My new approach to mail (I think it worked!)

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Bill, you're right. What I should have said: Once an individual resigns and withdraws their consent to be governed by church rules, the church no longer has any rights to punish them. (Of course no church is allowed to administer punishments that are illegal.)
I don't think that this is a legal matter requiring, as you suggest, a legal and formal resignation.

That is, the church never had a legally based right to punish anyone. It is always and only voluntary on the part of a believer. No Scientologist ever had any legal obligation to submit to any church punishment.
 

Peter Soderqvist

Patron with Honors
This is a strange Topic!
I mean Isn't there any Privacy Protection laws outside Europe?
If you are living in Europe then use the Power of GDPR Article 21 "Right to Object"!
And the Article 83 "General Conditions for imposing Administrative Fines!
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ENG/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&rid=1

The Telegraph News 15 JULY 2018!
Religious groups must comply with data protection laws, the European Court has warned, as it rules that Jehovah's Witnesses must ask permission before collecting personal data on the doorstep.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...must-ask-permission-collecting-personal-data/

The next step in Europe 2019 is ePrivacy Regulation (European Union)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Regulation_(European_Union)

Do you have any such thing outside Europe?
 
Last edited:

WhatWall

Silver Meritorious Patron
I don't think that this is a legal matter requiring, as you suggest, a legal and formal resignation.

That is, the church never had a legally based right to punish anyone. It is always and only voluntary on the part of a believer. No Scientologist ever had any legal obligation to submit to any church punishment.
The church can subject you to whatever punishments you consented to, as long as legal (e.g., the RPF). If consent is withdrawn, a church can no longer engage in any of the actions to which you once consented. Jeffrey Augustine's article does a good job explaining this.

From Augustine's referenced article:
So long as the “rules and regulations for internal discipline and government” do not violate US law, the members of a religious group can be subjected to harsh ecclesiastical tribunals, severe punishments, and even the humiliating public disclosure of their sins and the US courts cannot do anything about it. This is the dark side of “freedom of religion.”
It then gives an example of a court case which involved an individual trying to become an ex-member of a church in order to avoid repeated confrontations initiated by the elders of her former church. Those elders continued to invade her privacy and appear on her property unannounced (squirrel busters?).
Marian Guinn then filed suit against the church for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. The Church of Christ argued in court that because its rules do not permit its members to ever resign or depart from the Church, the Church’s rules applied to Guinn even after she resigned. (A jury eventually awarded her $390,000.)
The Church of Christ, like the Church of Scientology, would like its members to think of it as the Hotel California: You can check out any time you want but you can never leave. However, this is simply not correct. The Guinn court offered an instructional and highly valuable ruling:
Just as freedom to worship is protected by the First Amendment, so also is the liberty to recede from one’s religious allegiance. In Torcaso v. Watkins the Court reaffirmed that neither a state nor the federal government can force or influence a person to go or to remain away from church against one’s will or to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. The First Amendment clearly safeguards the freedom to worship as well as the freedom not to worship.
(emphasis mine)​
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
The church can subject you to whatever punishments you consented to, as long as legal (e.g., the RPF). If consent is withdrawn, a church can no longer engage in any of the actions to which you once consented. Jeffrey Augustine's article does a good job explaining this.

It then gives an example of a court case which involved an individual trying to become an ex-member of a church in order to avoid repeated confrontations initiated by the elders of her former church. Those elders continued to invade her privacy and appear on her property unannounced (squirrel busters?).
Yes. I think I got that. However, my understanding of the legal aspect hasn't changed. The CoS "sends you to the RPF" -- you never have to go. No formal resignation required. You simply don't go. Of course you will get declared suppressive, but that's the only legal action the church can take.

If the CoS forces you to go to the RPF and you object, that is illegal.

Now you stated it as "The church can subject you to whatever punishments you consented to". A more accurate statement, in my understanding, would be "The church can subject you to whatever punishment you specifically consent to now". No prior agreement or consent to a punishment allows the CoS to assume current consent.

Other churches may have a formal "joining", such as baptism, that may require some kind of formal resignation (although I still don't think that's necessary in a legal sense). Scientology doesn't have that.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
The church can subject you to whatever punishments you consented to, as long as legal (e.g., the RPF). If consent is withdrawn, a church can no longer engage in any of the actions to which you once consented. Jeffrey Augustine's article does a good job explaining this.

