Writings
To Jesse about Hubbard at Gilman Hot Springs
Dear Jesse:
You write:
What the above people and myself had in common was we had all worked and communicated directly with L Ron Hubbard at some point in our Scientology sojourn and times of our mutual experiences varied greatly. Few of us had worked together with L Ron at the same time. I realized what I had that was unique among my peers. I’d been there with L Ron and for L Ron during the last four years of his life. L Ron did not live in the same place where I lived at Golden Era Production nor was he there all of the time. He was there some of the time and that’s what needed to be talked about. To date no one has written anything about this part of L Ron’s life and this became a valid subject for me to write about. http://princejesse53.blogspot.com/2011/04/finale-here-it-is-for-you-now.html
I last saw Hubbard at Gilman in 1979. I was based in LA from early 1980 through 1981, but came to Gilman a number of times throughout that period, and had never heard of Hubbard being there after 1979.
I have never before heard that in the period from the fall of 1982 when you arrived at Gilman through January 1986 when Hubbard died he had been there some of the time.
I think Marty has said that he never met Hubbard, and it seems odd that you would have been working with Hubbard at Gilman when Marty had not.
So you know, there are people who have written about that part of Hubbard’s life actually. Steve Pfauth, who was with Hubbard in Creston, comes to mind. He’s never mentioned, that I know of, Hubbard coming back to Gilman during the year you were there.
I agree that the time Hubbard was at Gilman is worth writing about, so I hope you’ll post about your interactions with him at Gilman.
You write in your August 20, 1999 affidavit for the Estate of Lisa McPherson v. Scientology case:
5. In the position of “Deputy Inspector General, External”, I was in charge of supervising all activities in every aspect of Scientology, i.e., supervising senior management structure of the “mother church”, Church of Scientology International, CSI. In the hierarchy of all of Scientology, I was only two steps removed from L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard gave his orders to David Miscavige who in turn gave them to me to supervise, delegate and enforce their execution. http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/prince19990820.html
This was the idea I’d gathered from that affidavit and your early similar statements.
I’m looking forward to reading your details about Hubbard at Gilman.
More on Jesse’s blog
@Gerry Armstrong: I just reviewed all all of the few posts here on Jesse’s blog and I see no such “smack talk” about you or any of the others who ended up settling with Co$.
You might consider paying less attention to what you are told by others and instead, using your God-given eyes to read what actually is and has been written by Jesse, which you clearly have not.
Michael A. Hobson
TheSneakster on Ex-Scn Message Board
May 2, 2011 11:57 PM
Well, of course, clearly I haven’t read what actually is and has been written by Jesse. Someone would have to be a pretty big blowhard to even suggest he had.
I can’t imagine anyone, other than Jesse, maybe, who has read what actually is and has been written by him. And even he might have written something, or maybe even a lot of things, and then not read what he’d written.
I have read what I know of that Jesse has written that has been made publicly available over the past 13 or so years. But what I’ve read has to be but a fraction of what actually is and has been written by Jesse.
I realize you’re not actually claiming that you’ve read what actually is and has been written by Jesse, but you also imply that you’ve read something that I haven’t. So if you could please refer me to the material you’ve read that you are certain I have clearly not read, it would be enlightening and very helpful.
I trust you’ve read what actually is and has been written by me that I’ve made publicly available over the past many years.
It’s quite a semantic marvel to urge someone to do something you’re urging them not to do. To pay less attention to what I’m told by others, and instead to read what I’m being told by Jesse, is terribly exclusionist, almost Scientological. How many times did we hear, “Pay less attention to what you are told by others and instead read what actually is and has been written by LRH.”
Seriously, isn’t Jesse among the others in the world who have told me, or might tell me, something? You’re telling me I might consider paying less attention to what I’m told by others. I can’t help but put you in that category. I could see how that could apply to you, but I really can’t generalize the idea of paying less attention to you, for example, into paying less attention to others. There are just too many others, and they include some people that I at least would not want to pay less attention to.
I have to assume that you’re not flat out BSing, and that you’re urging me to do something that has worked well for some time for you. It seems appropriate to ask how much less attention you now pay to what others tell you, or are you able to pay no attention whatsoever to what others tell you? And how has replacing paying attention to what others told you with reading what actually is and has been written by Jesse actually worked out for you? It’s clear that you want me to have the gains you’ve had, but I actually would like to know what they are actually are.
It is odd, and I’d think embarrassing, you’d have to admit, that you reviewed all the posts on Jesse’s blog looking for “smack talk” when I had written that, “Some months ago, a longtime friend told me” about Jesse “talking smack about me.” You conducted a search and successfully did not find what wasn’t there and no one said was there.
The reason I was told that Jesse gave for putting me down those some months ago is what is relevant, and relates to what he wrote about Scientology’s victims settling their claims with Scientology. To my knowledge, Jesse has never been in that position or group, and I would guess the same is true of you. I’m aware that Jesse had put me in that group, according to what someone had told me, as I said, some months ago, but it is not a group as Jesse describes us, or them, and I think it is unwise to continue to view the group and talk about the group as he has.
I think that that group should be defended if there’s a defense, which I have provided as well as I could, from undeserved disparagement, and I don’t know of others who are standing up for this group at this time. The group certainly includes Paulette Cooper, who settled with the cult in the ‘80’s, in the same era I did. I’m sure she settled to have Scientology’s war on her end, not to be silenced.
Scientology and Scientologists like Marty will say that Paulette sold a piece of her soul, and doubtlessly those people will claim that they bought a piece of her soul. These would-be soul merchants are lying. Don’t buy their lies. Paulette’s soul is intact. My soul is intact. Don’t postulate me with my soul missing pieces, and don’t postulate the rest of Scientology’s victims missing pieces of their souls.
This is not to say that some settling claimants haven’t done evil things, like the Aznarans, who took the cult’s money and ripped off and turned on their attorney and other Scientology victims. But all settling claimants didn’t do such things, and all sorts people have done such things who are unrelated to the Scientology problem.
I would like to know from you who you put in the group of people who settled with Scientology that Jesse is talking about. I’d also, naturally, like to know from him. I think this is a good issue to get out of the way so that Jesse, and, of course, people like yourself who don’t pay much attention to what others tell them but read what actually is and has been written by Jesse, can rethink their unfavorable and unhelpful opinion of this subset of Scientology victims.
Letter to Jesse Prince
Dear Jesse:
I’m writing to ask you to rethink what you’re saying about the people who settled with Scientology. I’m, of course, one of those people, and I know a number of other people in that group very personally. I consequently know quite a bit about that group’s experience, and am able to discuss and defend them or us.
I don’t know how many people reading here know or know of Lawrence Wollersheim, but the above Scientology drill proved to be a complete waste of time. Lawrence would have none of it. Lawrence is the only person I know of in the history of litigation with Scientology that brought his case to court, won the case, got paid for his trouble and NEVER signed a confidential agreement with Scientology about anything period. Lawrence and his team (which I joined in 1998) kicked Scientology’s ass in the courts hands down. Anyone else that I know of has sold a piece of their soul for Scientology’s money by promising to keep quiet. Accepting Scientology’s money in this way in the end proves to be a sellout. By settling money for silence how can you warn others? It’s a selfish decision to know of something that actively hunts and preys on good people just like you and not warn them for money, not to mention the lifetime Scientology tether agreement is always around your neck. http://princejesse53.blogspot.com/2011/04/finale-here-it-is-for-you-now.html
Some months ago, a longtime friend told me that you were talking smack about me, and the reason you gave for bad-mouthing me was that I had taken Scientology’s money in settlement. I’m hoping to get you to change this computation.
You’ll recall that I was asking you some years back, by e-mail and phone, for a declaration regarding your knowledge of Miscavige’s possession of my manuscript, artwork and other documents that were stolen from my car in 1984. You had told me, I believe in 1999, about Miscavige possessing these stolen materials and talking to you about them, and I was asking you for a declaration concerning that knowledge to help me defend myself in ongoing litigation, and even defend myself in life. A declaration providing your knowledge of Miscavige’s possession of my materials would also have been useful, of course, in any legal action to get my materials returned to me, which I continue to pursue. I mentioned what you had told me in a 2009 letter to Marty Rathbun, who was obviously more personally involved and knowledgeable about the theft, the thieves, and what Miscavige did with my materials.
I remember too you telling me about how Miscavige used to humiliate Terri for loving me at one time, and you told me other things you had knowledge of. You knew inside that I was a major target of Scientology, and you knew of the attitude and communications about me, and something about the black PR and operations against me. Your knowledge of the Scientology v. Armstrong war in a declaration would have been legally helpful and morally supportive.
Marty Rathbun uses the same “reasoning” to not help me, even to not correct ongoing crimes against me that he perpetrated or participated in and could do something about. Since he began to communicate publicly after claiming to have left the Miscavige Scientology operation, I’ve written Rathbun several letters. He wrote back one nasty e-mail, refusing to help, and providing this “critical difference” between us as a reason: “You sold out twenty-three years ago – and are apparently still mad at yourself for the indelible taint it left. I will never sell out.”
Rathbun’s “logic” is, of course, the logic of sociopaths. Rathbun and his crew fair gamed my attorney Michael Flynn and fair gamed his clients, who were already Scientology victims. Rathbun, et al. insisted that Flynn have his clients sign the cult’s silence contracts, or the Scientologists would continue to fair game him and them. Scientology’s victims, having delivered what Rathbun, et al. wanted, then get attacked by the Scientologists, and in this case even some wogs, for “selling out.” It’s typical of sociopaths to victimize people and then blame their victims for the evil the sociopaths did to them. You, Jesse, were inside the cult, in a high position, and added your weight to the criminal pressure put on Flynn and his clients to sign your cult’s contracts. You were a party and beneficiary in these contracts.
