Alt.religion.scientology Week in Review Volume 1, Issue 2 04/28/96 by Rod Keller [email@example.com] copyright 1996
Alt.religion.scientology Week in Review summarizes the most significant postings from the Usenet group Alt.religion.scientology for the preceding week for the benefit of those who can't follow the group as closely as they'd like. Out of thousands of postings, I attempt to include news of significant events, new affidavits, court rulings, new contributors, whatever. I hope you find it useful. Like many readers of a.r.s, I have a kill file. So please take into consideration that I may not have seen some of the most significant postings. The articles in A.r.s Week in Review are brief summaries of the articles. Many include an excerpt, and all include message IDs for the articles I cover. This may or may not be useful to you, depending on how long your site stores articles in the newsgroup before expiring them. Free A.r.s Week in Review subscriptions are available, just email me at firstname.lastname@example.org It is archived at: http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/ars-summary.html http://www.eecs.nwu.edu/~mallen/scn/arswr/ars-summary.html http://www.amazing.com/scientology/ars-summary.html http://users.aimnet.com/~jdiver/scieno.htm http://www.thur.de/religio/publik/arsfaq.html
AOL continues to run its Religion & Ethics folder as if it were theta.com, the church's web site. Now that critical postings are banned from the Scientology folder, the battle has moved to other folders on the system.
"Yes, the Free Zone folder is gone. The last activity I remember there was RonArtist's post asserting that the Free Zone folder had no right to exist in the AOL Religion and Ethics area because, according to him, the Free Zone wasn't a religion and its only purpose was to 'attack' Scientology. And a Scientologist called TheAlaskan, who sounds wacko enough to be a fanatical Scn but might be a troll, posted a threatening message 'to the squirrels.' The folder disappeared soon after that. Whether it was due to Scn pressure or lack of activity, I don't know.
"If any of you have any 10-free-hour AOL disks that you're using for coasters, or if you have an AOL account you're not making use of, please give a thought to jumping into the AOL Scn folders for a bit."
"Today...4/25/96...FauxReal4, better known as Mark Ebner started a new folder for 'Scientology Survivors'. While I don't have any real hopes of it leading a long life, I certainly hope [those] that have AOL accounts make a contribution."
In the wake of the toocool debacle, in which the cult misappropriated copyrighted images in order to preserve a withdrawn award, come the 5 star Luckman Awards, as Tilman Hausherr reported this week.
"The scientology site proudly announces 5 stars on Luckman Interactive's WWW yellow pages. No wonder: Brent Luckman is a scientologist. For example, he co-signed 'The Church of Scientology Should Be Commended' at http://www.theta.com/relfreedom/expert.htm. He is also listed as a top donor ($250,000 to the IAS war chest). He was once a manager at Landmark Research International, a WISE ('world institute of scientology enterprises') company at that time, that is today known as 'Quarterdeck Select'."
Deana Holmes reported receiving legal warnings from the offices of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker concerning her "encheferated" postings of the secret NOTS levels. Encheferation transforms the text so that it sounds like the Muppets character The Swedish Chef, clearly a different "expression" under copyright law. Note the phrase "your innocence is no defense".
"As your March 22, 1996 posting to alt.religion.scientology makes clear, you were already aware at the time of your solicitation of NOTS materials that Judge Whyte in the Grady Ward case enjoined such activities on trade secret grounds, as well as prohibited reproduction, distribution and other acts which infringe RTC's rights under federal copyright law.
"Despite your being put on formal notice in a March 29, 1996 e-mail from RTC attorney Helena Kobrin (which you acknowledge having received by return e-mail on the same date), your response was the posting, on April 9, 1995, of NOTS Series 1, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 42 in their entirety, and the subsequent reposting of those materials on April 16, 1996. These acts constitute copyright infringement and entitle RTC, _inter alia_, to injunctive relief, multiple awards of statutory damages and the recovery of its attorney's fees should it be necessary to take court action against you. Your transliteration of the NOTs issues is no defense, nor is your characterization of your April 16 reposting as a 'satire.' Since you indicate in your postings that you are a law school graduate, you are fully accountable for all of the consequences of your acts. (Copyright infringement is a strict liability tort; your innocence is no defense but your willfulness can make the remedies against you much more severe.)
