What's new

CO$ Celebrity Goes Indie - What If...

I've been in since 1965. Things changed a great deal. Many now in the FZ have commented that they
followed Scn but the CO$ changed.

Which is what my prior post stated. :p

The point you overlook (or else can't seem to grasp) is that the evidence clearly demonstrates that for hubbard scientology was always about him. From the beginning he slapped his name on everything, demanded attention as founder (if not outright adulation), and creamed off income from the church. It's a pretty strong indicator that for hubbard he was in it primarily to promote himself.

The same is not true for others who adopted scientology for its perceived utility.

It took hubbard's creation of the Sea Org ('67) and another 15 years (Mission Holder's '82) finally to make his "vision" of a cult centered on fulfilling his every wish take hold completely in throughout the larger church.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I was unclear and apologize. The evidence I referred to (re: some people went from CO$ to Indie/FZ to another path) was ONLY referring to the narratives generously provided on this site and OpClambake and videos on YouTube - that's evidence to me, but may not be considered evidence by someone else, and that's okey-dokey. I, too, have reviewed generally-accepted evidence that 'step-down' programs are NOT always helpful to a person's recovery, and I believe that evidence to be true (i.e., no kool-aid after the last sip - ever) -- but at the same time, I did not want to discount the successful stories people have shared here about how having a place to decompress helped them to eventually and rightfully regain their autonomy. I should have used the word evidence more carefully.

No worries, mate. I have to say that in the usual day to day banter of internet posting your old-school and gracious apology is unexpected and largely unnecessary, yet appreciated and sincerely accepted all the same. Thank you.

I have no difficulty whatsoever in dismissing such Scientology success stories for what they are because the people providing them usually have little to compare their experience with and might be tripping on some post-hypnotic euphoria buzz. Still, if a large part of the benefit of Scientology is, as many suggest, placebo, perhaps there was some assistance at some level derived albeit at the cost of delaying recovery. I accept also that the comfort of the familiar cannot be denied. Just frustrates me that there are far better options for decompression available but Auditors lack the ethical fortitude to face that fact and, instead, indulge their own apparent need to be helpful. I worry too what might happen to someone with profound and acute issues. Then there's fact that in Scientology, unlike the mental health profession, a person *never* finishes, there's always another TR or grade or level or L or RD or something still to be done. With auditors facing an ever dwindling flow of both raw meat and exes coupled with the absence of any oversight, this area seems fraught and tainted with a hint of predation.

Obviously, this issue is one that bugs me and now I'm prattling on, running the risk of derailing this interesting thread. My apologies for that.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
No worries, mate. I have to say that in the usual day to day banter of internet posting your old-school and gracious apology is unexpected and largely unnecessary, yet appreciated and sincerely accepted all the same. Thank you. Wow - and you're welcome!

I have no difficulty whatsoever in dismissing such Scientology success stories for what they are because the people providing them usually have little to compare their experience with and might be tripping on some post-hypnotic euphoria buzz. Still, if a large part of the benefit of Scientology is, as many suggest, placebo, perhaps there was some assistance at some level derived albeit at the cost of delaying recovery. I accept also that the comfort of the familiar cannot be denied. Just frustrates me that there are far better options for decompression available but Auditors lack the ethical fortitude to face that fact and, instead, indulge their own apparent need to be helpful. I worry too what might happen to someone with profound and acute issues. Then there's fact that in Scientology, unlike the mental health profession, a person *never* finishes, there's always another TR or grade or level or L or RD or something still to be done. With auditors facing an ever dwindling flow of both raw meat and exes coupled with the absence of any oversight, this area seems fraught and tainted with a hint of predation. I'm in agreement about your thoughts re: mental health professionals, too. I can't agree - intellectually or emotionally - that anyone who leaves ANY mind-controlled environment is or ever could be helped by an "auditor" equal to/MORE than what a licensed, practicing psychotherapist/counselor/psychologist/psychiatrist could provide. The risk that an "auditor" will inflict MORE damage to someone who's already suffering is far too great IMO. Simply put, a person deserves the best help we can offer him/her, not "hypno-cans" (love that, btw) or even good intentions, just the BEST help available. If that's meds and 3x a week for therapy, then I support it because it's the best we have right now.

