Is Mike Rinder A Scientologist?

JustSheila

Crusader
Karma is woo woo. Some people are born into a life of shit and then die - sometimes horribly, while others get to enjoy life and have the means to do so for decades, some even get to have a beautiful death.

Probably so, but the world and nature's constant ebb and flow toward a different sort of rebalance tend to even things out in the longrun.

Dynasties, animals and civilizations come and go. The top goes to the bottom, middles often just stay middles, but where extremes exist, things tend to change over time.

Society or nature karma. Believing everything is personal karma leaves one to become or remain a victim of circumstance or abuse and also is a bit delusional. We aren't ever completely in control of our lives.
 

Gib

Crusader
I can not figure out from Mike Rinder's blog if he is a Scientologist or not.

It seems to me that a lot of the people who post to his blog are Scientologists for sure. But he seems neutral. He is very much against DM but he does not really mention Hubbard at all.

He doesn't talk about the tech working, he simply talks about the crimes. he doesn't talk about using the tech or how grat it is nor does he talk against it.

I see pro Scientology people posting and also anti.

Does anyone know his position on Scientology as a "religion" or a science, or if he think "The tech works" Does he think Hubbard is good or a con artist.

I have e mailed him this question but he did not answer.

Does anyone know. Just curious

I'll give you my opinion.

I think Mike is not a scientologist as not wanting to forward the tech.

I think Marty moved on, Marty is all into Budda type stuff now, nothing wrong with that, and Marty just needed to move on, and Mike took over what Marty was originally doing in his Blog.

And what is Mike doing?

He is just exposing the bullshit stats of the DM COS, he's exposing the promo lies, the false PR, etc.

Mike is wearing the hat he once wore in the COS, he was the COS spokesperson. Now he is the bullshit stat spokesperson exposing the false stats of the COS.

I could be wrong, but WHO CARES as Mike Laws said.

I think Mike is being the buffer for somebody just leaving the COS. Once a person leaves the COS and checks things out on the internet, why they will HOPEFULLY look some more into the entheta( aka truth :yes:) sites like this one, ESMB.

I got the Debbie Cook email in Jan, 2012. For whatever reason I decided to look a little more, I stumbled upon this site, ESMB and a few others, but I quickly shunned this site as it was "entheta" in my viewpoint at the time. But I looked and looked, and read and read lots of different blogs & websites about scientolgy, and eventually landed her on ESMB in July 2012. During my 6 months of looking I read every post from Marty's Blog, it was a gradient for me. I believe Mike is doing the same, providing a gradient, and a necessary step, IMHO since it worked on me.

But also realize David Mayo said he set-up the ACC's to get people out of the DM COS.
 
In the forum rules, Emma makes the observation that "In this group of ex Scientologists we are bound to run into people who we knew in our former 'lives' as Scientologists. Given the extreme violations of privacy already rampant in the church it is quite likely that you may know of some personally embarrassing information about another poster. For example: you may have known poster "John" in the church and know that he had gotten into trouble for gambling or theft or promiscuity etc."

Then she goes on to say:

"To bring up these personally embarrassing things (whether true or not) as some sort of oneupmanship or as a form of retaliation in an argument is really bad form and will not be tolerated on this message board."

For instance, this:

[video=youtube;GhCsOmVAUkI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhCsOmVAUkI[/video]

Well, the "Scientologist bosses" she talks about were also my Scientologist bosses - one in particular. We worked at the same org. It was awful. Everyone was in fear - we were in a chronic state of hypervigilance. It was the singularly most abusive environment I have ever experienced, and I have been in a few abusive situations in my life.

Anyway, I have literally had nightmares about this person. Years later I see that they are friends with other ex-Scientologists I know on Facebook.

How should I react? Do they deserve to rebuild their life? Do they deserve our forgiveness?


First question (if I was in your shoes). Answer = I don't know. Second question. I don't know, but I don't think I forgive anything anymore -meaning if I am 'wronged' I understand how a person could have done it, even it it's just because they like to fuck with people - or I don't understand it. If I understand it I don't need to forgive or not forgive but I guess I accept that it is as it is. If I don't understand then my mind stays busy trying to understand. While this is going on, I have episodes being pissed off about it and can be pissed off about them - although the latter is less prevalent these days. And you have said you belive in Karma, well I believe in hormones, sleep patterns, and brain chemistry, depending on the constellations of those, I will be very very accepting, or not. Or very accomodating or not. or very understanding or not.

