David Mayo's Contribution to SOLO NOT'S is ?

AnonKat

Crusader
DAVID MAYO AFFIDAVIT
1 May 1987

http://whyaretheydead.info/krasel/aff_dm87.html

10. The technology of Dianetics and Scientology is a product of the efforts of many people, including myself, and among others, Melanie Murray, Julie Mayo, Merrill Mayo, Dona Haber, Brian Livingston, and Phoebe Mauer. Moreover, I am the primary source of NOTs and SOLO NOTs

11. During my affiliation with the Church of Scientology, I only attributed discovery and authorship of the tech to L. Ron Hubbard because I was compelled to do so as an article of faith of the Church. It is the policy of the Church to require all tech to be attributed to L Ron Hubbard

12. At no time have I been in the employ of L Ron Hubbard.

Marty Rathbun's Blog

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/20...s-the-latest-in-reverse-scientology/#comments

Virgil Samms // June 10, 2010 at 6:15 pm | Reply

Let me illustrate how Scientology, when correctly appllied, drives throngs of people into orgs:

David Mayo gets called to where LRH is because LRH is dying. Mayo reviews LRH’s folder and finds he’s been getting a lot of Dianetics and getting worse.

Mayo then developes techniques to handle LRH’s situation and it pulls LRH out of it. LRH says – Man – that was good stuff. Let’s bottle that and sell it.

Mayo and LRH codify the techniques and calls it Ned for OTs. They export it to FSO. FSO trains up auditors for all of the AOs on the planet.

The NOTs auditors return to AOLA and staert ausiting. All of a sudden AOLA is selling NOTS like no tomorrow. Regges are flat out selling with LINES, yes LINES waiting for the reges at AOLA to buy NOTS. AOLA GI goes over $600,000 weekly for close to 3 years as a result. Theother AOs boom similarly. It is a hugely successful RD.

The reason NOTS was so popular is because it WORKED really well. People raved about it. Word of mouth spread to all of the field and drove in every OT who was off the bridge. The result was more and more public in on the lower orgs who then went OT and onto NOTs and then SOLO NOTS.

It was a good boom.

DM, the evil dragon, enters the scene. He deep-sixes May0, changes SOLO NOTS and people start dying. Orgs start drying up.

End of Story.

ML Tom


martyrathbun09 // June 10, 2010 at 8:24 pm | Reply

Virgil,
Fact correction: Mayo did not develop anything. The original NOTs issues are nearly verbatim LRH’s spoken words transcribed and put into issue form by Mayo.


Jim Logan // June 11, 2010 at 12:07 am

Marty,
Preeeeeeecisely!
 

lurkanon

Patron with Honors
Outstanding catch, thank you. Now THIS is a classic example showing that Marty deliberately lies when it suits him. Anyone who was in and on-lines in the early 1990s remembers well the denigration of "Mayo NOTs" as they were called, also mocked as "Mayonaisse". Every org on the planet heard how these NOTs had been pulled because they were developed by the "squirrell", Mayo, and not LRH. Regardless of the merit or not of the NOTs, EVERYONE onlines worldwide knew that Mayo developed them. So here are Marty and lapdog Logan caught in an OUTRIGHT LIE.

 

AnonKat

Crusader
Outstanding catch, thank you. Now THIS is a classic example showing that Marty deliberately lies when it suits him. Anyone who was in and on-lines in the early 1990s remembers well the denigration of "Mayo NOTs" as they were called, also mocked as "Mayonaisse". Every org on the planet heard how these NOTs had been pulled because they were developed by the "squirrell", Mayo, and not LRH. Regardless of the merit or not of the NOTs, EVERYONE onlines worldwide knew that Mayo developed them. So here are Marty and lapdog Logan caught in an OUTRIGHT LIE.

Further valuable info on David Mayo from Michel Snoeck

http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_story_of_mayo.html
 

Peter Soderqvist

Patron with Honors
Soderqvist1: Marty Rathbun claims this without providing Hubbard’s alleged spoken words (I suppose it is Hubbard’s research notes he means, which was transcribed by David Mayo into usable forms). These Loyalists has also claimed that Miscavige gave Hubbard false reports about what was going on in the CoS, and Hubbard the author of Science of Survival, the science of predicting Human behavior, and the author of SP/PT’s technology, Hubbard the most able person on the planet acted on these reports from the pretty unknown Miscavige, and eradicated or SP declared most of his close friends he did know. Why did Hubbard find Miscavige so credible, but not his old friends? These Loyalists claim this without even providing these so called false reports, and yet expect to be believed! Marty is not credible, to say the least!

