Call your local Org

[Feral]

By doing this they have effectively stated they are taking the law into their own hands.
My god, why are the authorities sitting on their hands?

OEO

So,OEO, do you think it is best to call and demand the release or destruction of folders, or demand it via legal channels?

 

[Dulloldfart]

On this interview on National Radio, Mike Ferriss, 'OSA Mike' who claims to be the secretary of the NZ church of scientology, says that folders are returned to ex-members if they ask for it. He says this at 33 on the interview which is on the link below. He also says a whole lot of other rubbish, but it is interesting that here we have a spokesperson for the cofs stating on National Radio that the folders are there for the taking.


http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/20081218

So people who are thinking of demanding their folders back, use this quote by Mike Ferriss in your letter. He says that there is no problem with getting back the folders

The link includes an mp3 copy of a radio program.

Presenter: "Does it retain those files on former members?"
Mike Ferriss: "We would have auditing files for everyone who has been through the Church of Scientology."
[38:03] Presenter: "And if a member asks for that information to be provided to them and any copies destroyed, does the church do that?"
Mike Ferriss: "Yes."

Paul

 

[DCAnon]

Checked with mah lawfag.

Verbal stuff is hard to prove. However, if you wrote something down and phsycially gave it to them specifically because they had a written, verbal, or implied promise of confidentiality, then releasing or threatening to release that information will be considered a breech of contract. The extent of that breech is determined upon individual state law.

 

[Div6]

Checked with mah lawfag.

Verbal stuff is hard to prove. However, if you wrote something down and phsycially gave it to them specifically because they had a written, verbal, or implied promise of confidentiality, then releasing or threatening to release that information will be considered a breech of contract. The extent of that breech is determined upon individual state law.

Well, see, when you get auditing (pastoral counselling) the auditor writes down everything you say, and it accumulates in folders (PC Folders). This includes your "transgressions"....

This counselling is governed by the Auditors Code, part of which states:

"22. I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in
session for punishment or personal gain."


The CoS has just shown that they do not respect the sanctity of the confessional and can no longer be trusted.

THAT is a huge upset for a LOT of people.

 

[Wisened One]

The CoS has just shown that they do not respect the sanctity of the confessional and can no longer be trusted.

THAT is a huge upset for a LOT of people.

Here, HERE!!!!

 

[Veda]

Well, see, when you get auditing (pastoral counselling) the auditor writes down everything you say, and it accumulates in folders (PC Folders). This includes your "transgressions"....

This counselling is governed by the Auditors Code, part of which states:

"22. I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in
session for punishment or personal gain."

The CoS has just shown that they do not respect the sanctity of the confessional and can no longer be trusted.

THAT is a huge upset for a LOT of people.

From 'Modern Management Technology Defined' ('Admin Dictionary'), 1976 edition:

"FAIR GAME, by fair game is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist." (HCOPL 23 December 65)"

According to the Scientology "philosophy," SPs don't have rights.

Nonetheless, one could act as though one just realized this and demand all folders, etc.

Worth a try to see what effect it produces.

 

[degraded being]

From 'Modern Management Technology Defined' ('Admin Dictionary'), 1976 edition:

"FAIR GAME, by fair game is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist." (HCOPL 23 December 65)"

According to the Scientology "philosophy," SPs don't have rights.

Nonetheless, one could act as though one just realized this and demand all folders, etc.

Worth a try to see what effect it produces.

I very strongly doubt that organizations can give out confidential information with the argument that their "fair game" policy allows them to do so. Employers and religious workers and psychological/medical workers have obligations. They cannot just go spouting out personal information without consent - and the consent is not about "when x deems that I am an 'sp'- (or some other derogatory term) which makes me ineligible for the human rights which everyone else has".

 

[degraded being]

From 'Modern Management Technology Defined' ('Admin Dictionary'), 1976 edition:

"FAIR GAME, by fair game is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist." (HCOPL 23 December 65)"

According to the Scientology "philosophy," SPs don't have rights.

Nonetheless, one could act as though one just realized this and demand all folders, etc.

