An offer you can't refuse by CSI/OSA.
[01 Oct 1996]

About the staff covenant.

Main Index A.R.S. Web Summary Ex-Scientologists Speak

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:24:02 -0400
From: Ariane&Alex JACKSON <>
Subject: An offer you can't refuse by CSI/OSA.
Message-ID: <>
Lines: 59

I saw your post on ars and here are some clarifications.

> OK, former staff members, clue me in here.
>"J" is trying to get Alex and Ariane to sign a legal >document whereby
they give up their right to talk about >their church experiences.


>Apparently, the staff "covenant" does not apply to their >summary of OT8,
otherwise, A & A would find themselves in a >courtroom.

The "staff covenant" is a legal contract that staff members sign.
Sea Org members on a billion year contract sign one and renew it every 5
years. The reason Jaqueline Kevenaar (J) brought it up was they were trying
to persuade Alex and me that the paragraph we were querying was confined to
staff when it was obviously not.

>It is my suspicion that OT8 services are not part of >Ariane's experience
as a staff member. Therefore the >"covenant" does not apply.

That's true, but they did not try to tell us it applied to OT8.
They have another document called a "non-disclosure bond" where you promise
to pay $100,000's or $1,000,000 if you disclose something confidential.
These are supposed to be signed by anyone, public or staff, before gaining
access to confidential data such as OT8. The legal validity of these is
questionable and they get lost and they forget to make people sign them. I
don't remember signing one before OT8. When we asked them to produce copies
unable to do so and did not appear to even know where these documents were
or if they existed. When we questioned the legal validity of these
documents they became agitated and both spoke at once and accused us of
making it a legal matter.
If they had been interested in a professional approach, and if the
documents exist and are legally valid, they should have had their attorney
send us copies together with copies of the releases they wanted signed and
we could have consulted an attorney and responded. Almost a month after
making our experiences public, over 2 weeks after stopping discussions, and
10 days after calling the police on their representatives, we have STILL
not heard from their attorneys. They told us their attorneys were pounding
the table and demanding something in writing, and they were OBLIGED TO SUE
to protect their "scriptures".
The fact they refused to give us a copy of the release unless we
signed it and their attempts to get us to sign it without consulting a
lawyer make their stated position questionable.

>Perhaps CSI does not have a covenant covering people who >take OT8
>In other words, CSI may not have any legal ground to stand >upon here,
knows it, and is trying to scam an agreement >without having to go through
a doomed lawsuit. The words >"legally binding without going to court"
(paraphrased) were >used by one of the three CSI people elsewhere. I think
it >indicates an op similar in style to when Hubbard scammed >Sara Northrop
when he dumped her (kidnapped their child, >got Sara to sign a legal
document, etc), as cronicled in >"Bare Faced Messiah". Oh yeah, IANAL.

Everything points to your analysis being correct.