Can Mosey Get an Order to Depose David Miscavige?

Stat

Gold Meritorious Patron
I know it didn't happen (yet), but you never know:

Judge: Captain Miscavige, please explain your title.
David: I was appointed so by Commodore Hubbard.
Judge: Thank you, Captain. Please take a seat.

(The judge and almost everyone in the court room are bursting in laughs uncontrollably,
while trying to act like they are sneezing, coughing, crying and face palming).
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
In response to Mike Rinder's declaration, we get Chris Mann explaining:



chrismann9 says:
December 4, 2013 at 9:14 pm


I actually read all the books like “A Piece of Blue Sky”, “Messiah or Madman”, etc, before I ever went into an Org. Even though I took most of the data in those books with a grain of salt, I did have the concept that seemes to fit to this day that LRH could have a “bad temper”, possibly leaving the occasional person a bit too singed around the edges. I’, certain that an examination in present time of all his words and writings and actions will not meet everyones standards. I guess I just dont get the point. There is no such person. Maybe some people thought he was or is a perfect being, simmilar to how Jesus or “God” is promoted in some religions? I don’t know who did that, but I can see alot of that came from Miscavige and the Church after LRH died. I think he built up his image so he could use it’s power the way priests have for ages. LRH is the Sun God and Miscavige is the Mayan priest.

Brian's response was OK, but I would have been more direct.

If you can read those 2 books, documenting the Moonchild, the lies about education, the thefts, the chain locker, Operation Snow White, Operation Freak Out, and all the rest, and come away with the idea that all that was wrong was Hubbard's temper?

You're a fucking idiot who needs to re-do grammar school reading comprehension.

It's that simple.
 

koki

Silver Meritorious Patron
I know it didn't happen (yet), but you never know:

Judge: Captain Miscavige, please explain your title.
David: I was appointed so by Commodore Hubbard.
Judge: Thank you, Captain. Please take a seat.

(The judge and almost everyone in the court room are bursting in laughs uncontrollably,
while trying to act like they are sneezing, coughing, crying and face palming).

the story in video is not funny,and Iam sorry for all of them...
but I just see it as this-imagine judge as interviewer, and DM as the poor guy...:biggrin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFWgKl-O-A
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat

And then it happened...3 nights ago...

With all the Internet reporting, with all the YouTube horror stories, with Twitter and Google, and message boards and blogs, and with law suits describing their misconduct in depth...

They did it again !!!!!!
No different than Armie Lerma days.

They arrived. The confiscated his computers, his lap top and hard drives for OSA. He was kicked out of house to live on the street. His wife went postal on him in a lunatic explosion for reading the Internet and befriending Indies

He rushed to his work space, quickly changed passwords (his sons had Admin access), he secured what he could in the early hours of the morning and he got a Lawyer.

A Church member of 40 years with a RAID taking away his personal computer and his private papers and belongings and thrown out on the street in the middle of the night and locks changed.



God, Karen, that is fucking scary. I, too, didn't think they'd actually still pull a stunt like this after all these years and the backlash they got when they did this to Arnie.

Really fucking sad about his family.

EDIT: Forgot Emma's got confiscated a few years ago, and others that has happened to. Yeah, I guess they're still at it.
 
Last edited:

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations


Read through all of the declarations and updated the Cast of Characters Cheat Sheet for Rathbun v Miscavige here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...or-harrassment&p=883942&viewfull=1#post883942

I've a few questions specific to the declarations - okay, more than a few questions - but two specific questions above all others are important enough to ask now...

In Mercy Lingenfelter's declaration, she states that before she and her husband left the Sea Org, they were both subjected to 'sec checks'. That didn't surprise me as I've read about such 'sec checks' numerous times here at ESMB.
She states, however, that their 'sec checks' were administered by RTC personnel.

I assume she means that the 'sec checks' were administered by Sea Org members who were simultaneously assigned to RTC.
Q#1: Is my assumption correct, ESMB members?

Q#2: Can someone who is not a Sea Org member administer a 'sec check'?

JB
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations

Read through all of the declarations and updated the Cast of Characters Cheat Sheet for Rathbun v Miscavige here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...or-harrassment&p=883942&viewfull=1#post883942

I've a few questions specific to the declarations - okay, more than a few questions - but two specific questions above all others are important enough to ask now...