Obviously, this issue is one that bugs me and now I'm prattling on, running the risk of derailing this interesting thread. My apologies for that. Apologies unaccepted...because they're unnecessary. No prattle/derail noted :)

In the event my comments are boring folks to tears (highly probable) imagine Kirstie Alley, seated next to Mike Rinder, on the set of The View, talking about the Sea Org abuses she couldn't see while she'd been manipulated by CO$. Odd, right? Now, picture Mr. Rathbun's face watching the tv at home. And DM's face while watching on a large, flat screen tv. And the millions of people watching about how a celebrity is now confirming CO$ does terrible things to people. And someone, somewhere, decides that tax exemption deserves a second look. See?

JB.
 

Stat

Gold Meritorious Patron
imagine Kirstie Alley, seated next to Mike Rinder, on the set of The View, talking about the Sea Org abuses she couldn't see while she'd been manipulated by CO$. Odd, right? Now, picture Mr. Rathbun's face watching the tv at home. And DM's face while watching on a large, flat screen tv. And the millions of people watching about how a celebrity is now confirming CO$ does terrible things to people. And someone, somewhere, decides that tax exemption deserves a second look. See? JB.

You had me at the "second look"! :yes:
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
With this particular group, CO$, I can honestly say the attorneys should be held accountable for EVERY violation committed against everyone harmed to date. CO$ could not have done what they have done without the attorneys - almost from day one. While not someone who usually generalizes about any single profession, in this instance, I simply must because the attorneys created 99% of what protects CO$ entities from proper/judicious accountability. Every single time I read about 'billion-year contracts' or 'free-loader debt' or 'copyrighted by L.R.H' or read another PR statement from CO$ --- ALL of it was approved/tweaked by an attorney in my estimation.

JB, Scientology's lawyers will never be prosecuted. There's simply no legal path to go there. Representing an entity's or individual's legal interests is not illegal. In fact, the right to legal representation and the role of lawyers to provide it is central to the justice system.

What protects the Church of Scientology from all the things you don't like is the Church's status as a religion. Just last year, a California trial court and the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed Marc and Claire Headley's claims against the Church because of the Church's protection under "... the ministerial exception which says courts may not scrutinize many aspects of the minister-church relationship."

It will take a better lawyer than the Headleys had to unravel that mess. But someone eventually will.

TG1
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
Wondering if the demise of CO$ would come just a bit quicker if a celebrity were to publicly align with an Independent Scio group/individual - think so? I do. ...

What if, Celebrity X wants to leave CO$, but thinks s/he'll keep credibility with his/her ticket-buying audience by embracing Indie-world - proclaiming the 'faith' aspect to be real but the 'church' to be unsatisfactory?

That would never happen. Celebs are treated much better than your garden-variety Scientologists. They really have no reason to leave.

I've become rather jaded about expecting "the demise" of Scientology. Basically, if every public and every staff member were to walk out tomorrow, the cult still holds sufficient cash reserves and a real estate portfolio to die for which could easily be run by a small cadre of die hards in perpetuity.

They can, but have no reason to, continue Scientology on past the disappearance of new paying public. Why spend money maintaining something when they whole point is to bring in money? Once Scientology is no longer profitable, it's time to liquidate and catch the next plane to Bulgravia (?).

Helena
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
JB, Scientology's lawyers will never be prosecuted. There's simply no legal path to go there. Representing an entity's or individual's legal interests is not illegal. In fact, the right to legal representation and the role of lawyers to provide it is central to the justice system.

What protects the Church of Scientology from all the things you don't like is the Church's status as a religion. Just last year, a California trial court and the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed Marc and Claire Headley's claims against the Church because of the Church's protection under "... the ministerial exception which says courts may not scrutinize many aspects of the minister-church relationship."

It will take a better lawyer than the Headleys had to unravel that mess. But someone eventually will.

TG1

Will the attorneys from the distant past be prosecuted? No, never, just as you say. Will attorneys who currently represent CO$ be subject to discipline/penalties/charges, etc.? Yes, actually. I do see exposure for a few firms, frankly. This is a terrific forum to discuss/debate/muse/ponder/learn about many topics, but I'll not post my view on this narrow issue because it is a public forum for all to see. (There are incredibly intelligent people here at ESMB - I've no doubt a law firm's vulnerabilities in certain areas are already identified by those same people, too.)

