New SP Declares in LA

Out-Ethics

Patron Meritorious
I am posting my good friend Dave Soroka's recent declare with his permission. Canadian declare, not Los Angeles,

BUT

the content of it is 90% cookie cutter of "Phillip"s" SP declare.
The emphasis of why declared "SUPPRESSIVE" is on connection to squirrels and speaking your mind..
The Scientology Inc definition of suppressive is based on how you thing and what you say and who you friend..​


Interesting that no specifics are given. The date is given but what did they say? Who did they talk to? Who are the SPs and squirrels they were associated with? What overt were they justifying? What exactly happened? Oh that's right if they put the truth in the declare others COULD read this and that would cause more people to leave. But just put a Hubbard quote in, point out they are squirrels and SPs and big violators of KSW YAHTZEE we got a bona-fide SP declare.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Mick . . .

It's a simple proposition:

He is obviously a member of the IAS . . . that membership confers with it the obligation, both ways, of adherence to Cof$ Policy. That's the contract . . . and the consideration given by the member is his dollars and the consideration given by the Cof$ is the promise of availability of services and treatment in accordance with Cof$ doctrine and policy.

Those are the constituent parts of the agreement that forms this contract.

Policy states the member must be given a copy of all reports on the member . . . and based on that policy and understanding it is reasonable and proper that the member would seek to keep the copy given him . . .

And, apart of the bullshit you are going on about regarding him being on "private property" there is the question that he obviously was improperly declared SP . . . that is, declared in violation of the policy covering Cof$ Jurisprudence . . . again a breech of contract. Thus, there are grounds for him bringing further suit that he is in fact still in good standing till proper procedure, per policy and the contract of membership, has been fulfilled.

Thus they are actually in violation of his civil rights as well as in offence under tort and contract law.

R

Once again you are alowing your wishes to outrun the facts.

AS the final word on the cofs "jurisprudence" is - the cofs -and their approval declared him then your opinion about whether it was fair or not has no bearing. If he disagreed with the declare - then by the contract he was, theoretically a part of - his only recourse was to withdraw and file a request for a comm ev from the appointed 'terminal" . Not sure where you get anything else from this.

As for civil rights - what civil rights were violated?

he was on private property and refused to leave when asked to do so. That is trespass. By the policies he bought into he was violating his SP declare - even if it turned out to be incorrect, false or whatever. So in either case - he has no case.

He was trying to remove something that did not belong to him.

You consistently fail to even address the facts roger - and ,as usual, fly off into some construct of your own making.

get your petticoats in order and stop trying to make a silk purse out of sows ear.


Just because the cofs act like assholes does not make everything they do illegal. Merely obnoxious.

AS for membership in the IAS - for his membership to be in force he has to be a scientologist in good standing - so once again you just trailed another red herring.

Puleeze.
 

Arthur Dent

Silver Meritorious Patron
I am posting my good friend Dave Soroka's recent declare with his permission. Canadian declare, not Los Angeles,

BUT

the content of it is 90% cookie cutter of "Phillip"s" SP declare.
The emphasis of why declared "SUPPRESSIVE" is on connection to squirrels and speaking your mind..
The Scientology Inc definition of suppressive is based on how you thing and what you say and who you friend..​


#4: says: Violation or neglect of any of the ten points of keeping scn working.
How broad can you get. Nice catchall for any eithics officer or maa in a foul mood, eh?
Any error or slip-up can be interpreted as such. Especially since they no longer need to do a comm ev on someone to declare them.
Squirrels! :duh:
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
Interesting that no specifics are given. The date is given but what did they say? Who did they talk to? Who are the SPs and squirrels they were associated with? What overt were they justifying? What exactly happened? Oh that's right if they put the truth in the declare others COULD read this and that would cause more people to leave. But just put a Hubbard quote in, point out they are squirrels and SPs and big violators of KSW YAHTZEE we got a bona-fide SP declare.

Right. It is a computer-generated declare much like the form letters you get from politicians in DC one has written to. The dates & names are filled in on a template. I guess the cult is too busy to give any personal reflection on the declares they prepare. :hmm:
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
Interesting that no specifics are given. The date is given but what did they say? Who did they talk to? Who are the SPs and squirrels they were associated with? What overt were they justifying? What exactly happened? Oh that's right if they put the truth in the declare others COULD read this and that would cause more people to leave. But just put a Hubbard quote in, point out they are squirrels and SPs and big violators of KSW YAHTZEE we got a bona-fide SP declare.