Affidavit by David Mayo 1994
14. On August 29, 1982, David Miscavige, and others, acting on the orders of L. Ron Hubbard, kidnapped me and subsequently kept me captive and physically and mentally abused me for six months. During this period, David Miscavage, an officer and director of RTC, told me in the presence of Vicki Aznaran, President of RTC, Mark Yaeger, Commanding Officer, CMO INT of CSI that if I ever escaped, he would personally see to it that the resources of the Church of Scientology would destroy my character and reputation internationally. During that six-month period of captivity, I was forced to run around a tree in the desert in temperatures of up to 110 degrees for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 3 months I was under tremendous coercion and duress.

I was refused medical and dental treatment (after escaping captivity I lost six teeth and required thousands of dollars of dental work to save the rest of my teeth). I was not permitted to make or receive phone calls and all letters I wrote were read by Scientology security guards. I was often awakened during the night and interrogated (mainly by Jesse Prince ). In early February 1983, I was told by Rick Aznaran, Director of Security, RTC, (husband of Vicki Aznaran, President of RTC), to get the idea of leaving out of my head because I would never leave the property alive.

15. From 1983 through to the present, Plaintiffs have engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy me in accordance with the Scientology "Fair Game Law," which allows opponents of the Church to be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
http://holysmoke.org/dm/dmayo005.htm

The Ever-Changing Tech of Scientology By Jesse Prince
A new NOTs course was issued, and a mad panic ensued to train auditors and case supervisors to deliver the new OT levels internationally. I was sent down to Flag to be one of the people that trained the auditors and case supervisors, and this was a very daunting task. David Mayo was the person who introduced NOTs to everyone, and he was traveling back and forth from Int (Gilman Hot Springs) to Flag (Clearwater) every month. He would instruct us to train the students to audit in a certain way, but then when he came back the next month to check on how everyone was doing, it would all change. Every time David came the "tech" changed, so what an auditor learned in March would change by April.

I had a lot of trouble training the NOTs auditors. Some auditors grumbled that Mayo was making up the NOTs tech as he went along. Others were upset because they thought Mayo had a hidden data line to LRH. In Scientology, a "hidden data line" means someone is getting info from LRH that isn't written in a policy, bulletin or tape. In fact, as I would learn when I was promoted to RTC three years later, Mayo was making it up as he went along because he was the main author of the NOTs tech. It was also true that he had a hidden data line to LRH because Mayo had been auditing LRH on NOTs before anyone else knew anything about it. Mayo's name was on every bulletin concerning NOTs, and rightly so, because he wrote the bulletins.

Later, in 1982, LRH got the idea that Mayo was sympathetic to the mission holders, who were trying to take over Scientology, or so LRH thought. So LRH ordered that Mayo be taken off post as Senior Case Supervisor International - Senior C/S Int, that is. He ordered him and all the Senior C/S Int staff onto the Running Program, had them all labeled security risks, and finally had them all declared Suppressive. (Mayo opened his own auditing center, known as the Advanced Ability Center, in Santa Barbara after he was booted out by LRH. I was one of the people in charge of sending plants into the AAC to make sure it was totally destroyed, and we succeeded in destroying Mayo and his center.)

RTC brought a RICO suit against Mayo, because he had AAC centers all over the world and Mayo's centers were making a lot more money than the Scientology orgs were. The RICO charges were based on the idea that Mayo had stolen the NOTs materials. Mayo's defense was that he had been the primary author of the materials anyway. The suit went on and on, and it was becoming clear that Mayo was going to win the suit. So finally RTC offered Mayo a hefty settlement in return for keeping his mouth closed about being the main author of the NOTs materials. The last I heard of Mayo, he was driving a Ferrari.
http://www.lermanet.com/prince/

Soderqvist1: I also claim that L. Ron Hubbard is not the source of the tech in the main, but others are which he has stolen, he only organized it, and then perverted it, as I have proved in this thread!
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&th=541&start=0&S=988a549aaa6a28a3dcaa9787134b9d7d
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Outstanding catch, thank you. Now THIS is a classic example showing that Marty deliberately lies when it suits him. Anyone who was in and on-lines in the early 1990s remembers well the denigration of "Mayo NOTs" as they were called, also mocked as "Mayonaisse". Every org on the planet heard how these NOTs had been pulled because they were developed by the "squirrell", Mayo, and not LRH. Regardless of the merit or not of the NOTs, EVERYONE onlines worldwide knew that Mayo developed them. So here are Marty and lapdog Logan caught in an OUTRIGHT LIE.

