scientology, by Mark "Marty" Rathbun

[shanic89]

Note that they both briefed the FBI years ago and the FBI were contemplating raiding the int base but backed off.

Eh how do you know this? Can you please provide proof of this, and in the real world proof is not he said she said, just so we a clear.

 

[TG1]

The only independent dox I know of is that the F.B.I. confirmed their investigation to Larry Wright. The F.B.I. sought evidence from 10-15 defectors who were higher-ups in cult management or closely connected to David Miscavige. Those included Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Tom Devocht, Amy Scobee, John Brousseau and others.

Larry wrote about this investigation and some of the witnesses in his 2011 article in The New Yorker.

See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

Some of those the witnesses have told me, independently, about their testimony to the F.B.I. in this investigation, and their stories sync with each other's testimony. But I don't think that's the proof you're looking for.

TG1

 

[Veda]

I don't want to edit my original post because I think that is often ruins the flow of conversation. However, I did mean to say that I think that LRH had ulterior motives when he transformed Scientology into a religion. (Don't try to do more than one thing at a time! Ha!)

Personally, I have a hard time seeing anything that includes "thetans" and "past lives" as a science.

The point is that there are similar subjects and practices that do not claim to be religious. See earlier posts.

Is there anyone here who was raised in Scientology after the IRS decision or who joined after that? Did they consider it a faith? I can see how someone who joined earlier would have an issue with the idea that Scientology is a religion.

HH addresses this:

-snip-

• Do (or did) all practitioners of Scientology consider it a religion? No. When the "religion angle" first arrived, it was considered by almost every Scientologist an inside joke or way to "handle" (trick) wogs and "SP" tax agencies, prosecutors and other government authorities. Later, as Scientologists were bombarded for decades with propaganda (and as they went "up the Bridge") their IQ continued to go down one point for every hour of exposure. And the diminishing number (but higher percentile) of Scientologists actually started to parrot the "religion" scam, as if it had merit beyond being a ruse that Hubbard employed to keep his hoax working.

Asking what people, who have been subjected to deception and mind manipulation, "consider," is problematic. Most people leaving Scn Inc. eventually cease thinking of themselves as Scientologists, and also - if they had been successfully deceived and brainwashed into accepting it as a "religion" - also, eventually, abandon the idea that it's a genuine religion.

In other words, the deception and brainwashing, in most cases, eventually wears off.

As for it being unlikely that the USA IRS decision will be reversed, that, by no means, is a given.

However, if Scn Inc. succeeds in shaping public opinion - in favor of its number one and most essential Big ("Scn Inc. = religious institution") Lie - as the result of decades of deception, propaganda, and dirty tactics, then it's less likely that the IRS will act.

Why help Scn Inc.? It makes no sense to do so.

Now, this conversation is going in circles. There are many excellent posts on this thread. Most questions are already answered.

Just ignore the drama.

If you want to see what others on ESMB think about it, do a search on my posts, and use "accountants" and "cloaking," and that should bring up a long post that features the views of many ESMBers.

 

[Gib]

I don't want to edit my original post because I think that is often ruins the flow of conversation. However, I did mean to say that I think that LRH had ulterior motives when he transformed Scientology into a religion. (Don't try to do more than one thing at a time! Ha!)

Personally, I have a hard time seeing anything that includes "thetans" and "past lives" as a science.

Is there anyone here who was raised in Scientology after the IRS decision or who joined after that? Did they consider it a faith? I can see how someone who joined earlier would have an issue with the idea that Scientology is a religion.

Hugh Urban was interviewed by BeliefNet awhile ago but his answer is similar to one I would give. I certainly don't see this position as supporting the church. It does not change the historical facts about the way Hubbard and his church have behaved and continue to behave. Urban does explain the negative aspects of the church and addresses the overall lack of vigorous scholarship about the church.




At this point, I think reversing the IRS decision is unlikely.

Understood. As far as reversing the IRS decision, who knows.