SP Declares written in broad generalities. The irony is rich.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
All of sp5:

Landry, Steve
Landry, Steve [sic]
Landry, Steve [sic]
Lane, Andrea
Lane, Penny
Lane, Terre
Lane, Tom E.
Lang, Jake
Lange, Gail R.
Lange, Tom E.
Langer, Kim
Langer, Morry
Langlo, Jennifer
Langlo, Jennifer [sic]
Langstroth, Kit
Lapierre, Francois
Lapointe, Miguel
Laporte, Karen
Lara, Carmen
Lara Palafox, Carmen
Larberg, Destiny S.
Larsen, Chrissy
Larsen, Jake
Larson, Don
Larson, Florence
Larson, Mr. Donald
Larue, Leroy
Laster, Teresa
Lauck, Eva
Laufer, Gary
Laurion, Kathy M.
Lauritzen, Peter
Lavalle, Gary J.
Lavernia, Lidia
Lavita, Johanne
Lawley, Mike
Lawrence, John
Lawrence, Keith
Lawrence, Lee
Lawrence, Wendy
Lawry, Julie
Laws, Michael
Layne, David W.
Layne, Penny
Lazard, Russell
Lazarnick, Abby
Lazo, Elizabeth
Leach, Art
Leach, E. Riggs
Leadingham, Bill
Leanna, Kirsti
Lear, Lila M.
Leavitt, Mary Jo
Lebed, Laura
Lebertz, Sue
Lebro, Richard (Tony)
Lebro, Tony
Lederman, Steven
Ledonne, Lucinda
Lee, Arnie
Lee, Chris
Lee, Dan
Lee, Jeff
Lee, Renee
Lee, Shelly
Lee, William W.
Leeds, Mitchell
Lefebvre, Sofie
Lefebvre, Victor
Leggett, Albert
Legore, Chris
Lehman, Deverne
Lehoullier, John
Leimbach, Monika
Leland, Robin
Lemberger, Dani
Lemberger, Danny
Lemberger, Tami
Lemoine, Martin
Lemoine, Sue
Lendriet, Bill
Lenpriet, William
Lent, Jennifer
Leonardson, Doris
Leoncini, Maria Luisa
Lerma, Arnie
Lerman, Arnie
Lerner, David
Lerner, Gary
Lerner, Van
Lesko, Andy
Lester, James
Lester, Robbie
Letkeman, Caroline
Letkeman, Sarah
Letterese, Barbara
Letterese, Peter
Leventhal, Don
Levin, Hank
Levin, Joan
Levin, Joan [sic]
Levin, Robert
Levin, Robin
-----

Paul
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Bolding added by me:

Mick . . .

It's a simple proposition:

He is obviously a member of the IAS . . . that membership confers with it the obligation, both ways, of adherence to Cof$ Policy. That's the contract . . . and the consideration given by the member is his dollars and the consideration given by the Cof$ is the promise of availability of services and treatment in accordance with Cof$ doctrine and policy.

Those are the constituent parts of the agreement that forms this contract.

Policy states the member must be given a copy of all reports on the member . . . and based on that policy and understanding it is reasonable and proper that the member would seek to keep the copy given him . . .

And, apart of the bullshit you are going on about regarding him being on "private property" there is the question that he obviously was improperly declared SP . . . that is, declared in violation of the policy covering Cof$ Jurisprudence . . . again a breech of contract. Thus, there are grounds for him bringing further suit that he is in fact still in good standing till proper procedure, per policy and the contract of membership, has been fulfilled.

Thus they are actually in violation of his civil rights as well as in offence under tort and contract law.

R

That's what I was thinking when I originally had read this story. (Thank-you Karen!)

IMO he absolutely is entitled to keep the copy of his SP Declare per CoS policy as written by LRH.

Additionally, I don't see how the CoS has any right to Declare someone an SP without even informing them as has happened with Phillip in this case. It eliminates his right to face his accusers and request a Committee of Evidence as per CoS policy.

