No truth from Rinder? No reconciliation (December 08, 2016)

Churchill on ESMB wrote:

I have much respect and admiration for Mike Rinder, and am a regular reader of his blog which I appreciate immensely.
I hope that Mike and Gerry Armstrong can find it in their combined hearts, to reach out to one other, if they have not yet done so, and reconcile.
I feel that Gerry deserves the peace of mind, and sense of closure that this would bring, as does Mike. 1

Gerry has written and spoken quite a bit about Mike Rinder, because he was Rinder’s biggest fair game target for so long, and he continues to be a key fair game target. Below are links to some of the materials that inform their relationship, and to the small amount of correspondence between them.

Over all the years Rinder fair gamed Gerry for Scientology, and had been paid by Scientology for that purpose, he wrote and spoke a great deal about Gerry. Almost all of what Rinder has written or said was in secret. Much was black PR. He has never publicly, or to Gerry, disclosed or acknowledged what he did to fair game Gerry or what he has written or said about him.

Since Rinder in recent years has been portraying himself as Scientology tamer or exposer, the absence of his public statements concerning Gerry is actually a revealing factor in their relationship. Rinder is identified as editor of Rathbun’s 2013 book, and Gerry says it forwards the cult’s black PR on him and his attorney Mike Flynn. Rinder was briefly recorded by the German filmmaker Markus Thoess black PRing Gerry. (Video below) He has taken no action that I am aware of to correct the black PR he promulgated, even to the highest levels of government.

Rinder and Gerry really have an extraordinary relationship, which is similar to Gerry’s with Mark Rathbun: the long unrepentant victimizer and his common undying victim. Gerry is not seeking a sense of “closure.” His requests of Mike Rinder are the same as his requests of Mark Rathbun, which are essentially to tell the truth toward correcting ongoing injustices and black propaganda. It very well may be that “closure” is not obtained, but at least justice would have been sought. Right now, Mike Rinder and Mark Rathbun do not seek justice for their victims and do not support the people who do seek such justice. The “closure” they apparently seek is our acceptance of the decades long injustices and other crimes they perpetrated against their victims. “Public apologies” without real willingness to do what’s possible to correct the wrongs reduces the “apologies” to further acts of fair game. “May be tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed.”

No Truth from Rinder? No reconcilation.

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong to Mike Rinder (2010-04-14):

To Mike Rinder

Okay, so it isn’t really because Miscavige hates Heber. It’s because Heber might just tell the truth. You’ve got it. It’s why Miscavige, and Marty, and you, and all Scientologists hate me: because I tell the truth about Scientology.
Now, will you tell the truth about Scientology’s ops, black PR, the hatred, the threats on me for all those years? Are you going to be the honest Scientologist? Or, since that hasn’t been possible, will you be an honest born again wog?2

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong (2012-06-03):

Mike Rinder black PRs Gerry Armstrong and Graham Berry to German film makers

I had the copyright owner’s authorization to publish this video, and the copyright infringement claim was made in bad faith. 3

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong in a letter to Graham Berry (2014-03-27):

Gerry to Graham Berry on Honey Tech

I am not asking Marty or Mike for a deep psycho-philosophical shift, when, for example, a person changes from lying as a pro-survival activity and way of life and starts to value and desire truth telling and that becomes a way of life. I am also not denying that such a shift could perhaps occur, or be related. I think testifying seventy-some days in Scientology litigations might have altered me psycho-philosophically, and certainly being M & M & every other Scientologist’s target for all these years has.

I believe, however, that the testimony or truth that Marty and Mike can provide me, which would assist in correcting injustices, can be provided in a couple of days. They know how to debrief, know how to tell the truth, and have always had the ability. The idea that Scientologists cannot tell the truth or do not know truth from lies is a ruse that some Scientologists use to escape responsibility and natural consequences for the bad acts they know they’ve committed against their victims, or are still committing.

Marty and Mike are at cause over their refusal to now assist the people they helped to damage or destroy by intimidation, litigation and defamation activities. Their condition or their place in their long or short path of waking, recovery and healing is not why they have not assisted their victims. They had the ability to assist people while inside Scientology and the Sea Org, and the idea that they have lost that ability since leaving is ridiculous. They also have the same reasons for refusing to assist their victims that they had while in the SO. They did not acquire a new set of reasons for doing what they had always done: something or anything other than assisting their victims, giving justice, telling the truth.

I am just requesting the narrow, relevant truth about a clear and active matter: Marty, Mike, Hubbard, Miscavige, et al. v. Armstrong & friends. Marty and Mike are two individuals with a great deal of information, who are now presenting as fighters for justice who have told the truth about their part in victimizing others. Since they have not told the truth, and do not seek justice, even in correcting injustices they perpetrated and can help correct, the logical conclusion is that they are “Loyalists” mispresenting themselves. My communications that you call mercilessly attacking and condemning Marty and Mike have been useful and valuable in establishing these facts.
Not everyone gets to tell the truth that matters to someone. My request has been appropriate and the truth I’m requesting is relevant in ongoing legally cognizable injustices. Sometimes a request for the truth can be by subpoena. In my case it is the earnest, free request of a knowledgeable and known victim in a long legal and extralegal campaign of victimization and injustice.4

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong to Mike Rinder (2014-04-4th to 8th):

Reaching Mike Rinder

Your inimical, contemptuous communication contained within it the implicit license to me to do what I want with your email, because we are enemies. In reality, your communication only confirmed the inimical condition you were in with me. It did not cause the condition.

A communication from you could end the condition. In fact communication is what I want from you, just as I want it from Marty. I want you both to communicate about the Scientology v. Armstrong injustices and black PR over 32 years. I will know the communication that ends the condition, and neither of your two emails to me is it.5

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong (2015-03-01):

About Rathbun and Rinder talking to the FBI or going to the Feds

This scenario of Rathbun and Rinder talking to the FBI or going to the Feds has been brought up several times over the past few years. It is used as evidence of them doing the right thing, or how effective they are as critics, as it has been assumed that whatever they told the Feds helped the Scientologists’ victims.

In view of the known facts, however, this assumption is illogical. It is illogical to think that Rathbun and Rinder would lie about me in Memoirs, continue the criminal framing of me and Mike Flynn, black PR me and other persons he victimized, and yet tell the truth about what they did to fair game us to the Feds. 6

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong to Alex Gibney (2015-03-06 ):

Letter to Alex Gibney on the IRS deal, public policy, and calling out Rathbun and Rinder

Dear Mr. Gibney:

[…]

Calling out Cruise and Travolta to stand up and say it’s time for Miscavige to answer his accusers is logical because Cruise and Travolta are celebs, and they have contact and influence with him. Now I am urging you, and Wright and Paul Haggis, to call out Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder to answer their accuser, me. What I am accusing them of includes, most crucially, crimes and torts they committed against me personally to unlawfully obtain the IRS tax exemption, which is clearly a focus of your film.

Rathbun and Rinder, under L. Ron Hubbard and Miscavige, fair gamed me more than they fair gamed any other person during their time as fair gamers for Scientology. If they fair gamed someone else more than me, they have never said, and I have never heard of that person. The one person they fair gamed somewhat equivalently was my attorney Michael Flynn. 7

Since Rathbun and Rinder have apparently left the Scientology cult, and portray themselves as exposers of the Scientologists’ abuses and crimes, I have many times asked them to come forward and tell the truth about fair gaming me. I have asked them many times to come forward and tell the truth about what they did to me to obtain their cult’s unmerited tax exemption. 8

Yet neither of them has answered me, their accuser, other than with contempt and further fair gaming.9

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong (2015-03-11):

Response to Rinder re Disconnection

Rinder’s assertion that “disconnection,” which is one application of the SP doctrine, is merely a relatively simple theory, and, as he says on his blog, “is based on common sense,” is also false and malignant. His claim on his blog that when disconnection “is used for the benefit of the individual, it can be a helpful practice” is a lie to cloak an evil and indefensible practice.3

The other, even more evil, application of the SP doctrine is the “fair game” policy. Rathbun and Rinder have not told the truth about fair game, and have in fact continued to fair game and support the fair gaming of the wogs they most egregiously fair gamed while working directly for the Scientology cult. While disconnection is antisocial, it is arguably lawfully permissible, but fair game constitutes a criminal conspiracy against rights and is judicially punishable.10

____

3. http://www.mikerindersblog.org/scien…olicy-exposed/

Originally Posted by Gerry Armstrong (2016-11-07):

Speaking up about Fair Game

Rinder personally participated in and directed criminal acts against me. See for example, my introduction to the Armstrong Op http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/about ; see also documents relating to Rinder’s part in it: http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/19 . He knows about his criminal acts, and knows that I have confronted him on his refusal to tell the truth about them. Although the book is about “fair game,” and Rinder is a major contributor to the book, there is no mention of his fair game against his victims. There is no evidence he was asked about such actions, no challenge to his assertion or intimation that he and the new regime did not engage in illegal activities, and no question of his aghastness.11

Notes

On Monique Yingling, Alex Gibney, Scientology and the IRS deal (20 June, 2015)

by Gerry Armstrong
20 June 2015

In an April 26, 2015 letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times 1, in response to Alex Gibney’s April 11 op-ed article 2, Scientology attorney Monique E. Yingling accuses him of appearing “trapped in his own prison of bias when he wrongly asserts that the Church of Scientology did not deserve IRS recognition of its tax-exempt status in 1993.” No one, of course, would accuse Yingling of being trapped in any prison of anything. She freely lies, tells more lies, and gets others to lie, for money. She might do it because it gives her delight, but she also gets paid, richly, and that has to also delight her. She would not argue that she is not free to tell the truth; in fact she would doubtlessly claim she is telling the truth even when lying; so she is not trapped.

