Ex-Scio Tom DeVocht: SCIENTOLOGY STOP BULLYING MY FAMILY

JustSheila

Crusader
Yes, there are some basics that cannot be signed away. What are they?
There ARE some basics that CAN be signed away, like NDAs in business.

For example, I have a consitutional right to free speech.
Does this right mean that I can violate a NDA and publish company proprietary secrets? No.

I guess it has to be spelled out on what is enforceable or not, even though a person wants to fight what they agreed to earlier.

I agree.

But I don't believe a church can also be a business. It's one or the other, not both. Two sets of rules and regulations, meant for two completely different spheres. One - business - is the body of laws relating to the sales, purchase and exchange of commodities or valuables.

The other, the church, deals with a non-commodity.

Can a church have copyright infringement? I say no. It's either a belief system or a business - not both. It has tax exempt status and other breaks due to supposedly being involved in charitable efforts to benefit society. If this is true, then whatever it holds that is spiritual for the good of society would be openly shared with society and not for the intention of making a profit. It's supposed to be a non-profit. Why the f would a non-profit care about profit? Unless, of course, it were a business.

The cult of Scientology, more than any other group, has proven the case that the separation of Church and State, of religion and government, religion and business, must be more explicitly segregated. No other group has abused the legal system for personal profit more than this cult, no other group has so repeatedly and compulsively abused its privileges to its monitary advantage at the pain of others like this one.

No other group has better pointed out our need to clarify the laws of the land, or challenged the First Amendment so hideously by using it for its personal profit, no other cult has made more blatantly obvious the urgent need to differentiate between a church and business, and clarify the seniority of human rights over the right to freely practice one's beliefs.
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hi Churchill,

There is no doubt in my mind that "Going Clear" and all the actions Anonymous and others have taken are having a major impact on public perception and that this, in turn, will have an affect on court cases.

My point is about this abuse being allowed at all. I am a born and raised American. This is not the American way. It's not the standard, the moral code or acceptable. It's just not.

It is difficult for Americans as a whole to admit that there is an error in the Constitution, but there is. There is a discrepancy built into the First Amendment due to poor wording. A bit of historical study shows that this was due to a lot of compromise - it was not Jefferson's intention. Still, it is an error and it needs clarification.

The bottom line is - a church should not, does not have the right to set aside individual rights and laws for the sake of its practices. No rules of any church are senior to the laws of the land and government under which it operates, particularly those that guarantee human rights. The moment a person feels violated, he is no longer following his beliefs and the church or organisation has no right to enforce its rules on him, whether by intimidation, physical force or any other means. Any instance of a person feeling violated and experiencing what he feels are violations of his rights by a church is a violation of his First Amendment and other rights.

Disconnection is a great example. Despite the cult's claims to the contrary, the Catholic Church does not exercise this. It merely prohibits a person from receiving sacraments - not from speaking to other members, and it certainly does not harass a person outside the church itself. If a person leaves a belief system, he is not bound to that belief system in any way, whatsoever, nor may that belief system attempt to punish or ostracise him when he is no longer a member by using his family and friends as tools against him to punish him for no longer believing. That's a violation of the First Amendment. Don't you agree? To use coercion in any form to force a person to stay with a belief system is not freedom.

All I'm saying is, maybe we need to start taking a serious look at correcting the errors that brought this about and that allow this sort of abuse to continue.

Ken and Grace Aaron, who have a son, Zachary, who disconnected from them when they were declared have a site on Religious shunning. Mark Bunkers site links to it. Scientology's deceptions and dishonesty might violate laws in a commercial setting, but not in a religious one. Hell, just look at truth in advertising laws. Scientology does not raise IQ, improve eyesight, hasn't ever ever produced an OT, but as a religion, the courts look the other way.

It used to be a mortal sin for Catholics to eat meat on Friday. After Vatican 2, this was changed, but the Catholic Church had the right to tell Catholics that eating meat on Friday was right up there with murder, another mortal sin.

Of course, Sheila, the Constitution has built-in tensions, as between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, as you noted, and courts have been divided and arguing about the Original intent of the 2nd Amendment, but I think your idea to change an admittedly imperfect document like the Constitution is a bit like rotating the person standing on the ladder, holding the light bulb, as a way of screwing in the lightbulb. It's just my opinion, of course, but the IRS decision to grant 501 C charitable status to Scientology is a much more vulnerable, and a wiser course of action. U.S. Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize Scientology's bull rap in any way. They are NOT a charitable institution.

