OSA's Official DA on Debbie Cook's e-mail

..

Over and above the specifics of David Miscavige's financial malfeasance, isn't Debbie already in breach of that policy which defines the manner in which internal conflicts are to be managed? Perhaps efforts might better be directed towards a policy consideration in that regard. And, just to complicate matters, there's also the "seniority" of policy, not to mention "Command Intention". Still, good luck to those burrowing through the OEC Volumes. Sorta reminds me of some arguments I've seen between Christians, each side quoting from the same source but each contradicting the other. In light of the L Ron Hubbard Law of Commotion, the same seems to apply to Scientology.

Are you saying that the COS, by sueing Debbie, are themselves violating their policies of handling things within the cults own "justice" (cough, cough ,spew) system?
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Hey FTS.

What I was hoping is that some brilliant and wise Scientologist Scholars would show how the DA material was taken out of context. Squirreled, corrupted, violated or otherwise contorted.

The Cof$ has become expert in torturing extracts of Hubbard's work to make it say what was wanted out of context. Input was wanted to demonstrate how.

Cop ya later.

Reading the DA material, it started perculating in my mind during the day and I came up with what I believe are some valid critques.

SOFT SALE?
Hubbard distinguished between THREE type of sales, the SOFT SALE, the HARD SALE and the CRUSH SALE! The DA just comes out swinging, calling Debbie Cook an SP for engaging in the Soft Sale. There is no evidence of this. She was the head exec at the Flag Land Base for !7 YEARS!! She presided over a time span when $1.7billion dollars was regged for and obtained!! Obviously, she was not promoting a Soft Sell but rather she was promoting a Hard Sale.

LRH wrote a policy in the Registrars Hat Pack frowning on Crush Reging. This is where lies and tricks are used to get money which a parishioner actually needs to survive. An example might be to get the parishioner to sell his car but by doing so cause him to be unable to get to work thus cause him to lose his job. The DA must prove that Debbie used the soft sale and not just assert it. Until they prove it with concrete data and examples, I would not accept their assertion

WHY ARE SO MANY BIG NAME AND LONG TIME SCIENTOLOGISTS FOUND TO BE SUPPRESIVE?

John McMaster, Otto Roos, David Mayo, Hanna Eltringham, Bill Franks, and more recently Larry Anderson, Mike Rinder, Paul Hagis, Jason Behge and now Debbie Cook - on and on and on the list goes. All these people were once opinion leaders, top names and top producers in the C of S and are all now declared suppressive.

How can this be? Suppressives represent only 2.5% of the population so how can so many of them gravitate into leadership positions in the C of S and remain there undetected for decades. The C of S is the most experienced group, in fact possibly the only group, which is trained to spot and handle suppressive people, so why were all these people able to rise to leadership positions and remain undetected as suppressive persons for decades?

There are several ways that this could happen:
1. The person came into C of S as a non-suppressive person but being in C of S over a period of years caused then to exhibit suppressive tendencies.
2. The person is not suppressive but they have an honest disagreement with C of S who then labels them suppressive even though they are not so.
3. The person was suppressive all the time and yet went undetected by C of S management for years or many decades.

All of these reflect very badly on C of S. It either shows that the PTS/SP tech is ineffective and does not work or that church execs cannot apply it since so many suppressives remain undetected even though having worked closely with C of S's top Management for very long periods of time .

Another question is why all of these people had very high stats for extended periods of time. LRH's tech says that suppressives cannot finish cycles of actions and that they turn out overt products. That being the case, added to the fact they are only 2.5% of the population leads one to believe that point #2 is the correct description of why they have been declared.

INFINITE VALUED LOGIC?
LRH talks about Aristotle teaching two valued logic, either a thing is correct or incorrect. He mention that Western science and math developed 3 valued logic; yes, no or maybe. He then says that the study of Scientology leads to Infinite Valued logic. Eveything has some degree of truth and some degree of a lie within it. There are therefore infinite shades of grey as gradients of how true or how false a particular assertion is.

The DA attacking Debbie Cook exhibits single valued logic; either someone believes 100% in what C of S is saying or else they are a suppressive person. In C of S, infinite valued logic is not allowed. No one is allowed to question anything set down by top Management. Even questioning something in a positive manner is considered a suppressive act. This shows that the Infinite Valued Logic which LRH talked about, as a tenet of Scientology, is not allowed in the church, nor is 3 valued logic, nor even two valued logic. C of S admits only 1 value logic; one must agree with what they say or be cast out as a suppressive person.

