What's new

An Observation and a Beef

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
Should or Shouldn't?

My take on this subject is this:

I detest PR being used as a subject of mental manipulation (which, as I see it now) being used by M&M on their followers.
Black PR channeled solely onto DM is still a PR. Looks like now it's ok to say DM is an asshole, crim, ... (and many other names he is given in Marty's camp). It's not "entheta" anymore to say DM is THE cause of all bad things in $cn.
And PR specialists are very crafty in covering up their own involvement into those dark and bad things that have/had been going on.

Bad thing about all of this is that following offered PR stories makes followers think the same way (in our case "It's all DM!" "HE made me do it!"). In other words, followers buy into propaganda that is fed to them, stop thinking individually, unconsciously get group-think adopted, and - voila! You have another cult!

Is that a true picture of all of the ugly things in $cn? Has DM single-handedly managed all of that crap that is flying around the world? - I don't think so.

Sure thing that DM's crap hasn't influenced Russian scientologists as much as he affected Int Base SO Members. Yet, it is much of the the same here: disconnected families, ruined lives, sucked out last money.

Followers of a new cult look for more explanations and stories of why DM is bad, and ignore their own past and responsibilities.

Should someone tell his story independently, or shouldn't?
Coming clean or not is between you and you.
Not "between us girls".
Not between you and a group.
Not between you and Marty.
Not between you and ESMBers.
Not between you and the government/law enforcement.

But! Once you are clean, you KNOW you are clean. It's up to YOU to see it coming. Whether you have/will put enough efforts into that or no, is up to you.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
...snippage...

What I personally object to is trial by media – press, TV, newspapers, internet chat boards, blogs etc. There is no due process that needs to be followed and they invariably turn into witch hunts. This is not to say that I disagree with the reporting of facts, discussions or even people voicing their opinions. But I do not think that a person of interest should be forced, pressured or coerced into playing that game. To reveal matters publicly (either directly or as an anonymous source) of a personal nature, whether criminal or otherwise, is that persons personal choice. If they are aware of criminal activities, then if anything they should speak with the appropriate authorities.

Where an ex has first-hand knowledge of crimes committed by the CoS or people within the CoS then I believe that they should approach the correct authorities with the information and evidence to support the claim and let the authorities do their job.

Where an ex has been complicit in criminal activity that they still could be prosecuted for, I would advise them to get professional legal advice before saying anything to anyone.

Where an ex has been complicit in criminal activity, that they have already been prosecuted for or cannot be prosecuted for, then I would like them to speak out, but it is their decision.

Where a person does not have any first-hand knowledge about criminal activity but has story to tell, then it is their choice on whether or not they want to talk.

I hope this clarifies my position.


Well I completely agree with your stand on "forcing" people to talk - recovering from being forced to disclose "everything" is part of getting out of the damned thing.

Disliking trial by media - well i agree with that too, unless it is the only sort of trial that is going to get done. I dislike, intensely, the idea that it is all "DM's fault" and that DM is the "problem". The "mutual out ruds and grooming society" at Marty's pad seem to think that trial by media is a good idea. Of course, that way they can just throw words around, not admit to anything they have done and not actually face any real responsibility and just write about how it's all DM's fault.

None of these people - so far - have helped to correct anything that Scientology has done to people - even to themselves. That they appear (and I emphasize 'appear') to believe that the whole grotesque history of scientology - littered as it is with broken people and broken families - has NOTHING to do with them, fills me with dismay.

What is even worse - these people - well a lot of them - were in the position of ENFORCING the very crap they now seem willing to condemn and to blame Miscavige for. And now they are clustering around Marty and busily telling each other how good they are? The mutual masturbation is impressive.

They are not recovering, not yet. And so far not one of them seems to have actually gotten themselves out of the mind fuck - so I wonder why some people seem to think that this whole set up is a good idea? They would be totally willing to put everyone through the whole Hubbard/Sea Org experience - one more time.
 

jenni with an eye

Silver Meritorious Patron
Well I understand your point but I do not necessarily agree with it.

I think that it is highly presumptuous of you to think or demand that anyone has an obligation to speak out. Yes, it may in fact be the ethical or moral thing to do, but that does not in my opinion mean that a person should be responsible for becoming a whistle blower.

Many of these people, after spending the majority of their life, committed to a cause, only to find out that they now can no longer support that cause, or can no longer support it in its current form, have decided to “end cycle” on it and just go away and start repairing themselves and building a normal life. Some have decided to take principles they have learned with them, some have abandoned any and all principles they learned while in altogether. Some have decided to appoint themselves as the new reformers.

