been;
Stacy goes back a long way in Scientology. There are people who have
known her a long time and at least some of them see a pattern that is
disturbing. All I'm asking is have you considered this in your
assessment of your friend? If you have, that would mean you either
disbelieve it, do not care whether is true or false, or you believe it
true, but not important enough to alter your opinion. I can respect the
first or the third choices, but I don't think your the kind of person
who would not care.
Grouch
Mark Bunker
wrote:
If love were such a simple matter, we would all be married to Jennifer
Lopez.
As it is, we have to stand in line...and some of us will never get the
shot.
Tigger
that Brooks is responsible for Minton throwing himself on the mercy of
the unmerciful and backstabbing his friends.
We know she wanted the wrongful death suit to "go away" as early as
August, 2001. We know she and Minton's attorney (without Minton's
knowledge) contacted Scientology. We know she persuaded him to accept
Rinder's deal. The LMT was closed in hopes Brooks wouldn't have to
testify about the money Minton gave her.
Everyone says Minton cares a lot for Brooks. So would Minton do what
Brooks wanted him to, if he thought she was in danger? Minton changed
his story several times.....could it have been to protect Brooks more
than himself?
Let's see......Brooks had no money before she took up with Minton.....in
fact she filed for bankruptcy (didn't she?) a short while before she
became the sole owner of the LMT and bought a $250,000 house.
Brooks didn't report the "donations" from Minton's "European
friends"......some $800,000......to the LMT on her tax returns.....so
she would have been evading taxes too.
Since I have never filed for bankruptcy, I know very little about
bankruptcy laws, but is there some stipulation about a certain time
period where your income can not exceed a certain amount and any excess
has to be turned over to the court to dole out to your creditors?
So. IMO, it is possible that Stacy put her crying hat on and appealed to
her man to save her. The question is.....would Minton care enough for
her to lie, kiss Rinder's ass and backstab his friends...... I think he
might....especially if he thought it would save him too.......or else he
has been manipulated in such a way, he doesn't know what the hell he's
doing.
Mark Bunker
You left out the part about Stacy putting a bullet hole in Bob's car.
Martin Ottmann
> The funniest thing about this is that the "other side" is following
> the same drama -- notice Bunker and Lerma never accuse Peter
> Alexander of "stealing Minton's $2.5 million" -- it's always the
> eeeeeeeevil Patricia Greenway whom they accuse of perpetrating
> the dastardly deed against Hero Minton.
>
> It makes me wonder just how many of these people see all men as
> innocent dullards, easily manipulated by deceitful women, who (in
> their view) are all essentially evil.
Maybe this was to be expected. "The woman pulled the strings and
entrapped innocent men" is not an uncommon explanation for similar
situations that turned out unpleasant. Remember how Monica Lewinsky
"lured the most powerful man on earth into a trap" or how "Yoko Ono
broke up the Beatles"?
Charlie
Diane Richardson
Ottmann) wrote:
Yes, and it's an argument that's always puzzled me. I don't see how
"defending" a male by claiming he's so weak and stupid that he's
easily manipulated by a scheming woman does anything to enhance
the man's image.
(I expect now Keith Henson will chime in with a long evolutionary
psychology explanation about why all men are stupid and all women
are cunning.)
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Tigger
(Martin Ottmann) wrote:
Well if you look at the facts and stop looking at the gender or the
money, etc.
each case is different.
I don't know about Yoko Ono, but it can not be denied that "Monica" went
to Washington with the "desire" to "do" the President, bragged about her
accomplishment, and had done the same with a married (teacher, wasn't
it)?
It can not be denied that Stacy Brooks wanted the wrongful death suit to
"go away" as early as August, 2001 or that she manipulated the meetings
with Rinder, persuaded Minton his friends were evil and that the only
way to save himself and her was to make a deal with the devil and throw
himself on the mercy of the unmerciful. And I don't think Minton is
able to comprehend what Brooks has done to him, otherwise, he would be
in Bernie McCabe's office, telling the truth about what was done to him
to make him lie for the "church" of the unholy lawsuit.
That's why IMO if his "friends" really care what happens to Minton, they
should (at the very least) try to get him to a psychiatrist ASAP.
Tilman Hausherr
wrote in <71d327bb.03012...@posting.google.com>:
>Maybe this was to be expected. "The woman pulled the strings and
>entrapped innocent men" is not an uncommon explanation for similar
>situations that turned out unpleasant. Remember how Monica Lewinsky
>"lured the most powerful man on earth into a trap" or how "Yoko Ono
>broke up the Beatles"?
Hey, that last one ("Yoko Ono broke up the Beatles") is an important
belief! Almost religious.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html
Dave Bird
<grouch...@cox.net> writes:
>>>My intent was to express my opinion that Mister Minton is not the evil
>>>and foolish puppet some people in a.r.s. have wished to make him out
>>>to be. Has everyone forgotten the *MASSIVE* good-will and important
>>>contributions he has provided in the fight against Scientology Inc.'s
>>>tyranny?
>>
>>
>> Nor is Stacy Brooks the evil and foolish puppetmaster some others wish
>> to make her out to be.
>
>I have a very high regard for people who remain loyal to their friends
>particularly in very trying times and I'm not in any way suggesting you should
>drop Stacy as your friend. I want to ask you a few questions about you
>knowledge of Stacy's background. Her complete and unabridged history in
>Scientology as it were. For example, do you know how many times she has
>actually been married? To whom?
First to Paul Cannonballs or whatever his name is, second
to Robert Vaughan Young. That's it.
>Who she left each succeeding husband for and the
>result of each move? Now I have friend's who've been married lots of times and
>I'm certainly not suggesting that multiple marriages makes a person bad. I am,
>however, asking if you see any pattern in *her* marriages, *her* personal
>conduct, that does tell you anything about her character and, therefore, her
>worthiness of your loyalty?
>
>Not that any of this is really my business, but I do ask out of respect for your
>past good works and because I believe you to be a person of character and
>conscience.
I'm reluctant to enter into an exploration of Stacy's history:
it is not my business. What I *AM* concerned about is her
present character and conduct.
Dave Bird
<ac...@acow.com> writes:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:26:49 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> No, he's not ONLY an evil and foolish puppet. He began from good
>> motives. He helped a lot of people. He was blackmailed. He was
>> lead into betrayal by unscrupulous associates. He sold out to
>> an extremely evil organisation. He began to undermine and betray
>> everyone he once helped.
>
>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Grady Ward?
>
>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Keith Henson?
>
>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Beverly Rice?
>
>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Mark Bunker?
>
>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Jesse Prince?
>
>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Stacy Brooks?
>
>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Tory (Magoo)?
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Lisa MacPherson's family? Yes.
Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Wollersheim? Yes.
[Exhibit 191]
NOTES FOR MEETING IN SANDY ROSEN?S OFFICE
Attendies. Sandy Rosen, Mike Rosen, Monique Yingling, Steven Jones,
Bob Minton, and Stacey Brooks
March 28, 2002
Mike Rinder: Introduction
Mike Rinder said he would make a list. re issues.
We are happy to hear their list first
Bob Minton: Wants us to go first
Mike Rinder: Most constructive way starts with broad strokes - both
sides agree need the disengagement - no Christmas cards, never hear
name again
If this is what we are trying to accomplish (not like FACTNet) --
complete disengagement -- we can do it.
Mike Rinder List
1. O/S litigation has to go Florida, France, Germany
Within Florida - all have to go
Civil case
Breach cases / TX and FL
Probate
2. Declarations and Affidavits - Jesse, Stacy, Vaughn - in order to
not have them used in future. Mike Binder - question of how to do it
more than principal
3/. LMT - website, domain names, etc. Whatever is left of LMT
4. Movie - Mike Rinder doesn't know status or what his rights are
Mike Rinder - easy on how to resolve issues - he is just trying to
identity issues
[page 1]
Parameters of settlement
Mutual releases
No funding
No stirring up press, etc.
Terms of settlement
Confidential
Mike Rinder - thinks BM probably cares more a -- BM may suffer
criticism from those he has been involved with kind regards,
Mike Ringer - believes BM is sincere about wanting to accomplish this
but doesn't have a specific way to go about it. Sandy has list of
specifics about litigation.
SJ - best to hear specifics of litigation them they should caucus
Sandy Rosin , - This is list of what BM has caused either by funding
or providing W's
etc.