From what I recall of your story, you also signed one or more of Scientology’s silence documents (didn’t we all?) and waited several years to speak out after you left the cult because of your fear that the cult would enforce these documents. You have also acknowledged that you took yourself out of the Scientology conflict for another several years, and have only recently rejoined the conflict. You took off those years, didn’t speak out, didn’t warn people, didn’t help the people asking for your help, and not because you were constrained by a contract, but because of the way you were apparently treated by people you’d helped in the 3 or so years you were speaking out and helping. It seems to me that makes your disparagement of Scientology’s victims for settling with the cult disingenuous, and something to be corrected.
Marty’s boast that he will never sell out is just so much BS. He sold out every day he was inside the cult, and he continues to sell out. Every Scientologist sells out. He knew way more than other Scientologists, and his sell-out is monstrous. He took money from Scientology, and you took money from Scientology. What went with your weekly wages was the agreement to not speak out, to not help Scientology’s victims, to not warn people, but to support their victimization.
Lawrence didn’t sign a settlement contract with the cult, but he has, nevertheless, removed himself from the Scientology conflict, doesn’t speak out, and to that degree doesn’t warn people. Even though he has other reasons than a silence contract to do so, he’s able to remove himself from the Scientology conflict, and to not speak out to warn people, because the cult paid him a great deal of money. I don’t see where not speaking out for one reason is necessarily or automatically morally superior to not speaking out for other reasons. I’m sure Lawrence would understand that and not object. He deserves to be away from the Scientology conflict, as much as any of us.
You portray Scientology’s victims that settled as taking the cult’s money for their silence, or selling out for money. You also say that the effect of the sellout is because the victims’ knowledge then can’t warn people about Scientology, which actively hunts and preys on good people. The fact is that all the people I know of who settled with Scientology had legal justiciable claims, and it was for the dismissal or removal of these legal claims that the cult paid the settling claimants. The silence conditions of the settlements were severable, and have become virtually meaningless and unenforceable. In any case, all of those settling victims could be subpoenaed, could testify, and their sworn testimony could be used to help other victims or warn people.
Scientology didn’t pay me for my silence. I wasn’t selling my silence. It paid me to dismiss my claims for 12 ½ years of fraud and abuse inside, and 5 years of fair game after leaving. Despite their claims, the cultists did not pay me to continue to be fair gamed the rest of my life. I wasn’t selling my torture. The contractual conditions that silence me, or render me in any way unable to defend myself and my class, are unlawful and lawfully unenforceable. That Scientology and Scientologists have had the California courts rule these unlawful conditions lawful is but another crime in the Scientologists’ global criminal conspiracy.
As a sort of aside, regarding warning people, the fact is that people, largely, in this part of the world, are warned, even Government. Maybe in Third World counties they haven’t been warned, and maybe lots of people haven’t got the warning. But in, for example, your Internet public, they’ve been warned. In the warning department, Scientology is a lot like cigarettes. Nobody has to warn people that they’re harmful or deadly. The question is, now that people have been for years fully warned about cigarettes, and people have been for years warned about Scientology, how do you combat the evils they’ve been warned about?
As you know, when you stopped being an expert witness in the McPherson case, Caroline was suggested by Bob Minton to replace you. Ken Dandar contacted her, asked her to testify, and flew her to Florida in early 2002 to be briefed, familiarize herself with the case, and prepare an expert declaration. She was presented with a non-disclosure agreement, and pressured by Lirot, Dandar and Patricia Greenway to sign. This was also despite the fact that she had agreed to work on the case and testify as an expert without remuneration of any kind. Because of the evil that such contracts do, as you’ve observed, and because of how the “agreement” was going to be applied, Caroline’s and my security would be compromised, so she didn’t sign and didn’t testify. It is my understanding that both you and Hana Whitfield signed such documents. The claimed fact that you had signed was used to pressure Caroline.
She was also being pressured, as part of the “agreement,” to stop communicating on the Internet, stop posting to alt.religion.scientology, and, consequently, of course, to not warn any of the people you’re concerned about who don’t know of Scientology and its active hunting and preying on good people. Caroline asked Dandar if he’d read what she had posted about Scientology or Lisa McPherson on the Internet, and he said he had not, and that he deferred to Ms. Greenway regarding Internet matters.
So, did you sign such a document? What was presented to Caroline to sign follows: McPherson silence contract (pdf)
I realize it’s hard to think with, and, of course, it flies in the face of your conviction that people who sign Scientology’s silence contracts are selfish and sellouts, but I am actually glad I signed the cult’s contract. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/625.php
I’ve written about the contract extensively, including the circumstances, my relationship to my attorney and to the 20 or so settling parties, my attorney’s representations, my reasoning, etc., so won’t rewrite it all here. To better understand what went down, I would suggest this 2004 declaration, particularly paragraphs 108 – 175: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a8/3376.php
The contract is evil, its purpose is evil, how Scientology and Scientologists have used it and still use it is evil. It’s true that I’ve had to take a bunch abuse for signing Scientology’s evil document – lawsuits, judgments, bankruptcy, injunction, fines, jail sentences, threats around the world, a sick black PR campaign, alienation of friends and colleagues, marginalization, loss of opportunities of many kinds, and even the deleterious psychological condition that long term abuse engenders. I have, nevertheless, been very grateful for the message and the courage to sign.
I was positioned as the dealbreaker in a “global” settlement, and my signing was to have fair game end against my attorneys, the other victims and myself. In fact Scientology was promising to end fair game against everyone else forever. It didn’t work out that way for me and for the everyone else, but the 20 victims and a bunch of attorneys could get away from the conflict, which I think they did to one degree or another. The cult, with my attorney’s participation, positioned me to be responsible for the whole settlement for a number of reasons, some of which are probably obvious.
But I’m actually glad about signing Scientology’s evil contract, and, of course, standing up to the cult’s campaign to enforce it, because it has provided such a very important lesson to the Scientologists. The massive effort to judicially enforce Scientology’s contract has shown, despite the cult’s apparent judicial triumphs, the contract’s utter lawful unenforceability.
The Scientology v. Armstrong case is practically the pinnacle of Scientology depravity, and it is an ongoing crime Scientologists still have to take care of. If I had not signed Scientology’s evil contract it would never have become a public document and warned millions of people about the sociopathic nature of Scientology, and how, even by contract, the cult generates an antisocial nature and anti-human rights actions in Scientologists.
Marty says I sold out and postulates an “indelible taint” onto me to justify not helping correct a serious injustice. I didn’t sell out. Any indelible taint is only in Marty’s mind.
I hope you’ll reconsider your poor view of Scientology’s victims who settle with the cult and stop talking about their experiences and knowledge. In terms of contributions, they’ve done a lot more than the thousands of victims who don’t even file claims that could settle, or don’t even consider themselves victims. In any case, I don’t think it’s right to classify and put down that group of victims for what amounts to more victimization.
I could still use your help with a declaration about my stolen materials, etc.
Gerry
Truth and Consequences
This is a response to J. Swift on OCMB: SP Declares ~~more about
Ref: Matthew 10:34-37, The Message
Jesus actually said this and you can check it out for yourself. However, Christian churches ignore this horrific verse and do not break up families – this although Jesus demanded it. Jesus did not want “well-meaning family members” getting in the way of a person’s commitment to him. Christians, however, selectively apply scripture like all other religions.
It’s easy to see these as horrific verses because they demand wisdom to see them as they are, and to see the horrification response as it is.
Yet, it is also very easy, by using the Scientology example, to see that these verses are anything but horrific, and sensibly warn truth seekers and truth speakers of what awaits them on that road. It was safest, wisest, and, ultimately, even most courteous, to let people who would tell the truth know what would befall them from people who want a lie to be true or believed as true. There is no choice for people who tell the truth but to tell the truth.
The idea that Jesus demanded the breakup of families is obviously as ridiculous as the idea that victims of Scientology’s disconnection orders demanded the breakup of their families. The Scientologists would doubtlessly say that the disconnected victims demanded their families be broken up, just as any sociopathic family-wreckers would say their victims demanded the wrecking. But Scientologists and other sociopaths are monstrous liars.
Jesus is and represents wisdom and truth to those who look to him. His message, of course, was “look to God,” so it’s really that Jesus is and represents wisdom and truth to those who look to God. God is, of course, the Source of what’s real, and what’s true, which are the same.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/228
Despite Hubbard’s scriptural pronouncements to the contrary, relevant wisdom and truth are clearly forbidden in Scientology. Telling the truth about Scientology or its source is a “Suppressive Act,” and people are declared Suppressive Persons for telling the truth, even if that truth was merely what was true for them. Wisdom is “another practice” and absolutely forbidden in Scientology, as is “looking to God.” Scientology is, represents, enforces and requires stupidity, which is and is accomplished by, of course, to the degree it’s possible, the exclusion of wisdom.
It is reasonably easy then to see the truth and wisdom in what Jesus is reported in these verses as saying, here in the King James Bible:
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
[37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Speaking the truth to liars is sent as a sword, because that’s how liars experience it. The truth cuts through lies, cuts through bullshit, cuts through the various coatings or defenses put on lies or bullshit. There is no way around that. There is no possible compromise between lies and truth.