In Mercy Lingenfelter's declaration, she states that before she and her husband left the Sea Org, they were both subjected to 'sec checks'. That didn't surprise me as I've read about such 'sec checks' numerous times here at ESMB.
She states, however, that their 'sec checks' were administered by RTC personnel.

I assume she means that the 'sec checks' were administered by Sea Org members who were simultaneously assigned to RTC.
Q#1: Is my assumption correct, ESMB members?

Q#2: Can someone who is not a Sea Org member administer a 'sec check'?

JB


Not sure if I understand the RTC question. RTC staff are Sea Org.

Any auditor trained to the level can give a sec check. (I think it's Level II on the Academy Levels, IIRC.) You have to train on the FPRD course to do sec checks FPRD style. And if the person who is getting sec checked is OT, the auditor has to be OT. (Not totally sure if they have to be trained to the pc's case level.)
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations

Not sure if I understand the RTC question. RTC staff are Sea Org.

Any auditor trained to the level can give a sec check. (I think it's Level II on the Academy Levels, IIRC.) You have to train on the FPRD course to do sec checks FPRD style. And if the person who is getting sec checked is OT, the auditor has to be OT. (Not totally sure if they have to be trained to the pc's case level.)

Thanks, LuluBelle.
Sorry I wasn't clear.

If anyone in the Sea Org wants to leave, must the departure 'sec check(s)' be administered only by another Sea Org member?
Or can it be administered by someone not in the Sea Org, trained as you state above, on the appropriate level?

A staff member whose 5-yr contract is almost up -- would that non-sea-org person undergo a 'sec check' prior to leaving staff? If so, would the 'sec check' have to be administered by a Sea Org member?

JB
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations

Thanks, LuluBelle.
Sorry I wasn't clear.

If anyone in the Sea Org wants to leave, must the departure 'sec check(s)' be administered only by another Sea Org member?
Or can it be administered by someone not in the Sea Org, trained as you state above, on the appropriate level?

A staff member whose 5-yr contract is almost up -- would that non-sea-org person undergo a 'sec check' prior to leaving staff? If so, would the 'sec check' have to be administered by a Sea Org member?

JB

In the Sea Org, only Sea Org members may audit other Sea Org members.

For an auditor to be able to administer a sec check, they have to have completed Level II, as LuluBelle stated above. If the person needing the security check is OT, they require a higher trained auditor. Anyone who is OT I - IV would need a Class VIII auditor. Anyone who is OT V or above would require a Class IX auditor.

To train as Class IX you have to be Sea Org. For Class VIII, you do not have to be Sea Org to do the training, but you cannot audit any OT's if you are not in the Sea Org, even if you are trained on Class VIII. Class VIII does teach how to audit OT's, but it is mainly a course about "Standard Tech" (excuse me while I barf. Ok I am back). Call it a status thing to be trained as a Class VIII. Some public like to be audited by a Class VIII as well. They can deliver lower level auditing (Bridge) as well.

-----

As far as Class V staff, I don't think they have to get sec checked. I really don't know because I was in the Sea Org, which is different. As far as I would guess, they don't have to get a sec check, but if they are not planning to re-sign the 5 year contract, I am pretty sure they would get ethics and maybe sec checking. Depending on the case level of that person, it could be done in the org. Most of these handlings would be directed/overseen by the Executive Director of the org. Depending on how badly that person was needed in the org (if they were an exec, or auditor or other tech training), the Sea Org org overseeing that Class V org may get involved and order that person up to the local Sea Org base to get a sec check and other clean-up.

It is automatically assumed that if you don't want to continue on staff that you are out ethics and need ethics handlings. That is any org, any level.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations

In the Sea Org, only Sea Org members may audit other Sea Org members.

For an auditor to be able to administer a sec check, they have to have completed Level II, as LuluBelle stated above. If the person needing the security check is OT, they require a higher trained auditor. Anyone who is OT I - IV would need a Class VIII auditor. Anyone who is OT V or above would require a Class IX auditor.