Regarding my earlier post in response to you, I would like to amend what I said, which is this:

"Hubbard got me on the philosophy angle, yet I wasn't learned about philosophy, and yet also wanted nothing to do with religion."

I'd like to amend that statement to this:

Hubbard got me on a the science angle. I wasn't seeking a philosophy nor religion, and this was in 1987 when I read Dianetics. But Hubbard saying scientology was a "applied religious philosophy" handled me on the religion aspect, but I always had doubts. And I never knew about religion nor philosophy at the time in 1987, I was uneducated in these things.

---------------------

In view of what I wrote above. I just now read the link you provided by Hugh Urban. It's a good read.

I do not know if you have read the link I provided which is this:

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-religion-different-philosophy-1287939.html

And specifically I'll point out this in that link:

"In philosophy, something is considered true only if it is completely proven true on a long term basis by means of various forms of reasoning. If it is not, then it will not be considered the ultimate truth. However, in case of religion, a lot of things are supernatural, superstitious, and incredulous in nature that only the concept of belief can make people stand by those things."

Now, here is the thing. While folks like Hugh Urban who has never experieced scientology first hand like me and others here, he just is missing a bit of the big picture.

What's interesting in Hugh's understanding of scientology is the missing link, which is there are no "clears" or "OTs".

So as far as philosophy is concerned and science,
"In philosophy, something is considered true only if it is completely proven true on a long term basis by means of various forms of reasoning." (there are no "clears and OTs")

So as far as religion is concerned,
" However, in case of religion, a lot of things are supernatural, superstitious, and incredulous in nature that only the concept of belief can make people stand by those things." (people believe they are "clear and OT)

Ergo, it's been since 1950 now and there are no "clears and no "OTs", thus it's a religion, based on beliefs.

---------------------------------

In either cases of calling scientology a religion, a applied religious philosophy, or a science of the mind,

it sucks. Having firsthand experience. It's a money making trap, a mouse trap, a hamster wheel to nowhere in the bridge to total freedom.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I'm coming back to this late, and perhaps it has already been said, but I consider it abusive to a child to do a "Sec Check" on them. To ask them questions about their early sexual development, their friends. To ask a child about their thoughts about "Hubbard" - a dead man old enough to be their grandfather when he died, and asking them to turn against their parents and share whatever may have been told in private about their feelings about Hubbard.

This creates a kind of emotional incest and deep feelings of shame and abuse. In young children! That's abuse.

I totally agree. I would never ever support anything like that. I never "promoted" anything. I said I had no problem with someone wanting to audit a child. Another contributor here, Mimsey, expanded a bit on that from his or her perspective naming processes that had been done and which could possibly be ok. However only one of us was accused of promoting Scn.
Nor did HH ask me anything.

I don't care if people take their kids to Mass or Sunday School or if they want to practice their religion with them. While it's certainly not anything my husband and I did (as I said, we believed something along the lines of Christianity would probably be best for kids-for more than 1 reason) I've generally had thoughts more similar to Mimsey's, albeit on a theoretical basis. I never did so, but I tend to think Mim's thoughts on light objectives, locationals, etc, are probably harmless. Neither of us-or anyone I know- would be ok with sec checks for kids. In fact, I think of that as just plain nuts for several reasons. In my family, we believe in letting kids be kids which you cannot do when you're submitting them to metered interrogations.

I am so glad that I was asked about this rather than being harangued, lectured and threatened with some bizarre set of warnings to unnamed people- oh wait...uhhhh.. Glad, too, that no double standards were...oh oooooops..

 

[jenni with an eye]

Lone Star, I think you seriously rock

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts & getting to know you via ESMB.

I really, really hope you will stick around but I understand your health must come first.

From me to you

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

I totally agree. I would never ever support anything like that. I never "promoted" anything. I said I had no problem with someone wanting to audit a child. Another contributor here, Mimsey, expanded a bit on that from his or her perspective naming processes that had been done and which could possibly be ok. However only one of us was accused of promoting Scn.
Nor did HH ask me anything.