Many liars will, like Scientologists are programmed, strike out at the people who tell the relevant truth. Going along with the lies and not speaking the truth sends the kind of peace to the liars that the liars seek. If you’re going to speak the truth where it’s relevant, it’s impossible to send liars peace. They’d get a lot of peace just by stopping lying.
When you tell the truth about Scientology, perhaps more than in most other relationships because of the religion’s satanic nature, if your father is a Scientologist, you will be set at variance with him. You will be set at variance with your daughter, mother, son, sister, brother, in-laws, friends, associates, if they are Scientologists – lovers of lies – and you tell the necessary truth.
When you tell the truth about Scientology, and, by its report lines, the truth reaches Scientology’s organization, faction, unit or opinion leaders, you can be set at variance with every Scientologist everywhere, all of their agents and collaborators. It has been demonstrated for decades that once set at variance you could become a target of Scientology’s personnel who are charged with destroying targeted at-variance wogs, the SPs.
Because Scientology is a form of criminal conspiracy, telling the truth about it is similar to telling the truth about the mafia. Both systems, even the different factions, view people who tell the relevant truth, identically, as enemies. Both systems and their factions hold the same view of traitors, whistle-blowers, who, of course, often have the most relevant, even legally usable, truth to tell about their former systems.
You can be, as the Scientology v. Armstrong case, contract and injunction prove, set at variance with the US Court system, the US Intelligence Community, the whole of the US Federal Government, and all of their collaborators around the world, if you tell the truth about Scientology.
It should also be observed that these same at-variances exist, by Scientology scripture, group agreement, programs, contract and court injunction, for persons acting in concert with me, meaning those who tell the truth I tell or help me tell more. Scientology sued my friend Bob Minton for millions for giving me a computer, because I would use it for telling the truth.
Ironically, the same thing is reported to have happened to the people who acted in concert with Jesus and told the truth he told or helped him tell more. According to the best reports from the time, they were set at variance with the Romans, the Pharisees, the mobs and the lions, just for telling one truth or another.
For a person who speaks the truth about Scientology, his foes and most vicious opposition very well might come from his own household or family or those closest to him. That is Scientology’s power to turn those closest to him against him. Scientology, moreover, generates and executes operations to determine exactly what is important to or loved by its targeted at-variance wogs and then to destroy that thing or relationship.
We also can see this “foes-in-the-household” phenomenon on the Scientology-related forums, where those apparently allied in the effort to have the truth be told and to stand up to the Scientology liars, join the attack on Scientology’s victims. Just immature ego issues, illusions, are enough to drive people in Kritikerhaus to become foes of the truth and its tellers.
To understand verse 37, consider Ida Camburn. What she did can easily be seen, by her friends, as loving truth more than her son. That’s what made her in many eyes a hero. Her enemies, of course, would say she loved lies more than her son, or she demanded her son disconnect and her family break up.
Ida probably loved both the truth and her son, but her son was set adamantly at variance with her because she loved the truth, and he loved lies and Scientology wouldn’t allow him to handle the truth.
Ida was not evil and the guidance she followed was not horrific because she continued to speak the truth, even though her son disconnected from her. Her courage could not have been used, she could not have helped others as she did, and she couldn’t have exposed and combated a great evil, if she had not been willing to do what was worthy of the truth.
My point here is that many religious movements have brutal scriptures that force believers to separate themselves from non-believers.
Undoubtedly. But that is not the meaning or action of the Mathew 10 verses. They can be viewed as brutal, as you demonstrate. And they can be used to justify evil or brutality, as every other Bible passage I can think of can. But really, these verses, when seen with wisdom, tell the truth about what can happen to you if you tell the truth.
Scientology is hardly unique in this regard. This does not excuse its SP Doctrine, Disconnection, etc. but it shows that even the major religions do not brook dissent from within and will excommunicate people who do not agree. There have always been religious extremists, especially early in the history of a sect or a cult. This is why such groups have to moderate or become a fringe group that eventually disbands. The Church of Scientology is unique in that it has used religious brutality in uncommon and uncommonly expensive ways; most religions do not pursue outspoken former members or prominent critics and journalists with such pure hatred and an incredibly expensive private intelligence bureau.
“Religion” and “religious” are completely neutral terms. It is possible as Scientology demonstrates to have a religion of lies and stupidity. It is also possible, as Jesus represents, to find a religion of truth and wisdom. It is possible that a religion is literally full of liars, as Scientology has for generations shown.
Perspectives
Dear Marty:
Regarding your article “L Ron Hubbard In Perspective,” here is my perspective:
Let’s get a little bit of perspective here on all the brouhaha over the past couple days on this blog. I was not attempting to dictate how people think.
Oh the banality!
I was merely serving as an iconoclast of those “icons” who have sought (and it appears achieved in some quarters) that lofty status by acting themselves as iconoclasts of L Ron Hubbard.
Briefly, an iconoclast is:
1: a person who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration
2: a person who attacks settled beliefs or institutions
Icon has a number of definitions:
1: a usually pictorial representation; image
2: [Late Greek eikōn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians
3: an object of uncritical devotion; idol
4: emblem, symbol <the house became an icon of 1960’s residential architecture — Paul Goldberger>
5: a : a sign (as a word or graphic symbol) whose form suggests its meaning b : a graphic symbol on a computer display screen that usually suggests the type of object represented or the purpose of an available function
It’s clear from the context that you are using definition #3. It’s also clear from the context that those are sneer quotes around your “icons.”
You’re talking about these people in generalities, of course, which, according to your standard Scientology, they deserve.
You’re also doubtlessly lying, and these are just your straw icons, or straw “icons.” There are no people you can identify among Hubbard’s debunkers who have sought to be an icon, some, as you call it, lofty status, or to be an idol, or an object of uncritical devotion. Some of the debunkers were certainly worth listening to, and none deserve your black PR. Hubbard insisted on a lofty status, and allowed no criticism of his idolness. But none of his debunkers have elementals as Hubbard had, such as you, to crush criticism, nor his insane need and lust to be idolized.
Since Scientologists see Hubbard, you’ve made perfectly clear, as an icon susceptible to iconoclasm, they will have to deal with iconoclasts until the Scientologists stop their iconolatry. Scientologists have accepted a pathologically lying sociopath as their icon, their object of uncritical devotion. This is clearly an unwise choice, but it at least facilitates Scientology’s need to be seen as victims. By choosing as their icon a bunko artist who would bunk them with millions of words of bunkum, Scientologists cannot but feel that wogs who weren’t bunked, or who escaped Hubbard’s bunking, are now debunking him. The more lofty that Scientologists make Hubbard’s status – to icon or idol level – the bigger victims they can make themselves, and, of course, the more evil they can mock up, postulate or black PR Hubbard’s debunkers.
I’ve found that choosing God as object of devotion works, because, unlike Hubbard, He is not a liar or scammer and has never bunked people, so is impossible to debunk. It should be noted that idolatry is the worship – or uncritical devotion – of anything other than God. Iconolatry is a form of idolatry, specifically uncritical devotion to an image or images. Since Hubbard is to Scientologists an icon, Scientology is properly called idolatry or iconolatry.
I’ve seen them come and go and return and remain.
On your blog? Over the past couple of days?
Those that claimed to have the inside track to L Ron Hubbard, or they knew Ron so began to know better than him, or were channeling L Ron Hubbard, or even the one who claims to have a gigantic tunnel full of L Ron Hubbard.
These are all straw people, Marty.
Let us not lose sight of one significant fact – so obvious as to constitute an elephant in the room – none of those iconoclasts even exist without L Ron Hubbard.
Marty, you know you’re lying. There cannot but be followers of yours who also know you’re lying.
If it’s possible for anyone to exist without someone else, anyone else, or everyone else, then Hubbard’s iconoclasts, or, from a rational perspective, his debunkers, can, beyond rational argument, exist without him. If we all comprise a whole, which we happen to, then clearly we don’t exist without anyone else and everyone else.
But I’m accepting that you do believe that some people cannot exist without someone else. This is in line, of course, with your belief you articulated some months back about us all being separate. You paraphrased Hubbard’s assertion in the OT III scripture that the belief that we are one is the “primary error.” My position is that the belief in that idea as the primary error very well could be Scientology and Scientologists’ primary error.
In my system, all people, whether debunkers, iconoclasts, idolaters, scammers, icons, Scientologists or wogs, exist because of God. Scientology, as you know, states in scripture that “it is carefully observed here that the science of Scientology does not intrude into the Dynamic of the Supreme Being.” As you also know, Scientologists do not consider God, or look to God for guidance, in their actions as Scientologists, but look to Hubbard or Miscavige, or you I suppose. If wisdom comes from God, then Scientologists are tragically relegated to stupidity. It would be very wrong to keep them from a better system.
In any case, God created debunkers, and created them to exist with all the liars they debunked. The liars did not make their debunkers, any more than the debunkers made the liars. When all the liars who need debunking have all been debunked, the debunkers will still exist, but will not wear their liar-debunking hats.
When you think about it, debunkers perform a fairly spiritual, maybe even holy function, because of their relationship to lies and truth. God, of course, is the Source of all that is real, and liars’ lies are not real. In its willful effort to put itself outside God, Scientology has generated, and largely is, a mass of lies. God wouldn’t be guiding pathological liars to lie, but He very well could be guiding some of His children to debunk them, even if they don’t know their guidance’s Source.
Inveterate liars, as you know, don’t stop lying easily, and they’re also, pretty well one-to-one, bullies. So the people who tell the truth to debunk them can pull in some serious fair game for their efforts. The liars and bullies’ henchmen will even black PR the debunkers as anti-religious iconoclasts.