To train as Class IX you have to be Sea Org. For Class VIII, you do not have to be Sea Org to do the training, but you cannot audit any OT's if you are not in the Sea Org, even if you are trained on Class VIII. Class VIII does teach how to audit OT's, but it is mainly a course about "Standard Tech" (excuse me while I barf. Ok I am back). Call it a status thing to be trained as a Class VIII. Some public like to be audited by a Class VIII as well. They can deliver lower level auditing (Bridge) as well.


This isn't how it was when I was in.

1) Public audited Sea Org staff all the time. As a matter of fact, the only way most SO staff were able to get auditing was to have a student auditor audit them. I got pretty much my whole lower Bridge from public Briefing Course students. I also got sec checks from Non-SO auditors, though in the later years I think this practice was curtailed. However, I don't remember an actual issue of any kind forbidding public to do sec checks on Sea Org staff.

2) It didn't used to be that anyone OT I to IV needed a Class VIII auditor. Not that I remember, anyway. I think as long as the auditor was OT Grad V was OK.

3) OTs were able to be audited by non-Sea Org personnel, as long as the level was below NOTs (New OT V). The AOLA HGC had several NSO (non Sea Org) auditors over the years who did pretty much all of the OT IVs, eligibility sec checks and other prep actions. The Solo HGC had NSO tech people also who did repairs, etc.


I left in the mid 90s and all of the above was true up until when I left, I think.

Bea (and anyone else who would know): can you tell me when all of this changed?
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations

This isn't how it was when I was in.

1) Public audited Sea Org staff all the time. As a matter of fact, the only way most SO staff were able to get auditing was to have a student auditor audit them. I got pretty much my whole lower Bridge from public Briefing Course students. I also got sec checks from Non-SO auditors, though in the later years I think this practice was curtailed. However, I don't remember an actual issue of any kind forbidding public to do sec checks on Sea Org staff.

2) It didn't used to be that anyone OT I to IV needed a Class VIII auditor. Not that I remember, anyway. I think as long as the auditor was OT Grad V was OK.

3) OTs were able to be audited by non-Sea Org personnel, as long as the level was below NOTs (New OT V). The AOLA HGC had several NSO (non Sea Org) auditors over the years who did pretty much all of the OT IVs, eligibility sec checks and other prep actions. The Solo HGC had NSO tech people also who did repairs, etc.


I left in the mid 90s and all of the above was true up until when I left, I think.

Bea (and anyone else who would know): can you tell me when all of this changed?

I was a public at a Class 5 org and I was on OT levels. I audited Sea Org staff and normal org staff and it didn't make any difference whether it was a sec-check or not.

Also, the rule on who could audit me, as an OT, was simply that they had to have the same case level as me or higher. Nothing to do with training level.

This was in the late 80's to mid 90's.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
If DM is deposed what are the possible downsides for him?

Can he on the basis of his deposition be charged with crimes?
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
If DM is deposed what are the possible downsides for him?

Can he on the basis of his deposition be charged with crimes?

I don't know the answer to that but I would have thought the biggest problem for Miscavige is that there is so much information coming out now that the IRS must be under huge pressure to pull the plug on the tax exemption scam.

If that happens, and the CofS can no longer claim to be a religion then they can be treated as any other corporation and then his whole house of cards could come tumbling down.
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
When I was SSO CCI, we were able to have public audit the staff. But only staff, who, how can I put this, in good standing? Those who were going up the bridge, and regular repairs. Not those in ethics trouble.

We did let public audit from about 91 to 93 or 94. But it became a problem particularly at CCI because the staff deal with celebrities and some of the things they would say were confidential celeb information (it would come up in their session as an overt dealing with a celeb or something. Many of the celebs were not "out" as Scientologists so it became a security issue).

------

Absolutely no way a public could audit staff who wanted to leave the Sea Org. That has been true a long time. At least while I was at CCI 91 onward.

------

All the non-SO were cleaned out of Sea Org bases around 1991/92. Tech trained or not, they were out.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations

I was a public at a Class 5 org and I was on OT levels. I audited Sea Org staff and normal org staff and it didn't make any difference whether it was a sec-check or not.

Also, the rule on who could audit me, as an OT, was simply that they had to have the same case level as me or higher. Nothing to do with training level.