The attorneys - civil and criminal - who step up and challenge CO$ and its abusive practices will have my complete support. They will also, and of this I have no doubt, look to ensure the CO$-related attorneys who should be held accountable WILL be held accountable. Much is yet to be done to prompt/initiate legal action(s), yes, but much IS happening on many fronts. :happydance:

Like so many here, I am frustrated at how long it has taken to address the injustices, but I am confident in the justice system here in the US and around the world.

JB.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
***
The attorneys - civil and criminal - who step up and challenge CO$ and its abusive practices will have my complete support. They will also, and of this I have no doubt, look to ensure the CO$-related attorneys who should be held accountable WILL be held accountable. Much is yet to be done to prompt/initiate legal action(s), yes, but much IS happening on many fronts. :happydance:
***

What laws would those lawyers be charged with breaking?

And what bar regulations would other lawyers complain that they had violated?

TG1
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
What laws would those lawyers be charged with breaking? Whichever laws the evidence proves they broke. Not to my satisfaction, or yours, but to that of a judge/jury. I see where some firms are vulnerable to legal exposure - both criminal and civil. That view comes directly from reading quite a few published opinions -- both Federal and State -- as well as the pleadings in the most recent lawsuits filed by and against CO$. It is my view based upon such review of those opinions, along with reasonable understanding of American jurisprudence. It is my personal opinion that law firms have legal exposure and it has the same value as anyone else's 'armchair' opinion. :biggrin:

And what bar regulations would other lawyers complain that they had violated? The Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs) for each state are plentiful and violations, when proved, have steep consequences. (It's said that if a person reads the RPCs before applying to law school, there'd be far few attorneys, lol. There's a nugget of truth in that.)

TG1

For these questions, I truly wish I could provide DOX and point to that word or this sentence, but I haven't a specific page to point to - it's simply my personal opinion based upon what I am, like many others, able to deduce from reading public documents. Attach whatever value you believe my opinion's worth - that's your right and it's encouraged. :yes:

JB
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
For these questions, I truly wish I could provide DOX and point to that word or this sentence, but I haven't a specific page to point to - it's simply my personal opinion based upon what I am, like many others, able to deduce from reading public documents. Attach whatever value you believe my opinion's worth - that's your right and it's encouraged. :yes:

JB

JB, I'll stop being coy.

I can, off the top of my head, think of ten big-name law firms I would love to help fall into ruin -- ONLY because they represent the Church of Scientology in employment litigation, first amendments matters, real estate matters, criminal investigations, etc. However, as much as I dislike the idea of those lawyers / firms helping the cult, which helps the cult continue to harm people, there's nothing illegal whatsoever in the church hiring those law firms to defend their rights.

Surely you don't think that just because a lawyer represents a bad guy or criminal or megalomaniac that, somehow, the lawyer becomes culpable for that guy's crimes?

Surely you don't think that if a lawyer helps a client thread the eye of a needle (do something that's "wrong" but manages to avoid being "illegal") that the lawyer then becomes culpable for the bad effects that his/her client then creates?

Lawyers' jobs are to help their clients accomplish THEIR goals -- although the lawyer must act within the law, of course. What the client then does is not the lawyer's responsibility.

A very smart lawyer and a very evil client are, from your perspective (and I appreciate it very much) a terrible combination. But that still doesn't make the lawyer culpable for what the client does.

TG1
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
JB, I'll stop being coy. I didn't know you had been behaving so - oops, lol, my bad. :)

I can, off the top of my head, think of ten big-name law firms I would love to help fall into ruin -- ONLY because they represent the Church of Scientology in employment litigation, first amendments matters, real estate matters, criminal investigations, etc. However, as much as I dislike the idea of those lawyers / firms helping the cult, which helps the cult continue to harm people, there's nothing illegal whatsoever in the church hiring those law firms to defend their rights. 100% agree!

Surely you don't think that just because a lawyer represents a bad guy or criminal or megalomaniac that, somehow, the lawyer becomes culpable for that guy's crimes? 100% agree!

Surely you don't think that if a lawyer helps a client thread the eye of a needle (do something that's "wrong" but manages to avoid being "illegal") that the lawyer then becomes culpable for the bad effects that his/her client then creates? 100% agree!

Lawyers' jobs are to help their clients accomplish THEIR goals -- within the law*, of course. 100% agree! (*Also in accordance with promulgated rules/regs, too.)

A very smart lawyer and a very evil client are, from your perspective (and I appreciate it very much) a terrible combination. But that still doesn't make the lawyer culpable for what the client then does. 100% agree!