And about that particular scientology boss of yours, I would hope to meet them one day, and just see what comes up in the conversation. If they didn't say anything about their arseholeness I would gently remind them. If I didn't get some acknowledgement, I would remind them again, less gently. If they acknowldege it, with a tinge of well placed regeret, I would graciously let them off the hook. If they seem to be dense or still an arsehole I would succinctly or in a great, detailed tirade, fire off at them until "karma" was fully satisfied.


This was one low-level executive of a tin-pot org. So I don't think it is as simple as people like to paint it - or that you can quantify what level of suffering one individual should be accountable for.

How do you measure pain and ruined life?
Not bad / More bad / Getting really bad / Now really bad / Unbearable / Desperate

Is there some scale by which some abuse is acceptable, but then there's this magic 5.4x threshold that we cross over when we get put on a certain post?

If so, is it only the top five executives in charge that are responsible? Why?

First question. 5 top execs in all scio? Probably a bit more than 5, but in OSA it's a lot more, including some who are not execs. Why? It depends on the severity of the crime.

And what about Claire Headley? She was theoretically number 2 in charge of all Scientology. But did she have any real power in practice to stand up to Miscavige? Well, did she? You walk a mile in those shoes.

Good idea to use Claire Headley as an example, if she was number 2. Bad to tell me to walk a mile in her shoes. If she was bad, legally or morally, she was bad, (I said "if"). Me walking a mile in her shoes only means that "if" she was bad then I would have been bad too. You seem to be suggesting that I would let myself off "bad" behaviour (extreme self-bias) so I should do that with her -or anyone else.

Or what about my lovely friend Denise Brennan? Should she be held to account for the "crimes" of her organisation - just because she was a member of the Watchdog Committee?

Yes! Same goes for Denise, regardless of the fact that I like her and respect her too. You mention your philosophy class at the end of you post. Is the philosophy class called "My Lovely Friends 101". No disrespect to your friends or your friendship with them.

I don't think so. And I don't think you can have one standard for one person and another for somebody else.

So, you are laying out some standards for your friends here, so what about people outside the scientology cult. Your post shows what a lot of ESMB posts show IMO, an ex-'bubble' as though scientology exists in a vacuum completely separated from society. You say you don't think there can be one standard for one person and another for someone else. What about people who are not part of the scio-ex-scio community? Do you judge deeds and misdeeds based on how close you are to people. If you got fucked over in a banking/finance fraud along with many others will it be sufficient for the perpetrators to be assessed by those who love them the most?

And who is going to lock these people up anyway? Where is the evidence? Where are the victims lining up to file charges?

Question one: Those who run the prisons. Question two. =Well in the narconon cases and a lot of other cases, the evidence is in court documents. Similar answer for question 3. I think there are 15 lined up now with narconon.

I would never facebook friend this person or otherwise do so in real life, although other exes have made different choices. I am glad for them that they got out of Scientology and seem to be rebuilding their life.

And who signed them up for staff?

I was one of the people, you see. And he and his family also suffered because of that. Where does it begin and where does it end?

I don't know where it begins or ends. You signed him up for staff, but did you ask him to be a shithead to you? You differentiate him as being really bad, so obviously others were not like him and you were not like him so maybe a large degree of the shitheadness starts and ends with him. Are you trying to be resonsible more some of it that is his resposiblity? Did you become a shithead because someone signed you up for staff?

Anyone who can figure that out should be able to solve any ethical dilemma presented in any philosophy class. I don't claim to be able to draw those lines.

I keep coming back to "treat others as you would want to be treated." Do you want forgiveness yourself? If not, do you think you EVER might need it? Then give it to others. If not, sit back and judge with impunity. You are without sin! Cast your stones to your hearts content.

So does this mean I cannot hold people accountable because someone might hold me accountable one day? Is this "mutual-out-ruds" life insurance.