"Given that both the Ward and Henson injunctions prohibit not only the named individuals, but also those acting in concert with them, you may well have already violated one or another of these court orders. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, any further solicitations or postings like yours of March 22, April 9 or April 16 will be treated as a willful violation of RTC's rights for which you will be held fully accountable."
Deana subsequently received three additional copies of the warning, through various express services.
"This afternoon, I came home for lunch and found that Federal Express had attempted to deliver yet another package to me. While FedEx could not tell me who sent it, they were able to tell me that it was sent from New York. At that point, I decided to call Mr. Hart and ask him if he had sent it. He said that he had.
"Then I came home from work tonight, and checked my snailmail. Guess what? I had received a notice from the Post Office that I had gotten a package from Paul, Hastings, _et.al._, certified mail, and that it was waiting for me down at the POST OFFICE.
"I am putting the Church <spit> of $cientology on notice. Once is enough. Twice is pushing it. THREE TIMES is harassment. If you have anything to say to me, sending it to me once via Federal Express is appropriate and sufficient. If you continue in this fashion, I will take further steps."
Steve Fishman this week posted allegations that the cult cruise ship Freewinds is involved in illegal activities for the cult.
"The Freewinds is based out of Curacao, in the Netherland Antilles. They do this primarily as a money laundering operation. For example, if you buy books or tapes or courses that are delivered on the Freewinds, the bill is invoiced on your credit card through a bank in Curacao.
"They often charge state tax and do not pay the taxes to the state doing it this way, and this is only one of the multitude of criminal acts I have asked State and Federal authorities to investigate in order to get their tax exemption overturned. "It used to be a cruise ship called 'La Boheme.' The boat broker who handled the sale of La Boheme, Bud Fields, was found murdered in his home in Longboat Key, Florida, when he refused to sell the boat to Miscavige because he had been offered an unscheduled commission or a kickback from Norwegian Caribbean Lines, who was also interested at the time, according to Bonny Mott, who was the Authorization and Verification Unit Officer of the Commodore's Messenger Org back then who was posted as a 'nanny' in the home of Bud and Lee Fields in order to spy on him for OSA."
An article was reposted from alt.showbiz.gossip about cult investigations into posters critical of celebrity cult members.
"Mysterious men have also shown up at certain employers on the west coast and asked questions about people who post here. They've also shown up at certain BBS's. They claim to be 'private detectives' but they're really from the Church of Scientology trying to silence people who post outing messages about Tom Cruise, John Travolta, etc. They only ask for one thing: name, home address, and home phone # for certain people."
Tony Sidaway posted Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools bill in response to the Judge Casey Hill/Scientology legal battle, in which Hill was awarded damages for libel. The bill was introduced in December, 1995.
"Honourable Senators, the second case, Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, in the Supreme Court of Canada, is a famous libel case involving the use of false allegations by lawyers Morris Manning, Clayton Ruby, and Michael Code to defame and to destroy crown attorney, Casey Hill. I addressed the Senate on this case on November 23, 1995. In his judgment on this case, Mr. Justice Peter Cory articulated the Court's position and the common law against the use of false allegations, saying, quote:
"'To make false statements which are likely to injure the reputation of another has always been regarded as a serious offence.'
"Mr. Justice Cory spoke strongly to the malicious use of falsehood to inflict injury within judicial proceedings, saying: 'Scientology's behaviours throughout can only be characterized as recklessly high-handed, supremely arrogant and contumacious. There seems to have been a continuing conscious effort on Scientology's part to intensify and perpetuate its attack on Casey Hill without any regard for the truth of its allegations'
"Wanton disregard for the truth and the perpetration of deceit upon the court is the behaviour that this Bill seeks to censure; in short, the behaviour of lawyers Morris Manning, Clayton Ruby and Michael Code and countless other counsel. Such ruthlessness and malice must not wear the protective cloak of justice and judicial privilege. It must stand naked and be seen for what it is - unbridled, predatory malice and spitefulness, intended to ruin its prey, psychologically and financially. It is criminal activity, (and deserves a number in the Criminal Code of Canada.)"