Now that Scientology is about to be put on the radar in a very major way, I hope and expect the public outcry against the abuses and crimes to intensify. Coercive practices such as disconnection are a part of it, but I think illegal wiretapping, threats and intimidation, beatings, forced abortions,unlawful imprisonment, etc. are also very key issues.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
https://twitter.com/TomDeVo/status/578966503032119297

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • DeVocht-Tire.jpg
    DeVocht-Tire.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 260

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Tony Ortega: ‘Going Clear’ subject Tom DeVocht reveals new info about Tom Cruise and Scientology’s leader

http://tonyortega.org/2015/03/21/go...om-cruise-and-scientologys-leader/#more-21112

Excerpt from Tom DeVocht's statement:

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

n Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, I was glad to see how much Tom Cruise is put on the spot about his behavior in the church. I’ve seen others portray Tom as a kind of “victim” of Scientology. It simply isn’t true.

* * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Tom DeVocht - Stop your bullying Scientology and leave my family and my friends a

Churchill, I think it's time we really got serious about taking on the legal aspects of this. Meaning -- it's time for us to use some hard-hitting US constitutional attorneys.

The First Amendment guarantees INDIVIDUAL rights. It does not guarantee church rights, corporate rights, non-profit rights or any other group rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

The idea that a church can limit someone's speech regarding their former religion and their experiences there by the signing of documents is ludicrous. IMHO, to speak out against a church's religious beliefs or practices is the legitimate exercising of First Amendment rights.

The Garcia case - that a judge can formally insist that a former member of a cult must use arbitration procedures written within that cult's belief system, which the Garcias have long since left, and its facade framework is shocking. This violates the Garcias First Amendment rights - not just to practice their beliefs, but to fully renounce their beliefs.

Tom DeVocht and other Scientologists have repeatedly and systematically had their First Amendment and other rights stomped. A CHURCH does not have the right to enforce its beliefs on anyone. The use of physical coercion, punishment, threats, internal jails (RPF), etc., are all a violation of constitutional rights. Individuals are punished for exercising free speech or their rights to life, liberty and happiness are taken from them in the form or disconnection, harassment, intimidation and outright abuse. A CHURCH or CULT does not have individual rights, IMHO, and this is a perversion of the words of the Constitution.

It makes me sick to see laws twisted and abused this way. :puke2:

Cornell University sees this conflict of individual and group (church or cult) rights written within the First Amendment and describes it as follows:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause
[/INDENT]


Great post, Just Sheila.

I'm hoping that the compelling arguments that Gibney and Wright make in "Going Clear" will elevate both the volume and the quality of voices demanding an investigation of the Scientology "mafia" by the authorities.

Certainly, if many more people join in this effort, something of lasting benefit will be achieved.

I think it's important to always distinguish between belief and behavior. One is protected, the other is actionable.

Scientology's beliefs can and should be criticized.

But their illegal behavior must be aggressively, intelligently, and energetically prosecuted by lawful authorities.

(Marty Rathbun's recent interview with Savannah Guthrie of NBC News impressed me very much, and suggested to me that there may be many more shoes to drop)
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Tom DeVocht - Stop your bullying Scientology and leave my family and my friends a

Scientology has masterfully abused and manipulated the legal system in much the same way as the vile Westboro Baptist Church has.

The dangerous beliefs of Scientology would be constitutionally protected even if the IRS had not blundered and given them tax exempt status. Freedom of speech is meant, above all, to protect unpopular speech.

Scientology, like the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Nation of Islam , and the aforementioned Westboro Baptist Church have the right to espouse their ideas, just as Arnie Lerma has the right to espouse his.

Scientology has made it a practice, however, of frequently crossing the line of speech into behavior that is criminal. This is the area where the courts, elected officials, and the broader society, which includes all of us, has fallen short up until now. Scientology should have long ago been recognized as a criminal entity by virtue of their illegal actions, not their speech.

Wiretaps, blackmail, break-ins, beatings, espionage, unlawful imprisonment, along with corruption of public officials, and obstruction of justice are all crimes.

Miscavige is no fool. He focused on the ants, because he knows he could be charged with unlawful imprisonment, which he should have been.

Hubbard committed multiple felonies with regard to Sara Northrop, for which the statute of limitations has long expired, along with his carcass.

An Un-corrupted and untainted criminal justice approach is urgently needed, along with celebrities who will speak up. Where is today's Eliot Ness? Scientology needs to be taken down just like Al Capone was.
(End of rant)

Apologies for length - just enjoy a re-taste as you wish. Youngsters may not be familiar with the 1956 series.

[video=youtube;TNr2Ky3xkrc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNr2Ky3xkrc[/video]
 
Last edited:

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
I agree.