TG1

The combination of evil client + very smart lawyer is, from by perspective, possibly "terrible", yes, but it is also common and I have no illusions about that generally-accepted truth. I agree with it, too. EVERYONE deserves the BEST legal representation they're able to obtain. Even CO$.

But EVERY attorney/firm who steps over the line* while working on behalf of ANY client is culpable - not because I say so, but because they've stepped over the line. (*The line that separates legal from illegal acts.) And it is my personal opinion that a few law firms who have represented CO$ have stepped over the line. Have they been held fully accountable for same? No, not that I've yet seen. (Aside from a bit of dicta in a few opinions and some discovery penalties.)

Should such culpability be proven to have been, in many instances, knowingly committed, those attorneys/firms earn the consequences of their own actions. A motivated prosecutor will see much more than I see from my li'l 'armchair'. Ditto a state/local bar association president. Ditto a civil trial litigator. Ditto a regulator from a federal office tasked with investigatory/prosecutorial powers. Ditto an organization dedicated to pursuing human rights abuses.

So.

We've established that my opinion is worth - whatever you'd like it to be worth, yes?

Might we also agree that when the right people are motivated they can do extraordinary things?
Might we also agree that it helps to spread the word about CO$ abuses to everyone, including those same right people, in hopes of helping them become motivated?

It might be a silly thread - but I do hope you also see that, silly or not, the idea of wide-scale exposure is what prompts this thread. No, I don't watch The View. But - many people do. And if they did see a CO$-celebrity speaking about how terrific "tech" is but ALSO confirmed Sea Org abuses, disconnection, religious visas sloppily obtained, or what have you, the 'right people' might just see/learn enough to become motivated. That's all. Nothing fancy, I'm afraid.

JB.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
OK, thanks. I see where you're coming from.

Although I dunno if even a stupid Scientology celebrity would be stupid enough to admit to having witnessed crimes by the Church of Scientology on "The View" -- although some celebs are pretty dim, and we can always hope, eh? :)

Just riffing here, but some typical no-nos that lawyers (while acting as defense lawyers) could be charged with include:

1. Not producing, hiding, or destroying evidence

2. Fabricating false evidence

3. Bribing a judge or any officer of the court (this includes cops)

4. Encouraging a client or a witness to lie under oath (different from allowing the client to lie under oath or knowing that the client is lying)

5. Influencing a judge, juror, prospective juror or other court official

Prosecutors have their own rules they must follow.

All the model rules of professional conduct (published by the ABA, which some states just copypasta into their state bar regs) can be found here.

BTW, here are a couple of really interesting model rules of behavior (found here ) that are beautifully open to interpretation:

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.


Sounds like something the FBI would enjoy plotting with. :)

TG1
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
JB, I'll stop being coy.

I can, off the top of my head, think of ten big-name law firms I would love to help fall into ruin -- ONLY because they represent the Church of Scientology in employment litigation, first amendments matters, real estate matters, criminal investigations, etc. However, as much as I dislike the idea of those lawyers / firms helping the cult, which helps the cult continue to harm people, there's nothing illegal whatsoever in the church hiring those law firms to defend their rights. 100% Agree!

Surely you don't think that just because a lawyer represents a bad guy or criminal or megalomaniac that, somehow, the lawyer becomes culpable for that guy's crimes? Absolutely not!

Surely you don't think that if a lawyer helps a client thread the eye of a needle (do something that's "wrong" but manages to avoid being "illegal") that the lawyer then becomes culpable for the bad effects that his/her client then creates? Absolutely not!

Lawyers' jobs are to help their clients accomplish THEIR goals -- although the lawyer must act within the law, of course. What the client then does is not the lawyer's responsibility. 100% Agree!

A very smart lawyer and a very evil client are, from your perspective (and I appreciate it very much) a terrible combination. But that still doesn't make the lawyer culpable for what the client does. 100% Agree!

TG1

Sometimes, I am just a dumbass.

When I responded earlier to your posts above, I wrote: "100% agree!" too quickly and, duh, didn't answer the questions, just what I understood you to mean/infer. Please see above.

JB. (But you can call me Dumbass.)
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
OK, thanks. I see where you're coming from.