I have spoken to people who have journeyed far up the Scientology Bridge who have been left in the wicked, indecisive position of “where’s the next level?”.
That makes sense, since far up the Scientology bridge hasn’t gone anywhere, and wherever anyone got to on the bridge was by years of bait-and-switch tech.
And you make these questioning people wrong?
Caught up in the Miscavige or Robertson or Mayo or some other iconoclast mythology that Ron didn’t really mean what he said in HCO PL The Hidden Data Line (and the many lectures and policies where he re-iterated that ‘if it is not in writing, it isn’t true’), they remained tractable followers.
You worked for decades to render Scientologists tractable. You’re still doing it. While as a liar and black PR artist you remain intractable. But give it a try. Tell the truth about Hubbard’s lies and his debunkers and what you’ve done to them.
What I try to point out is that they are intentionally put there by setting up a religious myth about L Ron Hubbard – some make him God, some make him Devil; and none do him justice for the man he was and the work he created.
I debunked Hubbard, but I didn’t make him God, or a devil. God made him a man. He made himself a satanist. He made people satanists, and he got them to make other people satanists. I didn’t make him anything.
Satanism is a group of religions that is composed of a diverse number of ideological and philosophical beliefs and social phenomena. Their shared features include symbolic association with, admiration for the character of, and even veneration for Satan or similar rebellious, promethean, and liberating figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism
You acknowledge that Hubbard was a rebel; in fact you call him an iconoclast. He took great pride, shown throughout his scripture, in being a rebellious figure.
You promote Hubbard as promethean, and Scientology markets him as promethean. Hubbard promoted himself as promethean, a polymath, professional in 29 fields. His Admissions evidence his promethean urges, and, of course, he declared his high hopes of smashing his name into history so violently that it would take a legendary form; which is about as promethean as it gets.
Promethean: one who acts in a Promethean manner; of or pertaining to Prometheus; daringly original; boldly inventive or creative; of a Romantic literary hero: one who is a rebel against a larger order, one who defies traditional moral categories, persecuted but dauntless en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Promethean
You and all Scientologists, you must agree, promote Hubbard as a great liberator, the bringer of total freedom to mankind, and the man who gave you your freedom. And, of course, Hubbard declared that man is in a trap, and that he had taped the path out, and he promoted himself as the builder of the bridge to total freedom.
But they do it for the same purpose. That which was covered so well by Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason (quoted from in a post here not too long ago). For anyone caught up in the perplexing fog of having to hold tight to mythology for comfort, I highly recommend The Age of Reason for some perspective.
If you were to think about it, Marty, in this area of mythology as it relates to Hubbard, aren’t you the person in the paradigm holding tightly. It might not be for comfort. It could that you hold tight to the Hubbard mythology you know to be lies for a legal defense. It could be you hold tight out of terror. But it is you who are holding tight to myths, or as they’re more simply called about Hubbard and Scientology, lies.
When released from mythology and encouraged to research and study the vast library LRH did leave behind, many find that there is so much Scientology they never really understood or applied – and certainly thought did not apply to them since they had attained whatever Level they had.
Oh no, all of Scientology applies to Scientologists. Scientologists choose to be Scientologists so that all of Scientology will apply to them.
I think it is important to understand LRH was a man, and not some special thetan visited upon earth like God sent Jesus or, at the other extreme, some confidence trickster intent on enslaving people.
Well, Hubbard was both. He was a man, and he made himself a confidence trickster to enslave people. An important claim in his confidence game was that Jesus Christ was just below “clear.” It is because Hubbard was a confidence trickster that he was susceptible to debunking. And since he was intent on enslaving people, inevitably he would fail, because some ex-slave would always show that his slavery and his enslavement tech didn’t work.
When you take mythology out of the equation it leaves but one basis upon which to judge his legacy. That is, does it work? And lo and behold, if LRH said one thing more times than any other thing, I would wager it is that Scientology ought to be judged against that very standard.
And yes, it should be judged by that standard. But the malignant narcissist attacked people who said it didn’t work, and allowed no judging of his claims for his science, tech or system. So, did Hubbard’s vilification of people that said Scientology didn’t work, really work? Have you found it effective to vilify good people the way you do? I say it doesn’t work. It works for the malignantly narcissistic liar running the con, but the con doesn’t work as he claims, and you claim, for the victims.
The proof of Scientology’s unworkability is its products. Hubbard produced one organization. Even you acknowledge it’s an evil organization. You swore under oath that it was the most ethical organization on earth, when you could not but have known it was extremely unethical.
Miscavige is evidence of Scientology’s unworkability, and so are you. All your followers are evidence of Scientology’s unworkability. Universally, Scientologists are cowards, afraid even of merely granting credence to the people who tell the truth about Hubbard and Scientology and its unworkability. Scientology claims to improve people’s ethics, but that claim is clearly false, as evidenced by the religion-wide cowardice, and your supremely unethical and indefensible Suppressive Person doctrine.
The claims for Clear and OT are false. The claim of raising IQs on average a point per hour is false. The claims that Hubbard was a war hero are false. His claims that he cured his injuries and blindness with his mental tech are false. His claim of being a nuclear physicist is false. His claims for his “research” and his honesty are false.
If you have any actual evidence that Scientology works as Hubbard claimed, please present it. For now, all evidence shows that it doesn’t work. And those that claim it works, in the face of this evidence, and without presenting any evidence that it works, are liars and forwarding an antisocial scam that, along with them, needs debunking.
Whether an author or philosopher was a saint or sinner has no bearing on whether what he or she produced works when applied as suggested.
Sure. If, however, a person, especially one claiming to be a scientist, made claims about his products or inventions that were false, and which he could not but have known were false, then that person is proved a sinner, and proved not a saint. And that is Hubbard’s condition.
Your saints or sinners here are of course straw saints or straw sinners. That the sin of an author or philosopher is his lying has definite bearing on whether what he or she produced works. If he lied about it working, as Hubbard did, it cannot possibly work. And lying is Hubbard’s overwhelming, incorrectable sin as author and philosopher. That cannot now be changed.
I have never seen a Scientologist actually apply your saint or sinner rule, except against critics, as you are doing, of Hubbard’s lying and sociopathic intentions and actions. When a person authors things that tell the critical truth about Hubbard or Scientology, Scientologists find the person’s crimes, manufacture crimes, black PR him, all to turn him into a sinner who is not to be listened to. This is what every Scientologist – you personally in spades – has done to me since I started writing and speaking.
And isn’t that in fact what Hubbard ordered? Aren’t you executing command intention when you relate my sinnerness – crimes, overts, your black PR, whatever – to my credibility, and to the truth, and consequently workability of what I’ve authored?
Isn’t Hubbard’s command intention identical to Miscavige’s command intention for how what I author, and I as author, are to be handled, not be reason but by attacking the attacker, the sinner? And isn’t that your command intention for Scientologists in disorganized Scientology?
Scientologists’ universal hypocrisy is becoming so visible and understood, the cruelty of their commanders in keeping them in that terrible condition is also becoming visible and understood. You are not saving people by prolonging their self-destructive condition. The answer is to cut them free, not suppress their consciences so their hypocrisy doesn’t bother them.
With a timing that seemed as magical as destiny, in the middle of the current blog debates (and particularly contemplation of responding to the digs and slights on LRH implied or gratuitously offered in defending other “icons”) and my pondering about how LRH ought to be treated in retrospect, I opened a package from Tom Felts that he had sent me weeks ago. I reached in and found a 1929 edition of Twelve Against The Gods by William Bolitho. I had mentioned the book to Tom when he visited me in January, noting a passage that LRH cited in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course. I dropped everything and began reading the book and continued because Bolitho spoke the ideas I harbored but lacked the ability to articulate. Here are a few passages that I felt very relevant to L Ron Hubbard:
[snip passages on the Prometheans among us mortals]
The greatest adventurer that ever lived ended as a nervous, banal millionaire…
Hubbard was not the greatest adventurer that ever lived, although he did end up a nervous, banal millionaire. But it was really his lying, including his lying about his adventures, and even about his nervousness and banality, which led to his debunking and his need to go into hiding and become even more nervous and banal.
In the scheme of things, I would venture to say LRH was an adventurer whose sallies from the cave were far more threatening to the social order than any adventurer Bolitho goes on to treat. After all, LRH’s adventure lead to an invitation that we all become adventurers. And consequently the Order, and its sheep, have subjected him to far worse treatment than any adventurer of the material realm whose goals and products were control and material, geographic or human ownership.
No, Marty, Hubbard’s debunking was and remains because of his lies. He was not treated worse than his fellow adventurer liars. He wasn’t even treated worse than other confirmed liars in any realm. It’s true he lied about his adventures, and you obviously lie about his adventures if you repeat what he said about them.
Many a mere missionary or general have seized on LRH’s faults in pathetic attempts to commandeer for themselves the title “adventurer.”
No, this is a suppressive generalization. I’d bet, given your observable habits, that these are straw mere missionaries and straw generals. We all have adventures. Not everyone lies about them.
You have elevated Hubbard the Adventurer and his adventures to promethean status or level. In fact, you even raised him above Bolitho’s promethean heroes, to a superpromethean level, because, you say, he was far more threatening to the “Order” than they were. In a sense that could be, because Hubbard’s willful lying was superpromethean, and high intellect sociopaths like Hubbard are naturally threatening to normal, peace-loving people with a clue. When he had achieved some success in removal of enough followers’ consciences to form and operate the GO and the SO, the “Order,” whatever that may be, began to see his whole criminal conspiracy as so threatening they charged a bunch of the co-conspirators, including his wife.
