What's new

Wholesale Violations of Priest-Penitent Privilege

AnonKat

Crusader
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/wholesale-violations-of-priest-penitent-privilege/

Wholesale Violations of Priest-Penitent Privilege

Posted on November 14, 2010 by martyrathbun09| ... Comments

Since the the days of the Guardian’s Office (sixties) it has been Standard Operating Procedure for the Guardian’s Office and its successor the Office of Special Affairs to use Ethics files and Pre-Clear folders to attack current and former members of the church of Scientology. It is very difficult to prove since the church will not produce those files so that someone may demonstrate where the church obtained the information they attacked an individual with. Even if it requires sufferring the most severe financial sanctions, the church will not produce the files.

One way the church has gotten away with this institionalized invasion of privacy and privilege violation for decades is by walking a tricky little, black cat tight rope walk on the issue of Ethics files. They have been able to successfully argue that Ethics files do not constitute Pre-Clear files and thus aren’t protected by the privilege when called out on using confessional material against people. They go so far as to transfer material from auditing files to ethics files in order to cover their tracks.

Well, David Miscavige’s latest Golden Boy, the Church of Scientology International’s International spokesperson, may have just done the world a tremendous favor. While under oath this summer in the Headley cases he made a big mistake by speaking the truth in an unguarded moment. Please read this carefully:

Q: Does the church of Scientology have files that it considers confidential?

A: We have priest-penitent privilege files.

Q: What would fall within the range of those files.

Mr. Deixler (C of S attorney): Calls for a legal conclusion, I guess. But you can give your understanding.

A: Things of a priest-penitent privilege nature.

Q: Would that be an auditing file?

A: Yes.

Q: Would it be an ethics file?

A: Sure.


Never before has an official church spokesperson been pinned down under oath uttering this truth so clearly.

Thank you Marc and Claire. Your courageous efforts were not in vain – irrespective of the outcome on appeal.

Thank you Tommy. I sense you did this subliminally for all the folks you have seen getting betrayed and slaughtered. I am sure you are paying dearly for it. But, get out soon and you start with a clean slate after this one.

Think about it. How many of you have had your Ethics file used against you publicly?

How many of you can prove it?

I know of several.

UPDATE: A reader sent me a three-page Scientology Policy Directive that makes the cheese more binding:

spd_118_p1.jpg


spd_118_p2.jpg


spd_118_p3.jpg
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
^^^ Which is of no consequence at all.. Ie. It is the policy letter posted that is what the cult will say holds.. Not the wayward brat, Tommy Davis's misunderstoodand bevildered utterrances.

Or put another way: 'Ethics Folders' aren't Priest Penitent. Tommy Davis might say so, but he ain't 'cause' enough to make 'em so.

So Mr.Rathbun advertises this a some great truth and revelation revealed.. I am unimpressed.. It is useless.. What we do need proof of, is that the evil cult uses information from Preclar confessional folders. Those are the folders covered by Priest Penitent confidentiality.

WTF is wrong with Mr.Rathbun anyway?

:screwy:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
EDIT: Ooops. Note to self: read *all* the OP before jumping into the comments.
 
Last edited:

Terril park

Sponsor
^^^ Which is of no consequence at all.. Ie. It is the policy letter posted that is what the cult will say holds.. Not the wayward brat, Tommy Davis's misunderstoodand bevildered utterrances.

Or put another way: 'Ethics Folders' aren't Priest Penitent. Tommy Davis might say so, but he ain't 'cause' enough to make 'em so.

So Mr.Rathbun advertises this a some great truth and revelation revealed.. I am unimpressed.. It is useless.. What we do need proof of, is that the evil cult uses information from Preclar confessional folders. Those are the folders covered by Priest Penitent confidentiality.

WTF is wrong with Mr.Rathbun anyway?

:screwy:

The SPD referenced cites ethics files as "priest/penitent"

Thus if COS uses such material to harrass its a legal violation,
well at least in my understanding.
 

GreyWolf

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oops. Marty made a mistake. He admitted that these things were going on way before DM came on the scene.
 

idrizomare

Patron with Honors
Oops. Marty made a mistake. He admitted that these things were going on way before DM came on the scene.

Not to worry. Marty's said in the past the Hubbard had no idea what was going on in the GO. I have no doubt he would reuse that explanation.

A question about the privilege. My understanding is that the privilege says that the church cannot legally be compelled to release the information without the permission of the penitent.

That's different than saying that the church has a legal obligation to keep the information confidential. The church certainly has a moral obligation to keep it confidential, but they don't appear to lose sleep over that. (And people wonder why the financially independent Tommy Davis doesn't leave.)

If the church has a legal obligation to keep the information confidential, then what does that mean? How many people can see the information? What sort of records do they need to keep about access? How long are they allowed to keep the information? Are there civil or criminal penalties for releasing information?

Karen #1 gave a rather long list of the people who see PC and ethics folders on Marty's blog.

Personally I think the priest-penitent confidentiality is misdirection by the church.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
What interests me about this is the fact that Hubbard was still alive and instead of issuing a PL, Snr C/S Int Ray Mithoff comes out with an SPD.