Florida
Wrongful death a) 14.5
b) 4.5
Motion being prepared to bring Minion in to case - J Schaeffer comment
-- provides of copy of motion
Breach case in Fl- - breach at BM's behest - Minton - party to case
a) $1,025,000
b) $1,000,000
J has entered Steven Jones on K claim -- still has tort claims against
Dell, BM & LMT
Over TRO case - $700,000
Over Courage/Movie $20,000
O/ sanctions against M. Jacobson and LM or Stagy
[page 2]
Wollersheim
SR - gives s background
Minton provides $ to LW and L.eipold and affidavits
His support caused the alter- ego motion to go forward
a) $2,500,000
b) $3,000, 000
Sandy Rosen - w/o affidavit supplied by Mr. Minton's camp - motion
would be
dismissed on its face ) ~ $8.5M with interest
Armstrong cases
Minton funded case in NEV. and supported Armstrong - case dismissed
2nd case in Nev. re defamation - over
3rd case Armstrong - contempt - Marin County - 131 violations at
$50,000.00
Mr. Minton to be added to suit in Marin County for inducing breach
a) $260,000
b) $500,000
Henson - 2nd fugitive
BM not responsible for Henson but BM paid his attorneys. Berry and DC
-- from that time,
a) $1,065,000
b) $350,000
Posting re BM to send to KH in exile - Joke? Stacey says no moneys was
sent
Ward
Case before Minton but attorneys now being funded by BM: FG & DL
Case Settled but keeps going on:
a) $815,000
[page 3]
b) 75,000 - discovery/now have contempt and sanctions (May 31, 2002 -
trial) because of Minton funding
European Cases
France - $80,000 - These casts appear dead. SB - dead still or alive?
Germany - $25,000 - still outstanding
FACTNet
Not asking for any "relief" here because case settled
Mr. Minton funded attorneys when insurance ran out
GM gave money to LW and has lien filed in LW case
$750,000? BM says something like that
Lopez
No attorney would take on contingency basis - so bad
Lipoid took case - funded by Minton
a) $1,535,000
Texas Breach Case
SJ questions - why 2 cases? Why one in Florida and Texas? SR says -
work
product.
Minton funding attorneys - Leibrick is defendant but has never paid
Dandar
J. of $308,000 - damages fees- $555,000 - fees to get DM out of case -
fee
provision in contract
SR - explains how could be liable for breach although allowed to amend
a) $555,000
u) 150,000 - Dandar motion for JNOV on 21 separate grounds
Leibrick says - Minton & Dandar reed to take care of this
[page 4]
IRS harassment
a) $30,000
b) 50,000
SR reaps awards notice re $360,000
Interest and TM disputes
Use- of LM name raised by LMT
Internet domain names
a) $ 32,000
$150,000
BM no copyright infringement in TM
SR - now preparing RICO case which will encompass all damages above
a) $40,000 - research, etc.
Will be filed when wrongful death case won
Nonlitigation cases - demonstrations etc.
Security in Florida - $2,900,000
Security in other places Toronto, Los Angeles, DC, and San Francisco -
$470,V00
Maria Pia Ghardini
a) $22,000
BM asks for total?
SR - purpose - magnitude of what BM involved in
SJ - 2 purposes - magnitude re RICO case and out of packet costs - we
get that
SR - another reason -- will be in Mr. Minton's debt if he can make
things can away
- future expenditures not necessary - Oldster - 4.5 e.g. in wrongful
death
SJ - outstanding litigation would have to go? Do we mean BM would have
to
bring about dismissal of McPherson case.? MR - yes that is what we
want
[page 5]
MR - have to get rid of case or can't separate ourselves because BM is
in case
because of funding
2 April - SB bank records
5 April Criminal contempt -- 3. Schaeffer
8-9 April,- deposition and sentencing on criminal contempt if doesn't
produce
SJ what is our position on LW - Does BM have to get rid of that too?
SR - recaps BM involvement - if he caused it, he can make it go away
BM has lien - can collect he has influence
SBA -- You don't know LW
BM re funding of Leipold - never related to Lopez -- Harvey funded -
DC had problems with firm
BM - has given him substantial amounts of money - may have used it to
pay expenses while LW and Lopez going on.
ONE HOUR BREAK
SJ 1) Be responsive as possible to what we laid out
2) Lay out something they want to add to the mix that BM and SB
find
important
Fair reading that want _______resolution of issues but________in
details
Some gap re what BM can control - what can be brought along
BM - SB - JB - in some circumstances GW
SB tries to explain that they can?t guarantee until will abide by
agreement
SJ explains
Wrongful death
No Money or other support, withdrawal of JP and SB affidavits, commit
to be Ws,
effort to try to exert influence over- Dandar and Leibrick to resolve
matter.
SJ say can't commit to making case go away
[page 6]
SR - hope this is not harbinger of things to come because extremely
disappointed - SB
& JP already arc not W's - Dandar has told Ct would not be W?s
MR & MY- let's just hear what they have to say - more _ _ way
SB& BM & JP -- willing to stop all activities in_____Church of
Scientology
Exception hava to think through - website
Transfer domain names
Affidavits - commit to no further affidavits in______ litigation - no
willingness to say earlier affidavit improper or erroneous but she may
sign letter- saying does not support use of her affidavit.
No willingness to correct outstanding affidavits
LW - need to skip over this issue for the moment
Haven't decided what could be done or what commitment
BM has money in LW case and looking to get ii back - doesn't know how
-- could be assignment to us of lien and then we pay $750,000 to him
in "some form"
SR -- asks to clarify
BM - just to back up - not sure, what affidavits are in LW - Stacey's,
JP ard VY
Ward
Is friend of BM and he feels it is necessary to assist him in ways
that have nothing to do with Church
Struggle with way to do this
Could have and then get: agreement from GW that he would not be in
Scientology business arid would not use BM money against church
SR - dismiss what? Our claims
SR - yes
Movie - do not know status but agree to step back________no money
BM - 50% PA; 50% - BM
[page 7]
Alexander retains copyright
SJ_____suits - not sure what could be done
Stacey adds IRS domain
Agreement
Mutual Releases
No funding
No pickets
Confidentiality
Recognition of no impropriety
SR - haven't addressed certain of litigation
SJ -- doesn't know whit can be done in some - need specific
SR - breach case - pay us
SJ - what they need
Withdrawal of all claims, investigations etc, re BM?s
activities in Nigeria
Cause the withdrawal of Claims brought by Nigerian government
Stacey away provision - Church affiliates, PIs (don't need to get into
what
they think is going on), etc, SB, 8M, JP, GW - accountants, doctors,
lawyers
No Surveillance or______gathering
All litigation and claims - go away - discovery, contempt, etc.
We too have compensation elements. If we want disengagement.
BM compensated for his payments in McPherson case - payments to
Dandar.
-- yes.
Properties to purchase in CW
LMT building - $300,000
JP - bonuses, etc.
1:45 - AFTER LUNCH
[page 8]
MR - listened, glad some agreed on some things.
Refers to telephone call re listened in 1998 -- We arc not in
same, place as l998.
MR did not: take their position as thinking we would pay them
money - stop
now.
We are not, in position of just expending money but also to point
of recovering
Re - wrongful death case -... we will not pay YOU - but I
understood it as offset.
MR - until wrongful death case goes away - we ; an not have
disengagement.
MR knows BM can do it - can discuss later how
BM - dreaming if thinks we will day money.
MR - can't control Nigerian government - wont BS him - can
control flow of information
No problem with complete disentanglement re Investigation, etc.,
if out of our hair.
MR - maybe you are spot aware of where this litigation standards.
BM says he is not.
MR - "you are deep pocket" - everyone else is beneficiary of your
money
We want to collect from you because you are inextricably linked to
the cases.
CT & DL saying Minton has to pay.
MR - not trying to posture or _________- just want to lay it out as
I see it.
MR - believes can go away - believes BM wants it to and MR wants
it to.
MR wants to advance Church of Scientology - not litigate - not
investigate BM,
etc.
MR believes that BM does not want hassles in life anymore, also
think BM has
been screwed by people who have taken his money and not done things in
his best interest.
MR - we are not going to pay you money - money will flow the other
way.
[page 9]
BM - if we settle cases money will go back to him
LW
DL - not saying having to write iiim a dock
MR - we have a different perspective -- DL. and Dandar are not to
get
anything out of this case -- and so I am saying you will not get your
money back.
SR - says Dandar is out there trying to protect his own behind.
SR - doesn?t think BM has a clue of what is going on even in
Florida, (Maybe bad lawyers).
SR recaps sanctions and fines pending.
Dandar out there - trying to stop discovery because lie knows what
will happen.
SR believes BM can he very persuasive with Dandar.
SR - you know beaker - what is going on in this case
re Ws -- JP on retainer
SB - just wants to correct record re her status
SR - Clarifies position re Ward and we have J against him
SJ says knows we- have J but nor worth anything
SR Says our position is taut BM is liable for Ward's breach.
SJ asks MR is anything more.
MR wants to be sure that they are not expecting money - that would
be a waste
of time.
Re 1998 comment - not trying to be a wish guy - just
thinks BM doesn?t
have a complete picture.
MR - we are now in position to recover some of money expended
SR, BM will not recover anything from estate - we will get our
money first in
breach cases.
BM will not get anything until other money is made.
[page 10]
SJ - appreciates details but not advancing ball _. he hears
what is being said re
our litigation options, etc. - we will have disagreement on what will
touch Bob,
SJ - do we have expectation that Florida case will go away -
with no money?
Yes -- no money from us,
SJ - no resolution Unless can have Case, go away with no money
Prone us.
MR - Yes.
BM - or we pay to have them go sway.
SJ - just want to know parameters
They Understand case has to go away - but want to be clear that
we won't pay
money to have case go away.
