VIDEO LEAK: See Former Scientology Official Marty Rathbun Interrogated Under Oath

[oneonewasaracecar]

Wow! Footbullets are not good enough for them. They drop hydrogen bombs on themselves.
I guess their OT 3 is not flat. Flat flat flattened!
People sometimes like to say that's all all over for scio. I think THEY are going to go all over with foot hydrogen bombs to destroy themselves in 2015, such is the restim on their case.

Yes, but as we all know from the SHSBC lecture 1 (final 2 minutes) a theta clear can stand right in the middle of a nuclear blast and be unaffected.

So all sci PR ppl must be theta clears.

 

[Smurf]

I am wondering about the thrust of the logic behind Deixler's questions. Is it: To use the comparison to Hitler et al to weaken any future testimony he may give by saying he was biased and prejudiced? A thrust by Miscavage to harass Marty? My take away from part one was - what the hell does this have to do with the Luis Garcia case?

Attorneys have ALOT of leeway in asking questions that have zero to do with the case. In a deposition I was subpoenaed to, Tim Bowles asked me alot of sexually-oriented questions, including how many sexual partners I've had & what their names were. It was incredibly stupid & had nothing to do with the case. I responded to one of his questions that he should recall one such incident when it was he that gave me a blowjob behind a dumpster.. He stopped asking sexual questions after that.

The point to alot of the sordid questions is to cherry pick responses that the attorney can use to claim the deposee has major character issues, thus his testimony should be thrown out.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

.
.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.
It would be fantastically fabulously wonderful if a transcript would be manifested in my universe.

I didn't transcribe it, but I did write up some notes on what I have wanted for a long time... Marty's CV

78 purchasing

79-81 Hubbard External communication
Tasks: Handle comms between hubbard and Scientology - they never met and never spoke.

81-Jan82 for Church Sci California
Tasks: project operated by David Miscavige 6 people all-clear project so that Hubbard could go to Hemet and not have to worry about being served, seeing reporters or assassinated.

Jan82-May84 - Special Unit create author services
Tasks: to create a buffer for Hubbard. Legal and litigation and intelligence and PR. Primarily to give Hubbard the all clear. Get rid of 3 dozen lawsuits that named him and 2 criminal investigations Tampa and ??? Creation of OSA. Offloading old guardians office staff who might have been a liability.

May84-March87 Head of Legal Dept - Legal exec of Author Services.
Tasks: manage Hubbard's copyright.

March87-92/Oct/Nov93 (Missionaire) Inspector General of Ethis RTC
Tasks: Handle probate of LRH estate, handling the IRS, manning up OSA, manning up ethics officers, putting in a justice system, surveillance of Pat Broker (re probate), specific intel operations for DM,

Note: Hubbard wanted this job created, wrote advices to get things done. There were a file drawer full of these which were executed after his death.

Left for 9 days - was reacquired.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yes, but as we all know from the SHSBC lecture 1 (final 2 minutes) a theta clear can stand right in the middle of a nuclear blast and be unaffected.

So all sci PR ppl must be theta clears.

That would be a freaky-fun experiment to do at home, if you happen to have an extra theta clear handy. . .

More info at this site From a Richard Dawkins chat forum:

They actually do hold supernatural beliefs. The most interesting I can think of occurs on Lecture 1 of the 'Saint Hill Special Briefing Course,' which is riddled with space opera. Hubbard claims that a 'theta clear' cannot be hit with bullets, and could even stand in the epicentre of a nuclear blast and be unharmed. Hubbard himself claimed in another lecture that he had taken to full brunt of a nuclear blast in his face and suffered only mild memory loss.

(wuz dat u postin' racecar??)

 

[Terril park]

O/w write ups are either filed in the PC folder OR the Ethics folder - both confidential.

As a former E/O mea culpa. However if its stated
" I'm not auditing you" anything revealed then becomes actionable.

That means it could in theory be posted on goldenrod.