She lies when she says Gibney asserts in his article that Scientology did not deserve IRS recognition of its tax-exempt status in 1993. He does not assert that. He asserts that Scientology does not deserve its tax exempt status in 2015. He does not assert that the cult, or the religion or whatever, did not deserve recognition as a tax exempt religious entity in 1993. I do, however. The Scientologists obtained their undeserved tax exemption by committing crimes against citizens, which is against public policy, and lying in their submissions to the IRS, which must also be against public policy. Because of these facts, the Scientologists have at no time before or ever since deserved their tax exempt status.

Gibney writes that his documentary film Going Clear “shows that the church’s method of “convincing” the IRS featured lawsuits and vilification of its agents.” He says that critics of Scientology “have called for its tax exemption to be revoked because it is not a “real religion.” I don’t. Scientology is as real a religion as Militant Islam or Aum Shinrikyo. Gibney goes on to say that “to maintain the right to be tax-exempt, however, religions must fulfill certain requirements for charitable organizations.” Quoting from the IRS website, he writes that such organizations may not “serve the private interests of any individual” and/or their “purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.”

Suing the IRS is every person or organization’s right and not illegal. Even filing 2400 lawsuits, as is stated in Going Clear, is not illegal. Investigating the IRS for their sins or crimes, and having PIs investigate individual agents is not illegal. Even vilifying or black PRing the IRS, its agents, or the whole US Government is not illegal. And these actions did not bring the IRS to its knees. That’s ridiculous. Framing individuals, however, as the Scientologists did to my attorney Michael Flynn and me prior to obtaining tax exemption, is illegal. Using such false incriminations to obtain tax exemption is illegal. Lying in submissions to the IRS, which the Scientologists and their attorneys did, was illegal. The IRS’s requiring these lies, which IRS and DOJ officials knew were lies, in these submissions to justify granting tax exemption in order to have the lawsuits end and to have the Scientologists’ investigating and vilifying of IRS officials end, was illegal. These illegalities, all in violation of public policy, made tax exemption for the Scientologists undeserved, and its grant by the IRS illegal.

Yingling says in her April 26 letter that Scientology “underwent the most exhaustive IRS scrutiny of any applicant in history.”3 That could be.  The scrutiny was certainly exhaustive enough for the relevant IRS and DOJ officials to conclude that the Scientologists did not deserve tax exemption, and, for more than twenty years, to oppose the Scientologists’ legal and extralegal efforts to obtain the tax exemption they didn’t deserve. The Scientologists, however, abetted by attorneys, including Yingling, kept right on charging, kept right on attacking and committing crimes, and finally got the relevant IRS and DOJ officials to stop opposing them, and, in terrible truth and in violation of public policy, to collude with them in a cowardly crime against private citizens.

Yingling states she is the Scientologists’ “longtime outside tax counsel.” That’s true. She says she is “familiar with everything that transpired during the administrative proceedings that led to the 1993 IRS settlement.” She professes this seemingly impossible knowledge (the proceedings started in 1967, and she obtained her law degree in 1977) to help build a defense for her Scientologist clients, and herself, against Gibney’s charges relating to the Scientologists’ tax exemption. Her avowed familiarity with everything is, however, a useful admission regarding what did transpire during the period between the IRS ending its opposition to Scientologists and its grant of tax exemption in 1993. What transpired was a whole lot of lying and a criminal conspiracy that included US officials, which made the tax exemption completely undeserved.

The Scientology-US-Yingling, et al. pack conspired against the rights of the Scientologists’ direct victims, who are in large part US citizens. The conspirators also indirectly victimized and still victimize US tax payers. In that the Scientologists brandish their undeserved IRS tax exemption around the world to obtain even more undeserved advantages, the conspirators victimize every citizen of every country where the Scientologists operate. The cult’s leaders have used their undeserved tax exemption as a license to victimize both their cult underlings and innocent wogs they want destroyed.

“Wogs” are what Scientologists call us Homo saps. The wogs the Scientologists particularly hate and work to destroy they call “Suppressive Persons” or “SPs.” Yingling is familiar with the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine. It is an evil, indefensible doctrine that is sufficient on its face and in its application over the last fifty years to make this cults’ tax exemption undeserved. It is like giving the Nazis a license and tax exemption to carry out their Jewish doctrine.

I already knew that Yingling is an operator in the Scientologists’ “Armstrong Operation.” 4

She writes that Gibney has no clue. This is false. He has a clue. In fact, I wrote him before release of Going Clear to clue him in about the Scientologists’ public policy violations and undeserved tax exemption even more than he gave the appearance of being clued in when he made the film.5

Yingling writes that “not only does the church reject Gibney’s revisionist history, but so did the IRS officials involved in the proceedings.” She does not, however, explain what she is talking about when she calls something Gibney wrote his “revisionist history.” The church or cult of Scientologists rejecting whatever Gibney wrote that she calls “revisionist history,” is unremarkable, because such rejections are what the Scientologists call “command intention.” They reject what the person in command wants rejected, and accept what he wants them to accept. But, how does Yingling know, or how could she possibly know, that the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings that ended in 1993 also have rejected whatever it is that Gibney wrote in 2015 that she calls revisionist history?

It is highly unlikely that after the LA Times published whatever Yingling calls Gibney’s revisionist history on April 12 someone submitted it to the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings, and these officials rejected it by April 26 when Yingling’s letter was published. The IRS would have had to organize dozens of its personnel, many of whom have retired, and gotten them all to join in this rejection. There would have been a submission to the IRS of what she calls Gibney’s revisionist history, and no such submission has been produced that I am aware of. The IRS would have had to issue an official rejection, and there is no record of such a rejection that has been made public that, again, I know of. If such a rejection actually existed, I am certain that Yingling or her Scientologists clients would have published it to invalidate Gibney, rather than depend on her lame claim.

The other scenario, which Yingling is probably proffering, is that in 1993, or even earlier, the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings rejected what Gibney would write in 2015. This would work well in L. Ron Hubbard’s time-traveling science fiction scriptures, but does not meet wog standards for evidence, facts or reason. The reasonable conclusion is that one more time Yingling is simply lying.

It would be completely unsurprising, however, if the IRS does reject every call to revoke Scientology’s undeserved tax-exempt status, and rejects the mountain of excellent evidence supporting these calls. This is because the relevant IRS and DOJ officials conspired with the Scientologists, Yingling and the Scientologists’ other attorneys to produce the tax exemption that all of them knew was undeserved. These officials required that the Scientologists lie in their submissions on which the tax exemption is based. These officials negotiated what lies the Scientologists would include in order to give the IRS the appearance of a justification to grant the undeserved tax exemption. The US has an almost insurmountable motivation to reject every effort to acknowledge and remedy the crime its officials committed in granting the Scientologists tax exemption just because what these officials did was criminal. The US has an abysmal history of owning up to antisocial, anti-human rights or criminal actions its officials have taken.

If the Scientologists and their attorneys had told the truth in their submissions, the IRS could never have granted the tax exemption. That is because, prior to obtaining tax exemption and US Government backing, the Scientologists were committing crimes against the government and citizens, which the relevant officials were well aware of. The Scientologists criminally framed individuals, including my attorney Michael Flynn and me, and most egregiously conspired against the rights of many people, also including Flynn and me. The Scientologists ordering and committing these crimes were in Scientology’s Sea Organization hierarchy that took over from the Guardian’s Office hierarchy, key members of which the US had prosecuted and imprisoned for crimes against the Government, most notoriously against the IRS.

In their answers to the IRS’s Form 1023 questions about the GO and its personnel who were involved in these federal crimes, the Scientologists asserted that the Sea Org under David Miscavige disbanded the GO in 1981 and shifted some of its activities to SO units, and that “none of these activities operate in a manner similar to the old Guardian’s Office.” The Scientologists, their attorneys and the relevant IRS and DOJ personnel all knew that the “GO disbanding” was actually scapegoating, that the SO personnel who took over the GO’s activities operated on identical “scriptures,” and the criminal targeting of officials, media and private individuals like me continued seamlessly.

Yingling says that Gibney omits any mention of the IRS issuing a statement reaffirming its recognition of the Scientology cult when “this myth” had first arisen. She does not say what myth she has in mind. She is almost certainly lying, and the only myths submitted to the IRS were by her clients and their attorneys, herself included, in the form of lies, which bagged the undeserved tax exemption. That the tax exemption is undeserved is not a myth, but the gospel truth.

Certainly Scientology is a religion, and Gibney acknowledges that. It is religious because of the US Government’s stated position that any organization can determine it is religious, and, poof, it’s religious. As I wrote in 2009 about the cult’s religiousness, Scientology is: “an economic enterprise, a bait-and-switch scam, an intelligence organization waging war on good citizens, a hate group with the superhubris to call itself a human rights group, a criminal conspiracy, a totalitarian cult with a sociopathic philosophy, and consequently a threat to democratic order.”6 And it is a religion. It is a religion that, because of its public policy violations, does not deserve tax exemption.

