What's new

A question for exes - would you sue?

The Oracle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Most Sea Org members today don't even have a clue they were bought as part of a package deal.

Hubbard didn't know the money for the purchase would come from the "finance police" that wiped out the mission network.

A small matter.

Hubbard sold the Church to DM.

On paper he owns it.

But you really cannot own knowledge and sell it for long.

It leaks and gets around.

But did you know Sea Org staff were paid for with title and copyrights?

Do you blame yourself for not being bought and sold like a damned desk?

Did you know David personally?

Did you love him?

Did he ever write a book?

A policy?

Develope some rundown?

Clear anybody anywhere?

Why are people there?

They just got sold as a package deal.

He wasn't even elected!

He organized a police force to extort money.

Gotta give him credit for that but you see how little takes to get on top of a big game.

T.I.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
Since 1955, Scientology has had a policy of using legal threats, and using, also, the legal system, "frivolously," to harass, and "ruin utterly."

Most people who've sued Scientology were, themselves, sued first, then the person counter-sued. All of this costs lots of money, and the person being attacked by the Hubbard "legal harassment" policy is supposed to collapse emotionally or financially, long before the legal process reaches its final stages - in court. Lawsuits cost lots of money, and those attacked by Scientology's "legal harassment" policy, and then counter-suing in defense, often end up borrowing money from friends and supporters, etc. Eventually, as the years pass, these friends and supporters, having their own needs, often want to have their loans repaid. Then, the pressure to settle occurs, and the pressure comes from lawyers, who want to be paid, and from friends and supporters, who, not being independently wealthy, need their own money back for necessities.

It's a messy, difficult, and stressful situation, and expensive, and Scientology plays every angle, like any experienced criminal, they know the legal system and how to "play" it.

Most of the information that has exposed the secretive and exploitative operation of Scientology has become available for public perusal in the face of legal threats and lawsuits, initiated by Scientology, and, in self defense, people sometimes counter-sue, and counter-suing is expensive, and people borrow money, and their lawyers, eventually, want to be paid, and their supporters, eventually, want to be payed back the money they lent, etc. And so there is pressure to "settle."

What has resulted from this, after all is said and done, is much of the information that people use to understand and free themselves from the secretive and manipulative operation called Scientology. Scientology did not want this information available to people.

And it's good that this information is now available for people to see.

Unless one is tiptoeing through the tulips and happily blowing bubbles in a make-believe world, in which case it probably doesn't matter at all.

P.S. In 1982, Miscavige was following Hubbard's orders when attacking, and looting the Missions, and Hubbard's looting of the Missions began, first, in 1978.

Hubbard wanted what he thought was his money.

Miscavige was just doing what was expected of him from his Commodore.

Quoting Martin Samuals, who established the Delphi School in Oregon, and was once the most successful Mission holder:

"Hubbard operated according to a couple of key patterns.

"The first pattern involved basically decent well-intentioned people... No one was able to rise in his organization or in his life to a point of any real proximity to him, without being attacked and vilified.

"That's one pattern repeated over and over. And every time it happened to somebody, Hubbard was always able to explain it away.

"And of course the next person thinks that he or she is immune. Of course, now Hubbard is dead, so we won't see that pattern particularly repeated, except inasmuch as we'll see the Church hierarchy emulate and carry that pattern forward.

"The next pattern: It's reap and rape. Hubbard would let the reins loose. He'd let people believe they could really get on with it. He'd let people believe that they really could prosper to the full extent of their own ability, and enjoy the fruits of their own labor.

"And, with that kind of freedom, prosperity does occur. Inevitably though, he'd then come along and rape and pillage and rip off what had been produced. The most dramatic example of this was 82, 83, when he 'raped' his most decent people in management along with the Mission holders, and looted the entire Mission network.

"And look at this pattern. He surrounded himself with absolute hooligans as 'managers'... surrounded himself with ruthless people - like Miscavige - who got there because he emulated Hubbard's savagery. He emulated his total willingness to completely break, use and discard another person.