Although I dunno if even a stupid Scientology celebrity would be stupid enough to admit to having witnessed crimes by the Church of Scientology on "The View" -- although some celebs are pretty dim, and we can always hope, eh? :)

Just riffing here, but some typical no-nos that lawyers (while acting as defense lawyers) could be charged with include:

1. Not producing, hiding, or destroying evidence

2. Fabricating false evidence

3. Bribing a judge or any officer of the court (this includes cops)

4. Encouraging a client or a witness to lie under oath (different from allowing the client to lie under oath or knowing that the client is lying)

5. Influencing a judge, juror, prospective juror or other court official

Prosecutors have their own rules they must follow.

All the model rules of professional conduct (published by the ABA, which some states just copypasta into their state bar regs) can be found here.

BTW, here are a couple of really interesting model rules of behavior (found here ) that are beautifully open to interpretation:

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.


Sounds like something the FBI would enjoy plotting with. :)

TG1

Thanks so much for writing up your list and providing the links, too! Anyone who hires an attorney will likely benefit from reading the info in those links - and a good majority of attorneys do their very best to follow each. (<---My opinion. YMMV.)

When the FBI does get properly motivated, I'll happily send Starbucks' coupons or whatever other treat keeps morale up. Ditto for any other group/entity that seeks to end the abusive practices of CO$.

JB (But to you, I'm 'Dumbass', for the rest of the day, lol.)
 
I agree. However, getting a major public celeb (egomaniac) to admit that they were horribly wrong all those years would be nigh impossible...
Maybe that would depend on how visibly connected to the organization he or she is. It might be a problem for someone like Tom Cruise, but most of the others 'might could' pull it off. These message boards often leave the impression that the entire world is obsessed with the subject matter. In real life almost nobody really cares about Scientology and its connection to celebrities. They read articles about it but they also read articles about Brittany Spears' bulging thighs. Eventually it is bound to happen, it's just a matter of who and when, but the general public won't read much into it other than "he/she is still in Scientology". Think about it. Tom Cruise has basically made a fool of himself and become Scientology's organizational poster boy, yet his action flicks still make zillions at the box office and everyone still thinks he's a great guy. That's because the general public doesn't care and those close to him still think he's a really cool dude, and general concensus seems to suggest that maybe they are right. Who knows?!
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Maybe that would depend on how visibly connected to the organization he or she is. It might be a problem for someone like Tom Cruise, but most of the others 'might could' pull it off. These message boards often leave the impression that the entire world is obsessed with the subject matter. In real life almost nobody really cares about Scientology and its connection to celebrities. They read articles about it but they also read articles about Brittany Spears' bulging thighs. Eventually it is bound to happen, it's just a matter of who and when, but the general public won't read much into it other than "he/she is still in Scientology". Think about it. Tom Cruise has basically made a fool of himself and become Scientology's organizational poster boy, yet his action flicks still make zillions at the box office and everyone still thinks he's a great guy. That's because the general public doesn't care and those close to him still think he's a really cool dude, and general concensus seems to suggest that maybe they are right. Who knows?!

I'd have agreed with what you've written above 100% (what I've bolded in blue) before learning myself, just a few months ago, on sites like this one, that such a thing as "Independent Scientology" existed. It's certainly not been in the mainstream media that I was able to read/view/hear about, yet years ago I was made aware by mainstream media that regular "Scientology" existed, that TC/Travolta/Alley were members, etc. Friends and family who I've been chatting with recently are similarly surprised to learn Indie/FZ exists as well.

For that reason, the general idea that Indie/FZ Scientology isn't well known, I do think it will cause people to have a "really? who knew? what does that even mean?" moment. Not to say some may simply just flip the page/channel to learn of Ms. Spears' latest adventure, but not all will do so.

Who knows, indeed?! Were Kirstie Alley for example, to take up the cause of "End Disconnection Now" or similar platform, while embracing "tech" via Indies/FZ'ers, I think the average* person (*not CO$-related in any way) viewing would support her efforts -- if the message was sincere, focused, and yes, scripted by professionals to ensure the message is effectively expressed. Not a simple appearance on Piers Morgan or such fare (although I'd still applaud it) but a concerted effort on her part would help her career, not hurt it.

Is that risky for her? Yes - 'fair game' exists. But - and this is all speculation - she'd not be disavowing the "tech", just the CO$. That would, if/when learned by current CO$-adherents, give each a decidedly mixed message, would it not? She's not rejecting their firmly held beliefs re: "tech", just the management/disconnection policy AND she's promoting a particular 'squirrel' group/individual. How shocking! And shock...can be a good thing.

JB.
 
Top