SB - Are we saying case dismissed or saying re: solved without
paying money.
MR - latter - but same
SB - Issues in case people fool strongly about that aren't money.
She is trying to gauge what she can do.
SB explains re offset? Money against estate? (tries to -- get to)
SJ? What was last settlement offer made. Sandy says none since
criminal proceedings dropped
MR - can't discuss confidential mediation.
SJ -- they have _____ sources of information.
BREAK
SJ - We've caucused and here is where we are
We wave greater expectations about resolving things there are
warranted.
Let's break now and make some phony calls and get some sense of
reality it can
resolve case without money coming from the Church
[page 11
Will get back re MR - quest on money too?
[page 12]
March 29, 2002
SJ - Have thought about what via discussed yesterday that and I think
best thing is to the proceed - small toys
Understand Florida case: is essential and need to make efforts there
Won't happen overnight - some steps taken already
Meeting scheduled for Wednesday with Dandar
To bring Dell into discussions need to agree not to depose her
during discussions or not to depose her at all about discussions with
BM and SB
They are willing to take steps and arcs extraordinary but re do
that we have to dismiss.
1) contempt matters against BM
2) to postpone
Stacey's deposition re bank records
They me willing to take this extraordinary step but we
must give something in
return.
BM - 90 questions in order to make case go sway.
SR - asks to clarify - 90 questions
SJ - says questions -- harassment all information already given
SR - wrong if think that deposition is just to find out BM
involvement in breach.
Deposition is into all financial information
SR -- we are encouraged, positive sups hope to keep momentum going.
They need to know settlement will not be on best efforts specific
issues
Dell deposition - earliest scheduled would be April 12 - if we are
going to have
settlement, will have to before then - we will ask questions about
any discussions
about BM & SB
BM - can we get something in writing on dell and discussions.
[page 13]
SR - will send letter to Steve confirming - whoever deposes her will
send letter
SR - re contempt etc. - recounts what happened yesterday in Florida
Dandar asked J. Schaeffer to continue contempt until after deposition
- J rejected this request
SR - we need to have settlement by 5 April to have it go away
SJ says we could tell J that questions have been answered.
SR says that is a lie with respect to bank records deposition -
produce for attorney eyes only, etc.
With respect to _________breach - we will not put off until we have a
settlement.
We should have a settlement before April 8 - no middle ground
necessary,
SR - Let us continue on to try to settle all issues - because we will
gamble that you will have success
SB - you are not willing to put oft deposition - what do we have to
talk abort.
SJ - we are tasking them to take extraordinary sups - arid we should
give something,
BM disagrees with what happened before re teleconference with Howie.
[page 14 - end]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Zinj
says...
>
Has he *attempted* to? Certainly
Has he had any success? Not to speak of.
Has he shot his wad? Sure looks like it.
Has Scientology's 'Let's Turn Minton' been been the success they'd hoped
for?
Umm... doesn't seem too likely.
Guess they got the wrong 'who'
Zinj
--
Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs
'We didn't think it was a big deal'
'She died! People die! - David Miscavige
Anonymous
The former prosecutor third class who forwarded the false datum has
just
been thrown into a pit of hungry ocelots kept especially for that
purpose,
a procedure refered to as 'overboarding' in fond memory of Our Father
Below.
Judging from the noise he will not be returning to post in the near
future.
Until a revised and updated version is distributed, all servants and
vassals
are hereby directed to change their mock indictment to reflect true,
correct
and proper data as follows:
On the basis of the above, Minton, Robert S., not born in 1941,...
<snip>
Most affectionately yours,
Threepwood
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
Well, it doesn't have to be a _deliberate_ conspiracy, though. That
men get easily manipulated by women is because many men either think
with their dicks all the time or at least part of the time and are
easily led around. Mr. Minton doesn't seem to fit the model of
someone who's easily led around; he helped the Youngs when he saw
the Scientology crime syndicate violating their rights and the Youngs
were complete strangers.
--
George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil
http://www.gwbush.com/ http://www.bushwatch.net/
Soon to come: http://www.notserver.com/
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>On 28 Jan 2003 02:43:32 -0800, martin...@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann)
>wrote in <71d327bb.03012...@posting.google.com>:
>>Maybe this was to be expected. "The woman pulled the strings and
>>entrapped innocent men" is not an uncommon explanation for similar
>>situations that turned out unpleasant. Remember how Monica Lewinsky
>>"lured the most powerful man on earth into a trap" or how "Yoko Ono
>>broke up the Beatles"?
>Hey, that last one ("Yoko Ono broke up the Beatles") is an important
>belief! Almost religious.
It's been medically proven that women are evil.
Shy David
> ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in message news:<3e35321b...@news.bway.net>...
>> The funniest thing about this is that the "other side" is following
>> the same drama -- notice Bunker and Lerma never accuse Peter
>> Alexander of "stealing Minton's $2.5 million" --
"Never" is rather broad.
> > it's always the
> > eeeeeeeevil Patricia Greenway whom they accuse of perpetrating
> > the dastardly deed against Hero Minton.
Perhaps that is actually the case.
> > It makes me wonder just how many of these people see all men as
> > innocent dullards, easily manipulated by deceitful women, who (in
> > their view) are all essentially evil.
One would be astonished at what some men will do to please a woman.
> Maybe this was to be expected. "The woman pulled the strings and
> entrapped innocent men" is not an uncommon explanation for similar
> situations that turned out unpleasant. Remember how Monica Lewinsky
> "lured the most powerful man on earth into a trap" or how "Yoko Ono
> broke up the Beatles"?
To an extent this is true of "black" culture. It is certainly true of
Samoan culture---- men are considered "unable to control themselves"
around women, so the woman is held accountable for his behavior. I
doubt this is the belief a.r.s. observers hold.
Tigger
>Well, it doesn't have to be a _deliberate_
> conspiracy, though. That men get easily
> manipulated by women is because
> many men either think with their dicks
> all the time or at least part of the time
> and are easily led around. Mr. Minton
> doesn't seem to fit the model of
> someone who's easily led around; he
> helped the Youngs when he saw the
> Scientology crime syndicate violating
> their rights and the Youngs were
> complete strangers.
Fredric, you are forgetting four important facts in the downfall of
Minton:
1. alcohol
2. Bipolar Disorder
3. Not taking medications
4. Trust in Stacy Brooks
I doubt if Minton was not taking his meds when he first met Robert and
Stacy Young. As time moved on and Stacy became more than a "stranger"
to Minton,
his personality and character changed for the worse.
It has been reported several times, in the transcripts, that Minton
broke down in tears and was irrational even before the contact with
Rinder.......indications that Minton was in emotional and mental
distress........was ddrinking and not taking his meds..
Did Brooks, who says she was so worried about him, get Minton to a
doctor? Did she consult a doctor? No, she contacted Minton's attorney
and consulted the "church" of the unholy lawsuit.
Did Brooks insist he take his medications?
Or did Brooks feed him some bullshit and hand him another drink to wash
it down?
Have A Cow
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:27:07 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article<3e35e76b...@news.prodigy.net>, Have A Cow
><ac...@acow.com> writes:
>>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:26:49 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> No, he's not ONLY an evil and foolish puppet. He began from good
>>> motives. He helped a lot of people. He was blackmailed. He was
>>> lead into betrayal by unscrupulous associates. He sold out to
>>> an extremely evil organisation. He began to undermine and betray
>>> everyone he once helped.
>>
>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Grady Ward?
>>
>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Keith Henson?
>>
>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Beverly Rice?
>>
>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Mark Bunker?
>>
>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Jesse Prince?
>>
>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Stacy Brooks?
>>
>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Tory (Magoo)?
>
> Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Lisa MacPherson's family? Yes.
I respectfully asked for pointers to specific information which might
assist me in verifying your claim about Bob: "He began to undermine
and betray everyone he once helped.". Lisa MacPherson's family is not
"everyone". If, as you later claim in the message I responded to, "All
of the above is true", then why haven't you provided specific
information to back your claim? If "All of the above is true" then it
should be quite easy for you to do this, shouldn't it?
You also claimed: "He was lead into betrayal by unscrupulous
associates.". I am unaware of a single instance when Bob Minton has
been led into anything by an associate. Elsewhere, in your original
thread, you refer to Bob as a megalomaniac. Isn't it quite out of
character for a megalomaniac to be a follower instead of a leader? Are
you still quite sure that "All of the above is true", as you have
stated?
Since you qualify your words with "All of the above is true", is an
intelligent reader to reasonably infer that all or some of your other
posts (without this caveat) contain falsehoods?
<snip>
cty9...@centurytel.net
ExScn
>He'll just killfile you if he can't win the discussion.
Not quite :) He'll just do his pathetic
*PLONK*
thing and keep reading and replying, trying not to respond directly
to the plonkee but still being caught out anyway (He/She 'escaped' my
killfile...).
He's been doing it since ars began, and has probably *plonked* the
entire list of posters by now, as if anyone ever gave a damn anyway :)
Monica Pignotti
> On 28 Jan 2003 02:43:32 -0800, martin...@yahoo.com (Martin
> Ottmann) wrote:
>
> > ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in message news:<3e35321b...@news.bway.net>...