How "confidential" becomes BPI.

Then it could go on "religious freedom watch", though It
looks like most of that shit is made up.

 

[koki]

"first" reason I don't like good reporters is - they know-how to ,make story long for 3,4,5 days.....

I want 2nd part!!!!

 

[AnonyMary]

Marty would get a copy of the video and depo transcript, and would have to sign off on it as true and correct. And if not true, make corrections to the depo, all under penalty of purgury.

IIRC.

Mike Rinder wrote on 16 JAN 2015:

"Fascinating. These depositions are NOT public. The transcript has not even been reviewed by me and signed. It was clear that the vast majority of questions had nothing to do with the Garcia case, but were attempts to get something that could be used in the footbullet circus in response to HBO. It is good to have confirmation of this. Especially in light of the Judge’s admonition that the discovery process was not be abused."

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/shit-scientology-says/

First, unless a specific protection order has been filed in a case, any discovery documents or records filed with a court as part of a civil case are public record.http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_32 For the general public to obtain such things that are filed in the case and on record with the court, they have to pay. So they are available and are public record IF filed with the court. Not all information is filed with the court itself but to be used in court, it must be filed at some point if it is to be referred to in the case.

We don't know if Marty's deposition is part of the record. Mike states it's not public record but he's not an attorney and he may not know what Babbitt or Deixler have done with it since it was taken. I doubt very much that the church would just leak a video like that without it being something the public could access, expensive and difficult as that might be for the average Joe not a party to the lawsuit. No, I don't think this is a leak, per se. I think it was made available because there is no protective order in place to prevent it from being made public and because the video and transcript are entered into the court record as evidence.

The Garcia case is filed as a federal lawsuit.

So, Federal Rules would apply in this case. There is no rule stating that a civil, non material witness deponent ( one deposed ) has to review and sign the transcripted deposition. None. One has to ask for a copy of the deposition transcript ( and pay for it in most cases) and one has to file a correction form if there are errors. So Mike's comment about him having to review and sign it before it's made public is not accurate. See below:
The mandatory review and signing of a transcript by the deposed is only applicable to a detained material witness. . Rule 15 a (2) "The court may then order that the deposition be taken and may discharge the witness after the witness has signed under oath the deposition transcript."

Why, When & How to Correct a Deposition Transcript Under the Federal Rules
Excerpted from Handling Federal Discovery by William M. Audet and Kimberly A. Fanady

I. WHY

A. You may request that a deponent review the deposition transcript or recording, make any changes and sign a statement of the changes. FRCP 30(e). A request for review is an “absolute prerequisite” to deposition corrections. Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005).

1. Review helps assure that a deponent’s testimony is complete and accurate.

2. Impeaching a witness with deposition testimony is more effective when the witness has to admit that he reviewed the transcript and thought it was correct. You also defeat the witness’s claim that the transcript does not accurately reflect his testimony.

B. Review is not required unless a deponent or party requests it. FRCP 30(e)(1); Holland v. Cedar Creek Mining, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 651, 48 Fed. Rules Serv. 3d 1142 (S.D. W. Va. 2001). Conversely, corrections are not permitted unless review is requested. EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Systems, Inc., 618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2010).

C. FRCP 30(e) is not restricted to correcting stenographical errors. See Unlimited Resources, Inc. v. Deployed Resources, LLC, 75 Fed. Rules Serv. 3d 938 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (court permitted both substantive and corrective changes but imposed safeguards to prevent abuse, including reopening deposition on amended answers at deponent’s expense and allowing both versions of transcript to be read at trial); Dering v. Service Experts Alliance LLC, 69 Fed. Rules Serv. 3d 939 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (party permitted to make changes which expanded upon but did not contradict his deposition testimony; however, deponent added sufficient additional information to warrant reopening deposition).
II. WHEN