Pushing up Hubbard to promethean, besides making you a satanist, cannot but generate a drive to attack the people who debunk his lies and show him to be something less than promethean. All those debunkers are, of course, God’s children, perhaps even his more conscienceful for some reason. Thus having Hubbard, a pathological liar, as icon is a situation a satanist would die for.
Finally, I quote from the final page of Twelve Against The Gods where Bolitho asks a rhetorical question of Woodrow Wilson’s adventure, a question that I believe is just as relevant to us today with respect to L Ron Hubbard’s adventure:
The great killing was over: could Wilson, with its smell in the air, risk another?
Hubbard made a great killing telling his lies about his adventures and the adventure he was selling others. What do Scientologists risk to keep those lies working?
When’s the end of endless comm lags?
Dear Mr. Davis:
It’s important, I believe, to let you know, and anyone else who might care, that I write to you about the conspiracy to steal valor you’re involved in, your false charges and black PR, and anything else I might write you about, without a real expectation that you’ll grant me the slightest suggestion of credence, or logically answer my communications. You can’t answer, logically or not, of course, if I don’t communicate something you’re capable of answering. I therefore have kept my communications simple, and I’ll keep this simple, so you can’t complain, legitimately at least, that you didn’t logically answer because what I’ve written is beyond your understanding. Pretended or faked ignorance, it goes without saying, is the standard and most common “beingness” or illogical answer that Scientologists resort to when thinking and caring Wogs seek logical answers from the Scientologists to the Wogs’ logical, reasonable and serious communications.
As you know, your religion’s source L. Ron Hubbard established in your scripture what he identified as the most important method for establishing people’s conditions or how sick or well they are. He, of course, called this most important method in Scientology the “communication lag” or “comm lag.” Hubbard defined the communication lag as “the length of time it takes to get a logical answer.” (Scientology Technical Dictionary) You may, as he also says in scripture, “outflow, jabber, discuss, pause, hedge, disperse, dither or be silent,” etc., but the time it takes to get a logical answer out of you is your comm lag.
Hubbard states in scripture, as I’d expect you to know, that “the key test of aberration is communication lag.” [Hubbard, L. R. (1954, 23 April). SOP 8-D. Fifth American Advanced Clinical Course, (5ACC13). Lecture conducted from Phoenix, Arizona.] He goes on to further explain comm lag as “the inability of the person to get two things connected easily and rationally.” So, if, for example, I originate this communication – one thing – and you take forever to provide, or connect me with — a logical answer, the second thing — you would be infinitely aberrated.
In the same scriptural sermon, Hubbard says that society — by which he clearly means Wog society — calls this failure to connect, or to logically answer a communication, “stupidity.” The longest lag Hubbard said he personally knew of at that time, which “could actually be easily traced,” was ten years. The fellow with that comm lag, according to Hubbard’s calculus, would be the stupidest guy he’d ever encountered. Hubbard states in a 1953 sermon entitled “The Theory of Communication” that communication lag is the “index of sanity.” The man with the ten-year comm lag Hubbard traced so easily is also, according to Scientology scripture, the most insane person he’d ever met.
I have been communicating to Scientologists without a logical answer from at least since I escaped from your organization or religion in 1981, which is approaching 30 years. It’s arguable that I didn’t get a logical answer from Hubbard or other Scientologists while I was being lured into Scientology, or during my years inside your cult; but I’m only considering here the period since I left. Many of my many communications to Scientologists over these years obviously can actually be easily traced. In fact, I’ve posted my communications publicly, and will post this one publicly, in part to make their tracing actually as easy as possible.
Scientologists’ logical answers can’t actually be traced because of their absolute absence. What are present, of course, and can, as Scientology scripture states, actually be easily traced, are Scientologists’ group, individual and independent comm lags. Some of Scientologists’ illogical answers can be quite easily traced actually; but, of course, illogical answers are not logical answers. I do acknowledge that I do recognize that Scientologists in their illogical answers very well might swear up and down that they have been eminently logical.
Illogical answers don’t become logical answers no matter how much illogic is added. And illogical answers, no matter how many are generated, don’t eliminate or even reduce comm lags, but merely prolong them. Scientology and Scientologists’ illogical answers to me over all these years include threats, even of assassination, physical assaults, covert ops, lawsuits, manufactured evidence, false charges, a volcano of black propaganda; but these were never logical. Sociopaths would say that these sorts of answers, especially to their victims’ communications, are perfectly logical. And Scientologists, of course, will defend these evils or insanities as logical answers, because they’re mandated in Scientology scripture and have continuously constituted command intention since Hubbard declared war on Wogs. Logical answers to Scientology’s victims, or SPs, like myself, are actually impossible, because such answers necessitate granting credence to the victims, which is expressly prohibited in Scientology.
I know you’re aware of and live by this, but it’s important that Wogs understand the aberrated, stupid and insane system Scientologists embrace to keep their comm lags working. Read SPD 28 “Suppressive Act – Dealing with a Declared Suppressive Person.” http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/spd-28-1982-08-13-txt.html
To maintain a line with, offer support to, or in any way grant credance to such a person indicates nothing more than agreement with that person’s destructive intentions and acts. Such dealings in fact act as a covert or overt attempt to undermine and negate the ethics and justice strengths of our ecclesiastical structure.
Those are your victims it’s talking about, Mr. Davis. The ethics and justice strengths of your ecclesiastical structure are evil and deserve negation.
It is phenomenal and quite tragic, thinking Wogs with good hearts certainly can see, that so many Scientologists over so many years would render themselves so colossally aberrated, stupid or insane, rather than logically answer my simple and logical communications. All my compassion for the apparently autogenously degraded Scientologists, however, does not end their comm lags. According to both Scientology scripture, and even basic Wog logic, Scientologists’ comm lags can only be ended with their logical answers.
I don’t postulate for you and your fellow Scientologists a life of continuous extreme aberration, stupidity and insanity. You Scientologists postulate this for yourselves, but it’s a useless postulate that has so little reality a mere logical answer reduces it to nothing. To keep yourselves extremely aberrated, stupid or insane, you have to maintain your extremely long comm lags. I really have done, if you’ll check the record, whatever I could to keep communicating logically and simply no matter how aberrated, stupid or insane you make yourselves. I haven’t given up on anyone, but I can’t and don’t have an expectation that you, or any Scientologist actually, will give me a logical answer.
Sincerely,
Gerry Armstrong
Open letter to Tommy Davis on forgery charge
Dear Mr. Davis:
It is also necessary for me to communicate with you about your charge of forgery against me that you are reported making to representatives of the New Yorker.
Davis spoke about Gerry Armstrong, a former Scientology archivist who cop¬ied, without permission, many of the church’s files on Hubbard, and who settled in a fraud suit against the church in 1986. Davis charged that Armstrong had forged many of the documents that he later disseminated in order to discredit the church’s founder.
To begin with, in the relevant time period, I had permission to copy the documents I copied while inside Scientology, and the necessary permission after leaving.
Why Lawrence Wright would write “without permission” when I specifically had permission, when it mattered, and when he had the Breckenridge decision, I don’t know. “With permission” would have saved three characters. I imagine your black PR binders on me worked some magic for you, otherwise you wouldn’t use them.
From the judgment in the Armstrong I case:
The court has found the facts essentially as set forth in defendant’s trial brief, which as modified, is attached as an appendix to this memorandum. In addition the court finds that while working for L.R. Hubbard (hereinafter referred to as LRH), the defendant also had an informal employer-employee relationship with plaintiff Church, but had permission and authority from plaintiffs and LRH to provide Omar Garrison with every document or object that was made available to Mr. Garrison, and further, had permission from Omar Garrison to take and deliver to his attorneys the documents and materials which were subsequently delivered to them and thenceforth into the custody of the County Clerk.
[…]
The evidence is clear and the court finds that defendant and Omar Garrison had permission to utilize these documents for the purpose of Garrison’s proposed biography.
The files Wright is talking about here were actually L. Ron Hubbard’s files on himself, not Scientology’s files on Hubbard. Scientology first claimed in court in 1982 that the subject documents were the cult’s, which they were not, and then shifted its position and argued successfully at trial in 1984 that it was the bailee of Hubbard’s documents.
The essential reason I’m writing you, however, is your charge that I had forged many of these documents that I later disseminated, to discredit Hubbard or for any other reason. This is a nasty, criminal lie, and I believe you have a duty to tell the truth to reduce the threat you’ve generated.
If you really have Hubbard-related documents that you really believe I forged, then produce them and let me deal with them and my accuser. Otherwise, please acknowledge that you don’t have any such documents, and that you’re lying about me.
A key reason I oppose Scientology is the cruelty of its practitioners. That’s virtually impossible for the majority of Scientologists to get because Scientology is their way of life, and “cruelty” has still not been transformed into a virtue or even neutralized. Therefore to be a Scientologist at all, a person has to deny its cruelty.
It’s an easy concept for Scientologists such as Miscavige, and I’d think you, to get, however, because it’s your job, your hat, your beingness to be cruel. It’s not hard to see that the state of OT has much to do with cruelty. Your willful lying in the face of facts is cruel. Your continuing conspiracy to steal valor is cruel to the people who didn’t lie about their service, wounds or awards. Your forgery charge is false and cruel. Your cruelty is willfully threatening.
Please publicly withdraw this charge.