>
> >> The funniest thing about this is that the "other side" is following
> >> the same drama -- notice Bunker and Lerma never accuse Peter
> >> Alexander of "stealing Minton's $2.5 million" --
>
> "Never" is rather broad.
>
> > > it's always the
> > > eeeeeeeevil Patricia Greenway whom they accuse of perpetrating
> > > the dastardly deed against Hero Minton.
>
> Perhaps that is actually the case.
>
> > > It makes me wonder just how many of these people see all men as
> > > innocent dullards, easily manipulated by deceitful women, who (in
> > > their view) are all essentially evil.
>
> One would be astonished at what some men will do to please a woman.
And vice versa. I've also been quite astonished at what some women
will do to please a man, having been there myself in my younger days.
In B&S's case, having known both of them, I think it cut both ways.
Stacy was always ready with an excuse for Bob's behavior and in this
way she enabled it to continue, but that hardly makes him her victim.
I am convinced that had it not been Stacy, it would have been some
other woman with similar co-dependency patterns. What set Stacy apart
was her Scientology/OSA experience that she appeared to be still
acting out, only this time for the other "side" until she flipped back
to the Scientology side. The sad truth is that both had serious
problems they needed to get help for and their relationship seemed to
exacerbate those problems.
> > Maybe this was to be expected. "The woman pulled the strings and
> > entrapped innocent men" is not an uncommon explanation for similar
> > situations that turned out unpleasant. Remember how Monica Lewinsky
> > "lured the most powerful man on earth into a trap" or how "Yoko Ono
> > broke up the Beatles"?
>
> To an extent this is true of "black" culture. It is certainly true of
> Samoan culture---- men are considered "unable to control themselves"
> around women, so the woman is held accountable for his behavior. I
> doubt this is the belief a.r.s. observers hold.
This is utter nonsense, regardless of which cultures have fooled
themselves into thinking this way. It's interesting how these men
want to see themselves as not responsible for their actions. This is
the kind of mentality that had women being burned at the stake as
witches.
Monica
Stacy.Brooks-Rinder
>
> Nor is Stacy Brooks the evil and foolish puppetmaster some others wish
> to make her out to be.
>
> >A person has the right to make mistakes, since all humans make
> >mistakes.
> >
> >A person has the right to defend herself or himself.
Well said, Mark. I am so over all the bullshit attacking me on this
newsgroup. Opinions on ARS change as frequently as my men.
Stacy Brooks-Rinder
Starshadow
Cute, Garry.
---
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow KoX, Sp4, and now on a "cult critic's" hate page
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html
for the High Crime of Disagreeing with self-made cult victim Gerry
Armstrong and Caroline Letkeman.
For the real truth about cults go to www.xenu.net
Shy David
Pignotti) wrote:
> deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote in message
> news:<3e37...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> One would be astonished at what some men will do to please a woman.
> And vice versa. I've also been quite astonished at what some women
> will do to please a man, having been there myself in my younger days.
> In B&S's case, having known both of them, I think it cut both ways.
Hummm. Certainly Mister Minton needed an audience to applaud him,
which Ms. Brooks supplied. What did Ms. Brooks need, speaking
co-dependantly, from Mister Minton?
> Stacy was always ready with an excuse for Bob's behavior and in this
> way she enabled it to continue, but that hardly makes him her victim.
That is what friends do; One cannot fault her for attempting to defned
him.
> I am convinced that had it not been Stacy, it would have been some
> other woman with similar co-dependency patterns. What set Stacy apart
> was her Scientology/OSA experience that she appeared to be still
> acting out, only this time for the other "side" until she flipped back
> to the Scientology side. The sad truth is that both had serious
> problems they needed to get help for and their relationship seemed to
> exacerbate those problems.
All of this would make much more sense if Ms. Brook's motivation(s)
were known.
> > To an extent this is true of "black" culture. It is certainly true of
> > Samoan culture---- men are considered "unable to control themselves"
> > around women, so the woman is held accountable for his behavior. I
> > doubt this is the belief a.r.s. observers hold.
> This is utter nonsense, regardless of which cultures have fooled
> themselves into thinking this way. It's interesting how these men
> want to see themselves as not responsible for their actions. This is
> the kind of mentality that had women being burned at the stake as
> witches.
Of course it is absurd. It is nonetheless applicable to many
individuals, and even cultures.
Take Samoa for instance. One of my long-term friends went to teach in
American Samoa. He met a woman there, they married, and came back to
the USA (Southern California). Being a seaman and a radical hippy kind
of guy, he "cheated" on his spouse. Often. Apparently at every
opportunity. Even when he entered his late 50s he had dalliances and
affairs with girls and women less than half his age (perhaps due to
his buccaneer, adverturous grin and aura). And who did his wife blame?
the girls and women he was running around with!
One day his wife discovered where one of his girlfriends lived--- his
wife grabbed her car keys, her favorate machete, and went to "visit"
the girlfriend. She informed this girlfiend, with much emphasis with
the machete, what would happen to her if she ever saw her spouse
again. The wife's argument was very convincing, and the affair ended.
Alas, I would have taken the machete to the man in question, not the
woman. After I castigated my friend for his abomidable behavior, he
explained why he didn't get threatened with the machete but his girl
pal did---- his wife believed he couldn't help himself because he's
male.
This is not just an anti-female sentiment; it is also grossly
insulting to males.
The gods only know what motivates Ms. Brooks. I was a bit appaulled at
some of her testimony (if indeed the posted transcripts are accurate).
> Monica
Martin Ottmann
> >Maybe this was to be expected. "The
> > woman pulled the strings and entrapped
> > innocent men" is not an uncommon
> > explanation for similar situations that
> > turned out unpleasant. Remember how
> > Monica Lewinsky "lured the most
> > powerful man on earth into a trap" or
> > how "Yoko Ono broke up the Beatles"?
>
> Well if you look at the facts and stop looking at the gender or the
> money, etc.
> each case is different.
>
> I don't know about Yoko Ono,
Yoko Ono is regarded by some Beatles fanatics as the one responsible
for the break-up of the group, because she allegedly alienated him
from the other band members. Paul McCartney hated her, while John
Lennon tried to introduce her as the fifth Beatle. Part of the myth
attributed to her "bad influence" stems from their unusual male/female
roles in the later part of their relationship: John would call Yoko
"mother". And after their son Sean was born, John would stay at home,
taking care for the baby, baking macrobiotic bread etc., while Yoko
was in the office and taking care of the business and the finances.
Some think that the power balance of their relationship was best
represented in Annie Leibovitz' famous photo, which shows a completely
naked John in fetus position embracing the motherly-like and fully
clothed Yoko:
http://www.ocaiw.com/catalog/index.php?catalog=foto&author=131
> but it can not be denied that "Monica" went
> to Washington with the "desire" to "do" the President, bragged about her
> accomplishment, and had done the same with a married (teacher, wasn't
> it)?
I've read "Monica's story" and I cannot remember that she actually
planned a relationship with Clinton from the outset. And even if so,
if Monica had approached Clinton in an in-decent manner and if Clinton
did not want that, he, as the Commander-in-Chief, could have called
the U.S. Army to defend himself against her, or at least the Secret
Service personnel that was stationed outside of the Oval Office. So,
just in view of the balance of armed power, the relationship of the
two must have been based on an mutual agreement.
> It can not be denied that Stacy Brooks wanted the wrongful death suit to
> "go away" as early as August, 2001 or that she manipulated the meetings
> with Rinder, persuaded Minton his friends were evil and that the only
> way to save himself and her was to make a deal with the devil and throw
> himself on the mercy of the unmerciful. And I don't think Minton is
> able to comprehend what Brooks has done to him, otherwise, he would be
> in Bernie McCabe's office, telling the truth about what was done to him
> to make him lie for the "church" of the unholy lawsuit.
I think you go too far. Minton knows very well what he is doing, he
just thinks he can't get away with it, as usual. I am a little bit
more sympathetic with Stacy, because the story of her relationship
with Minton has somewhat the romantic quality of a Jane Austen novel,
in which f. e. an impoverished Stacy (Elinor = Emma Thompson) is
picked up by the charming, well-off lad Minton (Edward = Hugh Grant).
Through the relationship the former dutiful Stacy (Elinor) learns to
live in an age composed of rigorous moral and financial rules, which
eventually make her "vulnerable" and "worldy".
Martin Ottmann
> On 28 Jan 2003 02:43:32 -0800, martin...@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann)
> wrote in <71d327bb.03012...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >Maybe this was to be expected. "The woman pulled the strings and
> >entrapped innocent men" is not an uncommon explanation for similar
> >situations that turned out unpleasant. Remember how Monica Lewinsky
> >"lured the most powerful man on earth into a trap" or how "Yoko Ono
> >broke up the Beatles"?
>
> Hey, that last one ("Yoko Ono broke up the Beatles") is an important
> belief! Almost religious.
Yep. But truly religious is the belief that Paul McCartney isn't Paul
McCartney, because the actual Paul mysteriously died in 1967.