Theologically speaking, Scientology is a form of Luciferianism, which comes in many forms. As early as 1952, Hubbard called himself the “Prince of Darkness,” and the religion is clearly rooted in “Thelema,” Aleister Crowley’s hermetic magick. Overtly, the cult calls its courses “self-improvement,” its teachings an “applied religious philosophy,” and founder Hubbard, “mankind’s greatest friend,” a “genius,” an “educator,” a “professional in twenty-nine fields,” a “power.” The Scientologists claim that among his many other firsts, prodigious discoveries, and superhuman accomplishments, he “became the first to scientifically isolate, measure and describe the human spirit, while objectively demonstrating spiritual potentials well in advance of scientific thought.” All these things are aspects of Luciferianism.

The Scientologists claim that by application of their “spiritual technology” they have become superior beings, and can give their subjects wildly increased intelligence, phenomenal knowledge and understanding, superhuman abilities, secular and psychic power, the never-before achieved states of “Clear” and “Operating Thetan” or “OT,” exemplary characters, success, the way to wealth and happiness, and “total freedom.” The Scientologists profess sincere concern for the welfare of mankind, and state their aims as “a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights.” The Scientologists preach ethics, honesty and human rights. All these claims are also common characteristics or promises of Luciferianism.

Any doubt about Hubbard and his religion’s Luciferian nature was dispelled after his death when the Scientologists published his scriptural “technical bulletin” he called “OT VIII Confidential Student Briefing,” in which he as much as confessed he was the “Antichrist,” representing “the forces of Lucifer.” Aleister Crowley claimed that Aiwass, whom he also identified as Lucifer, was his “Holy Guardian Angel,” who had dictated to Crowley his most famous writing The Book of the Law. Hubbard wrote in “OT VIII:”

No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned is a brief period of time in which an archenemy of Christ, referred to as the Antichrist, will reign and his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining reading but there is truth in it. This Antichrist represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the “light bearer” or “light bring”), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief Antichrist period.

Hubbard dated the bulletin May 5, 1980, a time when he was on the lam in southern California, postulating his own death, and evading government and private parties who were suing him or seeking his testimony in ongoing legal cases. In this scripture, based on what he implied was impeccable evidence, he blasphemed Jesus of the Christian Bible as an unsaintly, raging pederast. The ideal of Christ, Hubbard claimed, is part of an “ongoing implant” the Marcabians laid in on humans seventy-five million years ago “by carefully controlled genetic mutation.” He wrote that this race of entities, who were outside the physical universe, periodically reinforced the implant “by controlled historic events,” to make it impossible for humans to become free, except by his great work and divination.

Hubbard wrote that all religions of any consequence but original Buddhism, “have been instruments to… bring about the eventual enslavement of mankind.” In addition to claiming to be antichrist, Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, or an associated being of that occult ilk, Hubbard, of course, had been claiming since the 1950s to have been the original Buddha. In “OT VIII” he wrote that his mission was to derail an imminent mass landing by the Marcabians, which is falsely portrayed as the biblical “Second Coming.” He said that with constant effort by the Scientologists who would be doing his OT VIII program he would postpone and then halt a series of events the Marcabians designed to make slaves of us all.

As megalomanical and deluded as Hubbard sounds in his OT VIII bulletin, there is no doubt it is religious scripture. As demented as Scientology’s theology or technology are, it is a religion. As has been shown, it is a form of Luciferianism. Because of its debased, wicked or criminal sacraments, it is properly categorized as Black Luciferianism. Crowley, analogously, wrote that debased or wicked magick is properly classified as black magick. Black Luciferianism is perfectly compatible with Scientology’s rapacious commercialism, deceit, fraud, hate, human rights abuses, sociopathy, and criminality. Scientology is an evil, criminal religion, but still a religion because the Scientologists determined that it is religious, organized for purely religious purposes. Their denial of their organization’s Luciferianism and their attacks on people who expose its occult roots are indicators of its blackness.

In Scientology, crass merchandising, hard sell, deceit, fraud, hate, incarcerations, slavery, the destruction of human rights and persons, financial ruination, using the law to harass, black propaganda, and many other antisocial or criminal activities are religious exercise, or sacraments. The Scientologists lure good wogs into their cult with the wonderful promises of White Luciferianism, and then handle and hold them with Hubbard’s Black Luciferian “tech,” and do their damnedest to turn them into tough, dedicated, glaring Black Luciferians. While telling people their objective is to get everyone to “think for yourself,” the Scientologists compel cult personalities that must think as the cult head commands. Thinking for oneself or “other-intentionedness” is restrained and punished. While insisting that they are engendering virtuous or moral characters and behaviors in their members, the Scientologists actually instill the “valuable final products,” as they call them, of vanity, dishonesty, hypocrisy, perfidy, envy, pugnacity, malignity and pusillanimity.

The Scientologists hire bad or corrupt wogs, like Yingling, who are well aware of the cult’s blackness and criminality, to do evil, often under color of law, to the people the cult’s leaders want hated, suppressed and destroyed. These human targets are the decent, courageous people who stand up to the Scientologists and their wog collaborators and tell the truth about Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists, their collaborators like Yingling, and their Black Luciferian tech and activities. The Scientologists’ undeserved IRS tax exemption inspirits and privileges the cult’s hierarchy to commit and make others commit evils and crimes, and gives them vast wealth to do so. This was the intended, achieved and unlawful goal of the Scientology-US-Yingling, et al. conspiracy.

Exposing and opposing these evils and crimes, and even perpetrating the same against the Scientologists and their collaborators such as Yingling, of course, are no less religious than the Scientologists’ evil and criminal sacraments. Most wogs, fortunately or unfortunately, including those the Scientologists have horribly victimized, will not degrade themselves to the condition or level necessary to commit the sort of evils or crimes the Scientologists commit. Nevertheless, to even the playing field, or the battle field, and be able to effectively defend against the Scientologists’ predations, wogs must possess and assert the same religious rights as the Scientology predators.

The US Federal Government has created the present uneven battle field by conspiring with the Scientologists and granting them tax exemption and endorsing their victimizing of citizens government officials knew the Scientologists had victimized and would victimize in the future. Therefore, it has to be a religious right to expose, oppose and commit the sort of evils and crimes to government officials that the Scientologists commit to citizens. This would, of course, include at a minimum lying religiously to the IRS and other US agencies, and dealing with them as enemies.

The US Government’s logical and humane remedy is to revoke the Scientologists’ tax exemption, prosecute the conspirators, including the complicit US officials, and acknowledge and compensate the people harmed by the grant of the undeserved exemption. Tragically, the US has a dreadful and growing history of alliances with unsavory persons or groups, and inhumanity toward the US’s nasty allies’ victims. Because of the known consequences to character, even a national character, that flow from absolute secular power, which the US has essentially achieved, prevailing upon its officials to do the right or uncorrupt thing regarding the Scientologists, the IRS and their victims may be absolutely impossible.

Yingling says that Gibney was provided “all this information” and he ignored it. She does not identify what all this information is, and again, as typical of her, it is safe to say she is lying. Unless Gibney is lying, she did not provide him with her actual knowledge of everything that transpired during the administrative proceedings that led to the 1993 IRS settlement. If she had, he would have known that the Scientologists, Yingling and their other lawyers violated public policy, and IRS and DOJ officials conspired unlawfully with them in violation of public policy, and presumably he would have included these facts in his documentary.

She writes that “Gibney pretends ignorance of the unprecedented public record, comprising 14 feet, in which the IRS recognized the church as exempt.” I doubt that Gibney pretended ignorance of the Scientologists having submitted many pages to the IRS, and having created a record on which the cult’s tax exemption is based. Again what is most likely is that Yingling is lying. On October 22, 1993, three weeks after the IRS granted the Scientologists tax exemption, the New York Times published an article by Robert D. Hershey, Jr., which stated:

The financial disclosures are in documents the church was required to file with the I.R.S. in applying for tax-exempt status, conferred on 30 or more entities of the church on Oct. 10. The documents, 12 linear feet of them in eight cardboard boxes, formed the basis for the I.R.S.’s decision and became a matter of public record when tax exemption was granted.

Sometime after this, Scientology propaganda organ Freedom published an undated anti-Germany edition containing an article by editor and black propagandist Andrew Milne, which stated:

The IRS asked hundreds of specific questions for detailed factual information with respect to the areas of its concerns. The Church provided complete responses to every question asked. These responses amounted to more than 11,000 pages of information constituting 12 linear feet of stacked paper.7

It is almost certainly true that one of Going Clear’s sources Mark Rathbun kept Gibney ignorant of the critical content of all those linear feet of files. It is the content of the Scientologists’ submissions to the IRS that is important, of course, not the submissions’ volume or loftiness. Rathbun has stated that he personally participated in preparing the submissions that formed the basis for the IRS’s decision, and personally couriered them from Los Angeles to the IRS in Washington, DC, on virtually a weekly basis for two years. Yingling wrote about Rathbun’s role in a letter dated February 27, 2015 letter to HBO’s attorney Jay Ward Brown:

Gibney’s crediting his sleazy source, Marty Rathbun, with a major role in the negotiations with the IRS is misplaced: I personally attended every one of the dozens of meetings; Rathbun was little more than a bag carrier, and a poor one at that.8

I wrote Rathbun recently about Yingling’s charge that during the Scientologists’ negotiations with the IRS and his virtually weekly trips to DC with the negotiated submissions he was but a bumbling bag schlepper.9 It really does not matter, however, who — Rathbun, Yingling, Miscavige, President Bush, President Clinton, Robert Gates, or the devil — had the most major role in the negotiations that led to the grant of tax exemption. This was a criminal conspiracy, what was negotiated was against public policy, and the Scientologists tax exemption was and is undeserved.