Each ex is an individual and will make their own decision as to which path they wish to pursue and how they will pursue it.

We live in societies run under the principal of law. Part of that principal has to do with the presumption of innocence. It is up to the law to bring to justice those that they believe are involved in criminal activity and they also are responsible for proving their allegations before the accused can be found guilty of such behaviour.

So whether or not ex Int staff were complicit in any criminal activity, they would be very unwise to implicate themselves publicly in any such behaviour. If they feel responsible and remorseful for any crimes that they may have committed, then they should seek legal advice and in my opinion approach the authorities to deal with the matter. They should not, nor do they have any obligation to, participate in baring their crimes to the world through media outlets.

Do you honestly believe that because someone was at Int in a senior post, who may have been involved in criminal activity, has a duty or responsibility to go to the media, or a web site, and reveal those crimes?

As I said, taking some responsibility for ones actions may be the ethical or moral thing to do, but that is not the world we live in. I do not think that we live in a world where people are expected to confess their transgressions to the general public and ask for forgiveness. Maybe I have it wrong, maybe the media is the new confessional.

:yes: well said
 

jenni with an eye

Silver Meritorious Patron
What I personally object to is trial by media – press, TV, newspapers, internet chat boards, blogs etc. There is no due process that needs to be followed and they invariably turn into witch hunts.

:yes: I agree
The "Witch hunt" aka "lynch mob" mentality does seem to still exist.
I think osa and the cofs still use it and have their own name for it ...:whistling:
 
Last edited:
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Hi Ned,
Thanks for giving us an idea of the different opinions and feelings of some of the ex's and Indies.

We need some info, though. Some hard, solid info on a few subjects that some of them have.

Not for the media, not for lawsuits and not even for the forums. We need the info for full exposure of abuse and corruption in order to change laws and help the law with investigations so these crimes and abuses will be stopped.

This would be completely confidential and their names are not even needed. You don't have to even be personally involved. And the info could not possibly be traced back to them, either, since at this time there must be at least a hundred people out of the SO that can supply similar info. Who would know who supplied it? The C of S would have no way at all to find that out.

Please give it some thought. Get some opinions of other Indies and ex's and please PM me privately and don't even answer this on here. You are not the only person I am presenting with this and I expect there are Indies and other ex's out there who would be very interested in a trustworthy snitch line without their names that would get justice. Because some of them want justice. They don't want the risk. Fair enough. I'm willing to take that risk.

Sheila Huber
 

rhill

Patron with Honors
Wikileaks:

The public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. ... What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. ... Open governance is the most effective method of promoting good governance.

They all should talk. They all should lay it bare, the way they saw it. We will never fully know Scientology if they don't say all that came out of applying Scientology. I don't want to be told what is and what is not Scientology. I want to form my own opinion from all the accounts of the application of Scientology. I want as much as possible historical materials in order to provide as accurately as possible a picture of Scientology for the coming generation, if only to clue in other generation about totalitarian worldviews disguised as "the only salvation for mankind." That's my opinion.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Wikileaks:



They all should talk. They all should lay it bare, the way they saw it. We will never fully know Scientology if they don't say all that came out of applying Scientology. I don't want to be told what is and what is not Scientology. I want to form my own opinion from all the accounts of the application of Scientology. I want as much as possible historical materials in order to provide as accurately as possible a picture of Scientology for the coming generation, if only to clue in other generation about totalitarian worldviews disguised as "the only salvation for mankind." That's my opinion.


Oh I think Ned and I would both agree with you rhill. I think that everyone SHOULD talk but I would not wish to see anyone FORCED to talk.
 

rhill

Patron with Honors
But yes it is presumptuous to think that the other person will comply with the request to do so. As I said, it may be the moral or ethical thing to do, but it is their legal right in this society to not say a bloody thing if that is what they want to do.

Funny you say that. I published have my own set of questions to Mike Rinder/Marty Rathbun. I will add more as I keep reading materials.

Now, do you think I think the "other person will comply"? If your answer is "yes", then you are quite mistaken. I never expected to personally have an answer from them.

I put these questions up so that whoever is interested in Scientology history can be reminded that there is a lot of stuff still not said about Scientology. That's why I do this, to remind people that there is still a lot we don't know. And I'm not about to feel bad to point out this.
 

rhill

Patron with Honors
Oh I think Ned and I would both agree with you rhill. I think that everyone SHOULD talk but I would not wish to see anyone FORCED to talk.

How do you guys define "forced"? For me, "forced" means something like physically capturing them, bringing them into a hotel room for days under guard until they sign a confession.
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'll repeat here:

NO-ONE can force you to speak out. It's from within (unless you are legally convicted).
If one is afraid of being legally convicted, he WON'T speak out. THAT's what M&M are playng on.
They play Black PR game on DM. This way they are safe (for their own life).