Sincerely,
Gerry Armstrong
The Value of Valor
Dear Mr. Davis:
The following from Lawrence Wright’s article is on the stolen valor issue that I wrote you about yesterday:
At the meeting, Davis and I also discussed Hubbard’s war record. His voice filling with emotion, he said that, if it was true that Hubbard had not been injured, then “the injuries that he handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie.”
This is a reasonably logical and accurate acknowledgement of the importance of the conspiracy to steal valor for Hubbard.
In the past, Scientology’s reps with a clue have tried to minimize or negate the importance of his military career, his medal claims, his war wounds. The old, “I know Scientology works and it doesn’t matter if Hubbard did X, or didn’t do Y, or said Z.”
You didn’t do that. You laid out what in the Scientology management group bank hangs on Hubbard’s heroism; or really what hangs on Hubbard’s lying, and why you do all you do to make his lies true. That’s exactly what Dianetics and Scientology depend on, making lies true, or getting lies accepted as truth, or illusion as reality.
It was true that Hubbard was not injured, as he claimed to have been injured. It’s true that injuries he claimed to handle by Dianetics, and apparently you present as believing he handled, were never handled, because those injuries never existed. Yes, Dianetics is based on a lie, in fact many lies. And yes, Scientology is based on just as many lies.
Wright has you concluding, “The fact of the matter is that Mr. Hubbard was a war hero.” And the fact of the matter is that Hubbard was not a war hero. At least not the myriad medalled war hero he claimed to be, the hero he used to sell lie-based Dianetics and Scientology.
Please take to heart what you said, Mr. Davis, and stop victimizing good people for your lie-based religion.
To Tommy Davis on valor theft
Tommy Davis
Official Spokesperson of Scientology
Dear Mr. Davis:
I’m writing you about a matter that concerns me, as well as you and other Scientologists, which arose in your recent exchanges with Lawrence Wright and The New Yorker. As you would know, I posted a comment earlier this month about another matter broached in these exchanges, your little crock that I had posed nude in the Marin Independent Journal newspaper. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/4805
This is the first time I’ve communicated to you directly, but I’m sure you’ve seen many logical communications from me that went to your head David Miscavige directly, or to Scientologists more generally over the past many years, e.g., http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/armstrong-ltr-miscavige-2008-03-13.html I’m writing right now about the conspiracy to steal valor you are involved in, along with Miscavige and others among his Scientologist underlings; specifically, your use of L. Fletcher Prouty to sheepdip L. Ron Hubbard’s actual naval career and mock him up as the many medalled war hero he wasn’t. Poof! Or baaaaaa?
To get away with stealing that valor, you crooks also conspire against me, because I know you’re stealing it. My known knowledge is why you pre-emptively passed The New Yorker your pile of black propaganda on me – your pornographic newspaper pose; your Armstrong Op transcripts; your pig dream; your pinks & greys poppycock; your Prouty prevarications; that I so far know of. You might not have thought about, or as you’d say, not-ised, the valor you’re conspiring to steal; but you have known for many years that you’re a compliant contracted participant and beneficiary in a Scientology-wide conspiracy against my rights, and the rights of the good people acting in concert with me. See, e.g., http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/14 and
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a8/complaint-rpt-doj-2004-02-16.html
President Bush signed the Stolen Valor Act into law in December 2006. Prouty died in 2001, so his active participation in the Scientology conspiracy to steal valor for Hubbard ended before what Prouty, Miscavige and their coconspirators were doing became, technically or statutorily, criminal. Hubbard’s lies, and Scientologists’ and Wogs such as Prouty’s collaboration in those lies, about all his medals, and the heroism, service or wounds they signify, were unethical and cowardly. Because of the monstrous scale of the lies, and getting so many others to tell those lies, so willfully, so many years, in the face of all evidence, I’d even say the conspiracy is sociopathic. Scientologists, virtually universally, executed Hubbard’s command intention to steal valor for him while he was alive, and have executed Miscavige’s command intention to keep that valor theft going after Hubbard’s death. Those lies and the conspiracy were not criminal, however, until the Stolen Valor Act became law.
The new law 18 U.S.C. §704 “Military Medals or Decorations” states in relevant part:
(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals.— Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000704—-000-.html
I’m sure there are people — Scientologists and your Wog co-conspirators — who will argue on the conspirators’ behalf that since Hubbard is dead, his falsely representing himself to have been awarded any medal or medals died with him. Consequently, because Scientologists demonstrably aren’t L. Ron Hubbard, they’re not violating this law by falsely representing that he was awarded a pirate’s chest full of medals, or fought in battles he didn’t, or was crippled and blinded when he wasn’t. I’d say that if Hubbard had not originated any lies, about his medals, action, injuries, this argument would have validity; but the lies the Miscavige regime liars are telling to steal valor are the same lies Hubbard originated. Or they are lies to attack the same people who call you all on your valor theft.
There is also a seamless continuity of purposes for the conspiracy to steal valor between the Hubbard and Miscavige regimes. To keep Scientology working, to keep its members paying or slaving, to keep the Gross Income rolling in, to get away with what they’ve been getting away with; Hubbard had to be seen as a hero, heroically injured, and heroically healing his own war wounds, and he couldn’t be seen as a liar about those things. These are evil purposes; and they comprise the most egregious example imaginable of the unscrupulous purposes for valor theft when the act was being considered.
Hubbard started stealing valor early, about as early as it became possible for him. He increased the medals he falsely claimed he had been awarded until they numbered 27, 28 or 29 medals and palms including two or three purple hearts. You’ve doubtlessly seen a color photo of the medals Hubbard claimed were his, the photo that was given to the Sea Org Missionaires on “Source Missions” beginning in 1974 to promote him around the world. The truth is, as shown in Hubbard’s own personal papers, confirmed in documents produced by the US Navy Department in response to FOIA requests, and known by Hubbard, Miscavige, RTC, GO, OSA, et al., he was awarded four standard service medals.
Hubbard’s more than shameless valor theft was a factor in my escaping his cult and his control in 1981. His false claims of medals and related wartime heroics went into evidence and were examined in the 1984 Scientology v. Armstrong trial, and undoubtedly contributed to the evaluation of Judge Breckenridge, who might have been a Navy man if I recall correctly, and who stated about Hubbard in the judgment:
The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html
Scientology only brought Prouty into Hubbard’s conspiracy to steal valor, at least publicly and as far as I can tell, after the trial and the judgment. Prouty also joined the ongoing conspiracies to silence the people who had the facts and willingness to call Hubbard on his lies, and who called him. In this 1985 Freedom Magazine, Prouty black PRs me for the Hubbard regime as a covert operative using “tactics straight out of the Nazi subversion textbook.” http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/freedom-1985-04-2.html Prouty also executed declarations and wrote letters to forward Hubbard’s valor theft for the Miscavige regime, e.g., here in 1987 to the publisher of Russell Miller’s Hubbard biography Bare-Faced Messiah: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-milne-1996-03-19.html Here’s Prouty being used for valor theft in a black PR pack on me in the 1990’s: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/fls-rpt-corr-ga.pdf
You know about Prouty, and what use for unholy purposes Scientology has made of his extreme willingness to pronounce his Proutyisms. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm The collection of Proutyisms he pimped to Hubbard, Miscavige and countless coconspirators like yourself, who gratefully paid his fee, is disgraceful. Your use of Prouty in 2010-2011 to get The New Yorker to buy the valor Hubbard had stolen and had Scientologists steal, and to attack the people who are already your conspiracy’s victims, is unconscionable.
I believe that you and Scientology have a duty to Scientologists and to us Wogs tell the truth about L. Ron Hubbard, and the people you victimize in his name or as a point of honor. When I had the opportunity to join the conspiracy, I refused and left the Sea Org and Scientology. You joined the conspiracy, but you can always leave it. That’s the logical thing to do, and it’s what I’m asking you to do.
Sincerely,
Gerry Armstrong
#2-46298 Yale Road
Chilliwack, BC V2P 2P6
Canada
How Some Things in ScienoWorld Never Change
A very fascinating, and I think smart, and good-hearted participant on a.r.s. posted about John H. Richardson’s 1993 “Catch of Rising Star” article in Premiere Magazine:
From: Astrid <Astrid7777777@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: The mother of all articles about Celebrity Scientology, from 1993
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:05:50 -0800 (PST)http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien12.html
It’s been a while since I read the above 1993 article from PREMIERE magazine about celebrity Scientology, yet it remains as the most insightful and chilling articles about the grip Scientology has over many stars.
One former celebrity member, Diana Canova, describes how she would get a “choking anger” any time Scientology was criticized. Come to think of it, that’s pretty much programmed into all scilons.
As the Scientology ship sinks in the age of the web, this article is a reminder of why many celebrities will NEVER wake up, even when on deck with icy water up to their chins. They will remain oblivious to the dirty tricks employed by the cult or even proud of them. This cult could dwindle into a celebrity cult with rich people, and celebrity worshippers.
I wonder how many new celebrity stories there have been, since 1993. Why haven’t they been told as they were here? Is it because Cruise/Travolta/Alley got so powerful?
The article describes why Scientology is the perfect fit for actors. They have fragile egos, and Hollywood careers can be all over the place. They need something to prop them up when they aren’t doing well. They need to be love bombed and surrounded with support. John Travolta talks about how fragile he was to criticism, as he would listen to it early in his career and it would get him down. Scientology wants success for all the actors in the cult, so it surrounds these fragile actors with people who want their success, for the sake of saving the planet.