My primary objection to your "formal resignation" idea is that it makes it the victim's fault if they get "fair gamed" or "RPF'd" or any other CoS punishment; That the victim must submit to CoS punishment because of some fictitious "joining"; That the CoS has any right to punish people.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is a strange Topic!
I mean Isn't there any Privacy Protection laws outside Europe?
If you are living in Europe then use the Power of GDPR Article 21 "Right to Object"!
And the Article 83 "General Conditions for imposing Administrative Fines!
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ENG/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&rid=1

The Telegraph News 15 JULY 2018!
Religious groups must comply with data protection laws, the European Court has warned, as it rules that Jehovah's Witnesses must ask permission before collecting personal data on the doorstep.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...must-ask-permission-collecting-personal-data/

The next step in Europe 2019 is ePrivacy Regulation (European Union)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Regulation_(European_Union)

Do you have any such thing outside Europe?
California is adopting privacy laws and no doubt we will be discussing how and if it will effect the COS.

https://iapp.org/news/a/analysis-the-california-consumer-privacy-act-of-2018/

Broad data and business regulation, applicable worldwide

As of January 1, 2020, companies around the world will have to comply with additional regulations related to processing of personal data of California residents. Pursuant to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, companies have to observe restrictions on data monetization business models, accommodate rights to access, deletion, and porting of personal data, update their privacy policies and brace for additional penalties and liquidated damages. The California Legislature adopted and the governor signed the bill on June 28, 2018, after an unusually rushed process in exchange for the proposed initiative measure No. 17-0039 regarding the Consumer Right to Privacy Act of 2018, also known as the "ballot initiative," being withdrawn from the ballot the same day, the deadline for such withdrawals prior to the November 6, 2018 election.
(snip)
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes. I think I got that. However, my understanding of the legal aspect hasn't changed. The CoS "sends you to the RPF" -- you never have to go. No formal resignation required. You simply don't go. Of course you will get declared suppressive, but that's the only legal action the church can take.

If the CoS forces you to go to the RPF and you object, that is illegal.

Now you stated it as "The church can subject you to whatever punishments you consented to". A more accurate statement, in my understanding, would be "The church can subject you to whatever punishment you specifically consent to now". No prior agreement or consent to a punishment allows the CoS to assume current consent.

Other churches may have a formal "joining", such as baptism, that may require some kind of formal resignation (although I still don't think that's necessary in a legal sense). Scientology doesn't have that.
You should expect to be coerced in every way imaginable to "volunteer" or stay on the RPF but to actually be released you'd have to convincingly tell them that you will tell the police or take legal action if they don't. But Jesse Prince said he was locked up as an EPFer and Bill Franks said he was kidnapped as ED Int so I think there are instances where they pushed the envelope beyond this regardless of who or what a person was.

If it's true they don't do the RPF anymore I'm pretty sure it's because their lawyers impressed upon them the reality that this would inevitably result in a very expensive lawsuit over kidnapping or injury. The other thing is the optics were always bad but as a strictly Sea Org thing most Scientology public had no idea it existed. Now Scientology is synonymous with the RPF so to be a Scientologist you must be on board with it or completely clueless. But I think they would continue it regardless of the bad PR in some fashion if they thought they could get away with it because exploiting people, degrading people and breaking them is inseparable from the Scientology culture.
 

WhatWall

Silver Meritorious Patron
You should expect to be coerced in every way imaginable to "volunteer" or stay on the RPF but to actually be released you'd have to convincingly tell them that you will tell the police or take legal action if they don't. But Jesse Prince said he was locked up as an EPFer and Bill Franks said he was kidnapped as ED Int so I think there are instances where they pushed the envelope beyond this regardless of who or what a person was.