Yingling says that the Scientologists answered every question the IRS put to it. Of course they did. She omits to say, however, that the Scientologists and their attorneys, she included, lied in their answers. Even more important, the lying answers were what the relevant US officials required. Lies were what these officials negotiated for, and the lying Scientologists and their lying attorneys were happy as clams to deliver what the government officials required.

Yingling says that during the negotiations IRS officials “made on-site inspections” of Scientology’s “records and facilities.” This is actually further evidence that these officials conspired unlawfully with the Scientologists. If these officials actually inspected the cult’s actual records, they would confirm what they already knew: the Scientologists were engaged in criminal activity in violation of public policy, and therefore did not deserve tax exemption. If these officials, who already knew the Scientologists were engaged in criminal activity, inspected records they were shown that did not confirm what they already knew, then these officials also knew that the Scientologists were lying to them.

Yingling says she “offered to walk Gibney through these materials,” the records that she says the IRS officials inspected, but he “stonewalled” her. Again, if Gibney is not lying, Yingling is. If she had shown him the Scientologists’ actual, relevant records, he would have known that the cult is much worse than he thought, much more antisocial and criminal than what he showed in Going Clear. I would hope that Gibney, knowing what he now knows, does take Yingling up on her offer and does inspect the cult’s records. And I would hope he would take me along with him, to help keep him from being duped by Yingling and her clients’ duplicities. I don’t think he’s lying. I know Yingling is.

Yingling writes that Gibney is wrong about Scientology finances, and that its “funds are dedicated to promulgation of the faith and supporting global humanitarian initiatives for the benefit of people of all faiths.” She implies that all of the cult’s funds are dedicated to faith promulgation and humanitarian initiatives, not that a fraction of its funds, say a penny on the dollar, are used for these purposes. Gibney observed in his article that Scientology “maintains that its activities are protected by the 1st Amendment as religious practices.” That is true. He also listed a number of the cult’s activities that he said “may have been either illegal or in violation of public policy:”

–  propaganda campaigns with expensive graphics, full-page ads and videos
–  ruthlessly intimidating reporters and waging lawfare against journals and networks
–  hiring private investigators to spy on citizens
–  false imprisonment
–  human trafficking
–  wiretaps
–  assault
–  harassment
–  invasion of privacy
–  documented civil rights abuses.

Yingling writes that “not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.” That is a lie! Except that I was not a reporter, a journal or a TV network, the Scientologists committed all the crimes or torts he identified against me personally. And the Scientologists ruthlessly intimidated numerous reporters, journals and networks that told or considered telling my story.

Yingling is, however, telling the truth about Scientology spending its funds on promulgating the faith and humanitarian activities. That is because these seemingly beneficent or philanthropic endeavors include all the antisocial or criminal activities Gibney identified. Evils such as black PRing, cheating, robbing, suing, raiding, harassing, ruining, destroying and obliterating good people are not just Scientology activities, they are commanded in the religion’s scripture. These evils are doctrinally motivated and completely religious. The rack, the strapado, the auto-da-fé were all religious activities, motivated by doctrine. The Nazis’ murder of millions of Jews was clearly doctrinally motivated. No matter how religious these activities are, or how motivated they are by doctrine, the organizations or religions practicing them do not deserve IRS tax exemption to do so.

Yingling says that “it is unfortunate that the church has to defend itself from scurrilous attacks like Gibney’s.” His attacks, of course, are not scurrilous at all, as everyone can see. His criticisms of the cult, the cultists, their leaders and activities are accurate and measured. In fact, as already mentioned, Scientology and its members and agents’ activities are worse than he apparently thought when he made his documentary or wrote about them. It is the Scientologists’ responses to legitimate, factual criticism that is unfortunate or deplorable. Their religious cloaking of their antisocial and criminal activities is unfortunate, and these activities are unfortunate. Yingling’s lying and cheating, for money, or just for evil, is unfortunate.

Yingling says that the cult “has a right to respond through public discourse and has done so with a website and videos.” Nobody has said the Scientology cult or the cultists did not have that right, and nobody has tried to take away that right. On the other hand, the Scientologists and their attorneys like Yingling really do seek to destroy their victims’ right to respond to the Scientologists’ scurrilous, religiously motivated attacks. The Scientology v. Armstrong cases prove this beyond any doubt, in fact prove that Scientology is organized for the very purpose of suppressing and destroying basic human rights, most egregiously the right to freedom of religion. Virtually every Scientologist, all of their organizations, and all their lawyers, including Yingling, are contracted beneficiaries in the suppression and destruction of basic human rights of good people. The only “crime” these good people have committed, is standing up and telling the truth about L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists.

Yingling writes that “Gibney’s complaint that the church has the audacity to defend itself against his attacks by exercising its own rights to freedom of speech and religion is decidedly un-American.” Again, Yingling is undoubtedly lying. Nowhere does Gibney make such a complaint that I have been able to find, and Yingling has not identified such a complaint. Calling what he did not do “un-American” is a strawman. Gibney did illustrate the perverse way in which Scientology “defends itself” with a few examples, but treated these matter-of-factly, writing that he “assumed that the response …would be vitriolic,” and that he was right.

Gibney’s actually articulated, and completely justified, complaint is that because of the public policy violating activities the Scientologists are using their funds for, including the black propaganda attacks on him and his sources, Scientology does not deserve to keep its IRS tax exemption. I add to this that the Scientologists and their attorneys, including Yingling, violated public policy in order to obtain the tax exemption, and have never deserved it.

The complicity of US officials in the conspiracy to violate public policy to grant the Scientologists tax exemption that all of them knew was lawfully undeserved, calls into question what “un-American” now really means. If the morals, standards and activities of the Scientologists, their attorneys like Yingling, and US Government officials like those who granted the tax exemption, are American, then everyone should do their best to be un-American. Truth, honor and humanity are becoming un-American, and lying, dishonor and inhumanity are becoming American. The proof of the apple pie is in the eating.

 Notes

Gerry Armstrong: Chris Shelton — logic and loyalty, on the line (February 18, 2015)

Last year, someone sent me some Facebook posts of Chris Shelton that smeared me. Shelton’s purpose was obviously the same as cult head L. Ron Hubbard gave for Scientologists’ black propaganda: to help Ron, et al. destroy my reputation or public belief in me.

I had never met Shelton to my knowledge. I had never communicated to him or about him, and he had never to my knowledge contacted me. His out-of-the-blue smearing related to the Scientologists’ IRS tax exemption, which I have shown was unlawfully obtained for unlawful purposes.1

Shelton black PRed me in comparisons to Mark Rathbun, which was similar to the function of Michael Hobson, who had been cyberstalking me on Rathbun’s behalf.2Rathbun, of course, committed crimes continuously against me for the Scientologists, most egregiously to obtain and keep the 1993 tax exemption.

I sent Shelton an email with his FB comments via his site’s contact form and asked him to confirm he was the person who posted them.

Dear Mr. Shelton:

Can you please confirm that you are the Chris Shelton who posted the following statements about me on Face Book:

Chris Shelton: An interesting theory, Jane, but not one that deserves your support. Panda is 100% on point with this. Gerry Armstrong’s claims are not based on the actual facts, which you can find in the actual eyewitness accounts and information on record from the 1980 – 1993 time period. Marty’s book, Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, is probably the best account I’ve read yet of this and gives the exact reasons why the IRS capitulated.

[…]

Chris Shelton: Marty’s book talks about a conspiracy against Scientology itself with the AMA, APA, FBI, etc. from the dox recovered from the FBI raid and GO files. I don’t know if Marty still believes this conspiracy to be true or not, but he claims it was based on the dox he saw, not his own opinion about it. I can’t claim for sure that there was or was not such a conspiracy but I personally don’t believe there was. Organizational incompetence and human error are often interpreted in hindsight as conspiracy by those who like to see such things. That conspiracy that Marty was talking about has nothing to do with the nonsense that Gerry Armstrong is spewing about in the quote above.

[…]

Chris Shelton: Ok but you’re using Gerry Armstrong to refute Marty Rathbun, when the whole point of this was that Gerry Armstrong is full of it with the original claim on this thread. So this is kind of going nowhere.

My main point with the IRS thing is that Rathbun was there on the front lines of the IRS handlings and was intimately involved with the whole deal worked out with the IRS and he gave a very detailed account in his book about that. Anything Rathbun said about this is not refuted by other errors he may or may not have made about earlier conspiracies which he did not have any direct knowledge of. Gerry Armstrong was nowhere near any of the IRS dealings. So I don’t understand why I would listen to any opinions or conjecture of Armstrong about the IRS deal, especially when they openly defy logic and reason, such as the original quote in this thread. Armstrong may well be a reliable source on other points which he was directly involved in. I can’t say one way or the other because I haven’t read a lot from him. But I do know that when it comes to the IRS deal specifically, I will absolutely give “reliable source” status to Rathbun way before I will give it to Armstrong. That’s pretty much my whole point on this.