In this world we are free. We can do what we want. But we won't do what's against us. For many there (in Marty's camp) it's families...

But! all these "movements" create a Pendulum which swings. And the more people get in there the stronger that Pendulum is.
That Pendulum might nicely become another cult (if no-one brings a balance to it).

Balance is usually Truth and Love.

imho
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
How do you guys define "forced"? For me, "forced" means something like physically capturing them, bringing them into a hotel room for days under guard until they sign a confession.

oh so then scientology was unforced?
 

rhill

Patron with Honors
oh so then scientology was unforced?

Scientology thrived because the Church of Scientology et al. often succeeded in shuddering people into silence (through various threats), or convincing them that to keep silent was in everybody's best interests ("poor little Scientology/LHR will get needlessly hurt if you talk" or whatever rationalization.)

But people trying to fully document Scientology are not trying to keep any information under a lid, quite the opposite, and nobody is threatened into talking.

So I don't see how we can "force" people to talk by merely asking for details about the icebergs under these tips sticking out. I can see that some questions might be uncomfortable, but we can't possibly blame the questions being asked, and seeing this as "forced."

Edit: Maybe my point will become more clear... If we want to use the word "forced" here, then I will use it too: "nobody can force me to not ask questions"
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Scientology thrived because the Church of Scientology et al. often succeeded in shuddering people into silence (through various threats), or convincing them that to keep silent was in everybody's best interests ("poor little Scientology/LHR will get needlessly hurt if you talk" or whatever rationalization.)

But people trying to fully document Scientology are not trying to keep any information under a lid, quite the opposite, and nobody is threatened into talking.

So I don't see how we can "force" people to talk by merely asking for details about the icebergs under these tips sticking out. I can see that some questions might be uncomfortable, but we can't possibly blame the questions being asked, and seeing this as "forced."


I like your page of questions. Naturally, it's by no means an exhaustive list, but, it does address some specific items we *know* about. Much that we 'private citizens' can't even know to ask would require a fishing expedition, because there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that what we know about is merely the tip of the iceberg.

One question you have listed strikes at the heart of why I *don't* think we're going to get any honest answers from Marty Rathbun.

-------------------------
In early 1997 as investigators closed in, Rathbun met with church staff at Scientology offices in Hollywood, Calif. They combed the daily logs that McPherson’s caretakers kept during her 17 days at the Fort Harrison.

Three entries particularly troubled Rathbun.

One contained a bizarre sexual reference McPherson had made. Another revealed that no one thought to remove the mirror from the room of a psychotic woman bent on harming herself. The third was one caretaker’s opinion that the situation was out of control and that McPherson needed to see a doctor.

Rathbun concluded the notes had to go.

“I said, ‘Lose ’em’ and walked out of the room,” he recalled, adding that the decision to destroy the records was his own.

Question: Did the logs contain any information indicating that Lisa McPherson was dead hours prior to be transported to New Port Richey Hospital?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a good question, but it's *this* part that triggers my suspicion:


Rathbun concluded the notes had to go.

“I said, ‘Lose ’em’ and walked out of the room,” he recalled, adding that the decision to destroy the records was his own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

On its face it would seem particularly 'candid' and that Marty Rathbun is 'manning up' and taking responsibility for his Obstruction of Justice.

But, I'm not believing it. I'm not believing that Marty Rathbun would order such a blatantly illegal act *without* consultation or direction. Even going by his own other testimony, it's clear that David Miscavige is a micro-manager and, especially in the McPherson case, was *personally* involved at every level, including the original 'ordering Lisa McPherson declared 'Clear' prior to her breakdown. That's according to Marty's own story.

So, why would he lie? Why would he even add this 'added that the decision to destroy the records was his own'?

I think the reason is hidden in Marty's further statements in the SPTimes article; he claims that this obstruction of justice is now *past the statute of limitations*.

But, that would be the case only if it was *only* his crime, unrelated to his job in Scientology; unrelated to acting for the 'Church' and operating solely on his own. Because, any collusion with others; any reporting to others about the crime; any direction from others to commit the crime would move the Obstruction of Justice out of the realm of individual crime and into the area of Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, and the rules on statute of limitation are very different there, both in Federal and Florida State Law. An *ongoing* conspiracy has no statute of limitations.

So, why did he 'confess' in the first place? It seems clear to me that he did so to sell his credibility. 'Look! I'm confessing to a crime! I'm honest and above board. Since I told you this you can be sure that I would have told you anything else too, and, since I didn't, you know there *is* nothing else.'