It would have been interesting if he had filed a police report at the time of the incident and then consulted with an attorney.

If there's any attorneys lurking on this thread I'd be interested in your opinions.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
All of sp6 (less a few duplicates at the start from sp5):

Levine, Frederick
Levinson, Meynard
Levinton, Bruce
Levman, Bryan
Levy, David
Levy, Hyman V.
Lewis, Marvin A.
Lewis, Stefan
Leybourne, Charlotte
Lieberz, Susan Lee (Sue)
Liggett, Judy
Lillis, Kent
Lillis, Sally
Lind, David
Lind, Roger
Linderman, Shawn
Lingenfelter, David
Lingenfelter, Marcy
Link, Charles G.
Linker, Dan
Lipke, Brent
Lippold, Delbert P.
Lipton, Kenny
Lipton, Mickey
Lisker, Carol Hallam
Lisker, Roy
Lissow, Gary
Lister, Nick
Little, Jack W.
Little, James William
Little, Meshell rene
Littler, Leigh Ann
Livingston, Brian [no tags]
LLambres, Tony
Llewelly, Gel
Llewellyn, Gill
Llorens, Silvia
Llorens, Sylvia
Lloyd, Susan
Lobach, Dale
Locke, Dan
Locke, Dan [sic]
Locke, Daniel
Lockwood, Christine
Lockwood, Jayson
Lockwood, Leo
Loftus, John
Loftus, John B.
Logan, Ora
Lombard, Andrea L.
Lombard, Andrea
Lombard, Pauline M.
Lombardi, S.
Lomsdall, Wendy
Long, Aerial
Long, Bill Grant
Long, Carrie
Long, Gordie
Long, Heather
Long, Virgie M.
Loomis, Harry
Looper, Thomas
Loosli, Jacob
Loosli, Joan
Lopez, Renere
Loree, Greg
Lorenzen, Ruth A.
Lorenzen, Ruth
Lorenzo, Jean Claude
Lorenzo, Olga
Losasso, Glenn
Loss, Kim
Lott, George E.
Lotz, Nicci
Lotz III, Trey real first name [sic]
Lotzer, Marlys
Loudermick, Judie
Loudermilk, Mike
Louis, Mario
Loupret, Christian
Lousier, L.
Loutzenhiser, John
Lovely, Tom C.
Lovett, Brock
Loving, Brigette
Loving, Ron
Lowe, Gary
Lucas, Chris
Lucas, Margaret
Lucas, Nicos
Lucero, Mike
Luck, Constance
Luckman, Brent
Luckman, Glen
Luckman, Glen [sic]
Luckman, Melody
Ludwig, Dana
Lueker, Marilyn
Lugli, Tiziano
Luker, Tivon
Luna, Diana
Lundgren, Eric
Lundquist, Leon
Lurie, Patty
Lussier, Louise
Lustig, Lidia
Lutovsky, Diane
Lutovsky, Mark
Lutskus, Vince
Lutterbach, Bob
Luyt, Peter
Lynch, John
Lynch, Lloyd Eric
Lyne, Lavinia

Maayan, Carmen
Maayan, Shai
Machutta, Sally
Macaluso, Denny
Macaluso, Lenny
Macaluso, Leonard
Macarthur, Catherine
Macdonald, Allan
Macdonald, Douglas A.
Macduffie, Angus
Mace, Betty
Mace, Eddie
Mace, Kathy
Mace, Marjorie
Mace, Sara
Mace-Mcbride, Kathy
Macfy, Tedi
Machado, Will
Machutta, Stephen
Macias, Aldo Cirio
Macisaac, Priscilla Anne
Mack, Eric L.
Mack, Eric L. [sic]
Mackay, Ethel
Mackey, Bill
Mackie, Bill
Mackie, Marina
Maclean, Jennifer K.
Maclean, Kenneth
Maclellan, Sandra
Maclellan, Sandy
Macnamara, Matt
Macphee, Gerard
Madden, Vince
Madison, Barbara
Madore, Kathy
Madsen, Barbara
Maedl, Craig
Magaziner, Bob
Magnie, Dan
Maier, Don
Maindus, Ralph
Mainolfi, Frank
Mainor, Ozie
Makler, Mike
Makowski, Jeanie
Malatesta, Silvia
Malelu, Paul
Malfitano, Amanda
Malkin, Donna Rae
Malkin, Glenn A.
Mallan, Tom
Malloy, Shawn
Malone, Liz
Maloy, Deirdre L.
Malstrom, Linda
Mandigo, Brian
Mandingo, Brian [sic]
Mangiello, Charese
Mann, Chris J.
Mann, Paul
Manning, Brigette
Mannings, Leonarda
Many, Chris
Many, Nancy
Many, Sherry
Maracle, Bob
Marafino, Frank
Marchand, Pat
Marchant, Joi
Marchello, Linda
Marconet, Kim
Marcor, Al
Marcor, Lance
Marcor, Lance [sic]
Marcoux, Craig
Maren, Mary
Marier, Donn
Marier, Donn [sic]
Marin, Liz
Marinko, Frank
Marion, Carisa
Mark, Whayne
Markey, Robert
Markin, Joy
Markling, Jorgen [no tags]
Markos, Roylyne
Markowski, Eugene
Marland, Emily
Marple, Wayne