I don't care if people take their kids to Mass or Sunday School or if they want to practice their religion with them. While it's certainly not anything my husband and I did (as I said, we believed something along the lines of Christianity would probably be best for kids-for more than 1 reason) I've generally had thoughts more similar to Mimsey's, albeit on a theoretical basis. I never did so, but I tend to think Mim's thoughts on light objectives, locationals, etc, are probably harmless. Neither of us-or anyone I know- would be ok with sec checks for kids. In fact, I think of that as just plain nuts for several reasons. In my family, we believe in letting kids be kids which you cannot do when you're submitting them to metered interrogations.

I am so glad that I was asked about this rather than being harangued, lectured and threatened with some bizarre set of warnings to unnamed people- oh wait...uhhhh.. Glad, too, that no double standards were...oh oooooops..

Claire, I appreciate your clarifying your position, but I still feel that comparing Scientologists who involve their children in their "religious practice" to Christians who take their children to Sunday school, is deeply problematic.

The problem I have is that some people like to pick and choose when they talk about Scientology. The way I see it, it isn't a menu where you say, I'll have the salad, but I'll skip the meatloaf. If you are Christian, it is generally agreed that you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, it's inherent in the ideology. Hubbard had a very specific belief about children, or he never could have had his band of "messengers" waiting on him hand and foot or locked children in chain lockers. I believe that one of the reasons why Katie Holmes finally decided that she had to leave Tom Cruise is because Suri was reaching an age, six I think, where she was going to begin a more intense level of sec checks/auditing, i.e., brainwashing. After seeing what happened to Nicole's children, I think she was horrified.

When you hear the stories about children in the "day care" of the Sea Org, caretakers having to get permission from the top just to let the kids go to the playground after they have been kept in the dark for weeks on end, etc, we all know the stories by heart now and even more atrocities are coming to light, we can find the truth. The fact is, on some level Hubbard didn't give a fuck about very young kids because they couldn't make him money - except he knew when they became pre-teen and teenagers they could be molded into people he could use for his own purposes.

For Mimsey to talk about "touch assists" and that kind of thing as a response to children in Scientology, obfuscates the fact that the true experience of a child in Scientology is horrific, which we have learned from testimonials, including Jenna Hill, and also the death of Alexander Jentzch. "Touch assists" to me is like someone inventing something called "embrace therapy", while the rest of us just call it giving someone a hug. It's the bullshit side of Scientology that seems to work, and covers up the rapacious greed that lies underneath.

There are a lot of aspects of Scientology that get debated here, but I feel that when we are talking about children, their just aren't two sides to the issue. And you or Mimsey putting a benign spin on it doesn't change the fact that children continue to be devastated by Scientology, if only by the disconnection process alone (look no further than Mark Bunkers interview of Lori Hodgson).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_P5ZaiLbdY

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

--snipped--

I never "promoted" anything. I said I had no problem with someone wanting to audit a child.

Nor did HH ask me anything.

I am so glad that I was asked about this rather than being harangued, lectured and threatened with some bizarre set of warnings to unnamed people

Here is what you actually said:

People sometimes seem to think babies, for example, aren't quite sentient-that they'll gain sentience as they grow older. And to that, I'd say, no, he's a thetan in a small body.

I also see absolutely nothing wrong with auditing a child...

For someone who has been exposed to the abuses of Scientology "tech" on children (via the internet and books) I find your statement above to be an abomination.

You see absolutely nothing wrong with auditing a child? Really?

Wasn't former OSA boss Mike Rinder "audited as a child" just before he started criminally fair faming innocent people? Wasn't Quentin Hubbard "audited as a child" before he committed suicide? Wasn't David Miscavige "audited as a child" before embarking on a sociopathically cruel reign of terror for thirty years, bankrupting, terrorizing and destroying families?

What about the documented stories of young Sea Org members who tried to commit suicide? What about the audited children of public Scientologists who killed themselves?