[…]

Chris Shelton: I will concede that Marty’s book may not be a 100% factual account of everything that occurred because it is a “memoir” – which means it is a book which tells the story from one person’s viewpoint or position. That doesn’t mean Marty was lying. You seem to write off every single thing the guy says as “lies” but haven’t actually proved that point. Marty’s book is a historical account told from his point of view. I cite it as a valid source for information about what went down with the IRS and I think I have a good reason to use it as a source for that. You notice I am clear in my comments here that I am only citing Marty’s data for the IRS information because he was intimately involved with the entire IRS handling from beginning to end. I did not cite Marty’s factualness with FAMCO or earlier conspiracies or anything else. You haven’t provided any proof that Marty lied about the IRS information. You have just used ad hominem to invalidate Marty’s IRS information because he may have been wrong about some other things.

I’m not even trying to defend Marty. Wasn’t my point in this thread at all. I was just citing a source that has more direct information about the IRS than Gerry Armstrong has. Now it’s all about what a liar Marty is, but even that case is not made by Tony Ortega. Tony even says “Rathbun doesn’t even seem to have read the reporting that was done to counter the church’s point of view at the time, because he never brings it up.” Maybe Marty never did read that other information! That doesn’t make him a liar. And Tony doesn’t call Marty a liar. He accuses Marty of writing a memoir – which is exactly what Marty did. He told an accounting of events as he saw them. And since Marty directly saw the IRS data, I tend to believe his reports about what happened with that. I hope I’m being clear about this. I’m refuting this one unfounded conclusion that Gerry Armstrong is making about the IRS and some bizarre idea that the US Government is somehow in cahoots with Scentology and is “so zealously been trying to aid the spread of Scientology.” That is the most ridiculous assertion I’ve heard in months.

If you are the person who made these FB posts, I would like to speak to you about some of the statements about me in them.

Thank you.

Gerry Armstrong
[contact info]

Shelton emailed me back that he was the same person who posted these statements, and added a somewhat snotty comment that any easy examination of his FB page and blog would show this.

I then emailed him:

Dear Mr. Shelton:

There is nothing else about me on your blog that I’ve found. I am not on FB. It was necessary to have you confirm that you posted the FB comments I quoted.

Please identify what you are talking about when you refer to “Gerry Armstrong’s claims.” Also please identify how you know these are my claims.

When you state, “Gerry Armstrong is full of it with the original claim on this thread,” what original claim did I make that you are claiming makes me full of it?

Is it your position that Marty Rathbun did not submit any false statements to the IRS in the materials on which the Scientologists’ tax exemption is based?

If yes, what do you base that on?

If you believe that he might have made false statements to the IRS to obtain the 1993 tax exemption, do you think he has any responsibility to correct those false statements?

Clearly, throughout your FB comments, and when you state, “I do know that when it comes to the IRS deal specifically, I will absolutely give “reliable source” status to Rathbun way before I will give it to Armstrong,” you are positioning yourself as my enemy. This makes sense because, of course, Marty Rathbun, whom you openly support, and David Miscavige, whom you also support, although probably not openly, have been fair gaming me for 32 years.

You can certainly correct the record you have made, and change your position regarding to me. We’ll see.

Hopefully,

Gerry

I didn’t hear back from Shelton, and six months went by.

When I saw recently that he had posted a video “Scientology: And Justice for All,”3 I thought that perhaps he might have had an ethical change; so I emailed him yesterday to see if he was ready to address his earlier smears. I included my earlier two emails for easy reference. I have been fighting for justice against the Scientologists for thirty-three years, and the Scientologists and their collaborators hate and attack me for doing so.

Rathbun, as is well known, perpetrated injustices against me, and other similarly placed wogs, as a duty, and a paid and in other ways rewarded full-time activity, for many years. Some of those injustices persist, and, in fact, Rathbun not only has done nothing about them, when something can be done, but acts to make them persist or add to them.

There is a set of people who claim to oppose the Scientologists, but nevertheless nastily and apparently baselessly attack me, and people who might support me. The Scientologists have always, of course, had operatives among their opponents. These people clearly had to do enough of what opponents of Scientology do to be accepted as opponents. It is, of course, not necessary to know whether my nasty, baseless attackers are operatives or if they are motivated by other handlers, groups or psychological phenomena. They all serve the Scientologists’ malevolent purposes.

The Scientologists’ key zone of operation where their evil purposes manifest and matter is legal – wog justice. The key to justice for all in the Scientology war is the IRS decision. Shelton’s denigrating me is specific to the IRS injustice, in which I was personally victimized, and which I seek to correct. He presents himself as a highly logical, reasoning person, indeed he calls himself “Critical Thinker at Large,” and writes instructions on the subject of logic. 4 He also presents himself in his FB posts as an authority about the IRS decision and Rathbun’s honesty.

Dear Mr. Shelton:

I saw your recent video about “justice for all.” Are you now ready to address your black PRing of me that I wrote you about last year? Your treatment of me after I asked you about the black PR was contemptuous, and I suppose it adds contempt that you’ve done nothing about it since.

You supported the injustices and crimes against me for years inside Scientology, and now outside you not only do nothing about them, but you support the black PR and continuing injustices.

I will be publishing about all this, so clearly you would want to have done the responsible thing.

Justly,

Gerry

Shelton emailed me back.

He accused me of creating a conflict that does not exist. This is impossible, of course. If I had actually created a conflict, it would necessarily have to exist. One simply cannot create something that does not exist. You can say, as Shelton did, that someone can create a conflict that does not exist; but that does not make a not-existing conflict exist. Obviously, my conflict is something he started with his statements in his Facebook posts that serve the Scientologists by black PRing me.

He wrote that he couldn’t believe I am still upset about a single comment he made about me. There was, of course, a series of comments. The accusation of upset is what Hubbard called a “double curve,” which is a standard device Scientologists use on their enemies.

Shelton wrote that no one else even remembers the Facebook thread in which he made his comments. The implication was that I was so unimportant it didn’t matter a fig to anyone else what he said about me; and I was wrong for caring. Although serving well enough to belittle me, his assertion that no one else even remembers is wholly illogical. He could not possible know if it is true. On the other hand, I can know it is false. Importantly, that anyone else even remembers is irrelevant, aside from its lame-excuseness.

He wrote that, if he recalled correctly, his single comment wasn’t even about me personally, but was simply a disagreement with a position I had taken. Clearly his multiple comments were about me personally. To claim that as some kind of justification is head-shaking. But to claim that what he wrote about me personally was not about me personally is a baldfaced lie. As I wrote above, I had included his FB comments in my email that he is responding to.

The FB thread, as it turns out, started with a quote from an English translation of a Russian article concerning a talk I gave in Moscow in 2011. The talk was in English and translated orally and consecutively into Russian, which the writer used for his article.5

Shelton’s comments were not simply a disagreement with a position I had taken. He asserted that my claims were not based on facts, without even identifying what my claims are. He accused me of spewing nonsense, even though he does not identify one thing I said or wrote. He stated that I was full of it, in fact that the whole point of the thread was that I was full of it, but does not provide any evidence or reason for my being full of it. He puts down a person for using me — meaning using my facts, evidence and reason — to refute Rathbun’s claims. Shelton’s labels for me in the crucial matter of the IRS tax exemption and the US’s undeniable collaboration with the cult are not position disagreements: “unfounded conclusion;” “bizarre idea;” “the most ridiculous assertion I’ve heard in months.” This is propaganda that serves the Scientologists’ nasty purposes. And Shelton has not supported his smears with logic or reason or facts, while asserting that any opinions or conjecture of mine openly defy logic and reason.

Shelton insisted that he has the right to disagree with anyone he wants to whenever he wants to. Well, duh.

He went on to explain that doing so is not an injustice, but simply voicing one’s opinion. Well, double duh.

It is a very old tack among the Scientologists and their collaborators to call their putdowns, smears or black PR “disagreements.” They then double curve their smears by smearing their victims for objecting to and seeking to correct mere disagreements or differences of opinion.

Shelton wrote that to take slight and offense at a comment made on Facebook, of all places, is to truly be making a mountain out of a crumb. This is another double curve. I logically objected to and sought to have corrected certain statements that constitute black PR, which serves the Scientologists’ antisocial purposes, and specifically concern the IRS tax exemption that affects, in fact victimizes, many people.

It is Shelton who has made his unprovoked and unsupportable obloquys mountainous, to the size where the whole pile should be public for everyone’s sake. It would have been so simple for him to communicate with me civilly, answer my questions, use his reason, support his assertions, and clean up his baseless black PR. Instead, he has refused to do any of these things, but has double-curved his smears and treated me contemptuously. He said some crumby things, wouldn’t come deal with the mountain he was making, and now the mountain must come to him.

It’s illogical for Shelton to depreciate Facebook as a place where what he says matters less or not at all. At the time he posted his comments about me, there were 1.3 billion FB users.

He accused me of having a “grudge match,” but did not explain what he was talking about. “Grudge match” is a term the Scientologists’ supporters use to disparage the importance or relevance of the Scientology v. Armstrong war. It serves the Scientologists’ purposes.

Shelton said that my grudge match is not going to be met by the same from him. It is unclear what he meant.

It is clear, however, that the Scientology v. Armstrong war is not a grudge match any more than framing anyone else with crimes is a grudge match.

He wrote that he has no quarrel with me. A “quarrel” is a disagreement or a cause for disagreement. That he claimed to have no quarrel with me while black PRing me, and specifically in the IRS matter, weighs toward a group agenda. Calling what he was writing about me “disagreement,” while proclaiming himself quarrel free with me is illogical. He picked the quarrel.