Rebecca Hartong
<deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2003 12:37:44 -0800, pign...@worldnet.att.net (Monica
> Pignotti) wrote:
>
>> deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote in message
>> news:<3e37...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>
>>> One would be astonished at what some men will do to please a woman.
>
>> And vice versa. I've also been quite astonished at what some women
>> will do to please a man, having been there myself in my younger days.
>> In B&S's case, having known both of them, I think it cut both ways.
>
> Hummm. Certainly Mister Minton needed an audience to applaud him,
> which Ms. Brooks supplied. What did Ms. Brooks need, speaking
> co-dependantly, from Mister Minton?
>
>> Stacy was always ready with an excuse for Bob's behavior and in this
>> way she enabled it to continue, but that hardly makes him her victim.
>
> That is what friends do;
No. It's not.
> One cannot fault her for attempting to defned
> him.
I think you're confusing two very different things. There's a big difference
between *defending* a person from an unprovoked attack and *making excuses
for* a person's bad behavior.
>> I am convinced that had it not been Stacy, it would have been some
>> other woman with similar co-dependency patterns. What set Stacy apart
>> was her Scientology/OSA experience that she appeared to be still
>> acting out, only this time for the other "side" until she flipped back
>> to the Scientology side. The sad truth is that both had serious
>> problems they needed to get help for and their relationship seemed to
>> exacerbate those problems.
>
> All of this would make much more sense if Ms. Brook's motivation(s)
> were known.
We can only guess.
Snipped the rest...
Zinj
was, or whether european handwringing represents political sophistication
or opportunistic naivete....
The *subject* line here is 'The Problem is Stacy'
Why Bob Minton *or* Stacy would still be a 'problem' at all is the
question.
Could they have been? Likely. Are they now? Hard to see how, unless the
deliberate fear mongers want to harp on the still to come horrors. In
fact, it's a bit hard to see how the 10 month campaign to 'warn' ARS and
critics in general about Bob's 'treason' has accomplished *anything* but
the cess-pooling of ARS.
It's worth noting that *most* of the most virulent anti-bobists, and
those most desirous of making 'him' the central 'issue' to be discussed
on ARS, are the same people who made him their own private satan years
back. The same hen party that first discovered anti-bobism when it was
revealed that Stacy was his 'mistress'.
Admittedly, they have swelled their ranks with people who did not
originally accept the premise that Bob and Stacy's 'infidelity' was a
political issue. People like ptsc or Dave Fish or, Starshadow, or, a
couple of others.
Those same people have been screeching about 'The Bob' since '98. They
not only objected to his relationship with Stacy, but were so desperate
to find *further* crimes that they counted such sins as firing a shotgun
into the air when his home was violated into the 'Big Book' of crimes
they have continuously innundated ARS with.
Had Robert Vaughn Young *himself* been among them, or Theresa Minton, it
might have been somewhat more comprehensible as anything other than a
gaggle of busybodies dead set on enforcing themselves on others.
Neither was.
The level of vicious hen-partying got *so* bad, that Bob's revelation of
'Laura Terepin' as an obvious OSA plant was discounted immediately by the
same people so worried about 'destroying' Bob now; because he called her
an OSA Whore.
Why; much seems to indicate that a number of those people themselves
chose to contact 'laura' to offer their assistance against 'Bob', the
natural enemy.
In the meantime, few still consider Jolie (the fake Laura) anything but a
deliberate and official OSA op over 8 years, few but not none.
That's no longer a selling point for them
Jesse, the formerly sexual harassing evil 'man' has now become,
inadvertently, their hero....
Why? Because he recognizes Stacy as the 'source' of the evil.
Sheesh. Let me put it to you this way, without a doubt (from my point of
view) Bob caved. Collapsed. Made a huge mistake.
Judging by what I've read, Stacy caved *before* he did, and unfortunately
helped him over the cliff.
From my reading of Robert Vaughn Young's own testimony, this is a very
similar episode to his own; with the difference being that Robert Vaughn
Young was not Bob Minton; and that he shrugged off the cave with fairly
minimal effort.
Bob, as good as he was, and probably still is in many things, was not as
strong as RVY.
There is no reason to assume any long standing plot. No reason to grant
the people who felt the necessity to intrude into other people's lives as
their own mandate any 'validity'.
No reason to give a fuck about Bob *or* Stacy as part of the critical
community at present. They are irrelevant. There is nothing left they can
do.
It is not necessary to have half of all ARS posts about Bob or Stacy.
For Bob and Stacy themselves; I wish them well. For their friends; they
don't need defense, they need closure.
For Bob and Stacy's enemies?
You need to find something more important to rail against. How bout the
Church of Scientology? (hopefully with less spittle than you hark up for
Bob)
Dave Bird
MOVEhotmail.com> writes:
>On 29 Jan 2003 12:37:44 -0800, pign...@worldnet.att.net (Monica
>Pignotti) wrote:
>
>> deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote in message
>> news:<3e37...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>
>>> One would be astonished at what some men will do to please a woman.
>
>> And vice versa. I've also been quite astonished at what some women
>> will do to please a man, having been there myself in my younger days.
>> In B&S's case, having known both of them, I think it cut both ways.
>
>Hummm. Certainly Mister Minton needed an audience to applaud him,
>which Ms. Brooks supplied. What did Ms. Brooks need, speaking
>co-dependantly, from Mister Minton?
They certainly look like what is often seen in serial killer couples
such as Britain's own Ian Brady and Myra Hyndley. One is the
arrogant, controlling, megalomaniac psychopath who has little care
or understanding for others viewpoint and explodes when criticised
(that would be Minton). The other is of the type known as
"borderline", with a weak sense of their own identity often from
a weak or hostile parental role. They will appear as indecisive
and lacking in personality, but can be extremely -- lethally --
ruthless when they feel themselves or their role threatened.
They tend to seek out the ruthless and over-dominant psychopath,
and form a perfect pair: the psycopath need an endlessly uncritical
worshipper, the borderline needs a slave-master so she never need
think for herself. However, they go together like petrol and matches.
The very presence of the ultimate yes-person spurs the psychopath on
to bolder and more extreme acts. The borderline, who may well be
the cleverer one, in turn may be even in the lead suggesting new
extremes of ruthless or unscrupulous behaviour if she feels they
are under threat. The two are not always opposite genders and not
always a sexual couple, though this is very often the case.
Venables and Thompson (the two ten year old boys who murdered
a 4 year old toddler) were identifiably of this type.
__ __
-- Regards, \\'___//' the MAD COW does Prozac:
XEMoo.Moo.Moo .;'\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (x)\ /(x)} <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_______________________________/ :--' ____________________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ --[I'm going for slaughter soon,]
\___(o'o) [but, y'know,I can't complai-n]
:--:-+
'roger rabbit' is not a stage direction ; and nor is 'dick the raspberry!'
Fluffygirl
"Martin Ottmann" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71d327bb.03012...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > It makes me wonder just how many of these people see all men as
> > innocent dullards, easily manipulated by deceitful women, who (in
> > their view) are all essentially evil.
>
> Maybe this was to be expected. "The woman pulled the strings and
> entrapped innocent men" is not an uncommon explanation for similar
> situations that turned out unpleasant.
Yes. Often used as an excuse for DFMD. (Dumb fucking male syndrome).
Ok, just kidding on that, but, yes, too many people want to point fingers.
Too many people want Stacy to be the one and only problem and traitor.
The way it works is that people are mixed bags. All of them. Stacy may be
manipulative and a number of things people say but I'm also sure she's a lot
of the nice things people say. What so many people do not understand is that
someone can do some pretty crappy things on one hand and still have
redeeming traits on the other. But on an ng where it's always all or
nothing, that point of view is scarce.
C
Stacy.Brooks-Rinder
> Stacy.Brooks-Rinder wrote:
> > Mark Bunker <mbunk...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<udhb3v85hev302736...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >
> >>Nor is Stacy Brooks the evil and foolish puppetmaster some others wish
> >>to make her out to be.
> >>
> >>
> >>>A person has the right to make mistakes, since all humans make
> >>>mistakes.
> >>>
> >>>A person has the right to defend herself or himself.
> >
> >
> > Well said, Mark. I am so over all the bullshit attacking me on this
> > newsgroup. Opinions on ARS change as frequently as my men.
> >
> > Stacy Brooks-Rinder
>
> Cute, Garry.
Starshadow...you seem so infatuated with Garry, why don't you two just
marry and consumate? Maybe two queers will make a straight. :-)
Starshadow
Is this a proposal, dearie?
Sorry, I'm already married.
But that's sweet! (BTW, my children are straight. Dunno if you knew that.)
Stacy.Brooks-Rinder
Amen to that, Claire. I did precisely what Gerry Armstrong taught me
to do. I wish people would stop blaming me for bilking Bob Minton. I
needed the money and had to play the role of a cheap whore to get it.
It's called free enterprise. I'm an innocent.
Tilman Hausherr
(Stacy.Brooks-Rinder) wrote in
<575016bf.03013...@posting.google.com>:
>> > Stacy Brooks-Rinder
>>
>> Cute, Garry.