Even if DM talks about Travolta behind his back, if that’s out of Travolta’s awareness, it doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t seem to have hurt his career at all. Celebrity scientologists won’t care if DM beats his staff either, because it doesn’t affect them. Paul Haggis had a disconnection with his wife’s parents, so he was really in a different category. He had other issues as well.
By taking such a lead in activities for the cult, as Cruise, Travolta, and Alley have done, any criticism of the cult at all, is trying to tear them down as people, because they are Scientology.
Again, I don’t think Paul Haggis was spokesperson for any of their front groups, as Alley is for Narconon or Travolta helps the VMs and has done other things.
This article is also special for the Rathbun/Rinder quotes:
——————-But they admit without hesitation that they still use private detectives to investigate their enemies, including Bowers–they even provided documentation of Scientology detectives secretly videotaping a sting operation against a hostile former church member. “I have no problem with that,” says Marty Rathbun, president of the church’s Religious Technology Center.
Scientology official Marty Rathbun denounces Behar as “a criminal of the lowest order” for referring people to the “kidnappers” at CAN.
Rathbun and Jentzsch responded by calling [Hana] Whitfield a CAN operative and an accomplice to a 30-year-old murder, a charge PREMIERE could find absolutely no evidence to support. “It’s totally bogus,” says Whitfield’s lawyer, her voice trembling with outrage. “They know it’s false.”
According to former members and press reports, the few who attain the highest level of instruction learn the following secret theology: 75 million years ago a tyrant named Xenu imprisoned other aliens near volcanoes on Earth and then nuked them, leaving their spirits, or “thetans,” to wander the planet and attach themselves to humans–to be purged through further courses. While Scientology officials dispute this account of their beliefs–spokesman Rinder calls it “garbage, completely untrue”–they refuse to provide a more accurate version, saying upper-level church beliefs are for insiders only.
I was the hostile former church member whose secret videotaping by Scientology in the cult’s “sting operation” Rathbun said he had no problem with. See this letter I wrote to Premiere:
THE GERALD ARMSTRONG CORPORATION
[former address]
San Anselmo, California 94960
Gerald Armstrong
PresidentFAX COMMUNICATION COVER SHEET
DATE: October 11, 1993
TO: Letters Editor, Premiere
TELEPHONE:
FAX TELEPHONE: (310) 820-3192
FROM: Gerald Armstrong
TELEPHONE: (415)[former no.]
FAX TELEPHONE: (415) )[former no.]
PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 5
ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT: Letter response to Miscavige response to Richardson Scientology article
INSTRUCTIONS: Have courage!October 11, 1993
Letters Editor
PREMIERE
1990 South Bundy Drive, Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90025
By Fax: 310-820-3192Dear Editor:
Word on the street is that the Scientology organization cut a deal with Premiere following John Richardson’s September article: print our fearless leader’s response and we won’t sue you or anyone who contributed to the article. Rod Lurie of Los Angeles magazine, which did its own story this month on Scientologist Tom Cruise, tells me a Scientology lawyer tells him that the deal covers only Premiere; the contributors are hung out as fair game.
Those of us on the street who reject Scientology’s bullying would rather have heard that the organization had been told to stick it in its corporate ear, but we do understand why Premiere would agree to such a deal. It judiciously eliminates the threat of litigation from this nation’s most threateningly litigious entity, and it gets to print David Miscavige’s response. He not only proves Richardson’s point about the organization’s pervasive meanspiritedness, but evinces Scientology’s silliness. Miscavige uses many too many words, and even too many numbers, for a simple two-page response.
But I shouldn’t criticize Mr. Miscavige’s style when his response was actually quite helpful to my cause. He admits to knowing that Richardson “had unparalleled access to top [Scientology] officials, conducting four days of interviews.” Richardson tells me that the top officials the organization allowed him to interview are Mark Rathbun, Mike Rinder and Heber Jentzsch, and he tells me that these three, unsolicited, provided him with documents concerning me, which he has now provided to me.
Although I was introduced to John Richardson before his article appeared, he did not interview me, and I contributed not one of its, according to Mr. Miscavige, 8700 words. Nevertheless, just in case Richardson did consider interviewing me, Rathbun, Rinder and Jentzsch, in true Hubbardian spirit, gave him a couple of juicy, what the organization calls “dead agent documents,” to destroy my reputation beforehand.
Richardson states in his article that “they even provided documentation of Scientology detectives secretly videotaping a sting operation against a hostile former church member. ‘I have no problem with that,’ says [Mark] Rathbun, president of the church’s Religious Technology Center.” Judge Donald Londer in the Multnomah Superior Court in Portland, Oregon, where the organization first “broke” the videotape operation in 1985, had no problem with it either, but for a different reason. Londer, who viewed the videotapes in their entirety, not just Scientology’s edited bits, stated that they were illegally obtained, but allowed them into evidence because be found them “very, very damaging against Scientology.” The Jury in that case, polled after the trial, stated that the videotapes confirmed that, contrary to Scientology’s claim that by renaming its infamous Guardian’s Office in 1982 it had ended its dirty tricks against perceived enemies, its tricks were alive and kicking and just as dirty in 1985.
LAPD Chief Daryl Gates, on the other hand, had a huge problem with the videotape operation. Scientology’s pet private investigator, Eugene M. Ingram, who, according to published reports, had been busted from the force for pimping and taking payoffs from drug dealers, paid an active LAPD officer Philip Rodriguez to sign a phony authorization for the videotaping and wire taps. Rodriguez was suspended six months for his part in the operation, and Gates declared in a public statement:
“The (Rodriguez) letter purports to authorize Ingram to engage in electronic eavesdropping. The letter, along with all purported authorization, is invalid and is NOT a correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department. The Los Angeles Police Department has not cooperated with Eugene Ingram. It will be a cold day in hell when we do.”
In characteristic purported ignorance, Scientology’s top officials continue to this day to call this illegal operation “police-sanctioned,” and continue to use it to attack me, even though its use still only demonstrates that ”fair game,” the organization’s doctrine of opportunistic hatred, with its gargantuan bag of tricks and dirt, is still flailing about in 1993.
The other document Miscavige’s minions provided Richardson was a two-page recitation of a dream I had in 1985. I gave a copy of it to a friend and fellow writer, Dan Sherman, whom the organization was using to get close to me to set me up, and who participated in the videotape operation. The organization used the dream in 1986 as an exhibit to a document filed under seal in the original case in which it sued me, labeling the dream “a sickening personal creative work” which demonstrated my “extremely aberrated activities.”
The dream was a dream, the recitation was true, and the language is starkly crude because that is what its literature called for. But Rathbun, Rinder and Jentzsch did not provide the dream to Richardson for its literary value, but its value in destroying my character; for to the organization, if it suits its purposes, dreams are reality, and truth is whatever can be twisted therefrom. As to the organization’s use of the dream in violation of a court order specifically sealing it, that is not even close to surprising. Scientology’s leaders, pursuant to Hubbard’s orders, abuse the legal process every day of every year and hold our courts in constant contempt.
This organization has sued me four times, six times attempted to have me jailed on evidence it fabricated, and employed a pack of private investigators who harassed and assaulted me, threatened to put a bullet between my eyes, took a number of shots at framing me, filed perjured affidavits about me, ran into me with a car, and tried to involve me in a freeway “accident.” All for daring to speak honestly and openly about my own experiences in my own life. The organization this year has tried to have me jailed and has sued me, claiming $950,000 in damages, for nothing more than writing a letter to David Miscavige urging a peaceful resolution to Scientology’s conflicts. [ http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/armstrong-ltr-1992-12-22.html ]
Miscavige says that it “is only the great ideas that generate controversy; it is only great thinkers who are the subject of sustained attacks.” I have been attacked by his organization for almost twelve years. I don’t think that’s great, and I don’t think my ideas merit all the attack. My message is simply this: honestly and openly repudiate fair game, or get out of the religion business.
I am a man who says that Scientology, as it is practiced and directed by its leaders, is not a religion, and it should not use the extraordinary protection our Constitution confers on religions to mask its antisocial nature and acts. I am one of those critics John Richardson says the organization has targeted with its ugly smear attempts. Premiere has given David Miscavige two pages to promote his organization’s religiosity and has thus escaped its litigiousness. How about a half page for me and I won’t sue either.
Gerald Armstrong
San Anselmo, CA[former address]
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) [former no.]Days C/O Hub Law Office
[former address]
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) [former no.]
(fax ) [former no.]Editor – I am a writer, philosopher and artist. I presently work with San Anselmo attorney Ford Greene, who also represents me in my litigation with the Scientology organization. I can provide documentation of any of my claims in this letter if you ask.
Holy Crowley, that was 17 years ago.
As an aside — as far as my reason for writing about this now is concerned — I have fully reversed my position regarding Scientology as it is practiced and directed by its leaders not being a religion. The most duplicitous, money-mad, destructive, dangerous, totalitarian cult imaginable can be a valid religion, as Scientology, with the US Government’s agreement, has long since proven. All that is necessary for any organization, no matter how commercial, wicked or criminal, to be accepted as a “religion” by the US is for the organization to itself determine it’s a religion.
When Richardson was researching his article for Premiere, Rathbun, Rinder and Jentzsch gave him a bunch of black PR about me; even though Richardson hadn’t interviewed me, and I hadn’t participated in his article in any way. This is preemptive fair game that Hubbard urged in scripture against Scientology’s victims. “To get wholly over to cause we must select targets, investigate and expose before they attack us.” HCOPL 25 February 1966 “Attacks on Scientology (Additional Pol Ltr).”