If it's true they don't do the RPF anymore I'm pretty sure it's because their lawyers impressed upon them the reality that this would inevitably result in a very expensive lawsuit over kidnapping or injury. The other thing is the optics were always bad but as a strictly Sea Org thing most Scientology public had no idea it existed. Now Scientology is synonymous with the RPF so to be a Scientologist you must be on board with it or completely clueless. But I think they would continue it regardless of the bad PR in some fashion if they thought they could get away with it because exploiting people, degrading people and breaking them is inseparable from the Scientology culture.
The RPF may not officially exist but I bet the "furniture factory" is still used as a punishment posting. Miscavige is smarter than the rest of us so I'm sure he still has places to punish in a way that doesn't draw attention.
 

WhatWall

Silver Meritorious Patron
My primary objection to your "formal resignation" idea is that it makes it the victim's fault if they get "fair gamed" or "RPF'd" or any other CoS punishment; That the victim must submit to CoS punishment because of some fictitious "joining"; That the CoS has any right to punish people.
They apparently have the right to do anything legal you've consented to, as explained in the article. I don't recall what I consented to when I signed Scientology's membership agreements and consent forms, both as a public and as a SO member. I agree that no one should submit to illegal acts but there's plenty OSA can do that is legal and to which the Scientologist consented.

Of course OSA commits illegal acts. They aren't often caught. When was the last time that a Scientologist faced charges for harassing an ex-Scientologist? I haven't seen that in any of the The Aftermath episodes.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
They apparently have the right to do anything legal you've consented to, as explained in the article.
Exactly. But only if you consent and only while you continue to consent. At any moment you cease to consent, their "right" is gone. Legally speaking. In my admittedly incomplete understanding of law.
 

Steven

My name is Chris, and I was a Scientologist
UPDATE: I haven’t received a single piece of $cn mail since I posted about receiving something from Bridge! I believe that makes it about 3 weeks! I must have been declared. I can’t imagine they’d stop mailing me otherwise.
 

phenomanon

Canyon
UPDATE: I haven’t received a single piece of $cn mail since I posted about receiving something from Bridge! I believe that makes it about 3 weeks! I must have been declared. I can’t imagine they’d stop mailing me otherwise.
Good.
Whaddaya wanna talk about?
Do you feel any different now that you are Declared?
Will it make a difference in your life?
How do you feel about being declared?
 

Steven

My name is Chris, and I was a Scientologist
Good.
Whaddaya wanna talk about?
Do you feel any different now that you are Declared?
Will it make a difference in your life?
How do you feel about being declared?

I don’t feel any different, because I’ve been intentionally engaging in subversive, suppressive activities! I was already declared in my heart.

It helps that I don’t have any family or close friends inside. It certainly won’t make a difference in my life except that I won’t have to deal with the mail, visits, or other attempts to recover me! But that’s a big deal, honestly. I can answer my door and phone now and it’s never a Scientologist.

I feel accomplished, having been declared. I set out to do it and reached my goal!

For those who have been declared, do they ever attempt to recover you, or are you dead to them for all time? Fingers crossed it’s the latter.
 

EZ Linus

Cleared Tomato
Hi Steven. Congrats on being declared! I haven't been around in a while, but this thread caught my attention because I had a similar situation go on in terms of my mailbox filling with their junk mail. It went on for many years.

It was only very recently that I figured out that I am most likely declared now because I haven't received a single piece of mail in over a year. Not a phone call either. I'd been out for 18 years and they were still sending me mail! Every org, sometimes in duplicate because I had a married name and a maiden name. Idiots!

It all stopped when I got someone from Scn Int on the phone who wanted me to watch a video of the latest event. I kept telling him no. I was not interested in being a Scientologist anymore. I told him I was shoving all their junk mail back into their postage paid reply envelopes and sending them back, and demanding they take me off the mailing lists--I'd even threatened to sue. Nothing was working. I told the guy all this and he laughed. He just kept asking me what the ARC break was.

I was like, are you daft?! I'm an enemy. I should be declared. I'm writing a anti-Scientology book that I plan to publish, and you guys are sending me mail to come on the fucking Freewinds? What is wrong with you? Stop bugging me.

He still wanted to know what my ARC break was. He also thought the DVD would change my mind. I told him I'd make him a deal. To send the DVD, and if it didn't intrigue me that he must call AO, Asho, CC, Flag, Bridge Pub, and the Freewinds and take me off every single list--both of my names, as well as my dead relatives. (I was getting mail for them too).