A. Request a review before the deposition is completed. FRCP 30(e)(1).

B. The deponent has 30 days to review the transcript after the court reporter notifies him that the transcript is available. FRCP 30(e)(1); EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Systems, Inc., 618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2010); Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F. 3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (30-day period runs from court reporter’s notice that transcript available, not from date deponent receives transcript). Notice to the deponent’s attorney constitutes notice to the deponent and starts the running of the 30-day limit. Welsh v. R.W. Bradford Transp., 231 F.R.D. 297 (N.D. Ill. 2005). The deponent must transmit the changes to the court reporter and certify the changes within 30 days of the notification; preparation of an errata sheet within 30 days does not satisfy the Rule. Id.
III. HOW

A. On the record at the deposition, request that the witness review the transcript pursuant to FRCP 30(e)(1).

B. After the court reporter notifies the witness the transcript is available, under FRCP 30(e)(1) the witness has 30 days to:

1. Review the transcript.

2. Make any changes in form or substance.

3. Sign a statement listing the changes and the witness’s reasons for making them. See EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Systems, Inc., 618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2010) (statement of reasons required because it enables court to assess whether changes are made for a legitimate purpose); Unlimited Resources, Inc. v. Deployed Resources, LLC, 75 Fed. Rules Serv. 3d 938 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (Rule 30(e) does not prescribe level of specificity required for changes; deponent’s proffered reasons for changing transcript general and weak, but acceptable).

i. Failing to provide reasons may void the changes and bind the witness to the original testimony. See EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Systems, Inc., 618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2010); Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F. 3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (absence of statement of reasons indicated that corrections were purposeful rewrites made to manufacture factual issues; corrections stricken); Desulma v. City of New York, 50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 865 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (changes not permitted when plaintiff submitted changes without required Rule 30(e) explanation); Holland v. Cedar Creek Mining, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 651, 48 Fed. Rules Serv. 3d 1142 (S.D. W. Va. 2001) (motion to exclude changes in deposition testimony granted where witness failed to provide specific reasons for changes).

ii. Both the original and the changed answers remain part of the record generated during discovery. See PThorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2000) (both versions retained so trier of fact can evaluate honesty of alteration); Unlimited Resources, Inc. v. Deployed Resources, LLC, 75 Fed. Rules Serv. 3d 938 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (court permitted both substantive and corrective changes, but imposed safeguards to prevent abuse, including allowing both versions of transcript to be read at trial).

C. The court reporter attaches the changes to the transcript. FRCP 30(e)(2). If the witness fails to review the transcript or fails to sign the statement of changes, the court reporter notes that no changes were made. FRCP 30(e)(2).
IV. PRACTICE NOTES

A. You may not want to request review and signature if you think the witness misstated something and you want to try to nail him with it at trial rather than give him a chance to fix it on review.

B. Develop a standard time during a deposition to request a review, such as during the admonitions or as your last statement before concluding your examination, so you will not forget.

C. If you represent the deponent, do not review and correct the transcript on the deponent’s behalf. The court may consider this fraudulent and dismiss your client’s claims or defenses. See Combs v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 927 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1991).

D. During your standard time to request a review, also request that any exhibits used at the deposition be annexed to the official transcript. FRCP 30(f)(2).

E. Rule 30(b)(5) requires the court reporter to certify that the witness was sworn and that the testimony set forth in the transcript is complete and accurate. If the required certification is missing, the transcript may be unusable. See Xiangyuan Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Kan. 2001). When you receive the transcript, be sure the certification is included.

F. Each party is responsible for ordering and paying for his own copy of the deposition transcript. A deponent may not object to the use of his deposition testimony on the grounds that a party did not provide him with the transcript. Brant v. Principal Life & Disability Ins. Co., 195 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (N.D. Iowa 2002).

