Mike "I'm All About the Crimes" Rinder

[Veda]

@ He-man

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)?

DM does not have children.

You didn't answer my question. If you had small children, would you put yourself in legal jeopardy once you had started a new life outside the cult in which you were raised since a child? I'm not saying I'm condoning it. It's just is.

What would you do?

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

Ron is long dead, and his children were grown before the fit hit the shan in July 1977, and informnation became available in 1979 and then through the 1980s.

 

[Emma]

What is a crime?

"An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law."

Here is a list of them: https://clarifacts.com/resources/federal-crimes-list/

What is a criminal?

"A person who has committed a crime."

Unless DM has been charged & convicted of any of these things, you can't call him a criminal. It's slander or libel to do so. You can call him cruel, brutal, evil, dictatorial, conniving, lying etc. But none of those things are illegal, only immoral. However people do call him a criminal so why doesn't he sue?

One school of thought is that DM hasn't sued anyone for defamation/libel because it would just bring even more attention to him and the secrets he's trying to hide. Is this true? In defending a defamation case, the defendant would have to prove the claims are true, but who can do that?

How do we find out if he is guilty of a crime? What if there are no crimes?

Only crimes will result in his removal and any real change to Scientology. If there are no crimes, or no one (not even the FBI) has enough proof to prosecute them, where do we go from here?

 

[Emma]

You didn't answer my question. If you had small children, would you put yourself in legal jeopardy once you had started a new life outside the cult in which you were raised since a child? I'm not saying I'm condoning it. It's just is.

What would you do?

Personally I'd shut the hell up. Does that make me innocent? I guess it does until proven guilty.

Ron is long dead, and his children were grown before the fit hit the shan in July 1977, and informnation became available in 1979 and then through the 1980s.

If Ron had small kids at the time, would it have been OK to criticise him and demand he tell all?

 

[Veda]

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?

I have discussed this many times in the past, and share your concerns.

Even though I've repeatedly defended Alanzo on prior occasions, I simply do not trust the present incarnation of Alanzo.

 

[He-man]

What would you do?

That's a flippin good question.

I would hope that I'd do the right thing. I can't say that I would. But I want to think I'm a better man today then I was when I was in the cult. I also hope that I would never willingly commit a criminal act.

Does this mean I should be sympathetic to Mike Rinder then so?

 

[Emma]

I have discussed this many times in the past, and share your concerns.

Even though I've repeatedly defended Alanzo on prior occasions, I simply do not trust the present incarnation of Alanzo.

Forget Alanzo. I didn't mention him.

What are we to do now? We can't expect Mike to put himself in legal jeopardy (assuming he even has any) and we have no proof of any actual crimes. So where to now?

 

[He-man]

I have discussed this many times in the past, and share your concerns.

Even though I've repeatedly defended Alanzo on prior occasions, I simply do not trust the present incarnation of Alanzo.

Which means that it is about the man, not the message.

See why that is so problematic for me?

 

[Dotey OT]

 

[Dulloldfart]

Aren't "the crimes" simply a means to an end? I thought the end we wanted, at least for now, is the removal of the 501(c) shield protecting the cult. Yeah, DM's a nasty piece of work, and however satisfying it might be to imagine him in the slammer, I don't see that as ending disconnection. No "we're a religion" legal defence means curtains for the cult in lawsuits, no "religious volunteers" status for employees means minimum-wage laws which would bankrupt almost all service org corporations.

Paul

 

[Emma]

Aren't "the crimes" simply a means to an end? I thought the end we wanted, at least for now, is the removal of the 501(c) shield protecting the cult. Yeah, DM's a nasty piece of work, and however satisfying it might be to imagine him in the slammer, I don't see that as ending disconnection etc.

Paul

I don't think anything will ever end disconnection. You can't stop Scientology doing it just like you can't stop any other kind of religious shunning. A change in the tax exempt status won't change that.

Removal of the 501(c) will hurt their pockets, nothing more.

 

[He-man]

Aren't "the crimes" simply a means to an end? I thought the end we wanted, at least for now, is the removal of the 501(c) shield protecting the cult. Yeah, DM's a nasty piece of work, and however satisfying it might be to imagine him in the slammer, I don't see that as ending disconnection etc.

Paul

Man, I'm just here for the women mate. That and the occasional free beer.

 

[Alanzo]

Which means that it is about the man, not the message.

See why that is so problematic for me?

Thank you.

Do not mind the logic of the argument, keep staring at the man behind the curtain! Who is not behind a curtain at all and never was.

 

[He-man]

Thank you.

Do not mind the logic of the argument, keep staring at the man behind the curtain! Who is not behind a curtain at all and never was.

Stop making it easy weasy for people to do just that. Mind your manners. You are in a public forum.

Act accordingly.

Can I get back to my free women and beer now?

 

[Alanzo]

Aren't "the crimes" simply a means to an end? I thought the end we wanted, at least for now, is the removal of the 501(c) shield protecting the cult. Yeah, DM's a nasty piece of work, and however satisfying it might be to imagine him in the slammer, I don't see that as ending disconnection. No "we're a religion" legal defence means curtains for the cult in lawsuits, no "religious volunteers" status for employees means minimum-wage laws which would bankrupt almost all service org corporations.