-----

Paul
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
Interesting that no specifics are given. The date is given but what did they say? Who did they talk to? Who are the SPs and squirrels they were associated with? What overt were they justifying? What exactly happened? Oh that's right if they put the truth in the declare others COULD read this and that would cause more people to leave. But just put a Hubbard quote in, point out they are squirrels and SPs and big violators of KSW YAHTZEE we got a bona-fide SP declare.

Right. It is a computer-generated declare much like the form letters you get from politicians in DC one has written to. The dates & names are filled in on a template. I guess the cult is too busy to give any personal reflection on the declares they prepare. :hmm:

LOL! The cult has to generate the declares using a computer, as there are so many declares needed.

:biggrin:

I've seen an almost identical SP declare and that was nearly a decade ago. At the time it made me realize how many squirrels there are! The DSA in my Org said "there are more people out there practicing Scientology than you could imagine".

Bolding added by me:

That's what I was thinking when I originally had read this story. (Thank-you Karen!)

IMO he absolutely is entitled to keep the copy of his SP Declare per CoS policy as written by LRH.

Additionally, I don't see how the CoS has any right to Declare someone an SP without even informing them as has happened with Phillip in this case. It eliminates his right to face his accusers and request a Committee of Evidence as per CoS policy.

It would have been interesting if he had filed a police report at the time of the incident and then consulted with an attorney.

If there's any attorneys lurking on this thread I'd be interested in your opinions.

They're not giving people their SP declares anymore. I never got mine despite being told that I would. Letting that golden rod out of the org was clearly TERRIFYING as they've become such an embarrassment.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
I've seen an almost identical SP declare and that was nearly a decade ago. At the time it made me realize how many squirrels there are! The DSA in my Org said "there are more people out there practicing Scientology than you could imagine".



They're not giving people their SP declares anymore. I never got mine despite being told that I would. Letting that golden rod out of the org was clearly TERRIFYING as they've become such an embarrassment.

I think the main reason for not publishing an Suppressive Personality Declaration is the defamation laws. As I see it, even showing one person, let alone the broad public an SP declare is their lack of ability to show adequate proof that the declared has a majority of the 12 characteristics in their anti-social tech and policy issues. If they cannot, then the declare is LIBEL, unless only the person issuing the delcare is the ONLY one who sees or hears the issue.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation


Defamation
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.


Just my layman's opinion, but as I see it, if the declared had a copy of the 'declare' and took it and the 'anti-social-anti-scientology' PL into court, the issuer would have an informidable chance of proving 'majority of twelve'. Thus defamation or libel and where applicable: slander.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Defamation
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.


Just my layman's opinion, but as I see it, if the declared had a copy of the 'declare' and took it and the 'anti-social-anti-scientology' PL into court, the issuer would have an informidable chance of proving 'majority of twelve'. Thus defamation or libel and where applicable: slander.

Wouldn't even a mass Facebook unfriending serve as evidence?

Paul
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well, isn't that to be expected? After all, in the words of a very clever writer, "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others". Remember?
In Scientology there is only one animal (read: Homo Novis) that is more equal than others but there are lots of animals that think they are more equal than others.
 
Top