He wrote that my email was insulting and unjustified and that he wouldn’t be continuing to carry on any conversation with me if I continued in this vein. He wrote that if I choose to slander or attack him in a public forum, I am going to be disappointed at the results because he was not going to meet me at my level.

I would never choose to slander or attack him in a public forum, or anywhere else, although slandering and attacking me in a public forum was obviously his choice with his Facebook posts. Obviously too, he has taken my objection to his black PR and unreason, and my effort to get him to support or correct his statements against me, as attacks. That is also a typical scientological double curve: initiate black PR against a target and when he objects further black PR him for attacks.

If levels exist, he has never met me at mine. It is illogical then, and mere wishful postulating on Shelton’s part, that I would be disappointed if he didn’t meet me there. My level is full of evidence, reason, justice and humanity.

Shelton wrote that he highly recommended that I review my intentions carefully because sowing dissent in the “ex” community is a lose-lose for all concerned. This is pure projection because Shelton sowed the dissent when he posted the unmerited and unsupported black PR that so clearly serves the Scientologists’ purposes. He had to have wanted to sow that dissent.

He wrote that we should not be attacking one another, we should be helping one another. Well, triple duh. Yet he initiated the attack, and then has refused to help me, and other Scientology victims, by doing what’s right about his preemptive salvo of black PR.

He wrote that we are free to disagree on tactics, attitudes and ideas of how best to go about it but we should still work shoulder-to-shoulder. Sure, but working shoulder-to-shoulder with people serving the Scientologists’ malevolent purposes toward their victims is unacceptable and folly, even if the workers are ignorant of what they are doing.

I emailed him:

Dear Mr. Shelton:

Your hypocritical treatment of me is something to behold. Your claims to logic and critical thinking are shown to be fraud. What causes you to risk all that just to deal with me so shabbily has to be extremely compelling. Obviously this calls out for public exposure.

It is black propaganda to call the Scientology v. Armstrong war a grudge match.

I am not on your side in some ex-community any more than Mark Rathbun is on my side.

You could be on my side, same as Rathbun could. But you cannot if you treat people this way, especially the Scientologists’ victims, and in other ways still serve the Scientologists’ malevolent intentions.

I know you can see my points. You are not ignorant of what you say or do.

With good reason.

Gerry

He emailed me back.

He wrote that perhaps I could clarify what gross injustice I consider he had committed against me because he honestly didn’t get it. He asked how had he treated me so badly. He said that he was not tracking with my accusations at all.

I emailed him:

Dear Mr. Shelton:

Perhaps you could identify where you think I considered you committed a gross injustice against me. If you can’t find such an accusation, that would explain why you don’t get it. Pretended ignorance is one of Scientologists’ common and major artifices or “beingnesses” for handling their enemies.

I find it impossible to believe that you are so incapable of logic that you cannot find your violations of logic in what you have written, both in your FB comments that started this matter, and in your treatment of me since I asked you to support or rethink your FB statements. (By the way, these statements are below. You implied you didn’t read what you had written when you falsely stated that your comments were but one comment and not about me personally, if you recalled correctly.)

I find it impossible to believe that you cannot honestly understand that your treatment was bad, as in unjustifiably contemptuous.

And I find it impossible to believe that you don’t know when your words and actions show your claims to logic and critical thinking to be fraud.

Yours fairly,

Gerry

He emailed me back.

He said he wouldn’t be answering any more of my emails. He wrote that clearly I have serious issues and that he is not interested in further discourse with me as I am threatening and frankly, very irrational. He said that he didn’t think I deal on well with criticism and that is too bad but it’s my problem, not his. He said that he doesn’t know what end game I had in mind but he hopes I can learn that it’s totally OK for someone to disagree with me without me feeling the need to threaten and harass them.

I emailed him:

Dear Mr. Shelton:

I am sure we do not have a mutual cause.

It is you who attacked publicly. I have said not one word about you publicly.

It is you who chose in publicly attacking me to serve the Scientologists’ malevolent purposes for whatever pottage it gained you.

Now you have cowered out, rather than deal logically and honorably with what you started illogically and dishonorably.

Your attack on me is a public issue that you made public. You have kept it a public issue by your contemptuous treatment of me after your initial public attack.

May I recommend that you man up and confront the evil you are contributing to? It will not go away with more contempt, more illogic, more pretended ignorance about what you are doing.

It is wildly hypocritical of you to attack me publicly, attack me more when I sincerely ask you to support or rethink your public statements, and then barefacedly ask that I not do anything publicly about your public attack.

Believe me, what I do publicly to address your public attacks, or your private attacks for that matter, will not distract anyone from the real enemy. It will simply show how you support that enemy.

Sanguinely,

Gerry

In Shelton’s FB comments, one of the extraordinary “illogics” or “outpoints,” as the Scientologists would call them, is the idea that Mark Rathbun should be believed about the IRS tax exemption because he “was there on the front lines of the IRS handlings and was intimately involved with the whole deal worked out with the IRS.” This is an absurdly altered importance; or a willful lie, a calculated and defensive falsehood. It is like saying that OJ should be believed about the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman because he was there and intimately involved with the whole deal. The rapist should be believed because he was there from start to finish. The human rights violator should be believed because he was there through it all. Using that illogic, the person most intimately involved with all the crimes and abuses done in the name of Scientology, David Miscavige, should be most completely believed.

If Shelton is sincere about justice, truth, integrity, human rights and victims as he says in his public statements, then what he has done with me is astoundingly illogical. If he is not sincere, and has a hidden allegiance or agenda that can trump logic; i.e., require hypocrisy, then he could conclude that what he has done could be completely logical. That is because logic can serve either good or evil. There is considerable evidence with good reason that using one’s God-given logic for evil is ultimately illogical. Therefore hypocrisy doesn’t work.

That Shelton appears to understand logic, to the level of writing a primer on it, weighs, I believe, against sincerity. I have indicated a point or two of his profuse hypocrisy above. Rathbun’s being there actually weighs against him telling the truth because he committed serious crimes day in and day out in his intimate involvement with the whole deal. And he has not told the truth to date. Shelton’s assertions that in Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, Rathbun gave a very detailed account of the whole deal worked out with the IRS, and gave the exact reasons why the IRS capitulated, are willfully false fact statements, easily verified as false with a quick read of the book. There is a conspiracy to maintain the unlawfully obtained IRS tax exemption, and Rathbun is still in that conspiracy. So apparently is Shelton.

He also proffers the corollary illogic to the one in which Rathbun should be believed because of his intimate involvement in the crime. The corollary is that I should not be believed, and my opinions or conjecture about the IRS deal should not be listened to because I was nowhere near any of the IRS dealings. This is like saying that the victim of a burglary shouldn’t be believed if he wasn’t home at the time. The victim of black propaganda should not be believed because he wasn’t there when the black propagandists were black PRing him. A person who assembled a mass of documentation about some evil should not be believed because he was nowhere near the evil dealings. The opinions and conjecture of an investigator who investigates a crime should not be listened to because he was nowhere near it when it went down. Lawyers would never be believed unless they defended themselves in their own crimes or torts.

Shelton’s message in his FB comments was a perfect duplication of Miscavige’s decades-long command intention: I should not be listened to, but the people who victimized me and others should be listened to and believed. Shelton is doing this despite the hurt it causes me and others, and to the cause of justice itself. He is doing it knowing, from the subject matter of the “IRS Deal,” from my communications, from everything easily available online, and from logic, that he was acting to prejudice every man, woman and child, etc. That is true, even if he only knew that he really didn’t know what he was doing, or saying.

Should he choose the debate option, I propose as proposition:

  • that Gerry Armstrong should be believed about what he has said and knows about the “IRS Deal”

He would argue:

  • that Gerry Armstrong should not be believed about what he has said and knows about the “IRS Deal”

Each side could have, e.g., a half hour to make his argument, then a half hour cross-examination, and then a fifteen minute rebuttal.

Notes

Public Policy (January 25, 2015)

by Gerry Armstrong 1

Caroline on ESMB: Gerry concluded some time ago that the key to the IRS decision and its cancellation is the “public policy” issue, or actually public policy violations issue. This explains why neither Rathbun nor Rinder have told the truth about their fair gaming of Gerry, Mike Flynn, etc., and have not told the truth about false statements to and dealings with the IRS. From the Introduction to the Armstrong Operation: […]

Wildcat on ESMB: This is good information, thank you! Can you provide a link or clarification about the “public policy” issue? I’m not sure what that is, but am very interested to know more.

Public policy. That principle of the law which holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community. The term “policy,” as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object, considered with reference to the social or political well-being of the state. Thus, certain classes of acts are said to be “against public policy,” when the law refuses to enforce or recognize them, on the ground that they have a mischievous tendency, so as to be injurious to the interests of the state, apart from illegality or immorality. — Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

To see how “public policy” fits into the Scientologists’ IRS scheme, start with the September 1984 judgment in Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of IRS.2

The US was very aware of the Scientologists’ public policy violations against government, organizations and individuals because of the documents seized in the 1977 FBI raids, and because of testimony of Exscientologists. A broad statement reflecting the US’s knowledge of such public policy violations is provided in the December 1980 Sentencing Memorandum in the US v. Jane Kember & Mo Budlong case.

