Mike "I'm All About the Crimes" Rinder

[He-man]

Understatement of the year.
And everybody knows it.

Can it not be said in a nicer way though? I mean, I always try to imagine being one of the french knights on the wall in the Holy Grail when I feel the need to say that to a person.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smellt of elderberries!

 

[Free to shine]

This wasn't an attempt to make anyone feel bad. You are interpreting this in the worst possible way.

That happens a lot around here.

Yes I know it seems that way mate. It's just that Ad homs, strawman arguments, passive aggressive insults and jeers, illogic, personal attacks and so on don't go down well in the normal world and it gets very boring. People may respond for a while for the sake of the lurkers but then it's

Of course in scientology it is a normal way of life.

Worth thinking about.

 

[He-man]

Yes I know it seems that way mate. It's just that Ad homs, strawman arguments, passive aggressive insults and jeers, illogic, personal attacks and so on don't go down well in the normal world and it gets very boring. People may respond for a while for the sake of the lurkers but then it's

Of course in scientology it is a normal way of life.

Worth thinking about.

Are you saying "Flunk! Start."?

 

[Caroline]

Season 3 Episode 12 includes a segment by Professor Marci Hamilton, a named attorney in the Jane Doe/Valerie Haney case. https://scientologyabuselawsuit.com/

[00:28:24.891]

Marci Hamilton: Well, you know Scientology was part of the system that really has liked the fact that Statute of Limitations laws kept everybody out.

LR: Yeah.

MH: It has silenced Scientologists everywhere. That's going to change this year. There are, with New York opening a window and New Jersey and California? I think we're going to start to hear from people that have been silenced. And it's because, to a large degree because of what you all are doing. You have to talk about it first. You have to empower all these wonderful people.

LR (Leah Remini): Yes.

MH: And then the stage is set. They've got the guts to go to court. And l think we'll learn a lot more soon.

LR: Thank you.

[00:29:07.552]

[Screen: In 2019, New York passed the Child Victims Act.

This gives victims one year from when the law takes effect to sue over allegations of sexual abuse, regardless of when the abuse occurred.]

[Photo: Marci Hamilton stands by as Governor Cuomo signs the Child Victims Act
January 28, 2019]

[00:29:23.802]

About the Child Victims Act in New York
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/us/new-york-child-victims-law/index.html

Rinder said he participated:

MR (Mike Rinder): Leah. I want to ask our FBI expert here: Why isn't the FBI all over this?

[00:25:06.877]

[Screen: Jim Ellis: Retired FBI Agent]

JE (Jim Ellis): The problem is, and you guys have laid it out so well, you know. Serge didn't realize he was a victim.

SG (Serge Gil): (Nods) Yeah, right.

JE: You know law enforcement can only deal with facts and evidence. That's it. Scientology has created such an insulated community that--. And I don't think law enforcement can really fathom what goes on in there. That's the biggest problem.

MR: Yeah, that's, that's a great answer, Jim. And it actually brings something that I want to stress to everybody that is watching this show.

If you are aware of this sort of abuse, if you are aware of someone else who's being abused, if you've been abused, please. Go to law enforcement. Go and make a report, even if you think it's too late, they're not going to believe you, whatever.

The cumulation of information is something that is valuable. Because Scientology does show up and say, "Well, we've got twenty people that says this never happened." But if there are fifty people that said that it did, then that's a different equation.

So please. Listen to the FBI. Do what the FBI guy says. Go report it and provide all the information that you can. Because there are a lot of people out there who have been too afraid of stepping forward and doing that in the past.

And Serge is a perfect example of someone who has got the balls to stand up and say, "No. This is wrong."

I even participated in it. And I feel the same way. I participated in these things.

It takes some courage to stand up and say, "You know what? I realized it was wrong, but I'm going to do something about it now."

[00:26:53.477]

In what Rinder admitted to -- “participating in it” -- conspiracy is implicit. IANAL, but it seems obvious that the Child Victims Act opens up Mike Rinder, David Miscavige and other current and former top level Scientology executives to considerable legal exposure.

It seems to me also that there is a built-in and profound conflict of interest for Mike Rinder to involve himself now with the vetting, story-telling, referral or other processing of victims who might qualify for legal recourse under the Child Victims Act. How has he overcome this conflict with the victims that come through the Aftermath Foundation, for example?