By preemptively attacking me, when I was not involved in Richardson’s piece, the cultists incited me to respond with my letter to Premiere to correct the record, or present my side of the controversies I knew the cultists had created. Scientology then used its “settlement contract” to punish me for responding to its attack, and successfully got a crooked or deranged California Superior Court Judge to go along with them.
See, e.g., my separate statement of disputed and undisputed facts in opposition to motion for summary adjudication of the twentieth cause of action (injunctive relief) of the second amended complaint in Scientology v. Armstrong, Marin County Superior Court, case no. 157680:
My separate statement quotes from Scientology’s separate statement in support of its motion for summary adjudication:
C. Armstrong Breached The Agreement By Discussing His Claimed Experiences In And Knowledge Of Scientology With Media Representatives In Violation Of Paragraph 7(D) Of The Agreement.
[...]
64. In October, 1993, Armstrong wrote a lengthy letter to the editor of Premiere Magazine in which he discussed his claimed Scientology experiences.Plaintiff’s Evidence: 64. Armstrong letter to Premiere Magazine Exhibit 1GGG.
And my separate statement presents these facts in opposition to Scientology’s motion:
107. From the time Armstrong petitioned the Court of Appeal, Scientology has continued its fair game attacks on him without ceasing. These fair game attacks include, but are not limited to:
[…]
J. Providing documentation to Premiere magazine about Armstrong, including partial transcripts of the illegal Ingram videotaping of Armstrong and then using the settlement agreement to punish Armstrong for responding;
[Defendant’s Evidence] J. Exhibit 1(Q), Article “Catch a Rising Star,” by John H. Richardson in Premiere, September, 1993, p. 88; Scientology’s motion for summary adjudication, at 8:18; Scientology’s evidence, Exhibit 1GGG, letter from Gerald Armstrong to Premiere.
From the opposition to Scientology’s motion for summary adjudication re injunctive relief that attorney Ford Greene wrote:
Scientology provided documents to Premiere Magazine regarding Armstrong including partial transcripts of the illegal Ingram videotaping of Armstrong and then using the settlement agreement to punish Armstrong for responding thereto. (Id. at ¶ 107, J)
From Scientology’s permanent injunction, currently in force:
6. Between 1992 and the present, Armstrong breached paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement by contacting media representatives, granting interviews and attempting to assist media representatives in the preparation for publication or broadcast magazine articles, newspaper articles, books, radio and television programs, about or concerning the Church and/or other persons and entities referred to in paragraph 1 of the Agreement. These media representatives included:
[…]
* Premiere Magazine: letter to the editor, in October, 1993 [Sep.St.No. 64]
From my opening brief in my appeal from the injunction:
D. Fair Game After Armstrong’s First Response
From the time GA petitioned the Court of Appeal, Scn has continued to fair game him without letup. These attacks include, but are not limited to: (SS 107A-L, CT 8495-503; CT 5913-4)
[…]
Providing documentation to Premiere magazine about GA, including partial transcripts of the illegal Ingram videotaping of him and then using the settlement agreement to punish GA for responding (Article “Catch a Rising Star, 9/93, CT 7672; GA letter, 10/11/93, CT 4811-4; CT 4524.48; Scn’s motion for summary adjudication of 20th cause of action, CT 4524.11; CT 9790)
How DM, Rathbun, et al. got my appeal dismissed is a crime that Rathbun could correct, except that he still executes Miscavige’s command intention in the Scientology v. Armstrong war. But that’s for a future date.
I’m telling my old Premiere story, another time, because it’s so like a current New Yorker Magazine story. I was recently contacted by Lawrence Wright, who, it was reported a couple of months ago, has been writing a profile of Paul Haggis. Wright told me he had approached Scientology, which is practically a duty since Haggis’ departure from the cult is so dramatic and well-known, making his whole time as a Scientologist very relevant. And Scientology had given Wright a bunch of black PR on me.
Wright had never communicated with me prior to meeting with the Scientologists, and I’d had nothing to do with his project. I’ve never communicated to Paul Haggis that I’ve been aware of, although we could have things to talk about if we talked.
The Scientology spokesman telling Wright tales of Gerry Armstrong was Tommy Davis. It was Davis that Haggis had sent his 2009 Scientology resignation letter to. I liked what he wrote in his letter about underdogs. It felt that he was talking about the way I think about bullies and their victims.
I’ve got a number of things to write Davis about, now that I know he knows so much about me. But I’ll mention here one somewhat eye-popping mouthful of bullshit he plated as a true confection. It’s obvious that by presenting BS for consumption Davis was implying that he’s been fed it, found it tasty or at least workable, and has kept on eating it. This is a phenomenon that keeps some things in Scientology from ever changing.
Anyway, one of the tidbits Davis tried to get Wright to eat was the crap that I had posed nude in a newspaper. Davis apparently served it up with a photo of me sitting with a globe in my lap. Here’s the whole story, with links to the subject newspaper article in the Marin Independent Journal, and to some earlier black PR from Scientology that included the posing-nude-in-a-newspaper BS.
Actually, I was wearing a pair of sensible and respectable black running shorts. They were the same pair I was wearing in this photo, also taken in Marin County during the same time period.
I addressed this particular load of BS to Mike Rinder when we met one in Marin in 1994. Rinder acknowledged that Scientology was black PRing me, and not dead agenting me, because it was false, but said to me, about as menacingly as he could dramatize, that they were going to keep right on black PRing me until I shut up.
Notice Rinder’s May 9, 1994 letter to Mirror Group Newspapers:
Gerald Armstrong:
Armstrong has not been to the property occupied by Golden Era Productions since November 1981, well prior to Golden Era Production ’s establishment. He has not set foot in any Church of Scientology since December 1981.
By involving himself with Church of Scientology litigation, Mr. Armstrong is in violation of a legal agreement he made in 1986. Were the Mirror to call him as a witness, your client would become a party to that violation. However, your client would be advised not to rely on information from Mr. Armstrong. He has now distinguished himself by posing naked in a newspaper claiming that the solution to the national debt is for everyone in the United States to simply renounce money. He claims himself to be the “Founder of the Organization of United Renunciants.”
And see my letter to the Mirror Group Newspapers in response to Rinder’s lies.
The cultists then did the same thing they did with my letter in response to the black PR they provided Premiere. They used it in their motion for summary adjudication, and included it in their permanent injunction against me, which is currently, and unlawfully, in force.
See, e.g., my separate statement of disputed and undisputed facts in opposition to motion for summary adjudication of the twentieth cause of action (injunctive relief) of the second amended complaint in Scientology v. Armstrong, Marin County Superior Court, case no. 157680:
65. In May, 1994, Armstrong sent a letter to the Mirror Group newspapers, United Kingdom, in which he discussed his claimed Scientology experiences and offered to testify voluntarily on behalf of Mirror Group, should it become involved in litigation with CSI.
Plaintiff’s Evidence:
65. Armstrong letter to Mirror Group Newspaper, Exhibit 1HHH.[...]
107. From the time Armstrong petitioned the Court of Appeal, Scientology has continued its fair game attacks on him without ceasing. These fair game attacks include, but are not limited to:
[…]
D. Scientology (CSI) director Michael Rinder on May 9, 1994, wrote a letter to the Mirror Newspaper Group in London, United Kingdom in which he stated that Armstrong “has now distinguished himself by posing naked in a newspaper;”
D. Exhibit 1(N), Letter from Michael Rinder, Church of Scientology International executive and director of plaintiff herein, to Mirror Group Newspapers in London, United Kingdom dated May 9, 1994, at p. 2.
From Scientology’s injunction:
6. Between 1992 and the present, Armstrong breached paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement by contacting media representatives, granting interviews and attempting to assist media representatives in the preparation for publication or broadcast magazine articles, newspaper articles, books, radio and television programs, about or concerning the Church and/or other persons and entities referred to in paragraph 1 of the Agreement. These media representatives included:
[…]
* Mirror-Group Newspapers: United Kingdom, in May, 1994 [Sep.St.No. 65]:
From my opening brief appealing the injunction:
D. Fair Game After Armstrong’s First Response
From the time GA petitioned the Court of Appeal, Scn has continued to fair game him without letup. These attacks include, but are not limited to: (SS 107A-L, CT 8495-503; CT 5913-4)[…]
- Scn director Michael Rinder wrote a letter to the Mirror Newspaper Group in London, United Kingdom in which he stated that GA “has now distinguished himself by posing naked in a newspaper” (Rinder letter, 5/9/94, CT 7524)
- Scn President Heber Jentzsch wrote a letter, sent with documents about GA, to E! Television in which he stated that GA “has no relation to art or artists…except, of course, for the photo of himself, nude, hugging the globe (Jentzsch letter 8/5/93, CT 7693)
I wrote to Rinder this past April, and mentioned his threat that the cult was going to keep on black PRing me:
I wanted to communicate civilly, because it is important to me that something be done about the Scientology v. Armstrong, et al. war. Lies maintain the war. You remember, I’m sure, when I spoke to you about your black PR, saying to me that you — meaning you, Miscavige, Scientology, the attorneys, the PIs, et al. — were going to keep right on black PRing me until I shut up.
I was motivated to write Rinder by his post he titled “Where is Heber?” Rinder wrote that Tommy Davis, whom he calls “Teflon Tommy” has been caught in more lies than Baghdad Bob and looks more and more like a sleazy used car salesman. That very well may be, but they’re the same lies Teflon Mike, Teflon Heber, Teflon Marty and Teflon Davey have been telling for decades.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/private-eye-reviews-compilation-apologetic-lies-accurately-43736/
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=30464&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=