Do you need more examples?

If you "see absolutely nothing wrong with auditing a child" you see absolutely nothing at all.

 

[Terril park]

I don't want to edit my original post because I think that is often ruins the flow of conversation. However, I did mean to say that I think that LRH had ulterior motives when he transformed Scientology into a religion. (Don't try to do more than one thing at a time! Ha!)

Personally, I have a hard time seeing anything that includes "thetans" and "past lives" as a science.

Is there anyone here who was raised in Scientology after the IRS decision or who joined after that? Did they consider it a faith? I can see how someone who joined earlier would have an issue with the idea that Scientology is a religion.

Hugh Urban was interviewed by BeliefNet awhile ago but his answer is similar to one I would give. I certainly don't see this position as supporting the church. It does not change the historical facts about the way Hubbard and his church have behaved and continue to behave. Urban does explain the negative aspects of the church and addresses the overall lack of vigorous scholarship about the church.




At this point, I think reversing the IRS decision is unlikely.

DM's violations of IRS rules could do this.

 

[Terril park]

Eh how do you know this? Can you please provide proof of this, and in the real world proof is not he said she said, just so we a clear.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scient...gets-a-fresh-witness-but-hits-a-legal/1270193

Note that Marty has also posted about this on hisblog.

"Rinder lived in Tarpon Springs. Like Rathbun, he had worked for decades at the top levels of Scientology, many years paired with Rathbun on sensitive church projects. He defected in 2007. Two years later, in a Times series called "The Truth Rundown," he joined Rathbun in accusing Miscavige of bullying and abusing church managers, allegations the church denied. Church-hired private investigators routinely followed Rathbun and Rinder.

Now the men were providing information to FBI lead investigator Tricia Whitehill and agent Valerie Venegas. The agents gave them code names — "Cheese-N" for Rinder, "Crackers" for Rathbun.

Rinder called Whitehill and told her about Brousseau — a fresh runaway. He said he was heading to Texas to help Rathbun vet Brousseau. Rinder and the agent agreed he should record that conversation. It could show church interference if Brousseau was a plant."

 

[Terril park]

DM's violations of IRS rules could do this.

The kettles coming to the boil! The OP on the thread named here.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/05/08/ore...ew/#more-14716

OREGON SENATOR RON WYDEN ASKS IRS FOR SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW

 

[TG1]

The only independent dox I know of is that the F.B.I. confirmed their investigation to Larry Wright. The F.B.I. sought evidence from 10-15 defectors who were higher-ups in cult management or closely connected to David Miscavige. Those included Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Tom Devocht, Amy Scobee, John Brousseau and others.

Larry wrote about this investigation and some of the witnesses in his 2011 article in The New Yorker.

See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

Some of those the witnesses have told me, independently, about their testimony to the F.B.I. in this investigation, and their stories sync with each other's testimony. But I don't think that's the proof you're looking for.

TG1

Hey, Shanic.

You're welcome.

TG1

 

[Claire Swazey]

Like I said, I have never audited a child or told anyone to do so. I do have a live and let live approach on it, albeit with several (afore mentioned) caveats and reservations.
I'm not the only one to say such here, but am the only one who was threatened with warnings and whistle blowing. So, obviously, there are other motives at play here.

As far as the thetan in small body concept-as I also said, I do not consider children to be like adults, or to be adults in small bodies. I do not and never have believed in treating kids like adults. Spiritually speaking, I think a soul's a soul, but dealing with human beings, one raises and treats children dissimilarly to adults.

And if anyone comes after me or my loved ones or my household, whether that's via libel, slander, cyber warefare or IRL, it would not be a very good idea.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Claire, I appreciate your clarifying your position, but I still feel that comparing Scientologists who involve their children in their "religious practice" to Christians who take their children to Sunday school, is deeply problematic.