Mike Rinder is in a hostile relationship with at least some of his own victims, as shown by his action and inaction in the Scientology v. Armstrong campaign. Gerry cannot but be representative of the Scientologists’ victims during the time Rinder ran OSA. (Gerry’s position is that his basic claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because it involves ongoing crimes and torts.) Gerry has shown that since Rinder supposedly left Scientology and started claiming he was telling the truth and helping his victims, he has continued to serve the Scientologists’ purposes in relation to the Scientologists’ undisputed SP targets.

As the Child Victim Act shows us, Rinder, Rathbun, DM, and other Scientology executives have legal interests, conflicts and liabilities that don’t end when they leave the corporation, and not only in relation to sex abuse minors.

 

[He-man]

It seems to me also that there is a built-in and profound conflict of interest for Mike Rinder to involve himself now with the vetting, story-telling, referral or other processing of victims who might qualify for legal recourse under the Child Victims Act. How has he overcome this conflict with the victims that come through the Aftermath Foundation, for example?

...

As the Child Victim Act shows us, Rinder, Rathbun, DM, and other Scientology executives have legal interests, conflicts and liabilities that don’t end when they leave the corporation, and not only in relation to sex abuse minors.

I think these are really good questions.

Would be interesting to hear a professional legal counsels views on this.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by Alanzo.

With regard to scientology, I do know how you reason. You display it here everyday. Do you think your reasoning is hidden by what you write? No. It's revealed by what you write.

Show me the secret surprise in your reasoning about scientology : is it that you think Mike Rinder's hot?

This wasn't an attempt to make anyone feel bad. You are interpreting this in the worst possible way.
That happens a lot around here.

FWIW I didn't take offence ... I just thought it was a strange response because (as I pointed out earlier) you do not know how I or others think based on what we write. Sometimes I don't say exactly what I think, at other times I dilute my thoughts to make them more acceptable and if I really want to make a point I occasionally add emphasis here and there.

I'm always aware that I'm on the net.

We have not been talking about scientology recently though, we have been talking about your apparent need to try and grind the faces of other exes into the dirt, cult style, on ESMB ... and not because you were personally harmed by one of them.

I agree with something Caroline said (quoted below) a few days ago on the Ruminations thread ...

Posted by Caroline and snipped.
And I also think that in the meantime, people who don't identify as his victims, don't qualify to give Rinder a pass. That would be getting ahead of the process of justice.

... but I think it's fair to add that people who don't identify as victims should also stop trying to convict him on a message board and the people that do should use the legal system if they really believe they have a case.

 

[Alanzo]

Season 3 Episode 12 includes a segment by Professor Marci Hamilton, a named attorney in the Jane Doe/Valerie Haney case. https://scientologyabuselawsuit.com/



About the Child Victims Act in New York
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/us/new-york-child-victims-law/index.html

Rinder said he participated:



In what Rinder admitted to -- “participating in it” -- conspiracy is implicit. IANAL, but it seems obvious that the Child Victims Act opens up Mike Rinder, David Miscavige and other current and former top level Scientology executives to considerable legal exposure.

It seems to me also that there is a built-in and profound conflict of interest for Mike Rinder to involve himself now with the vetting, story-telling, referral or other processing of victims who might qualify for legal recourse under the Child Victims Act. How has he overcome this conflict with the victims that come through the Aftermath Foundation, for example?

Mike Rinder is in a hostile relationship with at least some of his own victims, as shown by his action and inaction in the Scientology v. Armstrong campaign. Gerry cannot but be representative of the Scientologists’ victims during the time Rinder ran OSA. (Gerry’s position is that his basic claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because it involves ongoing crimes and torts.) Gerry has shown that since Rinder supposedly left Scientology and started claiming he was telling the truth and helping his victims, he has continued to serve the Scientologists’ purposes in relation to the Scientologists’ undisputed SP targets.

As the Child Victim Act shows us, Rinder, Rathbun, DM, and other Scientology executives have legal interests, conflicts and liabilities that don’t end when they leave the corporation, and not only in relation to sex abuse minors.

I believe that this was the greatest threat to Mike Rinder, and to everyone you've mentioned, Caroline.

I have heard a lot of stories of the mishandling and silencing of Exes by Leah Remini's Scientology and the Aftermath show, and by the Aftermath Foundation. I hope these Ex victims come forward to tell their story on ESMB before the month is over.

That is what ESMB has always been about, right?

 

[Caroline]

I believe that this was the greatest threat to Mike Rinder, and to everyone you've mentioned, Caroline.