Look for images of cult PI Eugene Ingram's warrant for arrest in Florida to appear on a web page near you. Steve Fishman made the following offer this week.
"I will fax you a copy of Eugene Ingram's warrant for his arrest to anyone who promises to scan the document and post it on his or her home page.
"To get a free copy of this priceless document, you must have a fax number and a web page and a way to scan the document and put it on your web page.
"If you meet these requirements and you would like me to fax you a copy of it, please send me an e-mail at email@example.com and provide your fax number and your URL (web page address), and your request will be processed in 24 hours."
Also from Steve Fishman this week, a report on Pat Broeker. Pat, along with his wife Annie, were responsible for the care and feeding of the deteriorating L. Ron Hubbard in isolation for several years before his death.
"The good news is that Pat Broeker is still alive. The bad news is that he is STILL very much a clam, and STILL very active in upper echelon cult management.
"If you would like to write Pat, be my guest! His e-mail address is: Patrick.Broeker@dianetics.com
"He may be called to testify soon before a grand jury which a little birdie told me might be looking in to Annie's false imprisonment and disappearance. Seems he was more of a conspirator than a victim!"
As defendants Grady Ward and Keith Henson are being deposed, Paulette Cooper recalled some questions she was asked in deposition, years ago.
"In one of their 19 suits against me, I think the one in which I was asked 20,000 interrogatory questions, I was asked to respond to something like the following:
"[you claim you lost sleep as a result of Scientology harassment. In the last 15 years] Give the exact dates of the nights in which you lost sleep, what time you went to bed each of those nights and what time you woke up, exactly how much sleep you lost on each of those nights, and how long you would have slept that night if you hadn't been too upset to sleep [as you claim.]"
Julie Mayo posted to set the record straight about Robin Scott and the "stolen" NOTS pack. The cult alleges that the Mayo's Advanced Abilities Center used stolen materials to conduct processing.
"After reading Robin Scott's briefing of April 21, 1984, I see that RTC/CofS actually dropped the charge of theft at the time of Robin Scott's trial. I hadn't realized that before -- per Robin Scott: 'And the judge decided 'Right. We want to dismiss theft.' And the prosecution said 'Okay. We will withdraw the charge of theft.'
"After reading this I am curious about whether the pack that Robin Scott was given in Denmark could really be considered to be a 'stolen' NOTs pack, as the charge of theft was dropped by the court and by the plaintiffs in Denmark. This may be hair splitting, but because the C of S refers to it as a 'stolen NOTs pack' - it has become adopted language by many people.
"From what I hear, what happened was that Robin Scott, and I think Morag Bellmaine, dressed up in Sea Org costumes and went into the Advanced Org in Denmark and asked for and were given two copies of the NOTs pack.
"Robin Scott has also testified in a deposition that David Mayo had nothing to do with his acquisition of the materials; that copies of the pack weren't given to David Mayo and that David Mayo had made it quite clear that he didn't want copies of the pack.
"In July of 1983, David Mayo gave two quite long lectures to Dona Haber -- to train her on the procedure we called AAV. These two lectures were transcribed by Dona Haber and became a major portion of the AAV pack. This and notes from other people were used by David in the writing and compilation of the AAV pack. So there are many people who know that AAV wasn't similar in expression to the NOTs pack, which Judge Pfaelzer ultimately decided herself.
"Note also that these lectures and notes predated the Robin Scott incident by several months. Also note that David Mayo wrote the original NOTs to start with, which is also no secret."
Keith Henson posted the entire transcript of his hearing before Judge Whyte this week. A few excerpts:
"MR. HENSON: I have no problem with that. The reason I'm actually asking this question is that the Scientology group of people is rather known for it's, for certain David Miscavige, for not showing up at all for depositions, and I was wondering if I was going to be sanctioned, what sanctions I would get. I was wondering if the same sort of laws apply to them and they would get sanctioned if I can establish a reason to --
"THE COURT: I think you know the answer to that.
"MR. HENSON: I would hope so.