"And then after their hands were so bloody - and the only reason their hands were bloody is that they were doing what Hubbard wanted - Hubbard said, "My God, I didn't know!"...

Larry Brennan, radio program:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=2398
 

Pooks

MERCHANT OF CHAOS
There have been a lot of battles over the years on various Scientology boards over the subject of getting settlements from COS, taking money as donations as a Scientology critic, and other associated issues.

I'd like to open the subject for discussion, and I think this is an ideal board to do it on.

Many, if not most of us, are ex-Scientologists. Some were public only, some were org or mission staff, some were XSO. Some were a combination of the above.

So, here are my questions.

1) Did you consider suing the church when you got out?

2) What were your reasons for thinking of doing so?

3) What were your reason for not doing so (assuming you didn't)?

4) Do you think it is morally right or wrong to settle with COS and get money for the settlement?

5) How do you feel about critics who have sued, won, got settlements, and now have gag orders or other stipulations?

Any other thoughts?


1. No. When I left the C of S I still considered myself a Scientologist for
many years.

2. n/a

3. It never occured to me. It tooks years for me to strip off the Scn
mindset. I'm still working on it.

4. No. It's not morally wrong. Courts almost demand it and if you
have a settlement offer and don't take it, the courts may frown upon
you and your case.

5. If they had any legal dealings with the C of S then they were
more than likely under constant attack all during the time of the legal
maneuvers. I can understand settling with them and walking away.
That kind of constant stress and duress would have to take it's toll
on a person.

6. If some kind of Class Action suit was put together I would take a serious
look at it and more than likely join in.

Patty
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
"The next pattern: It's reap and rape. Hubbard would let the reins loose. He'd let people believe they could really get on with it. He'd let people believe that they really could prosper to the full extent of their own ability, and enjoy the fruits of their own labor.

"And, with that kind of freedom, prosperity does occur. Inevitably though, he'd then come along and rape and pillage and rip off what had been produced. The most dramatic example of this was 82, 83, when he 'raped' his most decent people in management along with the Mission holders, and looted the entire Mission network.


Wow. Someone a long time ago wrote a post on ARS about "reap and rape". It was great, and I have never been able to find it again. I think it was written around 1996 or so; maybe even earlier.

It's possible Samuels himself wrote it.

Can you tell me where I could find his original quote?
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
5. If they had any legal dealings with the C of S then they were more than likely under constant attack all during the time of the legal maneuvers. I can understand settling with them and walking away.
That kind of constant stress and duress would have to take it's toll
on a person.


I agree totally.

I think it would be wise for the person and others to keep in mind, however, that "winning" pretty much means settling with them and walking away.
 

Lee_from_phx

Patron with Honors
I never considered suing the cult, why would I?

The only thing I lost from being involved with it was time. I was never one of those people who pony up thousands and thousands of dollars for Hubbard's spiritual snake oil.

Suing the cult does very little to hurt it. Shining a big fucking light on it is how you make the cockroaches scurry. This is why the cult will "settle" with someone and offer them large sums of money......IF they will stop telling the truth about the cult to others.

Anyone who accepts hush money from the cult becomes complicit in its evil.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I never considered suing the cult, why would I?

The only thing I lost from being involved with it was time. I was never one of those people who pony up thousands and thousands of dollars for Hubbard's spiritual snake oil.

Suing the cult does very little to hurt it. Shining a big fucking light on it is how you make the cockroaches scurry. This is why the cult will "settle" with someone and offer them large sums of money......IF they will stop telling the truth about the cult to others.

Anyone who accepts hush money from the cult becomes complicit in its evil.

Suing the Cult does plenty to hurt it, if only in increased visibility. But, it's seldom a practical tactic. Most of the most *damning* information on the 'Church' of Scientology has come out as a direct result of lawsuits; usually its own, and the counter-suits that resulted from them. But, suing the Cult is beyond the reach of private citizens with limited budgets. It's part of what was such a shame with Bob Minton; there were real potential avenues that he could have explored (and, to an extent did) but in the long run his efforts shattered on a muddled mission and counter-productive 'style'. But, he tried.