Paul

If you understand this, then why would you become distracted onto civil suits which DM eats for lunch?

 

[Type4_PTS]

If you understand this, then why would you become distracted onto civil suits which DM eats for lunch?

You watched the Aftermath finale. Do you believe the former FBI agent was lying about the value of civil suits?

 

[Veda]

I don't think anything will ever end disconnection. You can't stop Scientology doing it just like you can't stop any other kind of religious shunning. A change in the tax exempt status won't change that.

Removal of the 501(c) will hurt their pockets, nothing more.

That might be true if it actually was a religion, but it's a crooked business that's only viable if it has tax exemption (or tax cheating) and (de facto) slave labor.

Public opinion makes the difference re. religious cloaking, more so than any civil or criminal case.

 

[Emma]

That might be true if it actually was a religion, but it's a crooked business that's only viable if it has tax exemption (or tax cheating) and (de facto) slave labor.

Public opinion makes the difference re. religious cloaking, more so than any civil or criminal case.

All that you say is true. If they had to pay staff like a normal business they'd go broke. However it wouldn't stop people volunteering. I knew I wouldn't get paid and I "volunteered" anyway.

When did public opinion ever change the decisions the IRS make? Asking for real, I don't know. Do they bow to public pressure or is it the legislators that have to act? What would have to happen here honestly?

 

[He-man]

All that you say is true. If they had to pay staff like a normal business they'd go broke. However it wouldn't stop people volunteering. I knew I wouldn't get paid and I "volunteered" anyway.

When did public opinion ever change the decisions the IRS make? Asking for real, I don't know. Do they bow to public pressure or is it the legislators that have to act? What would have to happen here honestly?

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/eo-abusive-tax-avoidance-transactions

Tax-exempt organizations, by definition, are exempt from federal income tax under various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. However, some are directly involved in abusive tax avoidance transactions (ATATs). In addition, because they are tax-indifferent, tax-exempt organizations are, at times, used by for-profit entities as accommodation parties in these transactions. Identifying and responding to ATATs involving tax-exempt organizations is critical to the IRS objective of discouraging and deterring non-compliance within tax-exempt and government entities. Former Commissioner Everson emphasized this in a hearing conducted by the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate on Charitable Giving Problems and Best Practices.
You may use Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form, to report an abusive transaction involving an exempt organization. To send a written complaint by mail, send to the following address:
IRS
EO Referrals
MC 4910DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242
In addition, the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis maintains a hotline that can be used to provide information about abusive tax shelters.

I talked to a friend who is an accountant(not an expert at all) in the US, she said that the Treasury department can initiate proceedings, if commissioned to do so, or a US citizen can file a complaint, which means that they will investigate(and most likely bin it).

You need political pressure she said. That would most likely never happen since other groups of interest would lobby against it.

So in essence, lobby senators and congressmen from both parties to put pressure on the Secretary of Treasures or get the President interested in it.

I made a thread on it but it didn't generate much traction.

 

[Tanchi]

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.

Because Gerry Armstrong has been so vocal re: Mike Rinder, (I wont name those current high profile critics he also criticizes and corrects), I have tried to understand why. This is a question I have tried to ask in other places, but imo, Armstrong is treated like a sacred cow.

Bear with me. Rinder, being former OSA, was familiar with the doctrine and the reality of Fair Game. He has stated that on Aftermath and interviews, etc.

Armstrong also stated in an interview with S. Taylor that he was aware of the doctrines. He had worked for GO Intelligence. In another question, he said, (I'm paraphrasing) he like the others were willing to overlook possible illegalities for the greater good.

If Armstrong knew about Fair Game, why would he trust Rinder in the first place? Why is he so bent on getting an apology or his version of accountability from Mike Rinder for being fooled by him? For doing his job, in the name of the greater good?

 

[Alanzo]

Because Gerry Armstrong has been so vocal re: Mike Rinder, (I wont name those current high profile critics he also criticizes and corrects), I have tried to understand why. This is a question I have tried to ask in other places, but imo, Armstrong is treated like a sacred cow.

Bear with me. Rinder, being former OSA, was familiar with the doctrine and the reality of Fair Game. He has stated that on Aftermath and interviews, etc.

Armstrong also stated in an interview with S. Taylor that he was aware of the doctrines. He had worked for GO Intelligence. In another question, he said, (I'm paraphrasing) he like the others were willing to overlook possible illegalities for the greater good.

If Armstrong knew about Fair Game, why would he trust Rinder in the first place? Why is he so bent on getting an apology or his version of accountability from Mike Rinder for being fooled by him? For doing his job, in the name of the greater good?

A lot of history here. This is a guest post on my blog where Gerry has answered at least part of your question.

What Gerry has been asking for has been very simple and very specific.

Guest Post: Gerry Armstrong Doesn’t Need an Apology – He Wants the Truth From Mike Rinder