"THE COURT: And I will also say, to my knowledge, in none of the cases in front of me has anybody brought to my attention a claim that somebody that was associated with R.T.C. failed to appear for a deposition. At least, as I sit here now, I don't recall any such allegation being made, and I believe in Mr. Erlich's case, and I don't know if Mr. Hogan knows or not, but I think some depositions have been taken.
"MR. HENSON: Your Honor, can I get accelerated depositions as well?
"THE COURT: Who do you want to take the deposition of and why?
"MR. HENSON: Well, I'm not exactly sure. I want to be sure that I depose the right person, and for just the procedural reasons here, could I get you to ask the R.T.C. lawyers to provide me with a comprehensive list of the persons who were on the other end of the faxes and phone calls for Mr. Ward's deposition? In particular, I'd like to know if David Miscavige was among that group of people.
"THE COURT: Well, you can talk to Mr. Hogan, but I'm not going to get into ordering either side to provide any particular information right now. If you want to take somebody's deposition, or you want a request for -- it sounds like what you want to do is have the right to send out some written questions to the R.T.C. that they have to answer under oath, and if you want permission to do that, I might well give you that permission.
"MR. HENSON: Since Mr. Miscavige seems particularly difficult to serve, he's in fact managed to evade service for more than a year, can I have the Court's permission to serve him through his lawyers, through these lawyers?
"THE COURT: I don't even know who he is.
"THE COURT: All right. So what is there -- all right. As I understand it, Mr. Henson does not object to his deposition and a records request provided there's a means where he can object to the records that are being requested. And if you can't work it out between the two parties, then it can go to Magistrate Judge Infante for determination.
"MR. HENSON: Your Honor, could I also get a limit on that?
"THE COURT: Okay.
"MR. HENSON: And as well as the same stipulations that you made in the Grady Ward case, no abuse?
"THE COURT: That goes to both sides without saying.
"MR. HENSON: Thank you.
"THE COURT: All right. And I'm going to do the same thing I did with Mr. Ward, and that is limit it to one day absent an application for addition time."
John Stewart posted a review of the film "Orientation", advertised by the cult in Toronto newspapers.
"[I]t was a film done in infomercial format- the actors are working directly from a script. I think Norman Starkey is in the film- the rest are Scientology actors who recur in Scientology films over the years.
"The first major question the film 'answers' is 'Why the controversy surrounding Scientology?' Well, here is a summary of Mr. Starkey's answer: the U.S. government wanted Dianetics even before it was published, 'because they knew it works'. Essentially the gov't was involved in a 'mind control conspiracy' designed to 'make people more suggestible.' LRH refused to give his tech development to the gov't, but instead gave it to the people, and in 1952 (?) published Science of Survival, which exposed the government's mind control conspiracy. The U.S. Government has been out to get revenge on LRH ever since.. That is why Scientology is controversial...
"The next two most noticeable points in 'Orientation' are as follows: The narrator announces that, 'You are on the threshold of your next trillion years as a being- do you want to live it in shivering, agonizing, darkness..' or come with us, basically, into the Church of Scientology...
"Then, he says you can leave and never come back to Scientology after this film, although 'that would be stupid.. You could also dive off of a bridge or blow your brains out..' or you can go see your reg, and so on."
Woods and Lawley Update
An update was posted concerning Bonnie Woods and Ron Lawley, both UK critics under legal attack from the cult.
"Bonnie Woods now has 1 libel suit from Narconon, 1 counter suit from COSRECI, 1 libel suit against COSRECI and now COSRECI have brought another libel suit against Bonnie and Richard for the distribution of the FUSS leaflet. This was the leaflet handed out outside orgs around the UK in July of last year, asking people to watch the Big Story TV programme.
"I [Lawley] am still waiting for my hearing before the Court of Appeal regarding whether I have 'locus standi' which will decide whether I, as a bankrupt, have the right to defend the appeal against me being given the NOTs materials, as was ordered by Judge Sumner. The hearing date could be any time now so we just sit and wait.
"I am helping Bonnie and Richard get through these 4 libel actions. Sometimes I spend 30 hours a week on the paperwork and the hardship fund covers expenses for all our cases. So please thank people once again for the assistance which will enable all these cases to come to court. At the moment I see no reason why we should lose. So thanks again to all SPs everywhere."