The problem I have is that some people like to pick and choose when they talk about Scientology. The way I see it, it isn't a menu where you say, I'll have the salad, but I'll skip the meatloaf. If you are Christian, it is generally agreed that you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, it's inherent in the ideology. Hubbard had a very specific belief about children, or he never could have had his band of "messengers" waiting on him hand and foot or locked children in chain lockers. I believe that one of the reasons why Katie Holmes finally decided that she had to leave Tom Cruise is because Suri was reaching an age, six I think, where she was going to begin a more intense level of sec checks/auditing, i.e., brainwashing. After seeing what happened to Nicole's children, I think she was horrified.

When you hear the stories about children in the "day care" of the Sea Org, ca[REFLIST][/REFLIST]retakers having to get permission from the top just to let the kids go to the playground after they have been kept in the dark for weeks on end, etc, we all know the stories by heart now and even more atrocities are coming to light, we can find the truth. The fact is, on some level Hubbard didn't give a fuck about very young kids because they couldn't make him money - except he knew when they became pre-teen and teenagers they could be molded into people he could use for his own purposes.

For Mimsey to talk about "touch assists" and that kind of thing as a response to children in Scientology, obfuscates the fact that the true experience of a child in Scientology is horrific, which we have learned from testimonials, including Jenna Hill, and also the death of Alexander Jentzch. "Touch assists" to me is like someone inventing something called "embrace therapy", while the rest of us just call it giving someone a hug. It's the bullshit side of Scientology that seems to work, and covers up the rapacious greed that lies underneath.

There are a lot of aspects of Scientology that get debated here, but I feel that when we are talking about children, their just aren't two sides to the issue. And you or Mimsey putting a benign spin on it doesn't change the fact that children continue to be devastated by Scientology, if only by the disconnection process alone (look no further than Mark Bunkers interview of Lori Hodgson).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_P5ZaiLbdY

I have my own views on auditing per se which vary depending on the process being run, the circumstances, and the person.

I'm ex Cof$ and ex FZ. That's really all any of my fellow critics ought to be concerned about. Like Mims, Panda and a number of others, I don't universally accept or damn the entire thing. I recognize that not everyone takes that approach. That's fine with me.

I do not think anyone actually needs auditing or TRs or wordclearing and it's been many years since I suggested anyone do those things, and I never recommended any of it for kids. On the other hand, I'm generally mellow about some people's having opted to do some things with all that, depending on the people, the circumstances and precisely what proceeses, etc. Fr'instance, I've already said no sec checks.

We are a diverse group of human beings with varying perspectives and opinions. Cof$ doesn't permit such, and their thought police routine is wrong and downright evil. Needless to say, I do not respect any other person (or milieu) who similarly forwards such a mindset. It doesn't belong here; it doesn't resonate with me; and I will not accept it.

 

[shanic89]

The only independent dox I know of is that the F.B.I. confirmed their investigation to Larry Wright. The F.B.I. sought evidence from 10-15 defectors who were higher-ups in cult management or closely connected to David Miscavige. Those included Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Tom Devocht, Amy Scobee, John Brousseau and others.

Larry wrote about this investigation and some of the witnesses in his 2011 article in The New Yorker.

See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

Some of those the witnesses have told me, independently, about their testimony to the F.B.I. in this investigation, and their stories sync with each other's testimony. But I don't think that's the proof you're looking for.

TG1

Hey, Shanic.

You're welcome.

TG1

Sorry TG1, thank you for the information, I have not had the time to read through the link you provided yet unfortunately. There are several things that I would like to discuss about this. Number one being people holding up the fact that marty and mike went to the FBI as some kind of offering on there part to do right, considering at that time they were both still in love with l ron. It seems that maybe they where asked to come in? Was there ever a raid that was prepared for int base? Is any of this actually true or just fantasy? This is probably not the thread or time to do so though, as I said I did not read the link above as of yet.

 

[Cat Daddy]

Starting a Marty fan club soon, than we will make it into a religion. And of course there will be Martians in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7nSLaqMzJI

 

[Knows]

Actually I see it differentially.

Your 4 points above, I answer as thus:

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. no & yes.