Worth a try to see what effect it produces.

I very strongly doubt that organizations can give out confidential information with the argument that their "fair game" policy allows them to do so. Employers and religious workers and psychological/medical workers have obligations. They cannot just go spouting out personal information without consent - and the consent is not about "when x deems that I am an 'sp'- (or some other derogatory term) which makes me ineligible for the human rights which everyone else has".

 

[Nurse Pinch]

Checked with mah lawfag.

Verbal stuff is hard to prove. However, if you wrote something down and phsycially gave it to them specifically because they had a written, verbal, or implied promise of confidentiality, then releasing or threatening to release that information will be considered a breech of contract. The extent of that breech is determined upon individual state law.

PC folders have printed on the front: "Priest/Penitent privileged" or something similar. Sounds like an implied promise of confidentiality to me.

Pinchy.

 

[Whitedove]

Dont want to burst anyone's bubble but aint going to happen.

They might say they will or did if you threaten them but I dont trust them one ioda.

And as someone else said, chances are they will go through your files to try to find someone to blackmail you with.

Fair game law is alive and kicking specially right now as they are desperate and they lie through their teeth to medias.

 

[BAYCB]

Folder return Bonanza

If the church did receive a large volume of folder return requests some smart cookie may realize the potential income bonanza from this.

Just from the shipping and "handling" charges they would be able to afford another half built superpower building. Then they could later "discover" some other hidden folders of yours and hit you up for some more money. A year later they would come out with the end of endless "missing folders" rundown...... for even more money.

Ron Minor

 

[degraded being]

In NZ the laws are srtict about private/personal information.

They cannot go around publicly talking about it. From confessionals or other types of interviews (ethics interviews). If they say they have "destroyed the information" they cannot come back later and say that an ex said this or that because they cannot prove it. So it would probably be be equivalent to slander.

I still don't get why everyone has such lame attitudes about this, thinking that COS can do whatever the fuck they like with your personal information.

Definitely not in NZ, and I'm pretty sure not in the UK and I suspect that it is only a MYTH that they can do it in the USA>

 

[Daedle]

Definitely not in NZ, and I'm pretty sure not in the UK and I suspect that it is only a MYTH that they can do it in the USA>

They can't in the UK or any European countries and I'm fairly sure not in Australia as well. They are certainly breaking the law in the US with personal information in some aspects e.g. tracking people down via license plates, but unfortunately rather than having a government entity to support you, you need to fund your own litigation costs. Which considering the CoS isn't the best of ideas.

 

[Feral]

In NZ the laws are srtict about private/personal information.

They cannot go around publicly talking about it. From confessionals or other types of interviews (ethics interviews). If they say they have "destroyed the information" they cannot come back later and say that an ex said this or that because they cannot prove it. So it would probably be be equivalent to slander.

I still don't get why everyone has such lame attitudes about this, thinking that COS can do whatever the fuck they like with your personal information.

Definitely not in NZ, and I'm pretty sure not in the UK and I suspect that it is only a MYTH that they can do it in the USA>

Normally OSA just whispers in a parishioners ear or two that "Those guys are blah blah.....", The rumour spreads like a wild fire, but with no evidence. It's even hard to prove where it came from. OSA whispering campaign, only the oldest and most cynical scios know how they work, and they keep it to them selves.

They used this trick on Carmel in Sydney in '97 and they are using it on us now.

What they have done with Marty's and Rinder's ethics file is unprecedented, and the largest caliber foot bullet to date. How do you think all those OTVIIs will feel about their elig sec checks and endless ethics cycles now?

New staff in the org will be aware of the the cults betrayal and be very leary of filling in their 'life histories'.

So they should be.

 

[ScudMuffin]

Does this have any factual basis in law, or is it just a nice moral idea?

Paul

There is under UK law. If you look at the old I'm Spartacus thread that Asagai had going you'll see use of the Information Comissioner and the Data Protection Act and (possibly) Freedom of Information Act. Have a read up, or pm me and I'll have a hunt around for you.

 

[Vittorio]

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA AND I HOPE THAT PEOPLE EITHER DO IT, OR STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD WITH THEIR DISCOURAGEMENT.