Not so.

I read exactly the same thing on the XSO list a few years ago, written by a very-well-thought-of person who was directly on the LRH transcription lines. Hubbard dictated all his orders ("advices") and issues and they was transcribed by others. My understanding is that those non-evil transcriptionists produced a verbatim transcript of what Hubbard had dictated, and Mayo tidied it up as needed.

Affidavits are proof of nothing beyond being an official account from someone. Miscavige routinely lied extensively in sworn affidavits, as demonstrated by Larry Brennan in his free PDF (at http://www.paulsrabbit.com :)). They might be considered to have more weight from being sworn to under penalty of perjury, but that doesn't automatically make them true reports of events.

Paul
 

Peter Soderqvist

Patron with Honors
Dulloldfart where are these so-called advices which predates NOT’s?
Why was David Mayo going to win the RICO suit, which Marty certainly knows about, as he has been the RTC General Inspector, working directly under David Miscavige?
 

lurkanon

Patron with Honors
Paul, the fact remains that everyone IN the orgs was told that Mayo had authored the NOTS, which is why they were pulled. And the pulled NOTS were called "MAYO NOTS" and "Mayonaisse". This line came directly from DM, and Rathburn was there at the time. I know. I was there. We have a whopper here. Lies within lies within lies.

Not so.

I read exactly the same thing on the XSO list a few years ago, written by a very-well-thought-of person who was directly on the LRH transcription lines. Hubbard dictated all his orders ("advices") and issues and they was transcribed by others. My understanding is that those non-evil transcriptionists produced a verbatim transcript of what Hubbard had dictated, and Mayo tidied it up as needed.

Affidavits are proof of nothing beyond being an official account from someone. Miscavige routinely lied extensively in sworn affidavits, as demonstrated by Larry Brennan in his free PDF (at http://www.paulsrabbit.com :)). They might be considered to have more weight from being sworn to under penalty of perjury, but that doesn't automatically make them true reports of events.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Dulloldfart where are these so-called advices which predates NOT’s?
I'm just talking about LRH advices generally, which have been written about extensively online. I don't mean NOTs advices.

Why was David Mayo going to win the RICO suit, which Marty certainly knows about, as he has been the RTC General Inspector, working directly under David Miscavige?

I know nothing about the RICO suit and am not going to research it so that I can give an informed opinion.

Personally I don't care if the NOTs issues came from DM's mother in a dream, so I don't have any interest here beyond establishing the truth.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Paul, the fact remains that everyone IN the orgs was told that Mayo had authored the NOTS, which is why they were pulled. And the pulled NOTS were called "MAYO NOTS" and "Mayonaisse". This line came directly from DM, and Rathburn was there at the time. I know. I was there. We have a whopper here. Lies within lies within lies.

Just because staff were told something doesn't make it true! This is the CofS we are talking about. Hearsay is hearsay, whatever its disguise.

Paul
 

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
Marty

I feel very sad every time I hear Marty lying. I guess Marty is still wearing the dirty hat he was wearing in the Sea Org: "Protect LRH and Scientology by using lies and deception".

Still loyal to Hubbard. :duh:

It is sad because life is much more enjoyable when you get rid of false Masters and embrace honesty and self integrity.

Richard Bach's gold words are the lesson he hasn't yet learnt :
"Your only obligation in any lifetime is to be true to yourself.
Being true to anyone else or anything else is not only impossible,
but the mark of a false messiah."

Mayo

David Mayo never took credit for the full development of NOTs, he stated he significantly contributed to it.

In 1978 after a stroke LRH was ill, dumb, could die any time. Mayo audited him and developed new techniques along the way that had LRH recover. How LRH could have passed the new technology to Mayo while in his barely conscious state?

Once in a better shape LRH may have contributed or even take over and refined the technology and come up with the theory behind NOTs but it is simply silly and stupid (and evil) to claim that the source of every piece of tech is LRH.


Also (link):

4 June 1991

Memorandum Opinion And Order in RTC v Robin Scott:

This motion revives the issue of authorship of certain Scientology scriptures called NOTs. RTC argues that the "work made for hire" doctrine, as codified by the Copyright Act of 1976, necessarily imputes authorship of NOTs to Hubbard whether he or David Mayo actually created the materials.