I have heard a lot of stories of the mishandling and silencing of Exes by Leah Remini's Scientology and the Aftermath show, and by the Aftermath Foundation. I hope these Ex victims come forward to tell their story on ESMB before the month is over.

That is what ESMB has always been about, right?

There is a lot of information and speculation about threats to Rinder should he ever speak up and tell the truth. It seems to me that Mike Rinder's greatest threat may be his failure to control the victims' narratives and to therefore be held accountable for what he and others in his conspiracy did to silence or destroy them. Rinder told John Cedars/Lloyd Evans that for every victim that appeared on his show, ten more reached out.

MR: I completely understand. (Shaking head.) I can--. Lloyd, you know of the shows that we have aired, there's you know, ten more of every one of those who are people that have reached out. And some of the people who have had the worst experiences are, are the most damaged and not willing to to, appear on, on a television show.

L: (Nodding)

MR: Lloyd, you know, the purpose of, of what I do isn't to get, I'm not a TV producer. I'm not just trying to gather people to appear on TV. I want to help anybody that I can. So all of these people that reach out, I try and respond to, and deal with and help any way I can. There are a lot of other stories out there. And a lot of other people who have been horrendously damaged, that you're never going to see on TV.

Who has reached out to Mike Rinder more than Gerry Armstrong?

I would hope that any of those people inclined to come to ESMB would be made welcome here, and thanked for their willingness to share their accounts before the message board goes "still."

 

[Alanzo]

There is a lot of information and speculation about threats to Rinder should he ever speak up and tell the truth. It seems to me that Mike Rinder's greatest threat may be his failure to control the victims' narratives and to therefore be held accountable for what he and others in his conspiracy did to silence or destroy them. Rinder told John Cedars/Lloyd Evans that for every victim that appeared on his show, ten more reached out.



Who has reached out to Mike Rinder more than Gerry Armstrong?

I would hope that any of those people inclined to come to ESMB would be made welcome here, and thanked for their willingness to share their accounts before the message board goes "still."

That's so funny. I had a producer from the show tell me that all the stories of people who came forward were told on the show. I knew she was lying at the time. I just couldn't figure out why she would lie like that.

 

[Veda]

That's so funny. I had a producer from the show tell me that all the stories of people who came forward were told on the show. I knew she was lying at the time. I just couldn't figure out why she would lie like that.

Fill us in on how it was that you came to speak with one of the producers of the show.

When, where, the name of the person, etc.

How did you introduce yourself?

Would she remember having spoken with you?

 

[Alanzo]

Fill us in on how it was that you came to speak with one of the producers of the show.

When, where, the name of the person, etc.

How did you introduce yourself?

Would she remember having spoken with you?

It was on Twitter. It was about 2 years ago. It was Nora Crest. Yes she would remember.

 

[Veda]

It was on Twitter. It was about 2 years ago. It was Nora Crest. Yes she would remember.

I'll be frank. I agree with Gerry and Caroline on most things, however I think you're using them.

They're genuine, but I must admit you do not seem kosher to me.​

_________________
​

From a Jesse Prince in a 1998:

"It is incumbent on this and every court to realize the amount of deception, chicanery, lying, manipulation and outright criminality that Scientology will employ to hide the truth about their criminal activities. They will spend any amount of money to do this. I know because I was part of it for years. I received orders to break the law. I issued orders to break the law. I got others to break the law, and then I helped to hide these criminal activities just as they are hiding them now. In fact, the tactic is one of the most coercive used by the Scientology hierarchy: to involve members in criminal acts for which they are then liable, which then prevents the person from speaking out" [about acts for which they might be liable].​

I've known of this tactic for a long time, and, it seems as though you want Rinder to confess to crimes for which he would be criminally liable.

At the same time, Miscavige, who ordered the crimes in the first place, would not be confessing and would, largely, be off the hook.

 

[Veda]

That's so funny. I had a producer from the show tell me that all the stories of people who came forward were told on the show. I knew she was lying at the time. I just couldn't figure out why she would lie like that.

It was on Twitter. It was about 2 years ago. It was Nora Crest. Yes she would remember.

One more thing, how about linking to that exchange so we can all see it?

Thanks.

 

[He-man]

I'll be frank. I agree with Gerry and Caroline on most things, however I think you're using them.

They're genuine, but I must admit you do not seem kosher to me.​

​

What does that in particular mean? Is everyone who are critical of Mike Rinder guilty by association, are those persons now somehow "against" Mike and his lovely little family, children and all(Yes I understand why you put that picture in there.)?