This kind of debate doesn't go too far because whatever it is that is being "forgiven" is not specified. Everyday Org -office nastiness, where it occurred is different from things that high up execs did. They had more power, they had higher stakes, more pressure and sometimes were just born more plain nasty so adapted more easily to the 'demands"
But you seem to be putting all things together. And you have things that can be decided on an emotonal-self-interest basis mixed with things that are not. And you seem to want to let people of the hook for what they did to others rather than just what they did to you, and even as a purely emotional non-legal issue, who are you to tell people to turn the other cheek if they suffered from someones shit, but you didn't get it from that particular shithead?

[video=vimeo;52078503]http://vimeo.com/52078503[/video]

[video=youtube;QbZpnmQpOyI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbZpnmQpOyI[/video]

aa
 
Probably so, but the world and nature's constant ebb and flow toward a different sort of rebalance tend to even things out in the longrun.

Dynasties, animals and civilizations come and go. The top goes to the bottom, middles often just stay middles, but where extremes exist, things tend to change over time.

Society or nature karma. Believing everything is personal karma leaves one to become or remain a victim of circumstance or abuse and also is a bit delusional. We aren't ever completely in control of our lives.

Things tend to even out? Is that a message of hope? It's a tempting morsel to a cynic like me. :biggrin:
 

Purple Rain

Crusader

Well, it's going to take me forever to answer that. Some things I laughed, some I liked, some I disagreed, some I'm still thinking about.

But still nobody will answer for me EXACTLY which specific org board posts should make one automatically guilty. And that's because it's completely arbitrary. It's an illogic. As with all people out in the world people either do things which are against the law or they don't. There is either evidence to prove it or there isn't. They are either prosecuted or not - convicted or not. They either hurt somebody or they don't and they apologise or they don't or people forgive them or they don't.

I don't think I have a different standard - I think that calling for guilt by virtue of having been posted to a particular position or being promoted to a particular rank is the different standard.

In the real world there is a legal presumption of innocence. And morally, I would say that if you are willing to believe that somebody committed a crime just because they were an executive at a particular corporation then that is not giving them much of a "fair go".

The reality is that David Miscavige is the number 1, number 2, number 3, number 4, number 5, number n, power in Scientology which is why all the execs live in a prison camp and he lives in a palace.
 
Last edited:

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
Purple rain wrote:

I think the comment was inflammatory - not untrue at all - and certainly not rude - but definitely inflammatory.

Mike Laws wrote
LOL, I think Purple was right Reasonable ... you were picking a fight!

Kind of like going to a bar mitzvah and handing people pulled pork sandwiches and BLTs


I think you are right on this. But the way I see it is that he who writes on blogs is writing to the entire world so I do have the right to say my viewpoint. If they don’t want independent thought and free speech then they can start a cult.

Someone wrote:
I do like what I've seen of Mike's posts, though, although I seldom visit the blog.


I agree, which is why I am trying to figure out where he stands on the whole spectrum on Scientology. My real motivation is simply curiosity. There are people who post on this board who I also would like to know their detailed position on Scientology, purely for an intellectual discussion on the subject, not for judgment.

Mike Laws wrote

…It is incredibly easy to push buttons or have buttons pushed unintentionally ... or to upset, create anger or irritation. …
You know what you wrote. You may or may not understand how different people from different cultures will perceive those exact words. You can have no control over or idea of what is going on inside their heads ….My only solution to this is to try and be polite and gentle, more so than normal.


VERY VERY VERY TRUE. I find this to be a problem with message boards. People read in all sorts of different “tones” into comments all of us write.

I might write something then someone reads it and thinks that the reason I wrote it is because of XYZ. So they comment on the reasons that they think I wrote it, of some hidden meaning in what I said.

I write very differently than I speak. I have to be more direct when I write so that I get my point across clearly and do not ramble. No matter what you what you write people read it through their own “goggles.”

I can see how my writing can be taken as aggressive but if we were just talking I would come across very differently.

But I think that is true for many of the people who post here. Except for Hellofahoax, he always comes across as funny.