Your answer, if I am correct is this:

1. no
2. yes
3. yes
4. you don't know.

One has to remember Hubbard called Scientology a "applied religious philosophy". Thus my answer to number 4 as "no & yes".

Here is a good answer between the difference between religion and philosophy:

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-religion-different-philosophy-1287939.html

Hubbard was smart in that he combined the two, thus confusing us.

Hubbard got me on the philosophy angle, yet I wasn't learned about philosophy, and yet also wanted nothing to do with religion.

And Hubbard got others on the religion angle, and he called it "thetan" or in other words "soul".

This is how I see it. I have no idea if others see it this way.

I got into the Cult of Scientology a few years ago. After Dianetics - I read "What is Scientology" which is the "religious cloaking book". I got in for the benefits of Dianetics but STAYED in because I thought this "religious group" would be different as promised in 'What is Scientology'. I thought the self correcting justice system would protect people like me (high producer, smart, able and a helper) from getting used and abused by the crazies like I had experienced in other "religious groups".

Hubbard also stated in some tapes that "he did not want to call it a religion - WE did" and some other stuff about how "Churches should HELP people" and that is what Scientology promises...help for the able to become more able!

I must say that a few years of training, auditing and "group participation" gave me a full experience of the lack of a self correcting justice system and more like a Organizational extraction extortion ring in this criminal organization.

My experience has given me full and total conceptual understanding that Scientology IS the WORST religion I have ever experienced (and I had tried quite a few) and it is SO BAD - that I will never, ever-ever-ever-ever - be part of any religion again! It totally ruined my hope for mankind on the subject of RELIGION - It is a CULT!

 

[shanic89]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scient...gets-a-fresh-witness-but-hits-a-legal/1270193

Note that Marty has also posted about this on hisblog.

"Rinder lived in Tarpon Springs. Like Rathbun, he had worked for decades at the top levels of Scientology, many years paired with Rathbun on sensitive church projects. He defected in 2007. Two years later, in a Times series called "The Truth Rundown," he joined Rathbun in accusing Miscavige of bullying and abusing church managers, allegations the church denied. Church-hired private investigators routinely followed Rathbun and Rinder.

Now the men were providing information to FBI lead investigator Tricia Whitehill and agent Valerie Venegas. The agents gave them code names — "Cheese-N" for Rinder, "Crackers" for Rathbun.

Rinder called Whitehill and told her about Brousseau — a fresh runaway. He said he was heading to Texas to help Rathbun vet Brousseau. Rinder and the agent agreed he should record that conversation. It could show church interference if Brousseau was a plant."

Thanks for the link, haven't read it yet though. "Cheese-N" for Rinder, "Crackers" for Rathbun, that is some funny shit, they must have been rolling on the floor when they come up with that.

 

[shanic89]

I have my own views on auditing per se which vary depending on the process being run, the circumstances, and the person.

I'm ex Cof$ and ex FZ. That's really all any of my fellow critics ought to be concerned about. Like Mims, Panda and a number of others, I don't universally accept or damn the entire thing. I recognize that not everyone takes that approach. That's fine with me.

I do not think anyone actually needs auditing or TRs or wordclearing and it's been many years since I suggested anyone do those things, and I never recommended any of it for kids. On the other hand, I'm generally mellow about some people's having opted to do some things with all that, depending on the people, the circumstances and precisely what proceeses, etc. Fr'instance, I've already said no sec checks.

We are a diverse group of human beings with varying perspectives and opinions. Cof$ doesn't permit such, and their thought police routine is wrong and downright evil. Needless to say, I do not respect any other person (or milieu) who similarly forwards such a mindset. It doesn't belong here; it doesn't resonate with me; and I will not accept it.

To me your attitude is just stunning.

You say that all any critics should care about is that you are an ex cofs and an ex free zone, I can not see that being a free pass for anyone. Just because you are an ex anything does not mean you should be not held accountable for your actions or current beliefs.

