ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing

Discussion in 'Monique Rathbun' started by JBWriter, Feb 4, 2014.

  1. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Never-in...true.

    Often stupid, frequently a dumbass, but never ignorant enough to think I would have been immune to the coercive practices of Co$/scientology.

    JB = never-in due to dumb luck. Really.
     
  2. aegerprimo

    aegerprimo Summa Cum Laude

    ... and Humble!

    [​IMG]
     
  3. still here

    still here Patron with Honors

    Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Trademark Issue

    This is a really good post. :thumbsup: I totally agree.

    One of things that always amazed me once I had moved on from the green on white rubbish, was how incompetent and inadequate it was.
    After escaping I did a business studies degree and although the SO had managed to give me a strong aversion to statistics, I found I loved them in the real world.

    I have continued to in my professional career, but in nothing like the way Scn uses them.

    Your final caution was also useful to me, and a slight variation which also fits Scientology is known as "You get what you inspect, not what expect"
     
  4. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    Ah. A 35er.

    Not surprised.

    I will ask no more.

    Oh, wait. One more question: was the OJT 35M? :hysterical:

    I, too, am a Yankee by choice. Sorta. It was where the jobs were.
     
  5. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    What the hell are you people saying?

    OJT

    NQR

    ABT

    OIK

    Huh?
     
  6. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Trademark Issue

    Oh yes. Or the alternative in the form of a directive: inspect what you expect.
     
  7. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    You weren't in the club, TG1. :p

    JB, as a civilian, I worked with 35P and 35Q at the very end of the Cold War.
     
  8. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

    So if DM got a sex change so would you? Wow.

    So if you were a man, and DM is a man, you would get a sex change?

    I'm a man. Wait. Do you mean I... I ... on noes. Not that. Please not that.
     
  9. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    I juzz LUVZ U-man & JBW...Y'all bring so much sustenance in well prepared, appetizing, nutritious dishes--culinated from first quality fresh ingredients--to our Moveable Feast. :thumbsup::yes::clap:

    Sooo glad they are here with all of Us. :coolwink:

    Face:)
     
  10. aegerprimo

    aegerprimo Summa Cum Laude

    I had to Google some hearsay on this alphabet soup. I know how the military loves its acronyms. Here is what I found, correct me if I got any wrong JB and/or Udarnik (I have never been in the military).

    MOS - Military Occupational Specialty (US Army)

    OJT – On Job Training

    NQR - Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance (also means National Qualifications Register)

    ABT - Air Combat Training

    OIK - ????? (could only find British derogatory terms)

    35P - Cryptologic Linguist
    35Q – Cryptologic Network Warfare Specialist

    ASVAB - Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is a multiple-aptitude test that measures developed abilities and helps predict future academic and occupational success in the military.

    HUH? – :confused2:

    /derail continued
     
  11. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Sorry, TG1.
    Didn't intend to confuse anyone - was just trying to answer Udarnik's question.

    ASVAB = Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
    (The written tests a civilian enlistee-candidate takes to assess the military jobs for which s/he is best suited.)

    AIT = Advanced Individual Training
    (After Basic Training, the enlisted Service Member ("SM") attends their AIT course for his/her particular job<--- called an MOS.)

    Once the SM has worked a bit in a unit performing that particular MOS, s/he can apply to obtain a different MOS. If the application is approved, the SM is sent to AIT again, and is now authorized to work in either MOS. Most enlisted SMs remain in their original MOS for the duration of their service.

    OJT = "On the Job Training" (<----Yes, it should be OTJT. But it's not.) If an SM with a brand-new MOS of 71L10, (clerk) for example, is sent to a unit that already has every clerk position slotted & filled, then the SM can be sent to work in a different position and learn the 'job' by actually doing it. If that same SM performs the 'job' very well, the SM's chain of command (superiors) can give a 'job proficiency test' at unit-level, and if the SM scores well, the test results are sent all the way up the chain of command to DA (Dept of the Army) and the secondary MOS is awarded, even though the SM learned that MOS it via OJT.

    Branch = Service classification. Engineers, JAG, Infantry, Military Intelligence, Medical Corps, Military Police, etc.
    (If Army = Hogwarts, then Branch = Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, Slytherin, etc.) Enlisted personnel can change branch of service, but I don't know of anyone personally. It does happen in the Officer ranks every now and again, however.

    Dry stuff, I know.

    FunFact: I stood in a packed room of about 300 people, all of us waiting to raise our hands and be sworn-in. While we were waiting, the speaker in the ceiling tile above my head began to play, "Stupid Girl" by Garbage, and I glanced up, nodded along to the beat, smiled brightly and thought, "wow - great tune!"