Mike laws wrote:
I just looked over your questions, and for what it is worth, had you sent it to me, here is how I would have responded:

You are trying to box me in to concepts and a label I don't agree with. I don't think that way, it is not a part of my thought process and wasn't even when I was in. You want detailed personal information on my personal beliefs and you are anonymous, I don't know you ... what do you want to do with this data? I would assume you want to use it to ridicule me;


My answer would have been: When you post to the world you have invited all of us to the conversation. I am anonymous because I still have friends who are in the cult. You could have asked but it seems that again is the problem with blogs. Al ot of assumptions. I want personal information because you put this blog up and it hardly seems strange to me to wonder where you are on Scientology. I don’t start a blog about Scientology. You did.

To Mike Laws….funny how we are having this conversation for Rinder.


Mike continues saying what Rinder might say:

My personal, current, past or evolving spiritual beliefs are none of your business unless I choose to share them in a public forum.

I just think we have a different opinion of this. What is the big deal for a person who can communicate on any subject….( I think I am doing it again). I just asked a question. Even still in ESBM I didn’t even ask it to him. I wondered what other people thought. What is so bad about that?

Mike LAws Continues: And if I were Mike Rinder, I would not have answered because it quite possibly because I thought you were being an asshole.


I guess he can assume that , but I think my questions were sincere, direct, blunt but not judgmental nor condescending . And sure he doesn’t have to answer but if I worried about every question I asked I would be neurotic.

ps. I say all of this with affection, with your direct bluntness (if you are not trolling) are you German?
pps: or maybe Russian?


American with Russian heritage, maybe some Klingon….
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I'll give you my opinion.

I think Mike is not a scientologist as not wanting to forward the tech.

I think Marty moved on, Marty is all into Budda type stuff now, nothing wrong with that, and Marty just needed to move on, and Mike took over what Marty was originally doing in his Blog.

And what is Mike doing?

He is just exposing the bullshit stats of the DM COS, he's exposing the promo lies, the false PR, etc.

Mike is wearing the hat he once wore in the COS, he was the COS spokesperson. Now he is the bullshit stat spokesperson exposing the false stats of the COS.

I could be wrong, but WHO CARES as Mike Laws said.

I think Mike is being the buffer for somebody just leaving the COS. Once a person leaves the COS and checks things out on the internet, why they will HOPEFULLY look some more into the entheta( aka truth :yes:) sites like this one, ESMB.

I got the Debbie Cook email in Jan, 2012. For whatever reason I decided to look a little more, I stumbled upon this site, ESMB and a few others, but I quickly shunned this site as it was "entheta" in my viewpoint at the time. But I looked and looked, and read and read lots of different blogs & websites about scientolgy, and eventually landed her on ESMB in July 2012. During my 6 months of looking I read every post from Marty's Blog, it was a gradient for me. I believe Mike is doing the same, providing a gradient, and a necessary step, IMHO since it worked on me.

But also realize David Mayo said he set-up the ACC's to get people out of the DM COS.




:yes:

That's pretty much how I see it too (especially the paragraph I highlighted).

He's a good guy.
 
Well, it's going to take me forever to answer that. Some things I laughed, some I liked, some I disagreed, some I'm still thinking about.

But still nobody will answer for me EXACTLY which specific org board posts should make one automatically guilty. And that's because it's completely arbitrary. It's an illogic. As with all people out in the world people either do things which are against the law or they don't. There is either evidence to prove it or there isn't. They are either prosecuted or not - convicted or not. They either hurt somebody or they don't and they apologise or they don't or people forgive them or they don't.

It might not be about which posts make a person automatically guilty, but about which posts make a person a good target for questioning/investigation and to consider which posts, if any, would mean that a person would not even be bothered with. If there was some big blow up and the FBI or others decided to do an investigation, who should be questioned. AFAIK, this is done with serious fraud and even lesser fraud, and all sorts of crime and wrongdoing which is systematic in an organization. There is investigation going on now about Narconon AFAIK, or perhaps, preparatory steps to see what kind of investigation, if any should be carried out. They have to decide who is likely to have the info they need. In the separate cases that have been filed, there will be whatever investigation is needed, that is usual in such cases -depositions etc. Sometimes the amount of power and authority is a useful person to question, but sometimes minions have needed information. For example, who were the people stopping Lisa McPherson leaving the room?
It would be interesting to ask them about where their orders came from. And come to that, it would be interesting to see what laws THEY were violating and decide on what their penalty should be, if any. This might have been done; I don't know.