>
>Starshadow...you seem so infatuated with Garry, why don't you two just
>marry and consumate? Maybe two queers will make a straight. :-)
There we have it - Garry Scarff is back with a new account :-(
Tilman
Tilman Hausherr
wrote in <71d327bb.03012...@posting.google.com>:
>Yoko Ono is regarded by some Beatles fanatics as the one responsible
>for the break-up of the group, because she allegedly alienated him
>from the other band members. Paul McCartney hated her, while John
>Lennon tried to introduce her as the fifth Beatle. Part of the myth
>attributed to her "bad influence" stems from their unusual male/female
>roles in the later part of their relationship: John would call Yoko
>"mother". And after their son Sean was born, John would stay at home,
>taking care for the baby, baking macrobiotic bread etc., while Yoko
>was in the office and taking care of the business and the finances.
>
>Some think that the power balance of their relationship was best
>represented in Annie Leibovitz' famous photo, which shows a completely
>naked John in fetus position embracing the motherly-like and fully
>clothed Yoko:
>
>http://www.ocaiw.com/catalog/index.php?catalog=foto&author=131
QED :-)
mimus
(Shy David) wrote:
<snip>
The problem is Scientology.
>http://www.norahjones.com
>http://narconon-exposed.org
>
>Greg Bashaw ended his life just like Scientology's founder L Ron Hubbard's
>son had 25 years earlier. The police found a suicide note in his hotel room.
>It said simply, 'Goodbye [son], you were a good buddy. Love dad.'
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Fluffygirl
"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:58:11 GMT, deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com
> (Shy David) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The problem is Scientology.
Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
(unless you were talking about CofS? Even so, it takes two to tango and more
than two to have a monstrous cluster fuck.)
C
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg <3e38b7ae$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
<snip>
> What so many people do not understand is that
>someone can do some pretty crappy things on one hand and still have
>redeeming traits on the other.
I've always felt superior to 'so many people' myself. I'm soooo glad we
agree on that.
> But on an ng where it's always all or
>nothing, that point of view is scarce.
<snip>
What does "it's always all or nothing" mean? You hear from people who are
polarized on an issue. Sometimes people ask questions, you might find out
what they finally decide, but probably not.
How do you know what everybody else thinks? You don't even hear anything
from most people who read the ng.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Jommy Cross
msg <h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com>:
<snip>
>The problem is Scientology.
You might be a top-posting fsckhead but you got that right.
Fluffygirl
"Jommy Cross" <jommycross@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:L8Z8OPG53765...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> > But on an ng where it's always all or
> >nothing, that point of view is scarce.
> <snip>
>
> What does "it's always all or nothing" mean?
All or nothing. Period. It's extremism. Many contributors here are prone to
it.
>You hear from people who are
> polarized on an issue. Sometimes people ask questions, you might find out
> what they finally decide, but probably not.
>
> How do you know what everybody else thinks? You don't even hear anything
> from most people who read the ng.
I was talking about attitudes common to and on this ng.
C
Shy David
wrote:
> "mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com...
>> The problem is Scientology.
> Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
Nope: the problem *IS* Scientology. There's be no rapists without
rape.
> (unless you were talking about CofS? Even so, it takes two to tango and more
> than two to have a monstrous cluster fuck.)
>
>
> C
mimus
>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:52:44 -0500, mimus <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>msg <h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com>:
><snip>
>>The problem is Scientology.
><snip>
>
>You might be a top-posting fsckhead but you got that right.
"Top- posting"?
<glove-slap>
Suh, you may have satisfaction whenever, wherever and however you
desire it . . . .
Fluffygirl
"Shy David" <deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e3a...@news2.lightlink.com...
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:22:16 -0800, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com...
>
> >> The problem is Scientology.
>
> > Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
>
> Nope: the problem *IS* Scientology. There's be no rapists without
> rape.
Ok. Then the problem is also Christianity, Hinduism, Islam-- all of which
have had adherents who've hurt people in the name of their religion and most
of whom have had church/institution-sponsored inquisitions, jihads and the
like...
Sorry. You're gonna have to do better than that...
C
Starshadow
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:22:16 -0800, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>The problem is Scientology.
>
>
>>Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
>
>
> Nope: the problem *IS* Scientology. There's be no rapists without
> rape.
>
Your point?
Have A Cow
>He'll just killfile you if he can't win the discussion.
Maybe, but I rather suspect he obsessively reads most messages in the
threads he himself starts. For someone who uses the caveat that "All
of the above is true." Dave Bird has presented precious little
evidence to bolster his statement that "He began to undermine and
betray EVERYONE he once helped." (emphasis added).
Scouring the web for information about Dave Bird I found this
(ironically from Oklahoma):
http://www.ou.edu/student/ucurrent/archives/volVno1/articles/Bullshit.html
in which it is stated: "Verbosity and pretentiousness are the
hallmarks of bullshit. Bullshit is verbose because it is hard to
mislead a reader or listener with short, clear sentences.". Now I
think I better understand why Dave Bird dumped the transcripts of the
Yingling notes into the thread, despite the fact that these notes
prove nothing beyond the wishes of what Dave Bird himself
characterizes as "an extremely evil organisation.".
Getting back to the web article, it concludes with "All we can do is
sift our own utterances and purge them of meaningless phrases.". This
conclusion seems particularly applicable to Dave Bird's "All of the
above is true." and Starshadow's "in fact".
>
>
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:58:26 GMT, ac...@acow.com (Have A Cow) wrote:
>
>>[Reposted for propagation]
>>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:27:07 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article<3e35e76b...@news.prodigy.net>, Have A Cow
>>><ac...@acow.com> writes:
>>>>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:26:49 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>> No, he's not ONLY an evil and foolish puppet. He began from good
>>>>> motives. He helped a lot of people. He was blackmailed. He was
>>>>> lead into betrayal by unscrupulous associates. He sold out to
>>>>> an extremely evil organisation. He began to undermine and betray
>>>>> everyone he once helped.
>>>>
>>>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Grady Ward?
>>>>
>>>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Keith Henson?
>>>>
>>>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Beverly Rice?
>>>>
>>>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Mark Bunker?
>>>>
>>>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Jesse Prince?
>>>>
>>>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Stacy Brooks?
>>>>
>>>>Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Tory (Magoo)?
>>>
>>> Has Bob begun to undermine and betray Lisa MacPherson's family? Yes.
>>
>>I respectfully asked for pointers to specific information which might
>>assist me in verifying your claim about Bob: "He began to undermine
>>and betray everyone he once helped.". Lisa MacPherson's family is not
>>"everyone". If, as you later claim in the message I responded to, "All
>>of the above is true", then why haven't you provided specific
>>information to back your claim? If "All of the above is true" then it
>>should be quite easy for you to do this, shouldn't it?
>>
>>You also claimed: "He was lead into betrayal by unscrupulous
>>associates.". I am unaware of a single instance when Bob Minton has
>>been led into anything by an associate. Elsewhere, in your original
>>thread, you refer to Bob as a megalomaniac. Isn't it quite out of
>>character for a megalomaniac to be a follower instead of a leader? Are
>>you still quite sure that "All of the above is true", as you have
>>stated?
>>
>>Since you qualify your words with "All of the above is true", is an
>>intelligent reader to reasonably infer that all or some of your other
>>posts (without this caveat) contain falsehoods?
>>
>><snip>
cty9...@centurytel.net
>In article <UqX3fMBL...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, da...@xemu.demon.co.uk
>says...
>
>>
>
>Has he *attempted* to? Certainly
>Has he had any success? Not to speak of.
>Has he shot his wad? Sure looks like it.
>Has Scientology's 'Let's Turn Minton' been been the success they'd hoped
>for?
>
>Umm... doesn't seem too likely.
>
>Guess they got the wrong 'who'
They must have thought Bob was the president of ARSCC(wdne). Typical
of the cult, they guessed wrong. This leads me to believe that we
have not been infiltrated yet. Good thing we never let Diane join or
extended an invite to Tigger, huh?
>
>Zinj
cty9...@centurytel.net
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:39:09 -0500, cty9...@centurytel.net wrote:
>
>>He'll just killfile you if he can't win the discussion.
>
>Maybe, but I rather suspect he obsessively reads most messages in the
>threads he himself starts. For someone who uses the caveat that "All
>of the above is true." Dave Bird has presented precious little
>evidence to bolster his statement that "He began to undermine and
>betray EVERYONE he once helped." (emphasis added).
True but, I can understand how someone would type that sentence and
not mean an emphatic everyone. That could very well be the case with
Dave but, he will never admit to a mistake. Perhaps he has in the
past but, I can't remember him ever doing to in this forum. That is
not to say he makes a lot of mistakes, just to say that when he does,
he engages his killfile rather than admitting them.
<snap><snap><snap>
Sea Otter
> "mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:58:11 GMT, deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com
> > (Shy David) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > The problem is Scientology.
>
> Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
>
Correct. $cientology is indeed a two-edged sword: one side cuts with
psychotic gibberish, the other with asset-draining manipulation.