But, it's unfair to excoriate those who do finally settle with a gag. Few chose to fight in the courts, but instead were forced to, by the 'Church' and, on that unlevel playing field, there is extreme pressure to settle, with gag, from the courts themselves. An party who is unwilling to do so tends to lose the good will of the courts and be painted as uncompromising and sheerly vincictive.

It's a fault of the system itself, and, it would be a valuable goal to attack the validity if 'gag orders' themselves, when it comes to presenting evidence in *other* cases.

Zinj
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Anyone who accepts hush money from the cult becomes complicit in its evil.

That's a very controversial subject.

Some people feel the way you do.

Others defend those who get settlements, even if they come with gag orders, feeling that they got their due.

I can see both of those viewpoints.

What does bother me, though, is when people try to play both sides of the fence.

On one hand saying that the fact that someone got a settlement is fine great wonderful, but then accusing you of "smearing" the person if you ask about it or mention it.

It always reminds me of that Seinfeld episode. I don't remember the actual plot, but it had something to do with someone thinking Jerry was gay.

He was embarrassed and kept insisting he wasn't gay.

But every time he said the word "gay" he would always follow it with "not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-that".


Like, if there's nothing wrong with it, why are you so mortified?

You know?

:eyeroll:
 

jodie

Patron with Honors
That's a very controversial subject.


On one hand saying that the fact that someone got a settlement is fine great wonderful, but then accusing you of "smearing" the person if you ask about it or mention it.

Like, if there's nothing wrong with it, why are you so mortified?

You know?

:eyeroll:

Haha, well if you are referring to the "Reverend", he is a special case, didn't you know? None of the normal rules apply to him, he is above the usual standards. He has a special status, and you are not supposed to question him, as he alone is exempt from questioning, and anyone who dares question him will be declared SP instantly. :grouch:

Heck, I've known a lot of people settle in my time, and then go off quietly into the sunset. People like David Mayo, and others. Some are friends of mine, and they signed gag orders, as part of the deal. Certainly, they do not post to forums again. It is not the policy. So the reverends' continued interaction post-settlement strikes a very discordant note indeed.

However, his devoted acolytes still insist that he is the One and only exception in the entire history of litigation with Scn, and Must Not Be Questioned. :nervous:

It is one of those things. For me, not worth wasting any more energy and time on, but I do empathise with the way you have been hammered for daring to ask those uncomfortable questions. I for one, agree with you that they needed asking, and the answers given just do not settle (pardon the pun) well. That, and the fact that he has a track record, stretching back into his days in the cult, and then his many years out of the cult, of REALLY hurting people, and f**king with their minds....

But I let it go already. He's really not worth the energy.

- jodie
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Haha, well if you are referring to the "Reverend", he is a special case, didn't you know? None of the normal rules apply to him, he is above the usual standards. He has a special status, and you are not supposed to question him, as he alone is exempt from questioning, and anyone who dares question him will be declared SP instantly. :grouch:

Heck, I've known a lot of people settle in my time, and then go off quietly into the sunset. People like David Mayo, and others. Some are friends of mine, and they signed gag orders, as part of the deal. Certainly, they do not post to forums again. It is not the policy. So the reverends' continued interaction post-settlement strikes a very discordant note indeed.

However, his devoted acolytes still insist that he is the One and only exception in the entire history of litigation with Scn, and Must Not Be Questioned. :nervous:

It is one of those things. For me, not worth wasting any more energy and time on, but I do empathise with the way you have been hammered for daring to ask those uncomfortable questions. I for one, agree with you that they needed asking, and the answers given just do not settle (pardon the pun) well. That, and the fact that he has a track record, stretching back into his days in the cult, and then his many years out of the cult, of REALLY hurting people, and f**king with their minds....

But I let it go already. He's really not worth the energy.

- jodie


Thanks, Jodie.

I appreciate your support.

Though it is true that this particular phenomenon reared its ugly head quite a bit with the "Dennis issue", this isn't the only time I've experienced it.