The thrust of the defendants opposition is that Mayo was not an employee of Hubbard when Mayo developed the NOTs materials.

The court finds that it is an established fact that Mayo substantially participated in the drafting of NOTs. Ordinarily the creator of a written work is the author. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 treats "works made for hire" differently. If the written work is a work made for hire, "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author." 17 U.S.C. section 201(a).

RTC submitted documents to the court showing that Mayo was hired by CSC to perform work under the supervision of Hubbard. The court rejects that Hubbard was Mayo's employer but finds that CSC was his employer. It was established by the court that:

NOTs is based on Mayo's auditing of LRH. The Church literally follows everything Hubbard said, therefore, Hubbard's suggestions and criticism regarding the earlier drafts of NOTs would be adopted verbatim by CSC. Moreover, as reflected in the excerpted transcripts of the tapes, Hubbard actually exercised his right to control by making suggestions and criticisms.

The court determined that Mayo was an employee of CSC acting within the scope of his employment when he drafted NOTs, thus his substantial contribution to NOTs constitutes work made for hire under the Copyright Act.


tl/dr: Mayo wrote NOTs drafts but Co$ owns the copyrights being Mayo's employer at the time.

:whistling:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
http://www.xenu.net/archive/nots/rtc_caught_lying.txt

This seems to be the full original of the memorandum and opinion.

It is tricky to try and establish the truth of anything from legal rulings beyond what the actual ruling was. The CofS corporately is full of legal fictions and doesn't operate at all like it is legally stated to do. Larry Brennan has documented this extensively (see his free PDF on Miscavige's perjury at http://www.paulsrabbit.com).

The CofS will try to do whatever it wants to in legal cases, irrespective of the truth. Usually each side will try to win, irrespective of the truth, although some will hew closer to the truth than others.

Accordingly, I can't accept any statements made by any parties in court as proof of fact. I would suggest reading the original court document and deciding for yourself, based on evidence presented and also knowledge of how things actually work and what others have said over the years since.

Paul
 

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
http://www.xenu.net/archive/nots/rtc_caught_lying.txt

This seems to be the full original of the memorandum and opinion.

It is tricky to try and establish the truth of anything from legal rulings beyond what the actual ruling was. The CofS corporately is full of legal fictions and doesn't operate at all like it is legally stated to do. Larry Brennan has documented this extensively (see his free PDF on Miscavige's perjury at http://www.paulsrabbit.com).

The CofS will try to do whatever it wants to in legal cases, irrespective of the truth. Usually each side will try to win, irrespective of the truth, although some will hew closer to the truth than others.

Accordingly, I can't accept any statements made by any parties in court as proof of fact. I would suggest reading the original court document and deciding for yourself, based on evidence presented and also knowledge of how things actually work and what others have said over the years since.

Paul

Thanks Paul.
It is funny to see the Co$ beating the drums of "employer-employee" relationship then, and compare it with the Headley's case today.

There is no low for Scientology.
 

lurkanon

Patron with Honors
Just because staff were told something doesn't make it true! This is the CofS we are talking about. Hearsay is hearsay, whatever its disguise.

Paul

OK, there is definitely something here.

Let me try one last time.

David Mayo is RICO'd for using NOTs in his ACCs. His defence is that he contributed significantly to them. He loses, as I understand, on the basis that LRH authored the NOTs. Marty reinforces this on his blog. Marty sez on his blog that LRH was the sole author of the NOTs.

Meanwhile, back in the 1990s', staff and public are told the SOLO NOTS are found to be authored by the "squirrel", Mayo. Everyone who had "MAYO NOTS" is called back to have the levels cleaned up because DM (and Marty who was there) pushed the line that the MAYO NOTs were deadly, and the MAYO NOTs were not developed by LRH. This is, of course, in complete contrast to what the Co$ told the courts.

And elsewhere, I am getting the distinct impression that many of those who were around at that time, and especially techies and freezoners, would rather not look at this specific issue or go into it. Which is odd, because if it was clean, they would just state what it was.

Interesting. Missed withold phenomenon all over the place. Definitely something here.

I repeat - excellent catch, AnonKat.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
In 1978 after a stroke LRH was ill, dumb, could die any time. Mayo audited him and developed new techniques along the way that had LRH recover. How LRH could have passed the new technology to Mayo while in his barely conscious state?