Deposition (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most court reporters can also provide a digital copy of the transcript in ASCII, RealLegal, and PDF formats. The court reporter keeps a copy of the documents provided to the deponent during the deposition for document identification questions. Deponent has right to read and sign the deposition transcript before it is filed with the court. Deponent cannot change his statements on the deposition transcript, but under rule 30(e) they can correct on additional "errata sheet" any mistakes in the deposition transcript shortly after the testimony has been typed and bound.[9]

The errata sheet allows the deponent to make any modifications that make "changes in form or substance," giving the deponent the option to alter their record from the original transcript. Many lawyers attempt to circumvent this issue by videotaping the deposition, which can remove the credibility of the errata change that are made. ....[10]

 

[koki]

must admit : i don't understand!
why there is perception - church put it out? is there a way that someone other put it out? me thinks - there is....
and I love this game.:wink2:

 

[Type4_PTS]

The deadline set by the judge in the Garcia case for all the depositions to be done passed several days ago and Mike Ellis, IJC (International Justice Chief) became PTS and unable to meet the deadline:
Scientology official suddenly discovers he weighs 315 pounds and can’t fly for a deposition
http://tonyortega.org/2015/01/19/sc...nds-and-cant-fly-for-a-deposition/#more-19457

 

[AnonyMary]

The deadline set by the judge in the Garcia case for all the depositions to be done passed several days ago and Mike Ellis, IJC (International Justice Chief) became PTS and unable to meet the deadline:
Scientology official suddenly discovers he weighs 315 pounds and can’t fly for a deposition
http://tonyortega.org/2015/01/19/sc...nds-and-cant-fly-for-a-deposition/#more-19457

What a hoot!

Jack99 1subgenius • an hour ago

Somebody close to him must be an SP!



Mary_McConnell > Jack99 • a few seconds ago

Yes, he's PTS! And obviously has been for some time. Who is the SP? The Garcias, lol!
PTS handling - Scientology Handbook - "PTS Handling
There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and know are true in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.
These data are:
1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.
2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or (C) Disconnect."
www.scientologyhandbook . org/suppression/sh11_4 . htm

 

[Type4_PTS]

What a hoot!

Not good if IJC is PTS.

He is THE only Scientologist on the planet that SP's are allowed to communicate with.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Not good if IJC is PTS.

I know the policy isn't followed, but aren't PTS persons not supposed to be on exec posts?

EDIT: HCOPL 12 May 1972R Exec Series 13R (or subsequent revision) PTS PERSONNEL AND FINANCE

. . .

IT IS UNSHAKABLE POLICY HEREAFTER THAT NO PERSON WHO IS PTS OR CHRONICALLY ILL OR WHO GETS NO CASE GAIN MAY BE ON FINANCE OR REGISTRAR LINES OR IN TOP COMMAND POSTS OR AS HAS OR ETHICS OFFICER OR MAA.

. . .​

(caps in original)

Paul

 

[Lermanet_com]

otits media? poor guy says he has an earache, a problem that exhibits no visible symptoms, it is diagnosed by the patients description of his symptoms..

He should be asked if he has read and clay demo'd the symptoms of a middle ear infection

 

[AnonyMary]

AFAIK, Marty wasn't hired by the Garcias or their attorney. He's not getting paid for this. I doubt he's considered an expert witness by definition. He's just a witness, a plaintiff witness, subpoenaed for the deposition by Babbitt ( for the benefit of the Garcias ) to discuss the his knowledge of and experiences with the policies and procedures of refund repayment and their history of use in the church.

This video is of the cross examination by the defense.

Where the witness is for the plaintiff, Babbitt, in this case, would be the first one to question Marty in the deposition because he deposed him. The defense then always gets to ask questions after the plaintiff attorney is finished his ( this works visa versa for defendant subpoenaed witnesses. )

Then, After the defense attorney is done questioning, any other defense attorney representing a party in the case, gets to question Marty ( if they have not done so already ). When all that is finished, the plaintiff attorney ( Babbitt ) can then ask Marty more questions- usually to clarify points that came up in testimony during defense testimony) if he has any. The defense may ask questions after this but I believe they have to pertain only to clarifying the answers just given to Babbitt's final questions. Nothing new or not relevant is allowed I believe.