The obvious outpoint is that prior to this SPD, there was no confidentility of ethics folders ( and PC folders depending on what was needed from them .) and when it came to ethics bait, this SPD was ignored by many staff and SO in HCO - by orders of OSA.

There never was a policy or HCOB on Priest-Penitent Privilege. I believe the concept of making it a scientology religious thing was a made up verbal order that spread quickly to all orgs after the GO was raided by the FBI, in an attempt to protect PC folders from being taken in the event of another raid. I remember all my PC folders started to have that written on them back as far as 1979. This is my recollection and anyone with more accurate info, please correct me.

Now this SPD came out in 1985 because of the IRS problems and the Julie Christofferson-Tichbourne $39 million dollar lawsuit loss ( later reduced on appeal) As Rathbun stated, he was right in on the writing of this with "Ray". This was a solution to legal matters. Not for any other purpose. When you put Fair Game into the picture and "Purpose is Senior To Policy" this SPD became nearly extinct in use.

As Mark Plummer, aka Warrior once wrote, these SPDs are a sham, as far as KSW goes and I agree. I am no longer a scientologist but when I was, I wrote up many reports about some these SPDs as being in conflict with PL or HCOB and not senior to them.

Here is Mark Plummer's reference and reply in an ARS post about them:

"Randall is correct if he stated that SPDs violate several policies
besides HCO PL "Issues, Types Of". SPD #1 was issued some time in 1982.
Personally, I believe Hubbard was not capable of running the cult as
early as 1979. That's about the time when "HCO PLs" began to be issued
by persons other than Hubbard. I heavily protested the squirrel issues
at that time, but as I said earlier, nothing was done by senior manage-
ment to cancel the squirrel issues. That's why after two years I decided
to leave staff. I figured that Hubbard was off the lines and that others
were running the show. And since the new cult management (WDC, Int Finance,RTC, etc) was aware of the squirrel policies and nothing had been done to cancel them, I figured the new leaders wanted things that way. Since the new management (after the GO leaders were ousted) failed to do anything about the "off-Source" issues, it amounted to tacit concent and willfully enforcing squirrel policy.

This time period is worthy of a whole chapter. There is so much I will write. I just need to make the time.

>Questions, questions.....
>
>> For those of you on ARS who don't know, there has been long-standing
>>policy written by Hubbard that no one may cancel one of his issues. In
>>fact, SPD #25 even states in the second paragraph "LRH Policy may only
>>be modified or cancelled by LRH."
>
>I believe Randall quoted this policy in one of his Knowledge Reports.
>
>Is it true that there is also an HCOPL called "Policy, Source of" that
>states "if it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy", and
>that the very existence of an SPD is squirreling?

Yes, there is a policy by this title. It is HCO PL 5 March 1965
Issue II, and it is entitled "Policy: Source Of".

Paragraph seven states, "A 'policy letter' is not a Scientology org
policy unless written or authorized by L. Ron Hubbard and passed as a
resolution or covered by blanket resolution of the International Board
and issued or published by an HCO."

The second to the last paragraph of this HCO PL states, "If it is
not in an HCO Policy Letter it is not policy."

Hubbard allowed others to issue BPLs (Board Policy Letters). They were
green ink on buff coloured paper. If a BPL contradicted with an HCO PL,
the HCO PL was to be followed.

>>>>[...]He expected the illegal policy to be cancelled forthwith.

http://warrior.xenu.ca/1997-1229.html
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Even theoretically, *no* Scientology practices; no 'folders' fit the requirements for 'priest/penitent privilege', because none are 'confidential' in the sense of the law. They are *all* shared with others than the priest/penitent, such as the C/S or anyone else with access to the folders. And, that violates the legal definition.

In *practice*, the 'Church' has often attempted to 'claim' privilege; and, in most cases, local prosecutors and courts have let the claim stand, however, not because any privilege applies, but out of expediency.

Any court that would deny privilege would be upheld. For *any* folders/testimony.

Zinj
 

skydog

Patron Meritorious
Tommy Davis' 'admission' is meaningless. This was a deposition; an objection was raised on the ground that it called for a legal opinion. As far as the policy, that is a different matter; it clearly states that both files (ethics and PC) are subject to the privilege. The church does not 'own' the privilege-rather it is the penitent. The priest must assert the privilege in the absence of a waiver by the penitent. As far as I am aware, it is not a crime for a priest to disclose a confidential communication but would subject the person/institution for damages in a civil action.

That being said, I doubt that the church has violated the policy with respect to any of the disclosures made to date. As I understand it, the disclosures were made public as part of their ethic formula asking other group members for re-admission to the group. An analogy would be a person disclosing a crime to his priest and then publicly asking forgiveness from the congregation. While the initial disclosure would be subject to the privilege, the subsequent disclosures would not.

Of course, this begs the question: What type of organization would mandate the public disclosure of crimes (real or imagined) as a condition of continued membership in the group?

Answer: A criminal organization intending to silence those that might bear witness against it.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
'Church' policy is specifically illegal; it includes promises never to turn a Scientologist in to secular authorities.

That's illegal.

Zinj
 
Top