Thus, as the evidence shows, these defendants orchestrated an elaborate cover-up, beginning in June 1976 and continuing through   June 1977 and, no doubt, thereafter.  In fact, a significant part of the defense they presented at trial — their attack on the integrity and reliability of Michael Meisner — was foreshadowed in the “obstruction documents.”  They presented this Court with a shabby attempt at impeaching Meisner’s credibility by claiming that he stole money from the Church — the same false claim they made against another former Scientologist who had the courage to expose their crimes and thus fell victim to their fair game doctrine. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert. denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977).

[…]

Other Crimes Committed by These Defendants

The defendants’ contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in order to protect their Church from Government harassment collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants.  If anything, these documents establish beyond doubt that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law.  They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. [ ] The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment. Their targets included, among others, The American Medical Association (AMA) which had branded Scientology’s practice of “dianetics” as “quackery”; the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which sought to respond to private citizens’ inquiries about the courses offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to report the news and inform the public, law firms which represented individuals and organizations against whom Scientology initiated law suits (often for the sole purpose of harassment); private citizens who attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize an organization whose tactics they condemned; and public officials who sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected or appointed in a fair and even-handed manner. To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. [cite]  That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person”  “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist.  [He m]ay be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed.” [cite] This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.

[…]

Conclusion

The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years.  It also puts to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harassment campaign against them.

The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the defendants’ wanton assault upon the laws of this country.  The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury investigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in response to a Grand Jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story, and assisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of this country.  Their total disregard for the laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of vilification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private and public individuals    and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail.  One can   only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their “Red Box” data.  That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law.  Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims.

The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard.  No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying.  No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes.  It is interesting to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled “Modern Management Technology Defined” that “truth is what is true for you,” and “illegal” is that which is “contrary to statistics or policy” and not pursuant to Scientology’s “approved program.”  Thus, with the Founder-Commodore’s blessings they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.

These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed.  The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system.  In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.”  That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society.

These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.3

In July 1987, the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s 1984 judgment in CSC v. Commissioner. Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground of inurement to L. Ron Hubbard, it did not address the public policy issue.

We conclude that the Church failed to establish that “no part of the net earnings … inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual….” 26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(3). Because we may affirm the Tax Court on this ground, we do not reach the questions of whether the Church operated for a substantial commercial purpose or whether it violated public policy. 4

Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court judgment only on the ground of inurement, it did not mean that the IRS could ignore the other grounds for denial of tax exemption if the Scientologists cured their inurement problem. Hubbard’s death solved inurement. The Scientologists solved their public policy problem by committing more public policy violations against the people who were already victims of the Scientologists’ public policy violations. For corrupt reasons, the US abetted the Scientologists, indeed required such public policy violations.

The Scientologists’ strategy, as has long been known, became to blame their Guardian’s Office for everything off-public policy the Scientologists had been caught doing, disband the GO as a rogue operation, and swear that public policy violations were no longer committed or permitted. The Scientologists, of course, first under Hubbard and then under Miscavige, continued violating public policy unabated, and probably even escalated public policy violating by having the GO to scapegoat.

The blaming of the GO, and the smearing of the Scientologists’ public policy violation victims by association with the GO, is a key theme in the Scientologists’ negotiated submissions to the IRS upon which tax exemption was granted in 1993. The Scientologists, and the IRS, had to deal with the public policy issue that is so prominent in the 1984 Tax Court judgment. These submissions, negotiated to demonstrate that public policy violations had ended with the GO, are actually irrefutable, and astonishing, proof that Scientologists continued violating public policy, directed by the very top leadership of Scientology. 5

There are, naturally, many years of evidence of the Scientologists’ public policy-violating activities since their exemption-reaping submissions. Their actions against me in violation of public policy started during the Hubbard regime and have not stopped throughout the Miscavige regime. In significant part, the Scientologists’ actions targeting me as an SP or enemy comprise a conspiracy against rights (18 USC 241), which clearly is against public policy. The Scientologists’ public policy violations in targeting me in their submissions to the IRS are stunning. In negotiating with the Scientologists to file this material targeting me, by requiring or permitting this material to be filed, and by interference of any kind against me on behalf of the Scientologists ever since, the US has been participating in their criminal conspiracy, and vice versa.

Although in his 2013 book Memoirs Mark Rathbun did not confront his participation in the Scientology-IRS conspiracy, which defrauded Americans and criminally prejudiced the SP class, he did disclose a number of things that are useful in examining certain of the Scientologists’ fact statements in their IRS submissions. Comparing the public policy sections of these submissions with the US’s knowledge of public policy violations as shown in the 1980 US v. Kember sentencing memorandum, and analyzing both fact sets with what Rathbun has disclosed or what is known from other sources, would be a logical next step.

 Notes

Tony Ortega quoting Mike Rinder… (July 29, 2014)

From Tony Ortega’s blog post of July 29, 2014:

Hana joined Scientology in 1965, became Clear number 60, then went to sea with L. Ron Hubbard, who made her captain of one of his ships. Increasingly disillusioned by what she saw of Hubbard up close, and especially after the material released in “OT 3,” she eventually left Scientology in 1984 and then became one of the most well known critics and intervention specialists. By 1991, she was probably the biggest “SP” on the planet, and the attention paid to her by the church’s private eyes proved it…

During her interview, Hana says, “I think that if Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder ever decide to talk about this, they will talk about some of the operations that were launched against us, because they were extensive.”

We talked to Rinder, who said that between 1986 and 1993, he wasn’t working with OSA except for a period regarding Gerry Armstrong and some other specific matters. In 1991, when Hana’s surveillance was so heavy, Rinder says he was working on the LRH Life Exhibition as LRH PPRO Int (personal public relations international) after a stint in the Rehabilitation Project Force, the Sea Org’s prison detail. He says he had no experience in or oversight of the operations against Hana and Jerry Whitfield.

But I have no doubt that they underwent the same things that were done to Vaughn and Stacy Young, or Graham Berry, or others I am familiar with” he says. “Private eyes following them, calling in complaints against them, moving in next door, listening in on cordless phone calls, the whole thing,” Rinder says. 1

Gerry wrote Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder many times and asked them to debrief about the extensive operations that were launched against him. He has made no secret of what was wanted, and what it was for, but have published openly. From March 2014:

I am not asking Marty or Mike for a deep psycho-philosophical shift, when, for example, a person changes from lying as a pro-survival activity and way of life and starts to value and desire truth telling and that becomes a way of life. I am also not denying that such a shift could perhaps occur, or be related. I think testifying seventy-some days in Scientology litigations might have altered me psycho-philosophically, and certainly being M & M & every other Scientologist’s target for all these years has.

I believe, however, that the testimony or truth that Marty and Mike can provide me, which would assist in correcting injustices, can be provided in a couple of days. They know how to debrief, know how to tell the truth, and have always had the ability. The idea that Scientologists cannot tell the truth or do not know truth from lies is a ruse that some Scientologists use to escape responsibility and natural consequences for the bad acts they know they’ve committed against their victims, or are still committing.

Marty and Mike are at cause over their refusal to now assist the people they helped to damage or destroy by intimidation, litigation and defamation activities. Their condition or their place in their long or short path of waking, recovery and healing is not why they have not assisted their victims. They had the ability to assist people while inside Scientology and the Sea Org, and the idea that they have lost that ability since leaving is ridiculous. They also have the same reasons for refusing to assist their victims that they had while in the SO. They did not acquire a new set of reasons for doing what they had always done: something or anything other than assisting their victims, giving justice, telling the truth.

I am just requesting the narrow, relevant truth about a clear and active matter: Marty, Mike, Hubbard, Miscavige, et al. v. Armstrong & friends. Marty and Mike are two individuals with a great deal of information, who are now presenting as fighters for justice who have told the truth about their part in victimizing others. Since they have not told the truth, and do not seek justice, even in correcting injustices they perpetrated and can help correct, the logical conclusion is that they are “Loyalists” mispresenting themselves.2

See also this note that includes Rinder’s clarification of why, as Graham Berry wondered, he had “not done anything to assist redeem, or apologize, those others of us who were damaged and/or destroyed by OSA’s intimidation, litigation and defamation activities.” It’s his timelessness.3

Notes

Wikipedia: Fred T. Goldberg Jr.

Allegedly, Scientology officials, including Church leader David Miscavige, paid private investigators to acquire some unspecified compromising information on Goldberg during his time as commissioner, and then strode into his office without an appointment one day to demand terms.[1][2] The meeting was not listed on Goldberg’s appointment calendar, which was obtained by The New York Times through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

While details are not known, it was under Goldberg’s administration that the long running IRS/Scientology legal conflict ended, though it took two years (under two other Commissioners) to work out the details.[3] Scientology received a unique tax exemption in 1993 and the IRS has refused to release the agreement, even after a FOIA request by the NYT and when requested by the court in the Sklar case.[4] (A draft version of the agreement was leaked to the WSJ and published late in 1997.)[5]

In early 2002, Judge Silverman, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote the following:

“If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology — allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else — then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to stop to that policy. The remedy is not to require the IRS to let others claim the improper deduction, too.”[6]

References

  1.  Frantz, Douglas (1997-03-19). “Scientology Denies an Account Of an Impromptu I.R.S. Meeting”. New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-17.
  2. Staff (1997-04-02). “Church Of Scientology Denies Impromptu Meeting With US Tax Agency”. The New York Beacon.
  3. Frantz, Douglas (1997-12-31). “$12.5 Million Deal With I.R.S. Lifted Cloud Over Scientologists”. New York Times. Retrieved 2008-08-24.
  4.  Frantz, Douglas (1997-03-09). “Scientology’s Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt”. New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-17.
  5. “Scientologists, IRS Settle Dispute”, The Wall Street Journal, December 20, 1997.
  6. Sklar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 00-70753, Tax Court No. 1556-97, Amended Opinion, Appeal from the United States Tax Court, Amended, February 27, 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_T._Goldberg,_Jr.