Any attorney can depose anyone as a witness. Even expert witnesses. They need no approval from the court to do so. However, if an opposing attorney contests the subpoenaing and deposing of a particular person, then a hearing is requested and then held. Usually no one bothers with this unless it's going to cause excessive costs or be to a disadvantage and worth the expense of fighting.

Usually a list of witnesses being called by each side is provided in advance but not all states or courts require this. An opposing attorney will be served a copy of any subpoena's that the other attorney sends out to be served. The time between date of service and date of deposition is usually wide enough to allow the opposing party and the witness being served enough time to formally contest it. But truthfully, anyone can be called to testify in a case and it's on the opposing attorney or the served witness to prove why they shouldn't be called and if a reasonable reason exists to be called, asking the court to reduce the scope of the testimony, stating how and why it should be limited to specific areas.

Luckily its a very costly and time consuming thing to depose people or else many more people would be subpoenaed in lawsuits.

This article demonstrates the difficulties and expense of deposing someone, especially someone who does not want to be deposed. Besides probably not wanting to move the date up (to ensure Rinder is there) and the usual costs of these things, Babbitt does not want to shlep all the way over to CA to depose Ellis because of his 'medical issues'. He wants it done in FL where the case is being heard.

http://tonyortega.org/2015/01/19/sc...cant-fly-for-a-deposition/#comment-1802322822

The judge could rule it has to be done in CA but you can bet Babbitt is going to ask that Scientology, et al, pay for the costs of the plaintiff attorneys and their assistants to attend it there. Flight, hotel, car rental, meal costs.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

otits media? poor guy says he has an earache, a problem that exhibits no visible symptoms, it is diagnosed by the patients description of his symptoms..

He should be asked if he has read and clay demo'd the symptoms of a middle ear infection

It might not be that simple. The answer would probably be: "What? Sorry I can't hear you. I have an ear infection."

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I thought Marty did extremely well in this deposition.

Look forward to further installments.

Me too.

But I really wonder why he chose to go down the path that seemingly contradicted his contempt for Miscavige. Mark has posted enough on his Blog and he even confirmed during the deposition that he thought COB was psychotic and comparable to Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah. But under closer questioning he stated that he didn't hate Miscavige and drew some distinction about COB's acting psychotic, rather than being psychotic.

I wondered what all that was about. I assumed that Marty felt he might be getting pushed into some corner which would later be impeached. If I had to guess, Marty took the safe way out (as odd as it was) and summoned up some "bouncers & deniers", LOL.

It was also very apparent that the cult's attorney was pretty "enturbulated" that Marty didn't play his game of reading the document (which was in his own handwriting) into the record. That move was, it appears, calculated to "degrade" Marty with his own words. I have to believe that the document was one of those outrageous and coerced "confessions" (O/W writeup) that COB terrorized his elite international executives to write and re-write many times until it satisfied his sense of groveling, wildly exaggerated acts of evil to exonerate himself and throw the hideous self-confessed shadow of guilt on any staff member who later accuses him of anything. These were a very specialized kind of OW writeup that has been mentioned by Marty and others before where Sea Org members would self-flagellate themselves into every conceivable incriminating admission in the hopes that COB would allow them to survive. (e.g. ".....and then I did everything in my power to cause my statistics to crash while pretending to work 100 hours per week, knowing full well that I was betraying COB's decades of selfless dedication and brilliant work. I found every conceivable way of sabotaging COBs humanitarian efforts in ways that were nearly impossible to be detected so that others would think that he had imprisoned and beat people, when I was the being responsible for all of the violence and savage psychological torture that the staff at Int based endured....")