I don't think I have a different standard - I think that calling for guilt by virtue of having been posted to a particular position or being promoted to a particular rank is the different standard.

In the real world is a legal presumption of innocence.
Yet I still saw people dragged into court and questioned with a definite "DONT BULLSHIT US" attitude, with the Rupert Murdoch newspaper scandal re hacking people's private texts etc.
And morally, I would say that if you are willing to believe that somebody committed a crime just because they were an executive at a particular corporation then that is not giving them much of a "fair go".

And you can give someone so much of a "fair go" that there is no hope that when, or if, there are victims, that the victims will ever see justice.
One of the problems of corruption and systematic abuse by high up execs or leaders, is that it can destroy the faith in the whole organization. It is not unfair to assume that systematic abuse was carried out by more than one person, or with the aiding and abetting of more than one person,


The reality is that David Miscavige is the number 1, number 2, number 3, number 4, number 5, number n, power in Scientology which is why all the execs live in a prison camp and he lives in a palace.

I'm not sure if "number n" stands for "all numbers after that". ??

Anyway, you say it's the reality. But the people "in there" are real people, and they too live in the 'real world' as deluded as some of them are. They deal with other people who live in the real world. The squirrel busters are real people and hopefully they will be called to account in the real world. DM may have to pay for it and they might get a 'get out of jail free' card. It would not seem unfair to me if they got some sentence such as what other (non -cult) harrasers get. Seems fair to me. Community service? A fine? There are people who have done a lot worse than them who still work in scientology and are still doing worse, so do you think it would be appropriate to threaten them that if they violate law 'X', they will get the penalty usually given for that. Then they could continue, or stop. If they continued, they could say. "It's DMs fault". I was late for work last Wednesday. I could blame DM for that too. I was in a cult.

Your Milelage Could Possibly Vary.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Well, it's going to take me forever to answer that. Some things I laughed, some I liked, some I disagreed, some I'm still thinking about.

But still nobody will answer for me EXACTLY which specific org board posts should make one automatically guilty. And that's because it's completely arbitrary. It's an illogic. As with all people out in the world people either do things which are against the law or they don't. There is either evidence to prove it or there isn't. They are either prosecuted or not - convicted or not. They either hurt somebody or they don't and they apologise or they don't or people forgive them or they don't.

I don't think I have a different standard - I think that calling for guilt by virtue of having been posted to a particular position or being promoted to a particular rank is the different standard.

In the real world there is a legal presumption of innocence. And morally, I would say that if you are willing to believe that somebody committed a crime just because they were an executive at a particular corporation then that is not giving them much of a "fair go".

The reality is that David Miscavige is the number 1, number 2, number 3, number 4, number 5, number n, power in Scientology which is why all the execs live in a prison camp and he lives in a palace.

the sad fact is that Miscavige would not be capable of doing what he does without the loyal support of underlings - it was the likes of Mike and Marty and, yep back in the day, your humble correspondent as well (in my small way) who carried out the orders. One of the things I have been loudest about is that too few "tough" SO members ever stood up to flagrantly illegal or immoral orders. Without people willing to be silent or approving accomplices Miscavige would be out hustling tricks on a back street in Hollywood.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Your Milelage Could Possibly Vary.

Well, as far as mileage varying, I'm not sure we even have the same worldview.

And there are all of these issues in criminology - different approaches - and sentencing has to satisfy several aims if justice is to be served.

(a) to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
(b) to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
(c) to protect the community from the offender,
(d) to promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
(e) to make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
(f) to denounce the conduct of the offender,
(g) to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

So a judge has to consider all of those factors. But for me, from my perspective, if a criminal decides to change his or her behaviour and start living their lives in a new, constructive way then it is a win-win situation for everyone. Because punishment usually results in criminals that come out worse than they go in, and that continually endangers society and creates more victims.

So if somebody leaves the destructive way of life and sets about making a productive life with a positive contribution society, then I am all for that.

So judges try and balance all that, and I'm not saying that other factors aren't important, like justice to the victims and restoration of damages and apologies and all that sort of thing. But the main thing I am interested in is that the person has, say, left the mafia and gone honest and straight. If that happens I think that is wonderful. If they have a further debt to pay to society or victims, then that is a consequence of their actions - and there are always consequences.