When the DVD came, I actually watched it. It only made me laugh with anger and irritation. The guy called back a couple weeks later. I told him if he contacted me again, by phone or mail, I was going to call my lawyer and I never heard a thing again. I'm pretty sure I'm declared. I don't know how to find out, but I do not care. There will be no doubt in my mind come April when my book is released. They will get all the information about my "ARC break." LOL!

You seem to be very well-adjusted to being out and declared. That's great news. It took quite a while to get where I am. I was in for 20 years.
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don’t feel any different, because I’ve been intentionally engaging in subversive, suppressive activities! I was already declared in my heart.

It helps that I don’t have any family or close friends inside. It certainly won’t make a difference in my life except that I won’t have to deal with the mail, visits, or other attempts to recover me! But that’s a big deal, honestly. I can answer my door and phone now and it’s never a Scientologist.

I feel accomplished, having been declared. I set out to do it and reached my goal!

For those who have been declared, do they ever attempt to recover you, or are you dead to them for all time? Fingers crossed it’s the latter.
I was declared about 20 years ago and all mailings and phone calls stopped instantly and haven't resumed.

There was only one phone call a few years ago from the Continental Justice Chief asking me to watch a DVD. I told him to fuck off and not call me again. That seemed to be the correct handling because he apologised and since then I've had no more contact of any kind.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
You should expect to be coerced in every way imaginable to "volunteer" or stay on the RPF but to actually be released you'd have to convincingly tell them that you will tell the police or take legal action if they don't. But Jesse Prince said he was locked up as an EPFer and Bill Franks said he was kidnapped as ED Int so I think there are instances where they pushed the envelope beyond this regardless of who or what a person was.

If it's true they don't do the RPF anymore I'm pretty sure it's because their lawyers impressed upon them the reality that this would inevitably result in a very expensive lawsuit over kidnapping or injury. The other thing is the optics were always bad but as a strictly Sea Org thing most Scientology public had no idea it existed. Now Scientology is synonymous with the RPF so to be a Scientologist you must be on board with it or completely clueless. But I think they would continue it regardless of the bad PR in some fashion if they thought they could get away with it because exploiting people, degrading people and breaking them is inseparable from the Scientology culture.
At one point I was threatened with physical violence, and locked up against my will, until I agreed to hand over money to pay for intensives for a sec check (I had told them, "Go ahead and sec check me, but I'm not going to pay for it, nor will I sign any promise to pay").

It's not just a question of what the law says, or what official policy says. There's also the question of what individual staff members THINK they are allowed to do, and what they THINK they can get away with. When you have a staff member facing punishment for failing to get you to comply, he will tend to do what he thinks he can get away with.

They can get away with quite a bit, when Scientologists are unwilling to take the step of making a police complaint against a staff member (instant declare) and when there are lots of Scientologists willing to comply with orders to lie about what really happened. This becomes less relevant in a world where everyone is walking around with a cell phone with video recording capability.

ADDING: Ex Scientologists should check out Periscope, an app for your phone which allows you to upload live video to their site as it's happening.
 
Last edited:

Steven

My name is Chris, and I was a Scientologist
I was declared about 20 years ago and all mailings and phone calls stopped instantly and haven't resumed.

There was only one phone call a few years ago from the Continental Justice Chief asking me to watch a DVD. I told him to fuck off and not call me again. That seemed to be the correct handling because he apologised and since then I've had no more contact of any kind.
I'd love to get a call from the Continental Justice Chief! What an opportunity that would be. On that note, does anyone have a name and address for the CJC? I'm inspired to write a letter.

[EDIT] If write a KR to the RTC through their website regarding all the policy/ethical violations at the Org will they take it seriously? It'd be a supremely suppressive act if they take it seriously because it'll seriously disrupt the Org.
 
Last edited:
UPDATE: I haven’t received a single piece of $cn mail since I posted about receiving something from Bridge! I believe that makes it about 3 weeks! I must have been declared. I can’t imagine they’d stop mailing me otherwise.
They dead filed you. It's different from being declared. Dead filing is removing a person from the mailing lists etc. The policy describing it is found in the Div 2 of the Green vols if you care to read it. Mimsey
 
Top