It's actually kind of ironic in a bizarre way that Scientology spends 65 years "clearing the planet" only to end up in litigation with its own parishioners and staff, using wogs (attorneys & PIs) to fair game Scientologists who communicate (the universal solvent) about what the cult has really been doing. It's stunning to consider that people dedicated their entire lives and all of their money to a "church" but when it's all said and done, the church viciously attacks them in a wog courtroom if they dare talk about their experience in Scientology. Think about it a brief moment--the cult pretends that the AUDITING ROOM is the egress point of the "physical universe trap" but in reality the COURT ROOM is the egress point of the "trap" (Scientology).

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

otits media? poor guy says he has an earache, a problem that exhibits no visible symptoms, it is diagnosed by the patients description of his symptoms..

He should be asked if he has read and clay demo'd the symptoms of a middle ear infection

In Scientology's case, they should also be required to do clay demos of a middle eye infection or related spiritual pathologies

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

That would be a freaky-fun experiment to do at home, if you happen to have an extra theta clear handy. . .

More info at this site From a Richard Dawkins chat forum:



(wuz dat u postin' racecar??)

I'd forgotten I'd written that. I also posted on a patent website about David Miscavige somewhere. It was equally scathing.

 

[cakemaker]

I have absolutely no idea why the COS would release such a bold faced lie. The only thing I can guess is that it was some sort of PR trick for a court case or for the IRS.

There never was ANY ethics file or action that was ever confidential.

For that matter, there was never any auditing file that was confidential either.

It's just PR to cover their butts so they don't have to release files in case of discovery.

It's ironic that Marty helped Ray Mithoff draft that issue.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Me too.

But I really wonder why he chose to go down the path that seemingly contradicted his contempt for Miscavige. Mark has posted enough on his Blog and he even confirmed during the deposition that he thought COB was psychotic and comparable to Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatollah. But under closer questioning he stated that he didn't hate Miscavige and drew some distinction about COB's acting psychotic, rather than being psychotic.

I wondered what all that was about. I assumed that Marty felt he might be getting pushed into some corner which would later be impeached. If I had to guess, Marty took the safe way out (as odd as it was) and summoned up some "bouncers & deniers", LOL.

The CoS would attempt to use his deposition to show that Marty is biased and has already used information from his deposition to try this already.

Tony Ortega:

This is the first time that we’ve seen Rathbun testifying under oath, but it was Scientology itself that first made public some of the material from this deposition, and in the strangest way possible.

On Friday, when Scientology placed its full-page ad in the New York Times attacking filmmaker Alex Gibney, we learned that the church had posted at its Freedom magazine website a series of letters that its spokeswoman Karin Pouw had sent to Gibney and HBO over a period of a couple of months.

The letters accuse Gibney of relying on tainted information from former church executives for his upcoming documentary, “Going Clear,” which is premiering next week at the Sundance Film Festival. Pouw says the people in Gibney’s film are unreliable or biased against her organization and its leader, Miscavige. And in her letter of December 24 to Gibney, she referred to Marty Rathbun’s deposition and revealed some of the things he had said…

Karin Pouw:

Marty Rathbun, their self-appointed leader who boasts of being a source for your film, just this week under oath referred to Mr. Miscavige as “Hitler,” “Stalin” and “the Ayatollah Khomeini” — certainly not “personal experience” but disgusting hyperbole from a crazed individual obsessed with the leader of the religion.
​

http://tonyortega.org/2015/01/18/vi...ficial-marty-rathbun-interrogated-under-oath/

It IS possible to understand that someone acts psychotic and is comparable to Hitler while not hating them and/or feeling contempt.

Get your 'What is Greatness' tech in!

Notice how Karin Pouw is caught in one of her usual lies. In the sentence I quoted she claimed that Marty referred to Mr. Miscavige as "Hitler", "Stalin", and "the Ayatollah Khomeini" while he was under oath.

In actuality, all he did was make the comparison. There is a distinction but Pouw intentionally altered what Marty said to make it worse.

Isn't that one of the classic traits of an SP?