Fair Game etc- doesn't matter. Can you imagine the Church receiving hundreds if not a couple of thousand requests to have private data eithe returned to the individual or have it destroyed. Even if they did not bow to the request it would take a lot of their time handling this issue.

So-called Scio critics stop waffling on about 'fair game' and how the Church would not hand over/destroy this information. THE CHURCH DOES NOT FOLLOW IT'S OWN POLICY - LOOK AT LISA MCPHERSONS PC FOLDERS.

 

[CornPie]

Normally OSA just whispers in a parishioners ear or two that "Those guys are blah blah.....", The rumour spreads like a wild fire, but with no evidence. It's even hard to prove where it came from. OSA whispering campaign, only the oldest and most cynical scios know how they work, and they keep it to them selves.

They used this trick on Carmel in Sydney in '97 and they are using it on us now...

(In response to Feral's post #34 in this thread)

I have not before heard this technique referred to as a "whispering campaign", but I will research this term. Although, the following three definitions, with some overlap, also seem to cover this nasty technique:

B) Noisy Investigation: Used by the Church of Scientology to intimidate, harass, and attack their enemies. The goal of a noisy investigation is not be to find out anything, but to harass the person being investigated.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_investigation

C) Dead Agenting: Policy by scientology to "attack the attacker", scientology's term for this is "dead agenting."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_agenting#.22Dead_agenting.22

D) Black PR: Negative PR is a process of destroying a person or corporation's reputation. Finding all of the dirty secrets of their target and turning them against them. Also known as a dirty tricks or a smear campaign is a long and a complex operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_PR

The part that amazes me, is that OSA and their army of PI's use these techniques, and so effectively convince non-parishioners to participate, to spread the whispering "like wildfire", but not say anything to the person being Black-PR'd.

Other scientology harassment and gaslighting techniques are in my post #78 of this thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11792

 

[Takin Time]

I have not before heard this technique referred to as a "whispering campaign", but I will research this term. Although, the following three definitions, with some overlap, also seem to cover this nasty technique:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisper_campaign

Why does there have to be a "Scientological definition" for what OSA does?

We see it. We call it like we see it. No scio-terms are necessary to understand the communication.

 

[Feral]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisper_campaign

Why does there have to be a "Scientological definition" for what OSA does?

We see it. We call it like we see it. No scio-terms are necessary to understand the communication.

Thanks TT.

 

[CornPie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisper_campaign

Why does there have to be a "Scientological definition" for what [Black PR and harassment] OSA [and their army of PI's] does?

We see it. We call it like we see it. No scio-terms are necessary to understand the communication.

YOU see it [a whisper campaign], and I see it, and many Ex-scientologists see it. But by and large, I don't think most people recognize Black-PR as it's happening, or even later on. And that's why this nasty tactic is SO effective for filthy-scientology.

Prior to a few days ago, I had never heard of the term "gaslighting", which scientology does so much of. But upon hearing that definition, a lot of things became more clear to me, that they (and their army of paid PI's) were doing it to be subtle, and not "provable", in order to head-screw the harass-ee. For me, just knowing definitions of the terms, helped me to "sub-divide" occurences from my past; from plain old "harassment" into other more distinct terms such as; "gaslighting", "noisy investigation", "whispering campaign", etc.

As to why I think there needs to be a "scientological definition", it's because they DO it so much, screwing with the heads of their "enemies". They thrive on it, are famous for it, giggle and brag about it openly. Sort of like Tommy Davis did a couple of days ago, when he "DA'd" the four people who spoke out against the "church", some of them with information from their confessional files -- this is unprecedented. I think scientology is in a league all of their own, scientology is s*** on my shoe, and I'm not going to play fair with the c*** suckers. And you are, of course right, that no separate definition "should" be necessary. But considering what I've just said, I'll admit it makes me feel good, because I f***ing hate scientology.

Thanks for the Wikipedia link, on that web page I found some other similar terms:

. Smear campaign
. Dirty tricks
. Defamation
. FUD