There are other specific topics where I have counterarguments against the DA but this post is getting long and the topics I've covered suffice to show the weakness of the DA's arguments.
Lakey
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
WHY ARE SO MANY BIG NAME AND LONG TIME SCIENTOLOGISTS FOUND TO BE SUPPRESIVE?

John McMaster, Otto Roos, David Mayo, Hanna Eltringham, Bill Franks, and more recently Larry Anderson, Mike Rinder, Paul Hagis, Jason Behge and now Debbie Cook - on and on and on the list goes. All these people were once opinion leaders, top names and top producers in the C of S and are all now declared suppressive.

How can this be? Suppressives represent only 2.5% of the population so how can so many of them gravitate into leadership positions in the C of S and remain there undetected for decades. The C of S is the most experienced group, in fact possibly the only group, which is trained to spot and handle suppressive people, so why were all these people able to rise to leadership positions and remain undetected as suppressive persons for decades?

The answer is simple. Those folks are espee for the same reason that Trotsky, Bucharin, and most of the other "old comrades" were found to be bourgeoise, counter-revolutionary Trotskyite revisionists ... because Stalin said so, and the military, the Cheka (later known as the KGB), the inner party aparachiks, and the outer party hacks all listened to him and followed his orders ... probably because they, too, were afraid of being declared to be bourgeoise, counter-revolutionary Trotskyite revisionists as well.

Pete
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hey FTS.

What I was hoping is that some brilliant and wise Scientologist Scholars would show how the DA material was taken out of context. Squirreled, corrupted, violated or otherwise contorted.

The Cof$ has become expert in torturing extracts of Hubbard's work to make it say what was wanted out of context. Input was wanted to demonstrate how.

Cop ya later.

I think that's a job for a dedicated free zoner/ indie who still gives a shit about all of LRH's turgid bullshit. Once someone realizes its all nothing but a complex scam I can't imagine having the patience to try and wade throughout his ramblings and word salads to prove anything.

We all know LRH purposely produced so much material and went in so many bizarre directions as his mood swung, needs, wants and opinions changed that you could pretty much back up any opinion or point of view with an LRH reference. The only type of source you won't find is any that gets in the way of giving money to Hubbard.

I'll never wrap my head around the idea of people using Hubbard's inane, puely fictional blathering pulled directly out of his ass (I always love when culties refer to his "research" ha!) to "prove" anything.




-
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

LRH wrote a policy in the Registrars Hat Pack frowning on Crush Reging. This is where lies and tricks are used to get money which a parishioner actually needs to survive. An example might be to get the parishioner to sell his car but by doing so cause him to be unable to get to work thus cause him to lose his job.

-snip-

Wouldn't want to Crush Sell. Then the "mark" wouldn't be able to make more money so as to be Hard Sold - by being told what to buy, and controlled (including tricked and lied to) into doing so (being already in an hypnotic stupor anyway, as Hubbard explained it), but not to the point of incapacitating the person so he can't produce more money. Smart.

Suck their blood and vitality, but keep them alive so as to continue using them.

Wise policy. Ah, the good old days!
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Wouldn't want to Crush Sell. Then the "mark" wouldn't be able to make more money so as to be Hard Sold - by being told what to buy, and controlled (including tricked and lied to) into doing so (being already in an hypnotic stupor anyway, as Hubbard explained it), but not to the point of incapacitating the person so he can't produce more money. Smart.

Suck their blood and vitality, but keep them alive so as to continue using them.

Wise policy. Ah, the good old days!

That was Hubbards' actual research - how much fantasy that he cooked up would people believe and how much would they pay for it...
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I think that's a job for a dedicated free zoner/ indie who still gives a shit about all of LRH's turgid bullshit. Once someone realizes its all nothing but a complex scam I can't imagine having the patience to try and wade throughout his ramblings and word salads to prove anything.

Exactamente. Just what I thought when I saw the OP. Sometimes I do it when I am interested in the subject, usually some tech matter, but this? Nah.