For me, the more likely reason was that he considered this crime harmless to him and the 'Church', as long as he could maintain sole 'responsibility' for it, the 'Church' was insulated and, thanks to the statute of limitations he claims, he was immune.

However, even ignoring for the moment the high likelihood that Marty *was* getting orders from above and reporting back to his 'senior', there *is* a conspiracy here, since he didn't destroy the evidence himself; he *ordered* it done and he does not specify *whom* he ordered to do it, how, where etc. Even his wording is unclear; what does 'lose it' mean? Would the people he ordered to 'lose' the evidence destroy it on their own 'determination'? Or, would they quite literally 'lose' it by moving it to a safe place? That seems far more likely to me. Scientology is nothing if not fanatical about records; even incriminating ones, as the FBI raids of the '70s show.

Anyway, my point is that Marty's 'confession' isn't and is instead a self and 'Church' serving juggling act that has a bonus of bolstering his own credibility at no actual cost or danger.

What's really needed is a prosecutor and under oath testimony and seizure of the actual records. Whom did Marty order to destroy this evidence? Get *them* on the witness stand too.

Zinj
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
Edit: Maybe my point will become more clear... If we want to use the word "forced" here, then I will use it too: "nobody can force me to not ask questions"

Bingo.

I say it's okay to ask questions of those who have answers. There's no enforcement here, only questions. Out here in the real world, you will not be RPF'd for speaking your mind and telling your side of the story. People will listen and people will be helped.

The full picture of what happened in Scientology and especially at the upper levels needs to be made known by as many sources as possible. The CoS wants ex members to be silent. I say, the more people who speak out and make the truth known, the harder it is for the CoS to keep a lid on it.

The truth is owed to all of those people who were swindled out of millions of dollars; people who lost loved ones and had their families torn apart; people who were Fair Gamed; people who were enslaved; and people who should be warned.

So, I'm guessing some people think we should all just sit back, shut up, twiddle our thumbs and wait for the next card that Marty's going to throw on the table against DM over at the Shack? Are we supposed to just "hope" that law enforcement is actually doing some sort of investigation behind the scenes and that's why people are being silent? Are we supposed to think that just because ex-players (who are being silent) are hanging out at the Shack, and pledging allegiance, that everything's gonna be okay now because real LRH Standard Tech is back? Are we just cool now because we know DM was responsible for everything gone wrong in Scientology and that Hubbard really had nothing to do with any of it at all. Really?

Sorry, I don't buy it. But, that's just my opinion.
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
I like your page of questions. Naturally, it's by no means an exhaustive list, but, it does address some specific items we *know* about. Much that we 'private citizens' can't even know to ask would require a fishing expedition, because there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that what we know about is merely the tip of the iceberg.

One question you have listed strikes at the heart of why I *don't* think we're going to get any honest answers from Marty Rathbun.

-------------------------
In early 1997 as investigators closed in, Rathbun met with church staff at Scientology offices in Hollywood, Calif. They combed the daily logs that McPherson’s caretakers kept during her 17 days at the Fort Harrison.

Three entries particularly troubled Rathbun.

One contained a bizarre sexual reference McPherson had made. Another revealed that no one thought to remove the mirror from the room of a psychotic woman bent on harming herself. The third was one caretaker’s opinion that the situation was out of control and that McPherson needed to see a doctor.

Rathbun concluded the notes had to go.

“I said, ‘Lose ’em’ and walked out of the room,” he recalled, adding that the decision to destroy the records was his own.

Question: Did the logs contain any information indicating that Lisa McPherson was dead hours prior to be transported to New Port Richey Hospital?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a good question, but it's *this* part that triggers my suspicion:


Rathbun concluded the notes had to go.

“I said, ‘Lose ’em’ and walked out of the room,” he recalled, adding that the decision to destroy the records was his own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

On its face it would seem particularly 'candid' and that Marty Rathbun is 'manning up' and taking responsibility for his Obstruction of Justice.

But, I'm not believing it. I'm not believing that Marty Rathbun would order such a blatantly illegal act *without* consultation or direction. Even going by his own other testimony, it's clear that David Miscavige is a micro-manager and, especially in the McPherson case, was *personally* involved at every level, including the original 'ordering Lisa McPherson declared 'Clear' prior to her breakdown. That's according to Marty's own story.

So, why would he lie? Why would he even add this 'added that the decision to destroy the records was his own'?

I think the reason is hidden in Marty's further statements in the SPTimes article; he claims that this obstruction of justice is now *past the statute of limitations*.