Mark Rathbun: on Pat Broeker (May 28, 2013)

In the middle of the trial1 I received a phone call from Pat Broeker; it was the only time we would speak before Hubbard’s death. It was extraordinary that someone physically present with L. Ron Hubbard would find the case of such import that he found it appropriate to talk to the man on the ground about it. Pat gave me a rallying pep talk right out of the Knute Rockne story. I don’t know exactly what Pat had been briefed on, but it was clear that the view from the top was that it was all a matter of mustering greater intention than the enemy. “Come on, get those attorneys in their pitching for LRH! It is not a matter of they can’t do it. They just think they can’t do it. Your job is to get them to realize that they can.”

The talk went on for several minutes, with no interest whatsoever expressed for my view of the affair, or the facts of the matter. I only had time to acknowledge now and then, when Pat would pause momentarily with a “You know what I mean?” Though Pat was inspiring, I was scarcely in need of any inspiration on the subject of coaching and inspiring attorneys.

Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (p. 249).

Notes

  1. Rathbun is referring to the trial in Scientology v. Armstrong, that resulted in the Breckenridge Decision.

Mark Rathbun: on John G. Peterson (May 28, 2013)

Hubbard had sent a memo to our unit, advising that we develop what he called a “punitive defense.” Hubbard reasoned that if Flynn and company could take a bunch of false plaintiffs and use the litigation process to inflict vast expense and chaos within the church, well, we could just as easily use the process more effectively in the same wise against Flynn. The end product of the punitive defense was to make the process too painful for any plaintiff to carry on.

We hired a coordinating attorney in Los Angeles named John Peterson. John had an amiable personality which helped get more recalcitrant attorneys to cooperate with our plans. John and I played an effective good guy/bad guy routine. I would rough up our attorneys with over-the-top demands for aggressive action, then John would follow up by hearing their objections, expressing his understanding of their concerns and then more gently obtaining their agreement to compromise and do something far more aggressive than they normally would do.

We had an office built for John within the complex. He worked for us full time, until his untimely death in 1987. John was in constant communication with our lawyers across the country. John and I worked out several tactical plans to inconvenience Flynn and his co-counsel. We forced him into a series of errors over the next several months. We overloaded him with paper, hearings and depositions. The FAMCO boys started missing filing deadlines, and not properly preparing witnesses we were deposing daily. Within months we had reversed the tide of the litigation; FAMCO finding itself in the state of disarray as we had been when we entered the war. By the end of summer we had chipped away at a number of cases, with portions being dismissed. More importantly, we had Flynn’s back against the wall, defending two contempt
proceedings for misrepresentations to courts, which we had flustered him into. Finally, in August, Flynn was held in contempt by a judge in a remote jurisdiction.

Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (pp 191-2).

Notes

Mark Rathbun: on Earle Cooley’s partner and protégé, Harry Manion (May 28, 2013)

We rented a number of units at a downtown condominium, walking distance from the [Multnomah County] courthouse. One unit was inhabited by Earle, his long-time mistress Jeannie and their fourteen-year-old son. Another one-bedroom unit was occupied by Miscavige and me. Another was reserved for a couple of Office of Special Affairs staff, and served as a document preparation area and repository. We had a dozen more staff working out of the offices of the mission, which were only a few blocks away. One more condo unit was occupied by Earle’s partner and protégé, Harry Manion.

Harry would prove pivotal to the case, though he did very little speaking in court. Harry was in his early thirties. A big, strapping man — if overweight, like Earle — with a boyish face and an infectious smile and personality. Harry was the archetypal hale fellow well met. He had a glib, friendly word for everyone he encountered, and a natural ability to make people feel comfortable and light. Harry had something else going for him. He was a former college and minor-league professional baseball player, and that really meant something to the judge.

Judge Don Londer was respected by many locally. But because he was Jewish, he was not really accepted into Portland’s traditionally WASP judicial circles. Londer consider himself an old jock, often reminiscing about his boxing career during his younger days in the Navy. He was also a decent, considerate man. However, he was not very bright. In the condo we used to joke that maybe he had his lights knocked out one too many times during his boxing career. But because Harry was a real professional athlete, in Londer’s eyes Harry could do no wrong. Harry struck up a relationship gradually by arriving a little early to court, and thus “bumping into” the judge regularly. The latter always wanted to hear jock war stories from Harry. Harry was the son Don Londer wished he had fathered. (pp. 266-7)

[…]

So dramatic were Earle Cooley’s cross examinations that we were all swept into the sweet oblivion of the drama of it all. We heard from Judge Londer, through Harry, and we heard from dozens of lawyers who attended as spectators and students: Earle Cooley was magnificent. (pp. 270-271).

[…]

When Cooley returned at the end of the weekend, he thought the motion 1 was brilliant. We filed it  early the following week. Harry Manion artfully used his weeks of informal credibility-and-sympathy-building with judge Londer to obtain his agreement to set a hearing for a few weeks down the road, to consider the motion. Londer would not and did not ever record the jury’s verdict. (pp. 272 )

[…]

We kept orchestrating Harry’s having “chance” encounters with Judge Londer, hoping to divine where he stood and hoping that he might begin to understand this case was not only important to the church and Earle, but to Harry’s future. Try as he might, Harry would come back from his meetings befuddled. His refrain was that Londer was as dumb as a sack of rocks, and he couldn’t tell whether anything we were presenting was getting through.

On the afternoon prior to the final hearing and the announcement of decision on the mistrial motion, Earle, Harry and I sat in Earle’s hotel room in Portland preparing our arguments. We had a last-minute brief to file, and had purposely waited until mid afternoon, when we knew Londer took a break. That way, when Harry was bringing the brief into the clerk, Londer might see him and invite him into his chambers for a chat. That went like clockwork. Earle and I beseeched Harry to call in any chips he might have with Londer. Earle told Harry to tell him outright that Londer needed to do this for Harry. Harry reported back that he had schmoozed with Londer, but that it wasn’t appropriate under the circumstances — open chambers doors — to make his ultimate personal pitch. However, Londer had invited Harry to come to his home that evening to meet his wife, since it might be the last time they would see one another. Harry had not committed, out of concern for doing something that would smell of impropriety and could come back to haunt us.

Earle and I discussed the matter in some detail. He explained the downsides of a visit — if it were ever found out it could raise the ugly specter of the decades of GO improprieties we were attempting to live down. “On balance,” Earle said, “this is up to the client. You need to brief the boss [Miscavige] and I’ll trust his instincts.” I called Miscavige and briefed him on all that had transpired. He said, “What is your hesitance? It’s a no brainer. Of course he sees Londer, and he does whatever he has to do to get the product.” I told Earle the verdict. Earle told me, “Okay, now it’s between me and Harry. I’m going to protect you and Dave. Leave it to me.”

Earle did report that Harry had gone to Londer’s home. He did not give particulars beyond saying that Londer was thrilled with the visit. He gave no guarantee of any particular outcome, “But,” Earle added, “tell Dave to relax.” And then Earle told me an anecdotal aphorism he would repeat several times to Dave and me over the next couple of years. He said, “Here is my only test of friendship. I know you are going to testify tomorrow in front a grand jury investigating me. Do I sleep tonight…or don’t I?” (pp. 275-6)

Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior.

Notes

  1. Motion for mistrial in Christofferson.

Mark Rathbun: Earle Cooley was bigger than life… (May 28, 2013)

Earle Cooley was bigger than life. He was a big, red-haired knock-off of L. Ron Hubbard himself. His gravelly voice was commanding. His wit was sharp. He was perennially listed in The Best Trial Lawyers in America. He could spin a yarn that charmed judges and juries and took  easy, great pleasure in viciously destroying witnesses on cross examination. After I had  interviewed Earle and reported to Miscavige, I arranged for us to watch Earle in action.  Miscavige and I flew out to Boston to see Earle perform in a high-profile art theft trial. We saw  him decimate a seasoned criminal government informant so thoroughly on cross examination  that the fellow, in a trademark Cooley expression, “didn’t know whether to shit or wind his watch.” Earle’s client — whom the government had dead to rights, and who was as unsympathetic a defendant as could be — was acquitted by the jury. We had found the horse for the course.

Earle was like a breath of fresh air to Miscavige. He took a similar black-and-white view of matters — we are right and good, the enemy is wrong and bad. Miscavige had long since lost his patience and his tolerance for our teams of civil lawyers and the civil-rights-experienced opinion leaders among them. He referred to them as the “pointy heads,” short for “pointy-headed intellectuals.” To him, our only problem was our counsels’ timid, second-guessing, defensive frames of mind. And Earle reinforced that view. Cooley attended a few civil litigation conferences with our other counsel. He ruffled their feathers by readily agreeing with Miscavige’s simplistic sum-up of what was wrong and the solution to it, aggression. The existing lawyers’ nervous objections and eye-rolling reactions to Earle’s sermons only reinforced Miscavige’s view. “They are nothing but a pack of pussies,” he regularly groused to me; “what we need is for Earle to sink his teeth into those Flynn witnesses and that’ll be the end of this nonsense.”

Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (p. 262-3).

Notes