Perhaps you meant "the sword cuts both ways", i.e. there are negative
and positive aspects of a circumstance. The $ea Org offers an example:
on the one hand, a policy of forced abortions is truly heinous. On the
other hand, what good would come of something spawned by the $ea Org?
> (unless you were talking about CofS? Even so, it takes two to tango and more
> than two to have a monstrous cluster fuck.)
>
Correct again! $cientology, plus Corporation of $cientology, plus
Freezone add up to a mindfuck and moneyfuck of monstrous proportions.
Sea Otter
Xenu Beach, FL
--
Just claim that you think that the underwear of the psych is not
really blessed, that you suspect holes in his underwear and that he
doesn't remind you of a God and wait what will happen to you. You
could find yourself committed in an institution, drugged,
electro-shocked and parts of your brain taken out through lobotomy.
-Barbara Schwarz, January 11. 2003
Dave Bird
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:39:09 -0500, cty9...@centurytel.net wrote:
>>
>>He'll just killfile you if he can't win the discussion.
>
>Maybe, but I rather suspect he obsessively reads most messages in the
>threads he himself starts. For someone who uses the caveat that "All
>of the above is true." Dave Bird has presented precious little
>evidence to bolster his statement that "He began to undermine and
>betray EVERYONE he once helped." (emphasis added).
OK, Cow, if you want a more limited statement, he went over all the
courtcases where he helped people and reviewed how he could do maximum
harm to sink them, in the principal ones agreeing real action to
destroy the case such as entering new and different (i.e. lying)
testimony to attack that party and/or their attorneys, This is
detailed in the Yingling notes.
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Stacy.Brooks-Rinder
> Stacy.Brooks-Rinder wrote:
> > Starshadow <stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote in message news:<3e384cab$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> >
> >
> >>Stacy.Brooks-Rinder wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mark Bunker <mbunk...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<udhb3v85hev302736...@4ax.com>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Nor is Stacy Brooks the evil and foolish puppetmaster some others wish
> >>>>to make her out to be.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>A person has the right to make mistakes, since all humans make
> >>>>>mistakes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>A person has the right to defend herself or himself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well said, Mark. I am so over all the bullshit attacking me on this
> >>>newsgroup. Opinions on ARS change as frequently as my men.
> >>>
> >>>Stacy Brooks-Rinder
> >>
> >>Cute, Garry.
> >
> >
> > Starshadow...you seem so infatuated with Garry, why don't you two just
> > marry and consumate? Maybe two queers will make a straight. :-)
>
> Is this a proposal, dearie?
>
> Sorry, I'm already married.
>
> But that's sweet! (BTW, my children are straight. Dunno if you knew that.)
You have children already? At 24? :-)
Stacy.Brooks-Rinder
> On 30 Jan 2003 00:25:03 -0800, StacyBro...@hotmail.com
> (Stacy.Brooks-Rinder) wrote in
> <575016bf.03013...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >> > Stacy Brooks-Rinder
> >>
> >> Cute, Garry.
> >
> >Starshadow...you seem so infatuated with Garry, why don't you two just
> >marry and consumate? Maybe two queers will make a straight. :-)
>
> There we have it - Garry Scarff is back with a new account :-(
That's the first time someone said I looked like Garry Scarff. I look
as much like Garry as you do Eva Braun. :-)
Andrew Robertson
......................................
Message-ID: <g0Uao0CF...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
......................................
From: Dave Bird (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Barbara Schwarz WAS, after all, President of CofS(Germany).
In article<71d327bb.02120...@posting.google.com>, Martin
Ottmann <martin...@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
>Wow Barbara, you were indeed a bigshot! I must apologize for my prior
>error.
And I must also apologise for stating, based on earlier false reports,
that she has never been President of CofS-Deutschland.
<snip>
......................................
Andrew
Starshadow
Flattery will get you everywhere, dollink...
(I thank you, my children thank you, my grandchildren thank you. Nope,
no great-grands for a long time yet. I hope.)
Starshadow
Tilman looks like Eva Braun?
Who'd'a thunk?
Zinj
says...
> In article<3e3fbdb1...@news.prodigy.net>, Have A Cow writes:
> >On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:39:09 -0500, cty9...@centurytel.net wrote:
> >>
> >>He'll just killfile you if he can't win the discussion.
> >
> >Maybe, but I rather suspect he obsessively reads most messages in the
> >threads he himself starts. For someone who uses the caveat that "All
> >of the above is true." Dave Bird has presented precious little
> >evidence to bolster his statement that "He began to undermine and
> >betray EVERYONE he once helped." (emphasis added).
>
> OK, Cow, if you want a more limited statement, he went over all the
> courtcases where he helped people and reviewed how he could do maximum
> harm to sink them, in the principal ones agreeing real action to
> destroy the case such as entering new and different (i.e. lying)
> testimony to attack that party and/or their attorneys, This is
> detailed in the Yingling notes.
Now *that's* better :)
And yes, the prophesies of the 'horrors to come' did turn out to be a bit
of a fizzle didn't they.
I don't think there's any doubt that Bob signed on to derail any cases he
could, but, I doubt there's much left he can do, and don't think his
'support' for the 'Church' has been any great shakes so far.
We won't *really* know what he agreed to until somebody with standing
actually *wants* to breach the confidentiality of the 'confidential
agreement', which *could* be Dandar I suppose, *or* possibly Wollersheim,
if it turns out that this 'appeal' is anything at all.
So far, and strangely, nobody has *wanted* to read the agreement. Weird
eh?
So, what exactly *has* trying and executing Bob on ARS accomplished?
Satisfaction?
Is there any *sane* reason it should continue?
Zinj
--
Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs
'We didn't think it was a big deal'
'She died! People die! - David Miscavige
Shy David
wrote:
> "Shy David" <deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3e3a...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>> Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
> > Nope: the problem *IS* Scientology. There's be no rapists without
> > rape.
> Ok. Then the problem is also Christianity, Hinduism, Islam-- all
> of which have had adherents who've hurt people in the name of their
> religion and most of whom have had church/institution-sponsored
> inquisitions, jihads and the like...
You have a M/U regarding "religion" and "scientology." Perhaps that is
your first major mistake.
As long as I'm being helpful, I'll point out your second chief
mistake: you are gleefully contributing to your own mental injury.
Scientology "tech" is known to drive people insane: that's all its
"good" for. Scientology was made up by a psychopath who bragged to
himself that he was the enslaver of ALL human beings---- one would
think that would clue you.
> Sorry. You're gonna have to do better than that...
It's a shame reason and compassion isn't good enough for you.
Shy David
<stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
> Shy David wrote:
> >>>The problem is Scientology.
> >>Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
> > Nope: the problem *IS* Scientology. There's be no rapists without
> > rape.
> And there'd be no fruit trees without fruit seeds.
> Your point?
There would be no Scientology Inc. without Scientology. Hubbard would
certainly have found some other way to ruin other people's lives so
that he could live in unimaginable wealth.... in which case that other
way would also have to be strenuously opposed. One cannot divorce, as
Ms. "Fluffygirl" does, the abuse from the abuser.
Zinj
MOVEhotmail.com says...
Certainly not when the abuser is the 'author' and 'source' of the abuse,
and when the abuse is demonstrably not a 'fluke' or mistake or accident,
but a specifically prescribed and essential element.
Fluffy Scientology is no more Scientology as envisioned by Hubbard than a
hamburger is a cow.
Almost certainly the *author* and 'source' of Scientology would agree
with me. (if he was honest for once - admittedly a reach)
Starshadow
Scientology, and Scientology are not the same thing.
Ron was a scammer, true. But so have many other religious leaders and
cult leaders been. Some of the cults--such as Mormonism--have gone on to
being respected religions.
Whether you like it or not, people will believe in whatever religions
they choose. You can violently oppose the religions, but you won't get
far. Far better to focus on the abuses of the "Church", whichever church
it may be, IMO.
Zinj
stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
Claire has indeed 'claimed' that, which is a far cry from demonstrating
it. That she chooses to differentiate between 'Scientology-The Philosophy
which still exists after I have removed all elements I myself find
offensive', and and 'Scientology-The Philosophy as created and
controlled by L Ron Hubbard' is far from a reason *we* should adopt her
blatantly faulty nomenclature.
mimus
>Claire has indeed 'claimed' that, which is a far cry from demonstrating
>it. That she chooses to differentiate between 'Scientology-The Philosophy
>which still exists after I have removed all elements I myself find
>offensive', and and 'Scientology-The Philosophy as created and
>controlled by L Ron Hubbard' is far from a reason *we* should adopt her
>blatantly faulty nomenclature.
Couldn't you defend Nazism and Communism the same way?
"Hitler wasn't a _real_ Nazi." "Stalin wasn't a _real_ Communist."
Zinj
tinmi...@hotmail.com says...
As far as 'real nazi' or 'real communist', maybe Barbara Schwarz should
be allowed to decide... after all, all the 'bad' is from the infiltrators
who seem to be pretty universal.
My analogy in another thread was the 'self-proclaimed Nazi, who rejects
the entirety of Nazi ideology, practices and goals, but likes the 'cool
SS uniforms'.