Paul
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Let's leave this one to the Martyans? :biggrin:

Actually let's be overt and linguistically insouciant: - the Martians. and speaking of which, here's one now:

Martin Padfield | February 4, 2012 at 11:07 am :

I was thrilled to see in the last thread that you and Marty standing shoulder to shoulder with Debbie. Your combined experience and insights will prove priceless in this action and makes me a lot more optimistic about the eventual outcome. Although as I and several others have noted – David Miscavige has already lost. It ALMOST doesn’t matter what the legal outcome is in the end. The net results will inevitably include:
1. More Independents practising Scientology free of suppression
2. Corporate Scientology income lines drying up with public staying away in droves
3. Miscavige psychosis and bullying exposed to the world in sharper focus than ever before
4. Mass de-PTSing of the fence-sitting, radar-flying sector. Debbie Cook taking on the might of Radical Scientology? I can just see public OTs saying to themselves “is my neck really so precious?” Or, to put it another way: “Friendliest Place in the World Sues ex Chief for Contract Violation” – what’s wrong with this picture?

...

I’ll shut up now and politely ask all blog readers to let the movers and shakers do their moving and shaking with as little distraction as possible. I’ve done the donation, sent the messages of support; this is no time for off-topic, trolling-type carping and whingeing. There are big beings working hard on all our behalfs. Now really is the time to simply grab the remaining popcorn (that Sam hasn’t already eaten) and enjoy the show.


We rabble on ESMB are far too rowdy and turbulent. Note how the poster makes his tack sharp analysis after appropriate pandering then stfu so as not to get in the way of the heavy hitters. That is an inspiring example of how the real hubbardism kool aid drinker comports himself and voluntarily limits his own freedom of expression.

Now, back to the real world. Start. :thumbsup:
 

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
When I first saw this thread, I thought WTF?

After reading Tony Ortega's article:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/scientology_wan_1.php

I remembered the Laura Diekman and Marc/Claire Headley cases. Laura Diekman won her appeal for a jury trial, ability to eliminate statute of limitation issues because of the COS oppressive NDAs, and keeping it in state court, not federal court in California. Marc and Claire are headed to appeal soon, if I am not mistaken.

In both the Headly/Diekman cases, the COS was essentially sued for human trafficking/human rights and worker violations. Their defense, from my limited understanding was "yes its all true, but its scripture ... religious practice protected under the first amendment". It worked, at least initially. Judges do not want to mess with first amendment issues in civil court.

So, if you sue the COS, they hide under the first amendment, religious practices, church law, doctrine, etc. Never mind there is no way to test doctrine as to what might be genuine, or what is set up to protect themselves.

If they sue you, it is all business and they want religion out of it.

My attorney friend told me he didn't think this was defensible, he called it estoppel I believe.

Seems BIA was a bit sharper than me, dropping this bone to the collective for some think tank action. Anyone could forward a well written email to Debbie's attorney, now public knowledge, with a carefully thought out doctrine challenge to the COS doctrine challenge to Debbie's doctrine challenge.

This could be important.

Also what might be interesting is to come up with a list of policies that made it Debbie duty as a Scientologist to write that email she was sued for.

Before I got mostly disconnected from, I dream t of doing what Debbie did!
 

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
From my experience with attorneys and the COS, the learning curve of attorneys understanding a new subject, especially researching and understanding Hubbard writings is the most difficult part of the learning curve, a good attorney understands the law, but being able to condense aspects of something as vast as Scientology into relevant, accurate and in context pieces might be valuable.
 

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
My first contribution to this would be that everything referenced is predicated on actual COS expansion, which I think could be discredited with public record or open knowledge of declining membership and statistics.

The only "expansion" of the COS is more cash reserves and more nicer buildings, done with extortionist pressures on its shrinking membership base. I don't know if anyone has statisized number of suicides, but I am thinking they are up in the last decade, with Biggie and all.
 
My first contribution to this would be that everything referenced is predicated on actual COS expansion, which I think could be discredited with public record or open knowledge of declining membership and statistics.

The only "expansion" of the COS is more cash reserves and more nicer buildings, done with extortionist pressures on its shrinking membership base. I don't know if anyone has statisized number of suicides, but I am thinking they are up in the last decade, with Biggie and all.

what does, "with Biggie and all." mean?
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
I had not thought of that angle ...

What Scientological policies ("scripture") was Debbie Cook compelled to follow as a true-blue Scientologist that led her to write and send that email?

(Apologies if I missed someone posted this question earlier.)