    I didn't see the irony until much, much later.
    But, I still smile every time I hear that song.
    Every. Time.

    /derail

    JB

    EDIT: Forgot something, my apologies, folks.

    Udarnik: You worked with Officers. (35s) JB=Enlisted.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2014
  12. Lulu Belle

    Lulu Belle Moonbat

    JBW,

    You are precious, and such an asset here.

    Thanks for caring about the carnage left by this nasty cult.

    It is appreciated.
     
  13. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    It is meaningless to talk about "corporate structure" with respect to Scientology, for similar reasons to why it's meaningless to talk about the corporate structure of the Mafia, or the Cali cartel.

    Corporate structure is all about who is legally authorized to issue orders to who. But the law does not have relevance in the day to day operations of Scn, or the Mafia. What has relevance is who has the power to do unpleasant things to whom.

    In the context of Scientology, it comes down to:
    1) Who has the power to cause SP declares to be issued.
    2) Who has the power to cause Sea Org members to be RPF'ed
    3) Who has the power to come to your space and beat the crap out of you.

    A careful analysis of the true lines of power in Scn, would reveal it is all one entity, controlled absolutely by the damn midget.
     
  14. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    No wonder you caught on to sci-speak so fast! ;)
     
  15. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

  16. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    Obviously, Lamont is a real smart feller...Rice University is a private institution in the same academic category as Harvard & Stanford and, although there are athletic scholarships at these schools, there are no "gimmies" at them for academic acceptance for athletes. :yes:

    IMO, the stakes in this Case for the Cof$, whether they realize it or not, may well be the highest in their loooong history of litigation. Scn has the finest lawyers money can buy and have "dug in" for an "anything goes" fight, and if they settle or don't prevail are facing "Open Season" on their ass...at least in Texas. Also, IMO, the longer the Cof$ goes on with this the more they will lose as "The Media" will more and more cover the carnage and salacious details..."If it bleeds, it leads". :thumbsup:

    I have know idea, outside of the dough (which may well have been Numero Uno), why Lamont took this Case, but I'll betcha dollars to doughnuts there were some other factors we'll probably never know that were part of his decision...including the fact that he didn't fully fathom the basal amoral morality of his Client. :no:

    I think Lamont has realized he's potentially got himself in real pickle and serious fight that is more than he bargained for but is gonna give his professional all and do his job for the Team. :ohmy:

    We are watching History unfold and I'm most grateful I found my way here to see and share it with all Y'all. :clap:

    Face:)
     
  17. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    My take on the amendment is that the only thing that changed was that prior to that amendment CSI could not enforce against violations without RTC and after that amendment they could enforce without RTC but there is nothing there that RTC has given up any of their rights nor does it say that CSI can enforce without informing RTC of what is going on. In order to make a determination on that then one would have to see the entire agreement and the Judge can ask for that just to clarify.

    IMO it is merely a smoke screen and was put there to be noticed but not scrutinized because if it is scrutinized then it will show that the only thing that changed was that CSI could enforce on there own. I don't think this does anything to help RTC because in order for such an agreement to be legal, it has to be recorded somewhere in the public meaning the whole agreement is out there somewhere recorded by a county recorder or court.

     
  18. JBWriter

    JBWriter Happy Sapien

    Excellent points, Freethinker. :thumbsup:

    #1 - The entire agreement needs to be thoroughly reviewed by Plaintiff's attorneys, at the very least, to support TeamRTC-DM's oft-repeated assertion that CSI is wholly separate from RTC. A few sworn statements saying 'they're separate entities, honest!' just doesn't cut it.

    #2 - The agreement isn't legal if it hasn't been recorded? I didn't know that. Anyone know where such a document is ordinarily filed?:confused2:

    JB
     
  19. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    I would think with the County Clerk.

    One of the first things I noticed about that Amendment is that it isn't notarized.
     
  20. The Sloth

    The Sloth Patron with Honors


    The money is a major factor. With one kid in college and two more on the way, the State's pay grade didn't cut it.

    I think perhaps the "hook" for him was the religious angle\1st Amendment issues. Things are heating up in that area, what with ObamaCare mandating that, for example, nuns be provided contraceptives. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/u...-blocking-contraception-mandate-for-nuns.html) That is currently stayed at the Supreme Court level, but up for hearings I think in June. Being a Defensive Player, and somewhat of an idealist, he may have dreamed himself into taking this case as a "greatest good" kind of gig. However, as he is learning the hard way, you can NEVER trust anything the "CoS" presents as fact. I kind of feel sorry for the guy. Cedillo, not so much. I think he doth protesteth too much about 'criminal sanctions'. And the overt doth speak loud in the accusation....