Another might be a KKK'er who is certain he's not a racist, since in
*his* opinion, it's a 'linen appreciation club'.
Have A Cow
materialized from within the head of Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article<3e3fbdb1...@news.prodigy.net>, Have A Cow writes:
>>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:39:09 -0500, cty9...@centurytel.net wrote:
>>>
>>>He'll just killfile you if he can't win the discussion.
>>
>>Maybe, but I rather suspect he obsessively reads most messages in the
>>threads he himself starts. For someone who uses the caveat that "All
>>of the above is true." Dave Bird has presented precious little
>>evidence to bolster his statement that "He began to undermine and
>>betray EVERYONE he once helped." (emphasis added).
>
> OK, Cow, if you want a more limited statement, he went over all the
> courtcases where he helped people and reviewed how he could do maximum
> harm to sink them, in the principal ones agreeing real action to
> destroy the case such as entering new and different (i.e. lying)
> testimony to attack that party and/or their attorneys, This is
> detailed in the Yingling notes.
Dave, I tried to verify your latest revised more limited statement
using the discussions of Grady Ward as an example. AFAIK, Grady Ward's
name appears in exactly three sections of the notes. AFAIK there is
absolutely nothing which would substantiate your claim that he
"reviewed how he could do maximum harm to sink them..." with regards
to Grady Ward's court case(s). The Yingling notes do not seem to
support your claims.
Here's the totality of the first section in which Grady Ward is
discussed: "Ward Case before Minton but attorneys now being funded by
BM: FG & DL Case Settled but keeps going on: a) $815,000 [page 3] b)
75,000 - discovery/now have contempt and sanctions (May 31, 2002 -
trial) because of Minton funding".
Here's the totality of the second section in which Grady Ward is
discussed: "Ward Is friend of BM and he feels it is necessary to
assist him in ways that have nothing to do with Church Struggle with
way to do this Could have and then get: agreement from GW that he
would not be in Scientology business arid would not use BM money
against church SR - dismiss what? Our claims SR - yes".
Here's the totality of the third section in which Grady Ward is
discussed: "SR - Clarifies position re Ward and we have J against him
SJ says knows we- have J but nor worth anything SR Says our position
is taut BM is liable for Ward's breach."
If what you said earlier ("All of the above is true") and what you say
in this latest post ("This is detailed in the Yingling notes.") is
true, then perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a quote from the
Yingling notes which backs the "maximum harm" portion of your latest
revised more limited statement with regards to Grady Ward: "he went
over all the courtcases where he helped people and reviewed how he
could do maximum harm to sink them"? This should be easy to do if "All
of the above is true" and it might help you convince other readers
that they should share your opinions of Bob Minton.
Fluffygirl
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18a4ad8a...@news2.lightlink.com...
<snip>
> Claire has indeed 'claimed' that, which is a far cry from demonstrating
> it. That she chooses to differentiate between 'Scientology-The Philosophy
> which still exists after I have removed all elements I myself find
> offensive', and and 'Scientology-The Philosophy as created and
> controlled by L Ron Hubbard'
I do not do any such thing.
I differentiate between CofS and the philosophy of Scn.
I frequently criticize elements of ~Scn~ itself, saying that I reject them.
But I admit that. I admit that Scn itself contains some problematic stuff-
roughly, oh about 1%.
Most of Scn is about spirituality, anyway.
So you've got that wrong.
C
Fluffygirl
"Sea Otter" <c_o...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:a66e3d85.03013...@posting.google.com...
> "Fluffygirl" <csw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<3e39dd58$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > "mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:58:11 GMT, deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com
> > > (Shy David) wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > The problem is Scientology.
> >
> > Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
> >
>
> Correct. $cientology is indeed a two-edged sword: one side cuts with
> psychotic gibberish, the other with asset-draining manipulation.
>
> Perhaps you meant "the sword cuts both ways", i.e. there are negative
> and positive aspects of a circumstance. The $ea Org offers an example:
> on the one hand, a policy of forced abortions is truly heinous. On the
> other hand, what good would come of something spawned by the $ea Org?
>
> > (unless you were talking about CofS? Even so, it takes two to tango and
more
> > than two to have a monstrous cluster fuck.)
> >
>
> Correct again! $cientology, plus Corporation of $cientology, plus
> Freezone add up to a mindfuck and moneyfuck of monstrous proportions.
>
C
Fluffygirl
"Shy David" <deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e3a...@news2.lightlink.com...
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 06:53:20 -0800, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "Shy David" <deser...@RE-MOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e3a...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> >>> Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
>
> > > Nope: the problem *IS* Scientology. There's be no rapists without
> > > rape.
>
> > Ok. Then the problem is also Christianity, Hinduism, Islam-- all
> > of which have had adherents who've hurt people in the name of their
> > religion and most of whom have had church/institution-sponsored
> > inquisitions, jihads and the like...
>
> You have a M/U regarding "religion" and "scientology." Perhaps that is
> your first major mistake.
Nope. I don't. Scn is an applied religious philosophy. That is what it
calls itself. And that's pretty spot on. As to being set up as a church, I
have observed on this forum and elsewhere that Hubbard could just as easily
have left it as a self help thing, and that perhaps he should have.
My emphasis on Scn - the body of ideas- is that it's a philosophy and a body
of ideas. You have in the past told me it can't be a philosophy.
This makes you the one with the "MU" (what quaint phrasing. Wherever did you
get it?) and also someone who has misattributed what I've actually said as
of late.
You cannot demonstrate that it is not a philosophy. Because it is one. For
good, for ill, whatever the content, it is a philosophy. And it's a
religious philosophy since it centers on spirituality, and it's an applied
religious philosophy since the emphasis in Scn is on practices such as
auditing.
>
> As long as I'm being helpful, I'll point out your second chief
> mistake:
You've not even pointed out one so far.
> you are gleefully
Not gleeful. You don't know me and are in no position to make such a
speculation intro'd as fact.
>contributing to your own mental injury.
Nope.
> Scientology "tech" is known to drive people insane:
So's Christianity and witchcraft.
Religions don't kill people or drive 'em nuts- people do.
Still waitin' for some logic here. Doesn't look like I'll get it.
All I see is the same brand of logic you used when you said I wouldn't be
too bright since I "fell for it" although a good 50% or more of the people
who post here also "fell for it"...
Heh...
C
Zinj
Dear Claire, your usual 'differentiation' is between the 'philosophy' of
Scientology and the 'Church' of Scientology.
Considering that Scientology is a *proprietary* philosophy, which goes to
great pains to maintain 'control' over what may allow itself to be called
'Scientology', and considering that the 'founder, discoverer, creator,
and 'source' of Scientology the applied religious philosophy considered a
defintion of Scientology...
Your 'scientology' is hogwash. (of course, his is *too*, but, he's got an
excuse. It's *his*)
Your 1% is about as legitimate a 'claim' as your belief in physical
stretching, or IQ increase or or or... post auditing.
How legitimate? Zilch, until demonstrated beyond your *own* trained eye.
Zinj
<snip>
> Nope. I don't. Scn is an applied religious philosophy. That is what it
> calls itself. And that's pretty spot on. As to being set up as a church, I
> have observed on this forum and elsewhere that Hubbard could just as easily
> have left it as a self help thing, and that perhaps he should have.
>
> My emphasis on Scn - the body of ideas- is that it's a philosophy and a body
> of ideas. You have in the past told me it can't be a philosophy.
>
> This makes you the one with the "MU" (what quaint phrasing. Wherever did you
> get it?) and also someone who has misattributed what I've actually said as
> of late.
Claire, when you define a 'body of ideas' by a hangnail you cling to
desperately, and claim that all else is '1%'... you are just asking for
criticism :)
Why don't you just define your belief system as 'Fluffyology' and forget
trying to apologize for the deliberately malicious core of Hubbard's KSW
and Mankind's only Hope and Tone Scale?
Boudewijn van Ingen
<stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
>Shy David wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:22:16 -0800, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>>The problem is Scientology.
>>
>>
>>>Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
>>
>>
>> Nope: the problem *IS* Scientology. There's be no rapists without
>> rape.
>>
> And there'd be no fruit trees without fruit seeds.
>
> Your point?
The point is, that if you don't want fruit trees behaving badly, you
should do something about the seed.
So, from this analogy, the problem is indeed in the 'ideology' of
$cientology (the seed). Not in the individual $cientologists (the
trees).
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>"mimus" <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:h5ij3vko1cfogcoi6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:58:11 GMT, deser...@SPAMMhotLESSmail.com
>> (Shy David) wrote:
>> <snip>
>> The problem is Scientology.
>Nope. Ideologies are two edged swords.
>(unless you were talking about CofS?
I find myself disgustingly in agreement with this nut case. I've
defended the free dissemination of Scientology "technology" where
it is not dangerous and/or deadly and debilitative and there _is_
a difference between "clearing technology" and the organized crime
syndicate.
--
George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil
http://www.gwbush.com/ http://www.bushwatch.net/
Soon to come: http://www.notserver.com/