But, that would be the case only if it was *only* his crime, unrelated to his job in Scientology; unrelated to acting for the 'Church' and operating solely on his own. Because, any collusion with others; any reporting to others about the crime; any direction from others to commit the crime would move the Obstruction of Justice out of the realm of individual crime and into the area of Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, and the rules on statute of limitation are very different there, both in Federal and Florida State Law. An *ongoing* conspiracy has no statute of limitations.

So, why did he 'confess' in the first place? It seems clear to me that he did so to sell his credibility. 'Look! I'm confessing to a crime! I'm honest and above board. Since I told you this you can be sure that I would have told you anything else too, and, since I didn't, you know there *is* nothing else.'

For me, the more likely reason was that he considered this crime harmless to him and the 'Church', as long as he could maintain sole 'responsibility' for it, the 'Church' was insulated and, thanks to the statute of limitations he claims, he was immune.

However, even ignoring for the moment the high likelihood that Marty *was* getting orders from above and reporting back to his 'senior', there *is* a conspiracy here, since he didn't destroy the evidence himself; he *ordered* it done and he does not specify *whom* he ordered to do it, how, where etc. Even his wording is unclear; what does 'lose it' mean? Would the people he ordered to 'lose' the evidence destroy it on their own 'determination'? Or, would they quite literally 'lose' it by moving it to a safe place? That seems far more likely to me. Scientology is nothing if not fanatical about records; even incriminating ones, as the FBI raids of the '70s show.

Anyway, my point is that Marty's 'confession' isn't and is instead a self and 'Church' serving juggling act that has a bonus of bolstering his own credibility at no actual cost or danger.

What's really needed is a prosecutor and under oath testimony and seizure of the actual records. Whom did Marty order to destroy this evidence? Get *them* on the witness stand too.

Zinj

Now those are some really good questions...
 

byte301

Crusader
Some really good points have been made on this thread.

But God forbid anyone should ask people to do the right thing. That never ends well.

Besides it might hurt their feelings if we question their lack of willingness to actually tell the truth.

They once considered themselves the most ethical people on the planet. I'm fairly certain they still think that way since elron said it was so. So let's see some of that famous ethics presence they're so fond of talking about.
 

rhill

Patron with Honors
But, I'm not believing it. I'm not believing that Marty Rathbun would order such a blatantly illegal act *without* consultation or direction. Even going by his own other testimony, it's clear that David Miscavige is a micro-manager and, especially in the McPherson case, was *personally* involved at every level, including the original 'ordering Lisa McPherson declared 'Clear' prior to her breakdown. That's according to Marty's own story.

Good point. Pretty much everything else I've seen from him is prefaced with some sort of "on Miscavige behalf", "as ordered by Miscavige" etc. Difficult to believe that Miscavige would have let him going completely solo on this one given that he was deeply implicated as we are told.

The reasons given to lose the logs sounded silly to me. He was worried about these three reasons he gave, which to me appear banal given they had a woman who died while in their care. I don't see at all how the reasons he gave would make it appear less worst. Actually, losing the logs is worst than any of the reasons provided to justify losing them.

I'm thinking there was something else in there which was really damning.
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
For anyone who hasn't read it yet, I strongly recommend reading the testimony of Robert Vaughn Young in the 'Dandar Disqualification Hearings'.

http://whyaretheydead.info/lisa_mcpherson/bob/

Especially this day of testimony;

http://whyaretheydead.info/lisa_mcpherson/bob/_06_17_PM.htm

since in it, RVY makes the case for David Miscavige being in complete control of Lisa McPherson's 'case' from at the very least the decision to recover her from the hospital following her traffic accident.

According to Marty, however, David Miscavige was directly involved much earlier, even in overseeing her auditing leading up to her breakdown.

In RVY's testimony, he explains how DM would *have* to have known even the smallest details of Lisa's 'handling' and that her death was *directly* due to a deliberate lack of 'orders' to do anything but let her die.

It may sound far-fetched to suggest that her death was deliberate, but, RVY makes a very good case that was the only possible outcome, since no-one at the scene could operate without orders and *no orders were forthcoming*.

I suspect that the last days of 'logs' show an increasingly frantic group of people watching her die and begging for instructions to do something to save her.

But, of course, that's just my suspicion and the people who know either aren't talking or, in some cases, are lying.

Zinj
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
I just got a message from someone who in the past was very important on certain lines of Scientology and even has family at the Int Base who have disconnected. Even this person has tried to get in contact with several of the people I was referring to in the OP via Facebook - ex Int's hanging out at the Shack. He was asking them if they knew anything that was done against him behind his back. His questions too were followed by silence.
 
Top