TG1
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Wouldn't want to Crush Sell. Then the "mark" wouldn't be able to make more money so as to be Hard Sold - by being told what to buy, and controlled (including tricked and lied to) into doing so (being already in an hypnotic stupor anyway, as Hubbard explained it), but not to the point of incapacitating the person so he can't produce more money. Smart.

Suck their blood and vitality, but keep them alive so as to continue using them.

Wise policy. Ah, the good old days!

Well stated!!! Yes that is the reason why Hubbard came out with the admonition for his registrars not to CRUSH sell. He did not do it for altruistic reasons or out of kind heartednes but nevertheless, he did do it. I did not particularly want to get into why he did it but I am glad that you brought this to light!

I am merely using the fact that he did come out against CRUSH selling to refute the argument in the DA report!

The DA argument is that since Debbie Cook objected to the type of regging which is going on in today's C of S, she is encouraging the SOFT SELL. In other words the DA looks at the field of sales as having ONLY TWO types of selling, SOFT and HARD. They reason that if a person is against HARD Selling, they MUST be for SOFT selling. My goal is to show that assumption to be in error.

Knowing that in Hubbard's writings at least THREE types of selling were mentioned - SOFT, HARD and CRUSH, easily debunks the DA assumption. What Debbie came out against was CRUSH selling, not HARD selling. What she actually promoted was HARD selling and not SOFT selling. THERE IS NO POLICY THAT SP'S SUPPORT HARD SELLING so the DA argument is shown to be false.
Lakey
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
I had not thought of that angle ...

What Scientological policies ("scripture") was Debbie Cook compelled to follow as a true-blue Scientologist that led her to write and send that email?

(Apologies if I missed someone posted this question earlier.)

TG1

I am thinking that she is following the policy, KSW #1, "Keeping Scientology Working". She sees what she perceives as wrongs going on and is using the policy of writing up KR's, Knowledge Reports. Since she knows that Top Management will not seriously entertain her KR's, she has sent them out to the public instead.

The other major poicy or scripture which she appears to be using is doing the "Doubt Formula" on C of S management. Perhaps the step on dealing a blow to the enemy is her justification for sending her KR directly to the public instead of sending it upline to management. Those are just my opinions based on what she wrote on New Year's eve plus the writings she has issued since then.
Lakey
 

Veda

Sponsor
"He [Hubbard] stated that coming ashore would be profitable because we could get so many more people to the Flag Land Base, as it was to be called, for auditing and training, and he also wanted to concentrate on getting professionals to the Land Base, because, of course, they had more accessible money. They had pension funds. They had children's education funds, and some of these he named, that were accessible."

Hana Eltringham. at 3:28 - 3:50 of the below video, speaking of the 1975 period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhULw6qarW4&feature=related

Hubbard's written instructions on money-getting are only partly available, since there is a thick secret layer of Hubbard's instructions, per Hubbard's organized crime - tight conspiracy - model. A case can be made that such and such is not in the Green Volumes, etc., but that is a bit unrealistic.

Then there was Hubbard's "solution to inflation" 1976 "Your fees do not go to me" statement, which was an absolute lie, and then the looting of the Missions in 1982.

Hubbard's habit of swindling, apparently, began years earlier, with Don Purcell (circa early 1950s) being the best remembered victim of that era.

There are potential problems with opening up the can of worms of Scientology's history, and Scientology doctrine.
 

Sindy

Crusader
Can the church get away with being selective in its enforcement of the NDAs? There are others who have signed those whom the church has not sued. Amy Scobee is a good example.

Amy wrote a book for goodness sake but Amy talked about how DM was violent and I suppose they didn't want to touch that with a ten foot(bullet) pole.

I wouldn't want them going after Amy but, if pressed they might have to admit that Amy was already a lying apostate, who was easily discredited, and so there was no need to go after her but then that would lead back to how Debbie must not have been considered as such and that her damage was caused by the fact that she was still in good standing.

Can they choose their battles this way and not run into trouble?
 

koki

Silver Meritorious Patron
I would love to see the SP Declare list in full. It must be getting long now.

good idea .... to make toilet paper with SP list.....
one can just buy one and it goes on and on and on and on.......

P.S. hey Dave....that was my idea,.....remember me- when you order cleaning of your money-counting machines:coolwink:
( I really mean this):eyeroll:
 
Top