But I don't believe a church can also be a business. It's one or the other, not both. Two sets of rules and regulations, meant for two completely different spheres. One - business - is the body of laws relating to the sales, purchase and exchange of commodities or valuables.
Uhh
The other, the church, deals with a non-commodity.

Can a church have copyright infringement? I say no. It's either a belief system or a business - not both. It has tax exempt status and other breaks due to supposedly being involved in charitable efforts to benefit society. If this is true, then whatever it holds that is spiritual for the good of society would be openly shared with society and not for the intention of making a profit. It's supposed to be a non-profit. Why the f would a non-profit care about profit? Unless, of course, it were a business.

The cult of Scientology, more than any other group, has proven the case that the separation of Church and State, of religion and government, religion and business, must be more explicitly segregated. No other group has abused the legal system for personal profit more than this cult, no other group has so repeatedly and compulsively abused its privileges to its monitary advantage at the pain of others like this one.

No other group has better pointed out our need to clarify the laws of the land, or challenged the First Amendment so hideously by using it for its personal profit, no other cult has made more blatantly obvious the urgent need to differentiate between a church and business, and clarify the seniority of human rights over the right to freely practice one's beliefs.


What she said.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Tom DeVocht - Stop your bullying Scientology and leave my family and my friends a

Churchill, I think it's time we really got serious about taking on the legal aspects of this. Meaning -- it's time for us to use some hard-hitting US constitutional attorneys.

The First Amendment guarantees INDIVIDUAL rights. It does not guarantee church rights, corporate rights, non-profit rights or any other group rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

The idea that a church can limit someone's speech regarding their former religion and their experiences there by the signing of documents is ludicrous. IMHO, to speak out against a church's religious beliefs or practices is the legitimate exercising of First Amendment rights.

The Garcia case - that a judge can formally insist that a former member of a cult must use arbitration procedures written within that cult's belief system, which the Garcias have long since left, and its facade framework is shocking. This violates the Garcias First Amendment rights - not just to practice their beliefs, but to fully renounce their beliefs.

Tom DeVocht and other Scientologists have repeatedly and systematically had their First Amendment and other rights stomped. A CHURCH does not have the right to enforce its beliefs on anyone. The use of physical coercion, punishment, threats, internal jails (RPF), etc., are all a violation of constitutional rights. Individuals are punished for exercising free speech or their rights to life, liberty and happiness are taken from them in the form or disconnection, harassment, intimidation and outright abuse. A CHURCH or CULT does not have individual rights, IMHO, and this is a perversion of the words of the Constitution.

It makes me sick to see laws twisted and abused this way. :puke2:

Cornell University sees this conflict of individual and group (church or cult) rights written within the First Amendment and describes it as follows:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause
[/INDENT]

Wow Sheila I am so glad you posted this..it has been very helpful to me as regards my concern of the '1st Amendment'.

In fact on March 14th I made some comments on Tony Ortega's Blog the Underground Bunker regarding this issue.

by ME... (Dchoice)
I think there needs to be an amendment to the the 1st. Where in the rights granted in free exercise

of beliefs cannot be senior or override the other rights given the greater community (citizens) in

the constitution. And most certainly not exempt from purview and adjudication as to benefit or equity

in that respect in a court. (I feel that the courts have gone astray on this since at least since

the late 19th century).

I feel that contract law also intertwines with this but as I am not a lawyer nor diligent layman

student of law I am unable at this time to even make an clear opinion on this.

I would love to hear or learn more about this by anyone familiar with these laws.

True justice is just not being arrived at. Especially in regards this case.
====================

Me to TX Lawyer


This is so close to what is wrong ( or wrongly adjudicated) with the 1st Amendment and decisions

related thereto. It enables, as shown so far in this case, a religious community and their beliefs to

be above the trier of fact and adjudication of the court of the whole land. In essence is establishes

or at least permits an entity, free to curtail and harm the rights of others, to exist within the the

USA. The potential for treason against the nation and its citizens is the anti-social `53rd card in

the deck that is surreptitiously injecting into the 52 card game.
How is a Judge and the court system ever going to be a trier of facts when that 53rd card can never

be tried.?

Whatever happened to equality under the law?