Let's face it.

If you sue the church, unless you actually are as crazy as Wollersheim to spend - what? - 20 years of your life, countless thousands of dollars and man hours to have it go all the way to the Supreme Court so that you can actually win the case in court.

If you win.

You're gonna settle, and you're going to get gagged.

This is what will happen.


So can we please stop fooling ourselves? Can we stop with the romantic hallucinations? Can we stop making excuses for those who "deserve the money they got because of what the COS put them through"?

When you take the check, your days of "Free Speech" are over.

Period.

I don't have any issues, to be honest, with someone making that choice.

I have issues with people being dishonest about the fact that this is the choice they made.

Or being delusional enough to think that, if they go down that road, there is any other place they will wind up.
 
Last edited:

jodie

Patron with Honors
Thanks, Jodie.

I appreciate your support.

Though it is true that this particular phenomenon reared its ugly head quite a bit with the "Dennis issue", this isn't the only time I've experienced it.

Let's face it.

If you sue the church, unless you actually are as crazy as Wollersheim to spend - what? - 20 years of your life, countless thousands of dollars and man hours to have it go all the way to the Supreme Court so that you can actually win the case in court.

If you win.

You're gonna settle, and you're going to get gagged.

This is what will happen.


So can we please stop fooling ourselves? Can we stop with the romantic hallucinations? Can we stop making excuses for those who "deserve the money they got because of what the COS put them through"?

When you take the check, your days of "Free Speech" are over.

Period.

I don't have any issues, to be honest, with someone making that choice.

I have issues with people being dishonest about the fact that this is the choice they made.

Or being delusional enough to think that, if they go down that road, there is any other place they will wind up.


Got it. And, you're welcome. :)

- jodie
 
Most Sea Org members today don't even have a clue they were bought as part of a package deal.

Hubbard didn't know the money for the purchase would come from the "finance police" that wiped out the mission network.

A small matter.

Hubbard sold the Church to DM.

On paper he owns it.

T.I.,

Who or what is your source for this? My understanding has been that LRH was still in control and in charge at that time.

MP
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Haha, well if you are referring to the "Reverend", he is a special case, didn't you know? None of the normal rules apply to him, he is above the usual standards. He has a special status, and you are not supposed to question him, as he alone is exempt from questioning, and anyone who dares question him will be declared SP instantly. :grouch:

Heck, I've known a lot of people settle in my time, and then go off quietly into the sunset. People like David Mayo, and others. Some are friends of mine, and they signed gag orders, as part of the deal. Certainly, they do not post to forums again. It is not the policy. So the reverends' continued interaction post-settlement strikes a very discordant note indeed.

However, his devoted acolytes still insist that he is the One and only exception in the entire history of litigation with Scn, and Must Not Be Questioned. :nervous:

It is one of those things. For me, not worth wasting any more energy and time on, but I do empathise with the way you have been hammered for daring to ask those uncomfortable questions. I for one, agree with you that they needed asking, and the answers given just do not settle (pardon the pun) well. That, and the fact that he has a track record, stretching back into his days in the cult, and then his many years out of the cult, of REALLY hurting people, and f**king with their minds....

But I let it go already. He's really not worth the energy.

- jodie

wow. For someone who says they let it go it sure as hell doesn't sound like it.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
P.S. Dennis did *not* sue Scn; Scn sued *him*.
Karin and Zenon did not sue Co$; they sued them.
Arnie Lerma did not sue Scientology; they sued Factnet.

Keith Henson, Grady Ward and Anon Penet Fi did not sue the 'Church' of Scientology. They sued them.

Zinj

close but no cigar

You are almost right Z,

They sued FactNet 2 weeks after suing me...
Separate Lawsuits

The Lawsuit said RTC vs Arnaldo Pagliarini Lerma, Digital Gateway Systems (my ISP), The Washington Post, and their writers Richard Leiby and Marc Fisher - LINK to a recent page on that

http://www.lermanet.com/cos/4oct96.html
 
Top