But if someone leaves Scientology, I cheer - the higher up the better. I have no desire to put them in stocks and throw rotten tomatoes at them or shame them or anything else. If they have committed a crime for which there is evidence then they should face that the same as the rest of us.

I really don't know how I can be more clear about this.

I don't believe you can say there are certain posts on which people are culpable and others where they are not. It took only one rogue employee, unnoticed, to bring down the full might of Barings Bank. It is not always a case of corruption up the top. Sometimes trust is breached.

Anyway.... I'm kind of over this discussion. Everyone knows my views. I'm just saying the same thing again. Really it comes down to treat others as you would want to be treated.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I believe in karma but I also believe in random stuff happening. I don't think "everything happens for a reason" but I think some things are caused by spirit, intention, etc. Not fence sitting-just think there can be grey areas and not fond of absolutes and arbitraries.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
example

I got laid off last October as many of my friends know. Was a shock as I'd always evaded layoffs, either by jumping ship with another job or surviving the layoff or whatever. I'm sort of an artful dodger. But thing was, although I liked the job in many ways, the last year I was there it had gotten very high pressure. It never was a caekwalk but got so much worse. Every morning while I was getting ready, I'd find myself muttering: "I can't do this anymore". Didn't realize I was doing it til John rolled over and said "can't do what, hon?". A couple friends here may remember my telling them about the pressure at Pook's party last year, about 3 months before the layoff...

I honestly truly believe that a "God" or "Goddess" or guided intelligence heard me and said, ok, then you don't work there anymore. Soon after found another job, so much less pressure and hours that I had a psychological adjustment to make to that, even. Obviously better for me. Point is- that's an example I could give from life where it seemed like there was something or a big Someone doing something...can't prove it, though.
 
Well, as far as mileage varying, I'm not sure we even have the same worldview.

And there are all of these issues in criminology - different approaches - and sentencing has to satisfy several aims if justice is to be served.

(a) to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
(b) to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
(c) to protect the community from the offender,
(d) to promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
(e) to make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
(f) to denounce the conduct of the offender,
(g) to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

So a judge has to consider all of those factors. But for me, from my perspective, if a criminal decides to change his or her behaviour and start living their lives in a new, constructive way then it is a win-win situation for everyone. Because punishment usually results in criminals that come out worse than they go in, and that continually endangers society and creates more victims.

So if somebody leaves the destructive way of life and sets about making a productive life with a positive contribution society, then I am all for that.

So judges try and balance all that, and I'm not saying that other factors aren't important, like justice to the victims and restoration of damages and apologies and all that sort of thing. But the main thing I am interested in is that the person has, say, left the mafia and gone honest and straight. If that happens I think that is wonderful. If they have a further debt to pay to society or victims, then that is a consequence of their actions - and there are always consequences.

But if someone leaves Scientology, I cheer - the higher up the better. I have no desire to put them in stocks and throw rotten tomatoes at them or shame them or anything else. If they have committed a crime for which there is evidence then they should face that the same as the rest of us.

I really don't know how I can be more clear about this.

I don't believe you can say there are certain posts on which people are culpable and others where they are not. It took only one rogue employee, unnoticed, to bring down the full might of Barings Bank. It is not always a case of corruption up the top. Sometimes trust is breached.

Anyway.... I'm kind of over this discussion. Everyone knows my views. I'm just saying the same thing again. Really it comes down to treat others as you would want to be treated.

I don't know how i could be more clear either. I agree with a lot that you say. I have not said that certain posts are culpable and others are not. I have said that certain posts in a criminal or fraudulent organization would make the holders of those posts natural targets (or "clients" :biggrin:) for questioning in the event that an legally constituted investigation was carried out - This is because certain people have more access than others to certain information, and yes, certain posts have the necessary authority to enforce orders, including corrupt or illegal practices. I also pointed out that 'minions' may also have information that would be needed by investigators, simply because they recieved orders and carried out orders, (and yes, if they were ordered to break the law they have a responsibility to refuse the order AFAIK).

I would like to see an investigation, and I would like to see all SO execs
QUESTIONED. And some of them interrogated.
 
Top