=====================





and from your link.. ( underlining is done by me)


.... Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. E.g., Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. McConnell explains:

If there is a constitutional requirement for accommodation of religious conduct, it will most likely be found in the Free Exercise Clause. Some say, though, that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to give any special benefit or recognition of religion. In that case, we have a First Amendment in conflict with itself—the Establishment Clause forbidding what the Free Exercise Clause requires.[4]


And although this could be an entire thread on it's own.. I do belief it is extremely pertinent to Tom DeVocht's situation and in fact the Fair Game extremism as incited by Hubbard. Any Legislature and Judicial system worth their weight would look at the 1st, and the actions of scientology and say holy crap...we need to fix the laws to protect our citizens and our country because cults are operating well outside the intent of the Supreme Law of the USA.
 
Last edited:

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
There are, and need to be limits.

Freedom of religion does not protect violent Islamic Jihad as religious expression any more than it should provide cover for Scientology's fraudulent & dishonest claims of a "science" of mental health, or the Jihad that Scientologists wage against critics and "apostates."
 
Last edited:

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
There are, and need to be limits.

Freedom of religion does not protect violent Islamic Jihad as religious expression any more than it should provide cover for Scientology's fraudulent & dishonest claims of a "science" of mental health, or the Jihad that Scientologists practice against critics and "apostates."

The First Amendment should be about individual rights, not organizational rights.
 

hummingbird

Patron with Honors
The First Amendment should be about individual rights, not organizational rights.

Should be, but in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that "As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

This is the first step towards corporations being granted the same constitutional rights as us little people.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Should be, but in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that "As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

This is the first step towards corporations being granted the same constitutional rights as us little people.

That decision was five senile, Catholic old coots trying desperately to codify their religion into law. There are already some challenges, and I expect that decision to be "reversed" in the way the Supremes usually "reverse" their decisions without actually reversing them - by narrowing the applicable scope of the previous decision until it's impossible to meet the narrowed criteria.

Sorta similar to the way the Talmud conveniently eliminates the law that allows killing your kid for misbehaving.

Capital punishment


If he continues his rebellious ways after his initial punishment, the parents may take him to a 23 judge Beth Din who will determine whether capital punishment applies. The Talmud (ibid 71a) teaches that this punishment has never occurred and will never occur, as there are so many conditions that must apply before this capital punishment can be meted out. The Talmud asks if so why is this portion written in the Torah altogether? To this the Talmud answers that it was written so that we should study it and receive the reward.

I think both the Rabbis who wrote the Talmud and any given set of Supremes avoid stating the real reason such legal gymnastics occur: some of the predecessor judges were complete fucking morons. The Supremes looooove their power and are hesitant to damage it by pointing out how fallible those sitting on the bench can be... :yes:
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Should be, but in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that "As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

This is the first step towards corporations being granted the same constitutional rights as us little people.

For a long time Corporations already had legal individual status, or a "legal fiction".

A very good article describing why the Hobby Lobby decision was such a bad one is on Slate written by Adam Winkler....http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...y_hobby_lobby_should_lose_at_the_supreme.html

A few paragraphs from the article:

When corporations were first invented, the very idea was to create a fictional “person” that could be recognized by law and exist in perpetuity. Writing in the 1700s, the British jurist William Blackstone explained that “it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public” to “constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality. These artificial persons are called ... corporations....."

......This conception of corporate personhood has profound and beneficial economic consequences. It means that the obligations the law imposes on the corporation, such as liability for harms caused by the firm’s operations, are not generally extended to the shareholders. Limited liability protects the owners’ personal assets, which ordinarily can’t be taken to pay the debts of the corporation. This creates incentives for investment, promotes entrepreneurial activity, and encourages corporate managers to take the risks necessary for growth and innovation. That’s why the Supreme Court, in business cases, has held that “incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a legally distinct entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.”

In recent constitutional law cases, however, the justices seem to have forgotten this basic principle of corporate law. In Citizens United, the court effectively held that corporations enjoyed the same free speech rights as ordinary individuals. Contrary to popular belief, however, the court did not base that holding on the idea that corporations are people. Instead, the justices said that corporations are “associations of citizens”—and those citizens who make up the corporation have constitutional rights......
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
The First Amendment should be about individual rights, not organizational rights.

Why not both?

Freedom of the Press certainly extends to the NY Times to publish as well as to me, the individual, to read.

Freedom of (and from) Religion supports an individual's right to embrace or reject religion and a neutral stance on the part of Government to avoid religious persecution (not prosecution)
or do I misunderstand?
 
Last edited:

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron



For the record, I decided a few days ago to open a twitter account under my actual name, which is Len Zinberg, in order to follow Tom DeVocht,
and within 24 hours I received two creepy "wrong number" phone calls. ​This is how a religion behaves?
By slashing someone's tires? And to think that it counted as someone's statistic, and got reported uplines. Wow.

 
Last edited:
Top