Are you genuine? As in for real?

In your view, when is it OK to criticize a critic?

 

[Veda]

What does that in particular mean? Is everyone who are critical of Mike Rinder guilty by association, are those persons now somehow "against" Mike and his lovely little family, children and all(Yes I understand why you put that picture in there.)?

Are you genuine? As in for real?

In your view, when is it OK to criticize a critic?

I've been critical of Mike Rinder many times.

As for the picture. Let's assume that Rinder would be placing himself in criminal jeopardy. If you had two small children would not you hesitate before doing the same?

Alanzo's approach to this reeks of a Freedom magazine expose.

It has that syntax and that vibe.

 

[He-man]

I've been critical of Mike Rinder many times.

You didn't really answer my three questions. Fair enough.

Why is your ongoing vendetta with Alanzo so important that you try to make others critical to Mike Rinder guilty by association? Do you not think that is a bit unfair?

Who gets a pass? Alanzo shure as hell will never get one. I guess what it comes down to is a good looking smile, a TV show and that's a slam dunk deal.

 

[Veda]

You didn't really answer my three questions. Fair enough.

Why is your ongoing vendetta with Alanzo so important that you try to make others critical to Mike Rinder guilty by association? Do you not think that is a bit unfair?

Who gets a pass? Alanzo shure as hell will never get one. I guess what it comes down to is a good looking smile, a TV show and that's a slam dunk deal.

My internet connection was interrupted for a minute, and I've further responded on the same post.

I'm not the one with the vendetta. The only one with a vendetta is David Miscavige, and at the top of his enemies list is Mike Rinder.

I won't bother responding to your last paragraph.

 

[Emma]

So when and how do we get to find out about the crimes?

Mike's not going to tell us (assuming there are any). Dave's not going to tell us (assuming there are any). Marty didn't spill anything that could lead to a criminal indictment. So who is left to ask?

Oh well I guess we'll all just go back to watching a TV show and whinge about how the cult gets away with crimes. Let's never bring up crimes again (and I'm not talking about moral injustices). Let's never call DM a criminal again, because it will never be proven he is (and we aren't allowed to ask anyone) so it's slander to call him a criminal. Deal?

 

[He-man]

My internet connection was interrupted for a minute, and I've further responded on the same post.

I'm not the one with the vendetta. The only one with a vendetta is David Miscavige, and at the top of his enemies list is Mike Rinder.

I won't bother responding to your last paragraph.

I've been critical of Mike Rinder many times.

As for the picture. Let's assume that Rinder would be placing himself in criminal jeopardy. If you had two small children would not you hesitate before doing the same?

Alanzo's approach to this reeks of a Freedom magazine expose.

It has that syntax and that vibe.

Redirecting to DM is a straw man, thanks for not answering my question.

As for the picture, I understood that the reason why you posted it was something like that. Of course that is how I'd expect anyone to go, kids or no kids, there's always a reason to not get complicit, how is that relevant? So Mike Rinder should not be criticized because he has children? Do you apply the same reasoning to the people who are still in scientology? Does DM have children(I've no idea the thought never occurred to me)?

Ron had children too, would you consider that relevant to the criticism/negativity towards him?

What a ridiculous straw man.

Oh I know Alanzo has his way to antagonize you, whether you want to admit your part in it or not, I'm not questioning that. It'd be nice though if the both of ye got into a room for a couple of hours and sorted yerself out. I suppose it's a wee bit too late for that.

Don't bother answering anything you'd feel uncomfortable to, I'm not trying to play the Spanish Inquisition here. I'm just concerned that your agitation causes silence.

 

[He-man]

So when and how do we get to find out about the crimes?

Mike's not going to tell us (assuming there are any). Dave's not going to tell us (assuming there are any). Marty didn't spill anything that could lead to a criminal indictment. So who is left to ask?

Oh well I guess we'll all just go back to watching a TV show and whinge about how the cult gets away with crimes. Let's never bring up crimes again (and I'm not talking about moral injustices). Let's never call DM a criminal again, because it will never be proven he is (and we aren't allowed to ask anyone) so it's slander to call him a criminal. Deal?

Ask Veda. He'll figure it out.



EDIT: Sorry my internet connection ran out so I had to press send, and then Edit to keep going.

I'm OK with that deal. Everyone should get a free pass. Especially David Miss Cabbage.

From now on I'm only going to discuss moral injustices like, why aren't men allowed to wear mini skirts in public places unless they are from Scotland?