What? Mayo "cured" Hubbard!! What bollocks.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
What? Mayo "cured" Hubbard!! What bollocks.

Is that an opinion, or do you have some actual data?

I understand the idea that there are many causative factors in a person's getting sick and getting better, such as (1) mental/spiritual ones, (2) environmental toxins, (3) organisms (viruses, bacteria etc.) (4) the person's own immune system and factors that support or hinder that, and (5) the person's medical history. So to say that one person cured another is ignoring many of these.

What I understand of the situation this moment is the somewhat fuzzy idea that Hubbard had been sick for a while (weeks/months) and had not been getting better, and shortly after Mayo arrived he started to get better, continued getting better, and then fully recovered (if you can call returning to his normal condition "recovering").
 

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
OK, there is definitely something here.

Let me try one last time.

David Mayo is RICO'd for using NOTs in his ACCs. His defence is that he contributed significantly to them. He loses, as I understand, on the basis that LRH authored the NOTs.

This is not correct. He loses on the basis that even if he (and not LRH) authored NOTs, he was a Co$ employee, thus he worked for Hubbard, thus Hubbard got the copyrights.
"The court finds that it is an established fact that Mayo substantially participated in the drafting of NOTs. Ordinarily the creator of a written work is the author. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 treats "works made for hire" differently. If the written work is a work made for hire, "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author." 17 U.S.C. section 201(a)."

Example: If I am a Microsoft employee, the software I author as part of my duties does not belongs to me but to Microsoft.

.
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
DoF

No. I have no documents to support my contention that Mayo DID NOT cure Hubbard. Do you have documents to support that the did?

I do know, however, from my own observations of people who have recently suffered a stroke that while the initial effects appear hugely debilitating, many "victims"/patients enjoy significant and permanent recovery within just a few weeks of the first episode. Mayo's presence was, I suspect, and statistics will confirm, coincidental rather than causative. In fact, what evidence exists would indicate that Scientology "tech" would have been an impediment to any spontaneous endogenous recovery.
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
DoF

No. I have no documents to support my contention that Mayo DID NOT cure Hubbard. Do you have documents to support that the did?

I do know, however, from my own observations of people who have recently suffered a stroke that while the initial effects appear hugely debilitating, many "victims"/patients enjoy significant and permanent recovery within just a few weeks of the first episode. Mayo's presence was, I suspect, and statistics will confirm, coincidental rather than causative. In fact, what evidence exists would indicate that Scientology "tech" would have been an impediment to any spontaneous endogenous recovery.

OK, thanks. The only dox I have are a vague recollection of online stories from SO members around at the time which agree with the general idea of Hubbard being long-term sick, Mayo arrived and did his thing, Hubbard recovered.

Did Hubbard have a stroke at that time? I don't recall any specifics of what the exact problem was. I had a stroke nine years ago so am familiar with the debilitation/recovery trip, although the two factors of "being near to death" and "complete recovery" don't really go together in Strokeland.

My thoughts about the coincidence idea are that you could be right. There are many factors. Maybe Hubbard kept himself sick as a make-wrong on everyone around him and wanted some stirring story to accompany his latest money-making tech ideas. Maybe it was mere coincidence, although if he was sick for a *long* time (if, I don't know exactly how long), then that alone would tend to negate that idea.

Paul
 

Ulf K. Maier

Patron Meritorious
Irrelevant, unless...

DoF

No. I have no documents to support my contention that Mayo DID NOT cure Hubbard. Do you have documents to support that the did?

I do know, however, from my own observations of people who have recently suffered a stroke that while the initial effects appear hugely debilitating, many "victims"/patients enjoy significant and permanent recovery within just a few weeks of the first episode. Mayo's presence was, I suspect, and statistics will confirm, coincidental rather than causative. In fact, what evidence exists would indicate that Scientology "tech" would have been an impediment to any spontaneous endogenous recovery.

THIS^^^

The authorship of the NOTs is irrelevant, as Scientology never worked, nor does it now. Let's see one real OT, per the Hubbard definition.

Instead of wasting time with this moonbat s***e, the OP should be working on a submission to the Australian Enquiry. You know, actually DOING something to take the cult down.

No one with a brain cares who wrote the sNOT, er, NOTs. "LRH" is a trademark owned by RTC, so they can issue anything over it, and call it "tech".

I guffaw'd.
 
Top