You have been in the church, you know that there are no clears, no OTs, you know about the abuses that permeate throughout scientology, yet you see no problem with having a child audited. To me that is insane. To say to any parent that its safe and there are benefits in using scientolgy auditing on a child is bullshit of the highest order. How would that conversation go? Would you say, hay look you can only do this, don't do that, and oh god don't let them sec check, oh yes by the way you will have to believe in scientology as well otherwise your child will have to disconnect but otherwise it's all OK.

Lets be honest here if you lived on the same street as me, or your children went to the same school as mine, and you were telling other parents on my street or neighborhood that auditing for children is OK I would make sure that everyone knew that it was not OK and you are not to be trusted, in fact maybe dangerous.


Just so that you are not being haunted by the thought police, I am not telling you how to think, I am telling you that I believe auditing children is down right dangerous and has no place in a well adjusted society, that children are not thetans in small bodies, they are children.

 

[TG1]

Sorry TG1, thank you for the information, I have not had the time to read through the link you provided yet unfortunately. There are several things that I would like to discuss about this. Number one being people holding up the fact that marty and mike went to the FBI as some kind of offering on there part to do right, considering at that time they were both still in love with l ron. It seems that maybe they where asked to come in? Was there ever a raid that was prepared for int base? Is any of this actually true or just fantasy? This is probably not the thread or time to do so though, as I said I did not read the link above as of yet.

I totally understand if you haven't yet read that article. It's 24,000 words long. But you can just search at that link for F.B.I. -- you'll find the references to that investigation there.

Also, the Tampa Bay article someone else referred you to was a good one.

I've also seen a lot of other people discuss their involvement with the F.B.I. on Marty's blog back in the day (2-3 years ago, I think). You can google Marty's site for either F.B.I. or FBI and find some stuff that way.

Re Marty and Mike being in love with L. Ron at the time of the F.B.I. investigation ... I think you should reconsider that assumption. What they have said about Hubbard in their respective blogs and elsewhere online is not necessarily what they believed at the time -- my personal opinion. I think of them as two guys who are committed to taking down Miscavige and the cult. And they have been trying to do that for a long time now. For them, it's professional and it's personal, very personal -- again, that's my opinion.

Re Marty and Mike being "asked to come in" ... I don't think it worked that way. Dozens of people who've left the Sea Org (once they got their pins back under them) have walked into F.B.I. offices all around the country and said, "I think you need to listen to what I've got to say." Some of the "higher ups" in Scientology who devoted their lives to "saving the planet" (palmface, but you know what mean) who aren't terminally stupid, once they wake up, actually feel pretty bad about what they created. Crimes were committed. By them. By others. And crimes are still being committed. Not everyone who used to be an exec in the CoS is, at heart, an evil person. A lot of them want to make amen"make up the damage done." I think Marty and Mike are among those who feel that way. Again, my personal opinion.

I did hear that a raid was planned by the F.B.I. to rescue people at Int who were being held in the hole. But multiple people who'd been in the Hole told the F.B.I., "Nobody will come out with you. They'll all say they're fine -- even if they're being starved and beaten nightly. They're brainwashed." Or words to that effect.

There were other efforts made, I believe, to (shall we say) give CoS executives multiple chances to incriminate themselves. But apparently none of those efforts worked. Or they didn't work sufficiently well.

I know about some F.B.I. operations in other parts of the country having nothing to do with CoS that took as long as ten years to yield indictments. Those dudes work very, very slowly and dot every I and cross every T before they do anything publicly. The way they work is to get the dirt on one person after years of watching them. And then get them to rat out other people who then rat out other people until they get the goods on The Big Cheese.

It's hard being patient about this crap. And it's hard to get justice, period.

I've not been very vocal about Marty and Mike here, but from where I sit they could have walked away 7 or even 10 years ago and never looked back. They didn't. They're still down in Florida and Texas whacking away on Miscavige and the cult.

Speaking for myself, I'm glad they didn't walk away.

TG1