This was in the late 80's to mid 90's.


This is pretty much what I remember too.

However, Bea was in longer than I was. I left when GAT was just starting. I think that things were changing about what training level you had to be and who could audit who around when I was leaving.

For instance, it changed at that time that all NOTs auditors had to be Class VIII. Since the early 80s you could become a NOTs auditor after Grad V.

It would make total sense that public were no longer going to be allowed to audit staff considering the climate of Scientology that was moving in around that time. All the stuff about confidentiality and secrecy and paranoia about stuff "getting out".

What Bea said is probably correct in terms of the current rules.
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations

I was a public at a Class 5 org and I was on OT levels. I audited Sea Org staff and normal org staff and it didn't make any difference whether it was a sec-check or not.

Also, the rule on who could audit me, as an OT, was simply that they had to have the same case level as me or higher. Nothing to do with training level.

This was in the late 80's to mid 90's.

How did they audit you with the extra commands that are used on OT's if they are not trained on those? Did they not do the ownership steps?
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Monique Rathbun vs. Scientology: Affidavits Declarations

How did they audit you with the extra commands that are used on OT's if they are not trained on those? Did they not do the ownership steps?

They either just audited using the normal non-OT method or else did it OT-style on a "read it, drill it, do it" basis.

The only problem with doing it OT-style was that the worksheets were then highly confidential and had to be kept away from the prying eyes of any non-OT personnel.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
It's really quite simple with all this who can audit who stuff. The CoS has always just made shit up as they go along. That includes policy.....in fact that especially includes policy. Although they say differently, it really doesn't mean a damn thing what is written. Policy is at the whim of the one(s) who holds the whip. It is always subject to change, and sometimes with no warning.
 
Last edited:

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
When I was SSO CCI, we were able to have public audit the staff. But only staff, who, how can I put this, in good standing? Those who were going up the bridge, and regular repairs. Not those in ethics trouble.

We did let public audit from about 91 to 93 or 94. But it became a problem particularly at CCI because the staff deal with celebrities and some of the things they would say were confidential celeb information (it would come up in their session as an overt dealing with a celeb or something. Many of the celebs were not "out" as Scientologists so it became a security issue).

------

Absolutely no way a public could audit staff who wanted to leave the Sea Org. That has been true a long time. At least while I was at CCI 91 onward.

------

All the non-SO were cleaned out of Sea Org bases around 1991/92. Tech trained or not, they were out.


I think the real thing is: most of the who can and can't audit who stuff that changed in the last ten or twenty years doesn't have anything to do with technical reasons. There's no technical reason why any auditor who is trained to do sec checks can't sec check staff.

It all has to do with "confidentiality" and not letting the shit that goes on in the orgs leak out.

Just like there's no technical reason a non Sea Org Class VIII can't do OT IVs and set ups on OT public. It's because all the NSO were kicked out of the SO Orgs (like Bea said).

So that's why a lot of this seems kind of arbitrary.

Because it is.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
It's really quite simple with all this who can audit who stuff. The CoS has always just made shit up as they go along. That includes policy.....in fact that especially includes policy. Although they say differently, it really doesn't make a goddamn shit what is written. Policy is at the whim of the one(s) who holds the whip. It is always subject to change, and sometimes with no warning.

we pretty much said the same thing at the same time. :)
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think the real thing is: most of the who can and can't audit who stuff that changed in the last ten or twenty years doesn't have anything to do with technical reasons. There's no technical reason why any auditor who is trained to do sec checks can't sec check staff.

It all has to do with "confidentiality" and not letting the shit that goes on in the orgs leak out.

Just like there's no technical reason a non Sea Org Class VIII can't do OT IVs and set ups on OT public. It's because all the NSO were kicked out of the SO Orgs (like Bea said).

So that's why a lot of this seems kind of arbitrary.

Because it is.

I remember giving a Sea Org member a sec check that was in relation to him wanting to route out. At one point he kind of hinted that he'd told someone he wanted to leave (telling someone you want to leave staff is a serious offence in Scientology) but he didn't mention the name of the person and I didn't ask. I didn't need to - we both knew it was me! He'd told me in the pub a few days before.

Phew, another withhold gotten rid of.:ohmy:
 
Top